gas was 1/6 the price that ukraine was paying to import that. by raising the prices, they're going to introduce a huge incentive for all those households to close the windows. >> >> thank you. ambassador? >> absolutely. i would encourage them to get it from other places as well. >> even if it does increase prices in the u.s. as well? congressman? energyke a position on legislation, but i will say that we believe in a comprehensive approach. it's almost all of the above in terms of building capacity in the ukraine. >> with regard to technical thertise, however, ukrainian government welcomes on energy diversification, a host of all the reform issues -- they have welcomed technical expertise and a major way as they go forward.

>> yeah. i think that we really do have a huge opportunity here, and the more we learn about this country is the more we see that it can be transformed in the blink of an eye. they could increase their energy efficiency by 50% in five years. bit of to use every leverage that we have in order to help them accomplish our goal. that is what is going to keep gazprom up at night with nightmares. that's why china looms large. they will see a market shrinking dramatically and their geopolitical leverage as well because that is what it is really all about. when you talk about syria or iraq or libya, unfortunately oil underlies a lot of each of those regions, and here, we really get a chance to do something for them that makes them self-sustaining. my hope is that we can talk about this issue on a bipartisan basis and the committee and get right at the heart of their weakness, get right at the heart of what this whole story is

about, which is their necessity today of importing natural gas, but it is something we can really change dramatically and have the ukraine say to russia, "we don't need your natural gas any more than we need your soldiers," and that is a statement they should be able to make in the very near future, and we will give them the help they need in order to be successful. >> thank you. newest member of the committee is front and center on energy policy and global affairs, and we appreciate his expertise. .wo final questions one, ambassador green, you have talked about this several times in your answers, and i am concerned about -- i would like to hear some other views as well -- ukraine, yes, but all of eastern europe, and that is the saturation the russians have created with their broadcasting .nto the region

of coarse, it is not open-ended broadcasting in terms of use. it is very directed by the state. what should we be doing to quickly increase our level of engagement in this region so that in addition to a series ofly created social networking platforms, that there is additional opportunities for multiple ?oices to be heard >> senator, i would argue that we should boost those programs. used them into the regions, but we should also look in the social media platforms. there are ways we can help create anchors outside of the region such that it makes it them to be shut down. it is helping to provide the technical expertise to foster

the development of social media platforms that are indigenous in the region, but also taking steps to help reinforce and protect them from hostile moves such as we saw in eastern ukraine. would say we could also work with the poles and others in eastern europe so this is not just something the united states is doing. i think we have a lot of friends in the region in which we can enhance their capacity for and communications in ukraine and also bolster the ukrainian capacity in this regard as well. >> just to reinforce the earlier comments about social media, i think there is a huge voice in ukraine that knows how to speak for itself. it just needs resources. >> one final question, which is think, an important one, but which in the focus of ukraine we have not talked about , and that is the nuclear

nonproliferation implications of what has happened in the ukraine . ukraine voluntarily surrendered their nuclear weapons that they inherited from the former soviet union in exchange for a commitment by russia as well as the u.k. in u.s. to respect ukraine's territorial integrity. are there implications for global nonproliferation regimes with the loss of crimea and the threat to eastern ukraine that a conclusion, that if ukraine had retained these nuclear weapons, the loss to crimea would not have happened, and therefore possessions of nuclear weapons is the only guarantee of territorial integrity? concerned that in my travels, i have heard a little bit of that from other countries, and i would like to

hear if anybody has any perspectives on it. chairman, actually, i helped negotiate the 1994 budapest security assurances, which was part of the agreement by which ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons, and one of the tragedies of what the russians have done with their assault and annexation of crimea and continued action in eastern ukraine, which is violating the commitments they made in that document to respect ukraine's territorial integrity, sovereignty, not to use force against ukraine is they have now devalued the idea of security assurances, which could have been a tool in other proliferation cases. it might have been part of the solution on iran and north korea at some point. one of the reasons i think it is incumbent upon the united states and britain, who cosigned the budapest memorandum, one of the reasons we should the supporting ukraine but also penalizing russia is to make clear that there are in fact consequences for violating the sorts of commitments.

>> i agree with steve, but from the standpoint of the middle east where i spent much of my time and effort in the past, what is important is what in the days, weeks, months, years ahead. punished atction is an ever greater degree of power by the international community, ascrimea is not acknowledged basically russian, the way we just forgot about south of said he a, and if we can show that there are military actions that first of all will preserve the bulk of ukraine, will make it a vibrant part of the western community in the future, i think , "yes, led by say the united states, the west stood up for that aggression,

and there is an international alternative to us developing not just weapons of mass destruction but large armies and little 1914 local coalitions and other things that taken together ."e going to undercut this we have a lot of work ahead of us to ensure not just for the sake of ukraine but for the sake of nonproliferation and the overall international order that , to quote an earlier american this shall not stand. >> this has been a very insightful panel. we appreciate you sharing your time and expertise and insights. this record will remain open to the close of business on friday, and with the gratitude of the committee, this hearing is adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> as this discussion on ukraine comes to a close, president obama is urging russia to open talks with the new government coming into power in ukraine or face more sanctions. the president's been passed to his the group of seven complexes, and he held a news conference with british prime minister david cameron. >> good afternoon, everybody. be here with my great friend and partner, prime minister david cameron. welier this afternoon, concluded our summit with our fellow g-seven leaders, and i

want to thank his majesty, king philippe, the prime minister, as well as the belgian people or welcoming us back to brussels. david and i also just had the opportunity to meet and discuss some challenges including syria, as theand iran, as well process of ending our combat mission in afghanistan. we spoke about the deepening partnership that we have on issues like nigeria in support of our shared goal of safely returning the kidnapped girls to their families, but what i want to focus on briefly before we take questions are two issues that dominated our discussion over the last two days, and that's the situation in ukraine, and energy security. originally, of course, our summit was supposed to be in sochi, but after russia's actions in ukraine, our nations united quickly around a common strategy. we suspended russia from the g-eight and canceled the sochi

meeting, making this the first g-seven held without russia in some 20 years. all seven of our nations have taken steps to impose costs on russia for its behavior. today, in contrast to a growing the sluggishy, russian economy is even weaker because of the choices made by russia's leadership. meanwhile, our nations continue to stand united in our support and assistance to the ukrainian people, and the g7 summit was an occasion for me, david, and our fellow leaders to ensure that we are in lockstep going forward. on ukraine, i shared the results of my meeting yesterday with .resident-elect poroshenko like many ukrainians, he wants to forge closer ties with europe and the united states but also recognizes that ukraine will benefit from a constructive relationship with russia. i believe his inauguration provides an opportunity, particularly since he has demonstrated a commitment to reach out to the east and pursue

reforms. russia needs to seize that opportunity. russia needs to recognize that president-elect poroshenko is the legitimately elected leader of ukraine and engage the .overnment in kiev given his influence over the militants in ukraine, russia continues to have a responsibility to convince them to end their violence, lay down their weapons, and enter into a dialogue with the ukrainian government. on the other hand, if russia's provocations continue, it is clear from our discussions here that the g7 nations are ready to impose additional costs on russia. i also briefed david on the new initiative i announced in warsaw to bolster the security of our nato allies, especially in central and eastern europe as well as our focus on building counterterrorism capabilities across the middle east and north africa. david will be hosting the next nato summit in wales in september, and i preceded him

updating me on the preparations for that summit. we agree that it is going to be an opportunity for every ally to make sure they are carrying their share and investing in the capabilities our alliance needs for the future. the situation in ukraine has also highlighted the need for greater energy security. at the g7, we agreed to help ,kraine reduce its energy risks to include diversifying its supplies. we are going to help countries in central and eastern europe strengthen their energy security i am following the review i called for in the united states earlier this year, every g7 country will conduct an energy assessment to identify possible impacts of any potential disruptions and offer ways we can better prevent disruptions and recover from the more quickly. related to this, we agree that the g7 to continue to lead by example in the fight against climate change, which poses a danger to our environment, our

