magwood? >> as i discussed yesterday, it certainly, there's three i've had personal contact with the women involved and talked with them about the incidents. >> okay. mr. chairman, my guess is these women don't want to have a conversation with you for obvious reasons, and in light of that, what are you prepared to do about this in terms of those events and in terms of future behavior? >> well, again, without knowing more specifics, i, you know, it's hard for me, and it's something i'd be happy to talk to my colleagues about, and they can, perhaps, give me more specifics about what caused the -- what caused the concern, and i'll do what i need to do. >> you have no guess what caused the reaction? >> there's times that i can question people intensely, and that's something that i'm aware of in my style that -- >> do you plan to change that style? >> i work on it every day to do it and to do it better. >> okay. let me ask the other four commissioners in terms of instances of not receiving requeste

. >> commissioner magwood? >> i have seen the same thing, either step telling us after the fact that the paper does not represent their views or they cannot get a paper to us. we have had those conversations many tons. >> are you aware of the incident in the issa report that it alleges that the chairman became shaking angry? a vote paper already altered - do you know that incident that he is referring to? are you familiar with another incident cited from the review that the chairman used his supervisory authority -- time is up. >> we will have another round. we'll stay here as long as we can. ok, will move to senator lautenberg. >> thank you, madam chairman. is there a difference among the commissioners in how quickly the task force should implement task force recommendations? is anybody able to answer that? what kind of time frame? what kind of brush gets put on these things? >> i will take the first shot at that. much on thee pretty same wavelength. our understanding is pretty common. we want to move forward

magwood. we visit that letter? >> yes. >> yes, ms. chairman. >> implemented why don't you guys go out and celebrate the holidays together. i will buy, honestly. and i just feel you are all so smart. let's get on the same page, stewart is right is right for the country. thank you very much. we stand adjourned. [inaudible conversations] >> former ceo, jon corzine testified that had been transferred to a european affiliate before the >> an estimated $1.2 billion in funds are missing from the financials were, mf global which got for bankruptcy in october. the former ceo of the company, jon corzine with the company's chief operating officer testified before the house financial services oversight subcommittee. we'll also hear from auditors and make your leaders involved in the investigation. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> the members previously agreed there would be 10 minutes of opening statements on each side, i ask unanimous consent of members of the financial services committee joined us today would be entitled t

magwood, this article suggests that for whatever reason, mr. jaczko was forced from his job that you are ready to take over. are you prepared to tell us as a member that that is not the case, that mr. jaczko left his job that you would not take a position of chairman of the nrc? >> as i mentioned yesterday, when i was asked a question about whether the chairman should be removed and i get the opinion it is not myrick responsibility -- it is my responsibility to provide truthful information as i saw it. i am not calling to make a recommendation. >> that was not my question, mr. magwood. >> i would not make a comment about what my role would be either. >> that is in an interesting point, because according to the huffington -- i am not saying it is right or wrong. according to the of the deposed, you have been involved in something to get rid of mr. jaczko. you may be in line to become the chairman. i am asking you is a question. will you tell us that that is not true and that you would not accept chairman at mr. jaczko left? >> i do not think my

magwood, do you agree with that recommendation? >> i think the threat of the recommendation is correct. the specifics i had with a 72 hours may or may not be the right number so we started the process to find out how to approach the end is that the working. >> do you support having a system running for a period of time without being hooked up? do support that recommendation quite >> yes. >> how about you click >> i believe this is recommendation 4.1 and i did vote in support of it. >> you, mr. chairman quite >> yes. >> chairman baxter admitted on september 16 and i also posit they should be a high-priority decision-making and 24 to 30 months the majority of the commission has concurred and additional amplification is a high priority rulemaking. >> thank you very much. mr. chairman, would you respond to questions. two other recommendations. one is recommendation reactors the present to hydrogen explosion we in japan or the other has to do with my state. they recommended every 10 years nuclear reactor safety standard on the strength

. >> i want to welcome commission magwood the work del cid leaked at the idaho national laboratory. thank you for being here. this has been truly one of the most frustrating hearings i have ever participated in. i have never seen such self- deluded behavior by any individual in my entire life. the lack of awareness of what is happening here in the commission is truly outstanding -- astounding to me. to watch an individual sit here and say that the only thing he is responsible for and he is sorry about is that it is a distraction that was caused by your behavior is truly just embarrassing to watch you this entire time i have been here let's get down to what is happening. you did not answer this question when my colleague at to the question but you believe that you are more passionate than the other four individuals sitting here about nuclear safety, is that not true? >> well - >> just answer the question. are you more or less passionate? it is a simple question. >> my voting record shows that i have taken positions on safety -- >> you believe you are more passionate? you believe you

"magwood has watered down regulationed in those made public following the feekshumia disaster. they have made an effort to increase safety standards. an effort being watched closely by nuclear companies across the globe." let me ask -- we have to ask some questions as well. this article suggests that if for whatever reason he was forced from his job, you are ready to take it over. are you prepared to tell us as a member of the commission that that is not the case? that if he left his job you would not take the position as chairman of the n.r.c.? >> well, as i mentioned yesterday, when i was asked a question about whether the chairman should be removed, i gave the opinion that my role and responsibility was to provide the truthful information as i saw it. it is not to make personnel decisions. i am not going to make a recommendation. >> that was not my question. so i would not make a comment about what my role would be either. >> that is an interesting point. it is an interesting point. because according to the article, and i'm not saying it is right or wrong, according to "huff

i specifically want to welcome commissioner magtwood -- magwood, who worked for a national laboratory, and i think commissioner svinicki to 41 of ours. i have never seen such self alluded behavior by any individual in probably my entire life. the lack of awareness of what is happening here in the commission, it is truly astounding to me. to watch an individual sit here and say that the only thing he is responsible for and that he is sorry about is the distraction that has been caused by your behavior. it is really just embarrassing to watch you this entire time that i have been here, so let's really does get down to what is happening here. you believe, and you did not answer this question, and my good colleague over year ask you the question, but you believe that you are more passionate than the other four individuals that are sitting here about nuclear safety? is that not true? just answerare the more passion? are you less passionate? >> my record shows that i have taken positions on safety. >> you are more passive? >> you also believe you have better judgment. >yes or no. >> i belie

commissioner william mack would -- magwood joined the commission in 2010.served as director of nuclear energy at the department of energy. commissioner william came to the commission last year after a career in the nuclear navy. and then, thank you for being understanding. the commissioner is an expert in assessment and came to the commission in 2010 after many years as a professor at mit. pursuant to the rules, all witnesses will be sworn. leave please rise? -- will you please rise? raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. but the witness it -- but the record indicate all witnesses have answered in the affirmative. as i said, nobody knows anything other than what we have heard. you are here so we hear all of you. i will ask you to try to come close to five minutes. i am not going to gavel people. i am going to be very generous in your response time so that we can hear from all of you here today. >> thank you. we have been asked to appear before you today to disc