economies, and our national security. i made it clear that the united states will continue to do our part. earlier this week, we took a major step, posing new standards that for the first time would limit carbon pollution from our existing power plants. it is one of the most ambitious steps any nation has taken to combat climate change. it would reduce carbon emissions from our electricity sector by 30%. it would help us meet the commitments we made when i first came into office at copenhagen, and it will improve our public health. it's also going to be good for our economy, by helping to create more clean energy jobs and ultimately lower electricity bills or americans, so it is the right thing to do. this built on the steps we have taken over the past five years to invest more renewables like solar and wind, raise fuel standards for cars and trucks, and make our homes and businesses more energy-efficient. today, we are holding our carbon emissions to levels not seen in nearly 20 years, so we are making important progress, but

my action plan for climate change indicates that we have got to keep at it and do more. david is is a cause also passionate about. we believe every nation has to do its share. all the major economies, including the g7 in emerging markets like china, need to show leadership as we work on a new global climate agreement, and that includes putting forward by march of next year and ambitious long-term target for reducing emissions. again, i want to thank prime minister cameron and our fellow leaders for our work here together in brussels. david, i believe that whenever our two nations stand together, they can lead a world that is more secure and more prosperous and more just, and we will be reminded of that again tomorrow in normandy as we mark the 70th anniversary of d-day. on that day, like so many others, american and british troops stood together and fought valiantly alongside our allies. they did not just help to win

the war. they helped turn the tide of human history. they are the reason we can stand here today and a free europe and with the freedoms our nations enjoy. theirs is the legacy that our two nations and our great alliance continued to uphold. i am grateful to have a fine partner in david and making that happen. thank you. >> thank you, and good afternoon. i am delighted to be here with you today, barack. as we stand here together in europe on the 70th anniversary of the d-day landings, we should remind the world of the strength and stead vastness of the bond between united kingdom and the united states. 70 years ago, as you just that, our countries stood like two rocks of freedom and democracy in the face of not security -- tyranny. thousands of young british and american soldiers with their canadian and free french counterparts were preparing to cross the channel in the greatest liberation force that the world has ever known.

those young men were united in purpose to restore democracy and freedom to continental europe, to free by force of arms ancient european nations, and to allow the nations and peoples of europe to chart their destiny in the world. youngnds of does -- those men paid the ultimate price, and we honor their memory today and tomorrow. shortly after d-day, my own grandfather was wounded and came home. we will never forget what they did and the debt that we owe them for the peace and the freedom that we enjoy on this continent. today in a new century, our two democracies continue to stand and uphold the same values in the world -- democracy, liberty, the rule of law. out, our people work together to uphold those values right across the globe, and that approach has been at the heart of what we have discussed here at the g7 and in our bilateral meeting today. we have talked about one of the greatest opportunities we have

two turbocharged the global economy by concluding trade deals including the use/u.s. deal, which would be the biggest deal of them all -- including the eu/u.s. deal. it could be worth up to 10 billion pounds a year for britain alone. it would help to secure our long-term economic success and generate a better future for hard-working families back at home. that is why i was so determined to launch those negotiations a year ago. since then, we've made steady progress, but we've got to keep our eyes on the huge prize on offer and not get onto down. we also discussed what i believe is the greatest threat that we face, how we counter extremism and the threat that terrorist the safety also to of our people both at home and abroad. this year, we will bring our troops home from afghanistan. they can be proud of what they have achieved over the last decade -- deny terrorists a safe haven from which to plot attacks

against britain or the united states. at the same time, as we have reduced the threat from that region, some al qaeda franchises have grown in other parts of the world. many of these groups are focused on the countries where they operate, but they still pose a risk to our people, businesses, and our interest. viewk and i share the same of how we tackle this threat in the fragile regions of the world where terrorist networks seek a foothold. our approach must be tough, patient, intelligent, and based on strong international partnerships, so when it comes to serbia, now the number one destination of jihadist anywhere have agreed toe intensify our efforts to address the threat of foreign fighters traveling to and from syria. we will introduce new measures in the u.k. to prosecute those who plan and train for terrorism abroad. here at the g7, we have agreed to do more to work with syria's neighbors to strengthen border security and disrupt the terror financing that funds these

jihadist training camps. libya, we want to help the government as it struggles to overcome the disastrous legacy of gaddafi's misrule and build a stable, peaceful, prosperous future. we have recently appointed envoys who will be working together to support efforts to reach a much needed political settlement, and we are fulfilling our commitment to train the libyan security forces with the first tranche of recruits due to begin their training in the u.k. this month. in nigeria, we are both committed to supporting the nigerian government and its neighbors as they confront the scourge of boko haram. the kidnapping of girls was an act of your evil, and britain and the united states have provided immediate assistance in the search. in the longer term, we stand ready to provide more practical assistance to help the nigerians and the region strengthen their defense and security institutions and to develop the expertise needed to counter these are berrick extremists. we had, as barack said, an important discussion on

ukraine and relations with russia. from the outset of this crisis, the g7 nations stood united, clear for our support for the ukrainian people and their right to choose their own future and firm and our message to president putin that russia's actions are completely unacceptable and totally at odds with our values for this group of democracies. that is why russia no longer has a seat at the table here with us. we were clear about three things -- first, the status quo is unacceptable. the continuing destabilization of eastern ukraine must stop. second, there are a set of things that need to happen. president putin must recognize the legitimate election of resident poroshenko. he must stop arms crossing the border into ukraine. he must stop russian support for separatist groups. third, if these things do not happen, sanctions will follow. the next month will be vital in judging at president putin has taken the steps, and that is what i will urge president putin to do when i meet him later today. finally, we discussed a cancer

eating away at the world economic and political systems -- corruption. corruption is the archenemy of them are chrissy and development. best way to fight corruption and drive growth is through what i 's.l the three t that was at the heart of our g8 agenda, and today, we agreed to push for more actions unfair tax systems, freer trade, and greater transparency, things that are now hardwired into these international gatherings this year and for many years to come. thank you. >> all right, we got a couple of from each press delegation. we will start with jeff mason at reuters. >> thank you, mr. president. you are going to france later this evening. since you last had president oflande visit, and a lot tensions have arisen in the relationship, including on bnp paribas. the french say a potential multibillion dollar fine on that and would affect local -- the

global economy and could affect trade talks. do you believe those concerns are valid? have you expect to address them with him tonight? and also u.s. concerns about the french selling warships to russia. prime minister, do you feel isolated among your eu leaders about your position on jean-claude juncker, and who would you like to get the job? second, do you feel pressure from president obama about your position of keeping the u.k. in the eu? thank you. >> first of all, the relationship between the united states and france has never been stronger. range of issues, we are seeing intense cooperation, and i'm looking forward to seeing president hollande this evening to talk about a range of issues and continue the work that was done here in brussels. answer on the banking cases

is short and simple -- the tradition of the united states is that the president does not in prosecutions. we do not call the attorney general -- i do not pick up the phone and tell the attorney general how to prosecute cases that have been brought. i do not push for settlements. a cases that have been brought. those are decisions that are made by an independent department of justice. i have communicated that to president hollande. this is not a unique position on my part. perhaps it is a different tradition than exists in other countries, but it is designed to make sure that the rule of law bynot in any way impacted political expediency, and so

this will be determined by u.s. attorneys in discussion with , andsentatives of the bank i will read about in the newspapers just like everyone else. >> [indiscernible] answerwill hear the same from me tonight as you just heard at this podium. concerns,ressed some and they do not think i'm alone in this. about continuing significant defense deals with russia at a violated they have and theternational law territorial integrity and sovereignty of their neighbors. understandsllande

my position. i recognize that this is a big deal. i recognize that the jobs in france are important. i think it would have been preferable to press the pause button. president hollande so far has made a different decision, and that does not negate the broader cooperation that we have had with france with respect to its willingness to work with us on sanctions to discourage president putin from engaging in further destabilizing actions and, hopefully, to encourage him to move in a more constructive direction. we are at a point where mr. putin has the chance to get back a lane of international law . he has a president in poroshenko

, who he can negotiate directly with. having spoken directly with president poroshenko this morning, it is clear he recognizes that ukraine needs to have a good relationship with russia, but also rightly affirms the right of ukraine to engage , andthe rest of the world the steps that david outlined g7lier and that the unanimously agrees with, which is for mr. putin to take -- seize this moment, recognize as legitimate leader of ukraine, cease the support of separatists and the flow of arms , work with ukraine to engage those in the east during this process of constitutional economic reform -- if mr. putin takes the steps, then it is

possible for us to begin to russia andst between its neighbors and europe. should he fail to do so, there will be additional consequences, and one of the important things that came out of this meeting today was the recognition on the cannot all of us that we simply allow drift. some of thet that russian soldiers have moved back off the border and that russia is now destabilizing ukraine through surrogates rather than overtly and explicitly does not afford threecan months or four months or six months of continued violence and conflict in eastern ukraine. we will have a chance to see what mr. putin does over the weeks, and if he

remains we are prepared to take. >> we just had a set of european elections where we have taken two countries at random, france , and into european parties won. you can wish these results would go away or you can address the concerns of the people you represent in your country. i have a strategy to represent and understand them. it is important we have people running the institutions of europe who understand the needs for change, the need for reform. that he was widely shared among other heads of government and heads of state in the european union. as for britain's future, i am clear in what i want to achieve.

to secure britain's place in a reformed european union. it is about renegotiating our position, recovering some important powers, making significant changes, and then putting the decision in a referendum to the british people. that weuch recommending stay in a reformed european union. it is a strategy for dealing with things. i don't want to see britain drift towards the exit. we have good discussions about these issues. as we discuss everything else. let's have a question from the bbc. president, even if you don't have a meeting scheduled with vladimir putin, are you going to end up talking with him face-to-face? do you see real possibilities of opening up the pathway whereby you engage in him? will scotland stay part of the the uniteddom and

kingdom staying part of the european union -- what of those decisions mean to you? thee minister, you will be first to engage with vladimir putin face to face. is there something him and all a branch in your hand -- an olive branch in your hand? futterman putin did not denounce the -- vladimir putin did not elections that brought the new president into power in ukraine. got -- junker you , will people vote to leave the union? who are you more afraid of, angela merkel or teresa may? >> limited chose.

-- let me take those. it is important to have this communication. what is happening now is not acceptable. there are changes that need to take place. there is an opportunity for diplomacy to take a role and to chart a path. we have had these elections. the ukrainian people have chosen a president. he's a capable man. it is possible that he could have a proper relationship with putin that could be a proper relationship between ukraine and russia. changes needed for that to happen. that is the message i have been delivering this evening. in terms of your other questions come on this issue of who runs the european commission, the european institutions on what matters are people who need this -- understand the need for change, the need for reform. on as they have, this union is not going to work

for its citizens. -- i am very fortunate in my life to work with some extremely strong and capable women, of which they are undoubtedly two. >> i have no doubt that i will say mr. putin. we have always had a businesslike relationship. it is entirely appropriate that he is there to commemorate d-day , given the extraordinary sacrifices made by people of the soviet union during world war ii. should we have the opportunity to talk, i will be repeating the same message i have told him through this crisis. my message has been very consistent. russia has a legitimate interest

in what happens in ukraine, given its historical ties and its borders. ultimately, it is up to the people of ukraine to make their own decisions. russian armed forces annexing illegal. a neighbor is it violates international law. the kinds of destabilizing activities that we have funded and encouraged by russia are illegal. they are illegal and not constructive. which russiath in has the capacity to engage directly with president poroshenko now. it should take it. strategy ofues a undermining the sovereignty of ukraine, then we have no choice but to respond.

he has been surprised by the degree of unity that has been displayed. i do think the fact that he did not immediately denounce the outcome of the may 25 election offers the prospect that he is moving in a new direction. i think we have to see what he does and not what he says. with respect to the future of the united kingdom. this is up to the people of great britain. in the case of scotland, there is a referendum process in place. i would say that the united kingdom has been a mixed ordinary apartment to us. it looks like things have worked pretty well.

we have a deep interest in making sure that one of the closest allies that we will ever robust,ained strong, united, and effective. decisions, these are that have to be made by the folks there. it's respect to the european we share a strategic vision on a whole range of international issues. it is always encouraging for us rick britain has a seat at the table and the larger european project. in light of the events we will be commemorating tomorrow. it was the steadfastness of great britain that allows us to

, in the seatussels of a unified and extraordinary confident europe. it would be hard for me to imagine a project going well without great britain. it would be advantageous for great britain -- would not be advantageous for great britain to be excluded from political deals that have an impact on its political and economic life. we will see the arguments made. i'm sure the people of great britain will make the right decision. have you been surprised by the language that has been whipped up by your decision to do a deal to free boberg all -- bowe bergdahl?

in retrospect, could you have consulted more with congress? do youinister, how respond to the criticism that your decision to meet vladimir putin and his meetings with other key european leaders are devaluing the punishment that by theed out to russia g-8? be deprived of the right to host the world cup and if so, would britain be willing to host it? >> i am never surprised by controversies that are whipped up in washington. course.par for the i will repeat what i said two days ago. we have a basic principle. anybody wearing the american uniform behind. war whoserisoner of and wehad deteriorated

were deeply concerned about him. we saw an opportunity and we seized it. i make no apologies for that. we had discussed with congress the possibility that something like this might occur. but because of the nature of the folks we were dealing with and the fragile nature of these negotiations, we felt it was important to do what we did. we are now explaining to congress the details of how we move forward. this basic principle that we do not leave anybody behind and this basic recognition that that often means prisoner exchanges with enemies is not unique to my ministration. it dates back to the beginning of our republic. with respect to how we announced it, i think it was important for

people to understand that this is not some abstraction. this is not a political football. you have a couple parents who skid volunteered to fight in a distant land. who they had not seen in five years. and were not sure whether they would ever see again. and as commander-in-chief of the united states armed forces, i am responsible for those kids. and i get letters from parents who say, if you are sending my child to work, make sure you make that child is being taken care of. i read too many letters to folks who don't see their children again after fighting a war. i make absolutely no apologies for making sure that we get back a young man to his parents and that the american people understand that this is somebody's child.

conditione don't whether or not we make the effort to try to get them back. did you have a second question? you can ask him about football. >> on the issue of meeting president putin, i think it is right to have this dialogue, particularly if you have a clear message and point to make. i think there's a world of difference between having a dialogue between president putin and excluding someone from an institution as significant as the g8 and the g7. i think was absolutely right to exclude russia. i think it was one of the first g8 leaders to make that point. it was the totally right decision. there is a totally different decision. on the issue of football, we should let the investigation run its course. of course, england is the home of football, as it is the home

and the inventor of many sports. i don't think we can lay credit to -- >> baseball, basketball. [laughter] >> you did invent the english language. [laughter] >> you've made a few changes to it. [laughter] they don't hold us back. final question. >> you spoke about the importance for you and your allies of being in lockstep on the crisis of ukraine? if this crisis shows no sign of de-escalating, the next step will be to sectorial sanctions. are you confident that you will be in lockstep with all of the and g7 allies? there will be costs and consequences for them and their economies as sanctions get widened. aboutminister, you spoke

the threats of extremist ideology at home and abroad. even by your own government's .stimate with regard to extremist ideology at home, particularly in schools where there has been a lot of concern, do you think it is morally unseemly and wrong for members of your own government to engage in an argument about whether british children should be protected against extremist ideology? all, let me say on the issue of sectoral sanctions and this issue of lockstep between the u.s. and countries of the european union, i think it has been striking over the last few months how we have been able to stay as unified as we have. for hisibute to barack understanding of how important it is for us to work together and deliver these messages together.

i think it is surprising and i hope it surprised president putin. in terms of tackling extremism, i set up the u.k. extremism task force. i wanted to make sure the government was doing everything it could to drive extremism out of our schools, out of our colleges, off campuses, out of prisons, in every part of national life. i think it is very important that we recognize that we have to deal not only with violent extremism, but also the stink of extremism, of tolerating extremist views from which violence can grow. the whole government is signed up to that agenda and is driving through changes to deliver that agenda. as for issues for the last day or so, we will get to the bottom of who said what and what happened. we finishish it once these important meetings i am having here. ? what has been striking is

the solidarity. anticipated that the two sides would fly apart. consistency ina the core values and the united and prosperous europe. that is despite the very real economic consequences that can by ringing sanctions against russia. the reason we have seen growth and peace on this continent us to do with certain values. certain principles. that have to be upheld. when they are so blatantly disregarded, the choice is

clear. forpeans have to stand up those ideals and principles, even if it creates economic inconvenience. having said that, sectoral sanctions would be more .ignificant our technical teams have been consulting with the european commission to identify sanctions that would maximize impact on russia and minimize adverse impact on european countries. that work is ongoing. my hope is that we do not have to exercise them because mr. putin has made some better decisions. i think it would be better for russia. i think the russian economy is not in good shape right now. we have seen significant capital flight just from the sanctions we have already applied. that could easily worsen.

if we have sectorial sanctions, i think it will inevitably hit russia a lot worse than its europe. which has much more diversified and resilient economies. among thet unanimity 28 eu members? i have been president for 5.5 years. i have learned a thing or two the european union, the european commission, the european council. sometimes i get them mixed up. >> welcome to the club. [laughter] that yousic principle have 28 people sitting around the table and not everyone is going to agree -- we take that for granted. i also think that if in fact we have to move to sectorial toctions, it is important take individual countries sensitivities to mind and make sure that everybody is ponying up. that everybody is bearing their fair share.

some people are going to be more concerned about defense relations, some will be concerned about the financial sector, others might be trade and basic goods and services. that is the technical work that is being done. my hope is that we do not have to use it. by thebeen heartened steadfastness of europe thus far. i think that people underestimate the degree to which, given the history of this continent, certainly in the 20th century, the people are not interested in seeing any in the armor. they recognize that that is worth working for. thank you very much everybody. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

>> president obama left for paris after the news conference. he will meet with french president francois hollande. he will be at ceremonies commemorating the 70th anniversary of the invasion of normandy. vladimir putin will also attend the normandy event. president obama has not planned any meetings with president putin. the nine-member celadon negation -- senate delegation will attend the d-day anniversary celebration. andhouse still a geisha will be led by buck mckeon -- the house delegation will be led by buck mckeon. john dingell will stay behind.

whencoverage will continue the senate intelligence committee looks into the armed intelligence surveillance act. -- foreign intelligence surveillance act. the same time, on c-span 3, training for wildfire first responders. whether they need more resources. >> the reason we are trying to focus on the speaker is because it is the speaker, with the full majesty and weight of his position, who yesterday made full allegations which he is not yet answered to. i will yield. >> you have an obvious. you do not normally have that. fact is that the whole 10 or of your remarks,

, you back to 1970, 1972 were there for one and one purpose only. members to imply that of the side were un-american in their activities. your motions. you knew that there was nobody here. you knew that there was nobody here. >> cam scam. give us your perspective. knew ther o'neill politics of the house. into the politics of the house and he cap much of it to his house -- himself. he received a great amount of intelligence all-day long, what was going on in different places. he always believed that politics was the art of the possible.

nobody got their way all of the time. he was a broker within the democratic caucus and within the house. newt gingrich made a conscious decision that they would always be in the minority because they work with the majority. he started attacking bob michael, the leader, john rhodes, and everybody on that side. avenue to a only majority is through confrontation. we're going to take them down. this was an argument about the misuse of tv now coming to the fore. he would ask these rhetorical questions and make these charges into new the chamber was empty. the camera was very tight on the speaker. show that theto chamber needed to have people in it or it was empty and that change the whole dynamic. that how manycess

years later has torn this institution apart and paralyzed the institution. miller,essman george sunday night at 8:00 on c-span's q&a. the senate environment and public works committee is looking into the nuclear regulatory commission's tasks to implement rules after the fukushima accident in japan. they made a number of recommendations. here is testimony. the committee is chaired by senator barbara boxer. >> today, we are holding the night committee since the nuclear meltdown in japan. it has been more than three

years since the fukushima disaster. the massive underground ice wall intended to present -- prevent radioactive material from flowing into the sea will take a year to finish and cost more than $300 million to finish. we must learn from the offense and fukushima and take necessary steps to ensure the safety of nuclear facilities in the united states. i will continue to focus on whether the nrc has done that. it is vitally important that the nrc remained committed to its mission, which is to ensure the materialsradioactive for beneficial civilian purposes, while protecting people and the environment. based on a review of the progress made since the fukushima disaster and on what official steps need to be taken by nrc to ensure the safety of people and the environment, which is your charge, i'm afraid you may have lost sight of your mission.

the fukushima near-term task force made up of nrc senior toff recommended 12 measures upgrade safety in the wake of the fukushima meltdown. in august 2011, the former nrc chairman testified before our committee that the nrc should be able to act on those recommendations and that they could be implemented within five years. , the nrc has failed complete implementation of a single one of the post fukushima safety measures. summary operators are not in compliance with the safety requirements that were in place before fukushima. the nrc has only completed its own action on four of the 12 task force recommendations. your team that you praise all the time told you that you have to do this.

this is unacceptable. it puts the safety of the american people at risk. thank you. we have these for you. i also have serious concerns about the safety of nuclear fuels. nrc studies show that the consequences of a fire at a nuclear fuel pool can be as serious as a severe accident at an operating reactor. not only does nrc allow that fuel to be stool -- stored indefinitely, it is considering requests for decommissioning reactor operators for exemption from emergency response measures designed to protect nearby communities. while the nuclear energy institute claimed that these exemptions are granted only when special circumstances exist at a facility, the truth is that never has the nrc denied even

one waiver request. it rubberstamps them every single time a reactor shuts down. i have introduced three bills to increase the safety of spent nuclear fuel and improve the decommissioning process. these are not theoretical concerns. on the same day that this committee held a hearing on this topic last month and out-of-control wildfire was burning a half a mile away from the san and no brain nuclear plant. -- those of the people of california. millions and millions of them. this is it. this plant is asking for a waiver so they don't have to deal with any type of emergency response. about nrc's commitment to identifying and remedy safety problems is highlighted by my investigation into the installation of defective equipment. i learned that the nrc staff was

preparing to allow the restart of one of the reactors before it had received a single answer to any of the technical safety questions it asked southern california edison to submit. continuing the pattern of doing everything that you are asked to do by the industry. this oversight investigation that i am conducting is important, not only to get to the bottom of this problem, but to avoid disastrous problems like this in the future. i am also concerned that whistleblowers at nrc fielded have no recourse but to contact congress to report safety problems and that is what they are doing ladies and gentlemen. because nrc's internal procedures for addressing these concerns are broken. nrc is continuing to disrupt my investigation by withholding documents that the committee has a right to receive. let me be clear. the nrc has no legal right whatsoever to refuse to provide the company -- committee with these documents and today, i

will make available a comprehensive analysis of this conclusion. the nuclear industry to maintain the confidence of the people and we have a lot of people i believe it is critical that you step up to the plate on safety. nrc's recent record does not inspire confidence and that does not bode well, because at the end of the date and american people do not want to have a reactor near them and cause of these industries and if the industry is not going to be there for them in the future. i look forward to asking you some more questions. senator vitter? >> thank you, chairman boxer, convening the hearing. i want to thank the nrc

fresheners for being here to testify. lately various members on this committee have been very active in fundamentally attempting how the nrc manages itself and our nation's nuclear power facilities. in recent months we have seen legislation and statements from my colleague in favor of new and costly and in my view usually unnecessary regulation. i want to urge our commissioners to be precise and direct with your thoughts on these initiatives. you and your staff are the experts. we are not. we depend on your expertise. and so i urge you to recommit to using the best available science and facts to ensure that any new rules and regulations are necessary for our fleet, which happens to have a long track record of safety. there a baseline standard that the commission should meet when

considering new regulations. i want to commend the commission for basing their recent vote to eliminate further generic assessments guest tonight -- to expedite spent fueld. while some of my colleagues may disagree with the commission on the issue, it is important to note that the nrc staff that recommended these assessments had studied the issues and compiled all available data to make the best possible recommendation. as most of you are aware this orst monday epa administratio released new relations for carbon emissions from existing power plants. while the president's efforts to kill coal-fired and already underway, i am concerned about another and somewhat more subversive and undercover

opportunity to cripple the nuclear industry, which is ongoing. when he first announced the theate action plan, president notoriously stated that he supports and all of the above approach. i think the really disingenuous nature of the claim requires actionseview of by the administration. the work being done to under not mine -- to undermine the waste an examplerole is of a long-term strategy to shut down most or all of our nation's nuclear power. another example is the recent 316-b rule. lookugh epa's rule may not like it may have a critical impact, many in the environmental community had hoped, it will be litigated, and what ever deal is cut behind

closed doors in the process will assuredly be worse. i firmly the nuclear sector should play a role in meeting our domestic energy needs safely and with the confidence of the american people. i am concerned that some senate democrats are using these hearings to provide cover for efforts to kill nuclear onlyation, which has served to decrease the output and capacity of our nation's reliable nuclear fleet. these shutdowns will increase greenhouse gas in missions, as states struggle to find other baseload power. onant to state my concern the lack of communication from the nrc and the administration about the renomination of whosesioner apostolakis, term is up at the end of the month, as long as commissioner

magwood when he vacate his seat. keeping these seat filled by qualified individuals must priority. i urge the administration to act on this thickly so that the commission can continue its important work without interruption or distractions. here. very much for being thanks for your work. i look forward to your expert testimony. senator carper -- i mean senator cardin. >> i picked up a spot in seniority. thank you very senator much for conducting this hearing, and let me thank the commissioners for being here. i thank you for your public service. just to follow-up on senator vitter's point, i think we can have less pollution in our air, reduced carbon. we can do it in a way that will help public health and will

create more jobs. we can do it with nuclear energy in a safeway. i think all of the above are hearingortant, in this is a timely hearing for many reasons. he have a responsibility in regard to public safety to make sure the nuclear regulatory commission is operating in a way protects people and our community, but also timely because of the announcements on their power plant rules about our commitment to reduce our carbon emissions, and nuclear energy is an important part of that. that comes together in today's hearingtheir power plant and i s opportunity. nuclear energy is an extremely important part of our energy supply in this country. electricity from nuclear power. that is 60% of our carbon free energy is produced through nuclear energy. ours a critical part of

energy sufficiency's in this country, and, therefore, we need to do this in a way that is mindful of the safety of the people of our country. we have about 100 reactors today. cliffsts are in calvert in maryland, of obvious major concern to me. its home in maryland. we're proud of the people who work there. it is consistently ranked as one of the best places to work. i think this reflects the management at the nrc, and we are proud about that. as we conduct this oversight hearing, let me point out a couple trends. first, you have gone straight of sequestration, government shutdowns, pay freezes. that has had an impact on your force, and we expect the best to be in this field.

i am concerned about the impact of recent government policies on the budget has had on your capacity to get the best people, retain the best people, so we can carry out the mission of public safety in nuclear power in this country. i welcome your candid views as to where we are in regards to your ability to attract and retain the very best in order to ensure the safety of the people of this country and to be at the forefront of nuclear technology. as senator vitter said, using the best science and information to make sure we're doing what is right. there has also been a change in ofr mission over the period the last couple decades. the number of nuclear actors are not what we had predicted them to be. that affects your overall mission, and how have you adjusted the realities of the number of reactors we are having in our country.

spentndling of nuclear materials, waste, has changed dramatically over the last couple decades. what has been your adjustments to your mission in order to make sure that you have adequate resources to carry out those missions. i welcome this hearing so that we can recount a responsibility of oversight to make sure that you have that pools necessary to not only provide the best for our country, but we know we are the leaders in the world and what we are doing on nuclear regulation. and secondly, whether because of the change in mission, we should be looking at a different way of making sure you have the adequate tools to carry out responsibility. i look forward to your testimony and i thank you for being here. >> thank you, senator. senator sessions? --thank you, chairman boxer, and ranking member vitter.

i know you are concerned about safety, and that is an important issue. you will be challenged to meet those standards that we expect of the board. but the nuclear industry, i have got to say, represents a vital part of our energy mix. it produces no carbon emissions, and in a week where the president has unveiled relations mating a 30% reduction from 2005 levels of co2 by 2030, we surely roleld we discussing the nuclear power should play in those goals. we have had an excellent safety raceecord. that have beenes lost another average resources, we have never had an individual result of aas nuclear accident. zero, and none have been made sick, to my knowledge.

this is a tremendous safety record, and a tremendous environmental record. the risk involved in the safe management of nuclear power have been reduced, and this commission has been responsible for that. you have been watching us carefully. you are professionals. you are experienced. and you have a right and a duty to hold these industries, businesses to account, but you also have a duty and a responsibility to listen to them , and if they provide good information and helps you lessthe plants safer and cost, you should respond to it. according to the energy information agency, nuclear energy produces 60% of all carbon-free energy. the work energy of following the district court's order regarding the licensee of yucca mountain is of vital importance.

as the court stated, because congress did not enact new legislation and because congress sets the policy, not the commission, regarding the storage of nuclear waste, it is clear the commission must promptly continue with the legally mandated licensing process for disposal of waste. i hope you will continue to move forward with that. already the united states has banned $15 billion on you amounting -- on yucca mountain. $15 billion, and we have not been able to utilize it effectively. the united states has had to pay $2 billion so far, which could grow to $50 billion, for claims from the government's failure to deal with the nuclear waste issue. this is an unbelievable series of events. i know the majority leader opposes this, but the local people in nevada have supported it in the area of this yucca,

and the congress has loaded ford. to move forward. i am really concerned, a power station in wisconsin, close, a unit in florida, closed, the unit in california, closed, by 2019. have one in georgia and some in south carolina being developed. this is a serious concern. safety is a priority, but clean, responsible a slowed nuclear power at a reasonable rate is so important for america. madam chairman, i appreciate the hearing. i know this commission and its staff needs to be held to account, but they have been doing a good job. one in georgia and some in south carolina being developed. this is a serious concern. problem with the prior

leader, and he is gone now. ms. macfarlane is leading effectively. the board is working together effectively. i am proud of what they are doing, and i believe we need to be asking ourselves how it is, what can we do, reasonably and safely, to heal with what appears to be not a growth in nuclear power, but a decline. i think that would be a real tragedy for the people of the country. thank you. >> senator whitehouse? andhank you, mr. chairman, thank you to the ranking member for holding this important hearing on maintaining the safety of our nuclear facilities. a primary function of the nuclear regulatory commission just to ensure that active and retired reactors are safe and secure. safety concerns have been raised storage of material at decommissioned plants alike. down atmthe 2011 melt fukishima was a stark reminder.

tot episode prompted the nrc establish a near-term task force which outlined 12 safety recommendations to reduce of water abilities for american nuclear plants. in 2012 the nrc ordered a clear place to carry out the first-ever emendations, which included updates to maintain cooling during external events of upgrades to reactor containment venting, and better monitoring of spent fuel pools during accidents. the ability of our existing and temporary nuclear waste storage to withstand emergencies is of particular importance in rhode island. although we do not have any power plants within our borders, we are within a 50 mile exposure pathway of connecticut's millstone power station and massachusetts's pilgrim. both facilities sit on the atlantic coast and face heightened risk from sea level rise. given the rhode island's exposure, i join my colleagues

in asking the gao to investigate the nrc's oversight of emergency preparedness at and near our part plants. the latest fukishima and report also reminds us that the technology at the world's facilities have remained stagnant over the last 60 years. despite the availability of a number of significant advances. distinct nuclear plant security will require taking advantage of innovative approaches. reactor concept does not require water for cooling, so it can be built away from the shoreline and coastal elementary our current nuclear fleet is aging. as you have heard from my colleagues, many reactors are going off-line. last year four reactors closed in the u.s. and and vermont yankee nuclear power station will be decommissioned by the end of this year. when the energy produced by these reactors disappears from the grid, other sources have to fill the gap. to achieve the greenhouse reductions outlined in the president's climate action plan,

we need to explore all potential options and technologies for zero carbon baseload power. investing more in advanced nuclear technologies, things reactors anddular traveling wave reactors, maybe a way to produce more greenhouse gas free energy while generating less waste. as we work to address the safety of our existing fleet and provide reliable power at a cost effective, we should apply the lessons of the fukishima in researching and developing advanced nuclear technologies. as chairman of the subcommittee on clean air and nuclear safety, i appreciate the opportunity to hear from all the nrc commissioners on this critical issues, and i once again thank the chairman and ranking member for holding this important hearing. >> thank you, senator. well, we are so happy to see you. senator in half, welcome. >> nice to be here. when i first became chairman and you will remember this well of

the air and nuclear subcommittee we1997, it is interesting, had not had an oversight hearing of the nrc in 10 years. we started having them, and now of course we are having two in a matter of weeks about the same topic, the commissioning -- deco mmissioning. since 1997 we have increased our hearings successfully, and i'm not worried about that. to put thems to be industry out of business rather than in sure that the nrc is conducting appropriate oversight. the nrc rightly looked into the issue of expediting spent fuel pools, following the fukishima disaster. the staff determined that the united states' rate risk of radiological release from the spent fuel pool is very low, about one time in 10 million years or lower, and the study are addicted no girl he

fatalities attributable to radiation exposure. the was the report of staff, and the majority of the commissioners. according to researchers at nasa am a that meet it is less than the likelihood the earth will be struck by a civilization-threatening meteor which has a risk of occurring over once every 4 million years. appropriately the nrc staff in concluded expediting movement of spent fuel from the pool does not provide a substantial safety enhancement. when you consider that mandating this would cost the industry an additional $4 billion, it was right for the commissioners to vote for this position. i'm disappointed the nrc is going to spend more time and resources studying this topic. this will only serve to waste additional taxpayer dollars.

i have full confidence in the ability of the nrc to handle the decommissioning process. thend it disturbing majority's intent on this topic. $51 billion in lost economic activity per year which 000 jobs.s to 224, while the plan treats nuclear plants more favorably than others, i am not naïve enough to believe that he and his environmental friends actually nuclear industries. the president's model country for his green dream is germany, and environment to lists there successfully used the disaster at fukishima to enact a ban on nuclear power plants. many environmentalists and members on the other side of the aisle are similarly efficient,

pursuing every impulse to enact cost ofrable punitive compliance whopper hitting the final construction of the yucca mountain, leaving room for folks challengerdc to additional licensing do to the waist competence issue. let's keep in mind in germany what happened as a result of this, in a short time, we actually went down the cost per kilowatt hour has doubled in germany, from 18 to 30. in germany currently, it has three times that cost per kilowatt ours as we do in this country. we have a lot of people we represent who are very interested in that, and that should be of major consideration. the nuclear power industry provides 20% of our total electricity generation in america, and if the left is successful in shutting down this safe, inexpensive the mystics source of energy from an american people will be the one

september. the administration is internally inconsistent and energy policy. as gina mccarthy touts, greater reliance on nuclear generation to offset the phaseout of coal, nrc is pushing the industry down the compliance rabbit holes a new regulation. , thetalking about 316b flood and sizing and several others that would actually have the effect of putting nuclear out of business. andtimes i wish the ferc the nrc and democrats would just sit down in a room and talk to each other about how we should power this machine called america. if they are successful in these endeavors. thank you, madam chairman. >> thank you. now we turn to the commissioners -- chairman -- >> oh, senator.

>> thank you, madam chair. i appreciate rescheduling and hearing today. i welcome the commissioners. nrc is vital, the to ensuring nuclear safety and important that their mission is carried out effectively. although some may question policy decisions, i believe we have come a long way from where the commission was just a few years ago. the commission has made the decision to recognize the nuclear power plants need flexibility in when they can move spent fuel from what pulls to dry cask storage. i believe storing nuclear waste in westport is a. we know this is not a long-term solution to storing nuclear waste. this field must be put into the shippeds so it can be the yucca mountain or whatever facility is chosen to store the nuclear waste.

the commission is currently working on the safety assessment for yucca mountain. s notommissio ha requested funds for these activities. there's are those who believe yucca mountain is a viable option for storage. i am concerned that the progress of the nrc has made could be undone if we do not have qualified individuals in all the commissioner slot on the commission. for example, commissioner akis, his term is ending at the end of this month. yet the administration has failed to renominate him for this position. i do not understand the rationale. he is a vital member with years of experience. i suggest the president renominate him as soon as possible so we can maintain a full commission that can continue to protect our communities. this is best achieved by having experienced fishers who work

well together. this is best achieved i believe, if the president has different nominee in mind, then the committee must be given the time to vet and consider the nominee before the end of a commissioner's term. the delay in making a decision shows a lack of the spec the role this committee place in vetting nominees. important asset to oversee nuclear power and it must be comprised with competent individuals. the commission can ensure that nuclear energy and continue to be an important part of the energy mix, it is safe, his basement power that runs 24 hours a day, seven days a week and nuclear energy can make america intended. uranium is in abundant in my home state. if we felt this resource we could have a steady supply of domestic fuel stock. true all outhave a all of the above energy strategy we must continue to building new nuclear power plants. this is essential to the future

of nuclear power in america. what we cannot do is hampered nuclear power over regulating the plants we have. we must strike a balance to ensure the safety of our communities while continuing to ensure the viability of nuclear part. i look forward to the testimony. >> thank you. i do not see any more senators, so we will turn to the chairman. she has five minutes. please proceed. >> good morning. my colleagues and i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you this morning on behalf of the u.s. nuclear regulatory commission. today i would like to discuss the nrc's accomplishments and challenges in our efforts the agency is making to ensure we are performing as it effectively and efficiently as possible. the nrc continues to make significant progress in addressing lessons learned from the fukishima accident. the majority of us here are on

track to be completed before the end of 2016, and we are tieressing the tier tow and three issues. we are seeing reactors with upcoming outage is making modifications to safety systems to provide additional supplies of electrical power and multiple ways to inject cooling water into reactors and spent fuel pools. they are also installing additional verbal equipment. two weeks ago i had the opportunity to visit the palo verde station in arizona and one of the industry's two regional response center street the centers contain additional portable safety radiation protection and other emergency spot equipment that can be delivered to an infected -- affected plant. this gave me the opportunity to see how the industry is compliant with the nrc requirements to enhance plant's ability to withstand beyond

basis accidents. while maintaining our focus on the operating fleet that the nrc is also overseeing new s totruction at a unit plant ensure that plants are being constructed in accordance with their approved design and issues our inspectors identify are correct. with four reactors recently seeking operations and vermont yankee permanently shutting down by the end of 2014, as a number of you mentioned, the nrc has sharpened its focus on the transition from operating to decommissioning plants. it is important to have in size r ceasesn a reacto operation, the nrc make sure safety continues. after fuel is removed from the reactor core from the nrc continues to ensure operational safety controls, security, and emergency preparedness remain

appropriate to protect the public. the nrc must review the licensee's activities and cost elements and hold public meetings near the plants before major decommissioning activities can begin. the nrc oversees facility transition to ensure the commissioning is carried out safely. we encourage licensees to engage members of the public and officials throughout the life of the decommissioning process. the nrc believes the safety and security requirements we mandate will be most effective if they are prioritized appropriately so -seas can maintain focus on safe operations. we are carefully working to understand and manage the cumulative effects of our regulations, including timelines requirements,ise based on priorities associated with actions and availability of nrc and industry resources.

we have enhanced public participation in our rulemaking and have engaged the industry to perform case study to develop more accurate regulatory estimates. the commission has directed the staff to continue its work to understand cumulative impacts and to assess the effectiveness of the nrc's process and hazardous. the nrc faces a different future from what we anticipated a few years ago, when a significant increase in new reactor licensing and construction was projected. we recognize the need to approach this future in an agile and efficient manner. we are working now to project the agency's expected workload and skill needs through 2020. while there are fewer operating plans and new large light water applications, the workload has increased in other areas. in addition to the work areas i have just discussed, we are continuing to address the on wasteecisions confidence in yucca mountain and preparing for small design

reviews. as we meet these challenges, i am confident in the nrc's ability to develop and execute the strategies needed to achieve our safety and security mission. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. i am pleased to answer any of your questions. >> thank you. kristinorable svinicki. the commission's chairman and her statement on behalf of the commission has provided a comprehensive ascription of key agency, shirts and challenges in carrying out nrc's mission. the nrc continues to implement safety significant lessons learned from the fukishima accident in accordance with established agency processes and procedures, also maintaining our

focus on ensuring the safe operations of nuclear facilities and the safe use of nuclear materials across the country. the next period of implementation of fukishima-related tier one regulatory action lasting several years will require discipline and focus from the they reviewperts as and oversees a large body of complex interrelated work. i am confident that the nrc's dedicated professional staff members are up to the task of meeting these challenges. i thank them once again for their sustained commitment to the agency and to its work. i appreciate the opportunity to appear today and look forward to your questions. thank you. >> thank you. chairman boxer and members of the committee, good morning. the chairman has outlined many of our recent accomplishments, current challenges, and future plans. i concur with the chairman's statement that we understand the need to be proactive about our

future, address challenges as focusrise, and maintain a on iron mission. i would emphasize that there are a number of important technical and policy issues currently facing the agency. these include the assessment of seismic and flooding hazard evaluations and the review of their associated risk and integrative assessments, the proposed station blackout mitigating strategies rulemaking, the renewal of operating licenses are currently operating reactors beyond 60 years referred to as subsequent license renewal, waste confidence, and the risk management regulatory frame in which proposes a vision for a more risk-informed framework. i cannot recall and more significant group of actions by the agency in such a short period of time. the commission's

oversight will shape the regulatory framework for a long time to come. thank you very much. >> thank you. thank you, chairman, and good morning to you and to former chairman inhofe. it is a pleasure to talk about the progress we have made. the statement has already highlighted much of our progress. i will add a few comments. i note in the three years since fukishimaa -- since i've seen nothing to question the safety of u.s. power plants. since march 2011, we have a list and engage insues an open public discussion about the lessons learned from the accident. the central conclusion reached by the task force after the accident remains in file it. u.s. nuclear power plants are safe. at the same time i think it is important have resized the reason our plants are safe is we

in the united states placed very high value in responding to operating experience. becauselants are safer we learn from six decades of light water reactor operations and because we learn from three mile island and from 9/11. we can do no less in the case of fukishima. the nrc has taken actions based on lessons learned. i believe the changes have made are appropriate. the believe the states we have taken so far have made more plants resilient. ao weeks ago i visited the fight in california which has obtained new clement and is building a new facility to house it. many other plants are doing the same thing they're so much work to be completed, but i'm confident what we have done so far has been both necessary for public protection and balanced according to the threat. so thank you, and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you so much, and last, but not least, william eo

stendorff. >> thank you for the chance to be here today. recording fukishima, great strides have been made in those activities that should be initiated without delay. the most safety significant items into one. one activity is directing licensees to reevaluate seismic hazard using president methodologies with iccs submitted these evaluation in march of this year to the nrc. our staff has completed its evaluation of these submissions and confirmed that plants can continue to operate while the nrc and industry conduct further evaluations at certain plants. noted, the industry has just opened a reasonable response center in phoenix which has equipment to be provided to any plant within 24 hours to supplement on-site equipment if necessary. as a commissioner, i have great

confidence in the nrc's decision-making and fukishima actions. the commission our staff have relied upon solid physicals of science, engineering, risk management. i appreciate the committee's oversight role, and i look forward to your questions. >> i want to thank you all for your testimony. the annrccfarlane, is still holding two documents from this committee regarding san onofre. you've told me this is because of constitutional separation of powers concerns. afterd a renowned -- working with your legal staff and my legal team and then could not get the information. i asked a renowned constitutional scholar who work

for crs and the american law division for 35 years, and you have cited him often in your correspondence with us. this is what he says. he said, your letters to me demonstrate " a profound misunderstanding of congress' power and that they mistake courts'decisions, they nor case law that support the committee's writer received materials and they show a lack of awareness of over 90 years of congressional investigations in which agencies have had to give congress what it asked for." i asking in ms. content for this to be placed into the record at this time. are relying on deeply flawed advice, and it is time for yourself, will the nrc

follow the law and give the committee what it has asked for or not. i would likeoxer, to be clear that the commission has not come to its position lightly. we have spent much time and effort studying this situation, seeking views on the situation, so that we feel we have been able to provide you with as much information as we believe that we can. there are two categories of documents we feel we need to protect, but we trust that the many, many documents that we have already provided you for your investigations have been helpful. obviously, the answer to my question is you're going to stick with the legal advice you have been given, which i am told by a scholar is totally wrong. i did not say you came to the decision lightly. i said you came to it wrongly.

and so you still take deposition. this committee is going to do its work. we're going to get these documents. and when you read this analysis and we will send it to your team, we hope that you will change your mind, because it is a very, very serious -- what is being withheld. by the way, we will get it one way or the other, but we need to have it. now, many of you have said you are thrilled about the progress. you're very pleased about the harbors you're making post fukishima. did we put up those 12 recommendations. as a matter of fact, you used words that, you know, exclaim, all the progress, from the chairman on down. i would like to ask you, as far as you know, have any of these 12 been implemented? >> some of them have been -- >> which ones have been implemented? >> what we did at the commission

after the near-term task force presented us with those 12 recommendations, we prioritized those recommendations into three categories -- >> no, no, no. i am asking, these 12 premonitions by your top staff, and you lauded all of them, i want you to know -- i want to know -- i have the answer -- not one of these has spent limited by industry on the ground. do you disagree with that? >> chairman, those are recommendations. based on those recommendations, we issued a number of orders, a number of requests for information, and we have entered into a number of rulemakings. and we are still -- >> i ask you a question. has industry implemented any of these 12? they have not. . and so you can sit there and say you are proud and every thing else. the fact is not one of these has

been implemented on the ground. it is three years and counting. now, -- >> madam chairman, i would like your the commission -- >> you can ask it on your time. you add 10 seconds on, please. now, this last question is very important, because it deals with a decision you made which wherekeep the spent fuel they are, and not move them to dry casks. and in that decision, you assumed emergency planning at these plants would be in place. so i'm asking each of you a very important question. you saw the photo. could you show the photo one more time, of how close that fire came to san onofre? people live our within 50 miles of this. when i saw this, i heart stopped, and i assume your hearts stopped too.

that plant is shut down, and these fuel rods that are hot right there, you have decided not to move them. i am asking you each, if you are asked to waive the requirement that this plant have an evacuation plan in place, if you are asked to waive that, will you deny that request? you're making a face like you did not understand. i will say the in. you have been asked, as i understand it, by the operator, to wavie the record -- the waive the requirement that there be emergency evacuation planning at that site. they do not want to do it anymore. they do not want to have the sirens. they do not want to have the plans. 8 million people. a fire came within half a mile. will you deny that request? i'm asking you, yes or no? >> exemptions are not waivers.

the plant may have applied for an exception. that is not a waiver. >> will you deny though waiver? waivers may in some cases be reduced in scope, but it will not be eliminated. i want to be clear on that. and exemptions for decommissioning plants are done on a site-specific basis, so there carefully considered -- >> will you deny the exception for safety of this plan when it is presented --do you know or not know? >> we will ensure the plan will be safe -- >> that is not the answer to my question. say yes or no i do not know or i cannot answer it. do you deny a request for an exemption -- >> we will -- >> for any emergency plans -- >> the plant will be safe -- >> madam chair, we let our witnesses answer your question?

the way it normally works, you get to ask question, but they get the answer. >> will you answer yes or no or i do not know. i do not need a lengthy explanation, because my question is civil. we voted to deny an exception from safety rules from the yes, no,at san onofre, or i don't know yet? >> as i said can exception are done on a site-specific basis and they are based on established -- >> the more you talk you more you ignore my question. i'm as you, i'm giving you three choices. yes, no, i do not know? >> manager, we normally do not have hearings -- >> excuse me. when you have this chair, you make the rosary yes, no, or i do not know? we you please answer? >> i have not been presen ted with enough information to make a decision. >> so you do not know.

>> i will not prejudge the action, so i do not know. >> i do not know either. >> i have not seen the exemption request yet. i agree with my colleagues. >> great. let me just say for the record, never have the nrc ever denied a request for an exception safety. i got to tell you, this is in my mind, it is in my heart, and the people in my state expect you to protect them. the fact that you cannot commit today to uphold the safety planning for this plant can given the number of fuel rods that are in there are greater than the plant was planned for, which you allowed, i'm not saying you, but the commission allowed them is outrageous, and you wonder why people are losing confidence. senator vitter? to thist to go directly so-called exception issue, too,

because i think it is a lot of semantics being used, quite frankly, to confuse and scare the public. vinicki, is as correct that we are talking made some changes that are with your permission, if an exception is granted, when a site is from being an operating nuclear facility to a facility that is shut down? madeso we are talking about chs made presumably to reflect the verythat those are two different animals. is that what we are talking about generally? >> yes, senator vitter. noted,rman macfarlane there's not a provision whether a reactor is operating. on exceptionsed

to reflect the changes in the facility as it is decommissioned. >> thank you. i am not suggesting and you're not either that a plant that has been shut down you can just walk away from that site and not worry about it. i am not suggesting that. but it does seem reasonable that there is a significant difference between a nuclear plant at his operating and a nuclear plant that is shut down and presumably these exemptions, and i think a lot of this debate being re thesevvfed exemptions are reflecting that change. is that fair to say? >> yes. >> and as reactors are shut down, are there any number of requirements for reactor operations when a reactor that was up and running that are no longer applicable when

their shut down? >> yes, but any request for his specific.case the accompanied by a safety evaluation, and that is reviewed by nrc. butso that is the process, it is specific to each exemption trust. of theand in these cases commissioning, is there ever an exemption granted because a plant has moved from operational to being shut down? >> i am not aware of any approval that was that sweeting. they are very specific to the request itself. >> ok. commissioner, i wanted to ask you about this expedited transfer. the staff has admitted their recommendations in this area on november 2013.

the commission did not take action on it until may 23, 2014. i'm concerned that it has taken so long to move on in that area really clutters your table and does not allow you to properly focus on the tier one recommendations, the high-priority recommendations. do you think the length of time the commission took to approve such a clear staff recommendation was appropriate? >> thank you for the question. staff'sted the recommendation in my vote. i also supported the views of the committee on reactor safeguards. i am a member of the commission. we all take different times to review and do you diligence. i restrict my colleagues and the time it took for them to resolve these. i understand your concern. as part of the dynamic of being

part of an independent commission. >> thank you, and, chairman, final question on yucca mountain. i am very concerned that various folks are dragging their feet, obstructing on yucca mountain, basically in an effort to shut and iuclear, period, think that would really be unfortunate. i have asked you in previous hearings, i would ask again, in your order directing the staff cr, you notedhe f the commission does not have adequate resources to fully complete the review and issue a decision. as the court told you to do. so in light of that, have you proposed a supplemental budget request to omb? >> we have not. obvious question, why not? ahead withaid go this.

you said we do not have the resources. so why are you not taking the steps to at least request but you need to do what is mandated under law and by the courts? courts required us to begin the licensing process again, using the funds that we had, and we have done so. so we are complying with the law. any further decision to ask for additional money will be a commission decision. the commission to face that, because you have already said we do not have the resources to do this. clearlready seems crystal to you, so i think it is simply going to increase the foot dragging and that delay, never to even make a request to the administration to get you what you need. >> in my view, when the applicant, in this case the department of energy, says that

it has the resources and is seeking to complete the work, that is the point in time when we should move forward to seek additional funds. >> thank you. >> thank you, madam chairman. on that, you might remember the last hearing we had i opposed -- i pose the question that the workload has decreased substantially. this is not one of the questions i was going to ask, but as an observation, it seems to me that the lack of a resources and personnel should not be a real strong point. just opinion. ff, despiter ostendor the nrc staff and the majority of the commissioners including that the spent fuel polls would be safe even in the event of an earthquake, why would the nrc now expend additional agency and

resources on additional site-specific studies? do you have a short interview that? yournator, i think question is dealing with spent fuel transfer or with seismic studies? >> yes, on the studies. >> the commission decision has been to not require further work to require any look at expedited transfer. we have close to that issue. >> ok. in 2012, the district court remanded the nrc's waste confidence will. when will the revised rule become final? >> there is a draft rule that will come to the commission this summer, and we expect the completion of that rulemaking in the fall of this year. foriven that spent fuel integrity was an issue, raised by the d c circuit, in their

remand of your waste confidence rule, how do you plan to satisfy the court if the seismic safety or the spent fuel pool remains an open question under review? >> i understand the question. i would comment since this involves an adjudication, there are certain things we can address, but i will tell you i personally believe in the commission decision on expedited transfer of spent fuel from the pools has been very clear, that we have confidence in existing spent fuel integrity, and i will leave it at that. >> that is fine. arlane, i amf concerned about your vote on the expedited spent fuel vote. the other four commissioners, as all of the staff, they agreed with their assessment, that the risk to the public is so low

$3 billion cost would not be warranted. you wrote in to thousand three, friendsman and our about it how to position different. do you agree now that the spent fuel pools at petitioner survived a massive, earthquake a 45-foot tsunami, and hydrogen explosives, isn't that correct? >> apparently, they have. we are still collecting information, but apparently. >> is also my understanding that the staff has studied the safety ls 10 times now and consistently concluded that pools are saved. tell me how many full-time's employees have been working on this issue? >> at this moment i cannot, but i can take -- >> it would be very interesting

to me to see what kind of resources are used because i know it is quite a bit. should your vote against the nrc cause me to question your open-mindedness about yucca mountain? yet the paper i refer to. are you open-minded? absolutely. my posts, if you look at it, is based entirely on the analysis of the two reports provided by the staff. >> you were not able to answer completely the question that the chairman was asking. she was asking for a specific answer. is there anything you would like to add to elaborate on the question? >> the question of exemptions? >> mm-hmm. >> thanks for the opportunity. just to say that when we do consider exemptions, they are done on a site-specific basis.

they follow an established process. this is based on a detailed technical analysis. there is no exemption from safety. themselves have to show that safety is maintained. we take our safety mission very, very seriously at the nrc, and the staff takes that mission very seriously as well. >> one of the staff and the commission has for the past several years, and is a very thoughtful commission, and we are pleased we have this commission. let me just reinforce the remarks made by others saying that we want to make sure that we encourage the administration to keep this at full staff so we can continue. and then what i mentioned, the odds, one in 4 million years, you think about that a little bit when you're making these considerations. thank you, madam chairman. >> senator, thank you for

bringing up the evacuation issues, because i will talk about that again now. thank you. it is my understanding that the commission has never in its history turned down a request for an exemption from having to have evacuation plans. do any of you think i am wrong on that? tell me, and evacuation plan? and if so, which one did you turn down? >> i will have to take that. >> just know that we have exhausted the record, and there is not any. you go ahead and let us know if i'm wrong. anybody else have anything than those -- ok. so let's be clear about this, folks. easycommission has a very record to access on that question, and there has never been a time when an operator was told that they have to keep an evacuation plan in place. let me tell you again that is your job, to ensure safety, and

me say this, to the chairman, is this not your quote, when asked whether or not a shutdown plant could be dangerous, this is what you said. the fire could well he spread to older spent fuel. the effects could be worse than chernobyl. do you remember writing that or writing that? >> that's from the 2003 paper? >> yes. >> it was a collaborative effort, that paper. >> did you sign that statement? >> i am one of the authors, that is correct. >> thank you. and is it not true, that the n.r.c. said in 2001, spent fuel fire coos have health effects comparable to a severe reactor accident. does anyone think that's a misstatement by myself? .