Transcripts For CSPAN C-SPAN Weekend 20110604

can you make the case is still worth it to take out loans to get the education? guest: that is a great question. it is a lot we have heard about in the press in the last few months. months. if you want to compete , maybe college is not for everyone. but some post-secondary education, all the statistics say education will pay off in the end. that is not just in economic terms. for society, with fewer people requiring medical care, who are in jail, lower crime rates, higher tax revenue. for individuals in particular, there is no other strong indicator of your financial success in life than the amount of education. host: justin draeger, ceo of the association of financial aid administrators. there website is linked to hours if you want to check out what they're doing. guest: fafsa.ed.gov host: we have one story to show you before we leave. one of pakistan's most wanted military commanders has been killed in an american drone strike. officials said they were aware that reports could not confirm his death. he was considered one of the most dangerous and highly trained pakistan the militants aligned with al qaeda. the rest of the story is available at the "new york times" and other outlets. you may have seen some of the coverage we have done on c-span of the coalition commission. shibley telhami will be our guest. we will talk about what is going on in the middle east. jennifer granholm, former governor of michigan in court advisor for the clean energy program will talk about the economy and women in politics. all that takes place tomorrow on "washington journal." we will see you at 7:00 tomorrow. have a good day. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> coming up, a house energy subcommittee on the federal management of nuclear waste. after that, democrat patty ho cul's swearing in ceremony. swearing incul's ceremony. sunday on "newsmakers," sander levin talks about how the democrats will address u.s. debt and other issues. that is at 10:00 a.m. eastern and 6:00 p.m. on c-span. >> you can follow the house's progress on congressional chronicle. plus there is video of every house session. >> >> , a house energy subcommittee hearing on the federal management of nuclear waste -- next, a house energy subcommittee hearing on the federal management of nuclear waste. a report cites politics as a basis to terminate the program. during this one hour, 35 minute portion, there is a 20-minute break due to a house voted. . >> this is a part of our long- term commitment to make sure we are providing safe storage for nuclear fuel. we focused our attention on the part the department of nuclear energy place in the process the government makes for long-term repository. no matter if you support the continued use of nuclear energy or if you do not, we have a responsibility to deal with existing spent nuclear fuel from our nation's defense complex. spent nuclear fuel from commercial power plants is power -- is piling up in 2/3 of our states. it was always the determination that the federal government would take responsibility for the safe storage of spent fuel and other nuclear materials. after careful search, we found a scientifically proven, geologically ideal site to store these rules under yucca mountain. now we are at a crossroads. it is time for us to decide if we will keep our end of the deal with the nation's citizens by doing exactly what they have been paying for all of these years. or will we waste taxpayer money by failing to deliver on our part of the contract. the obama administration has withdrawn the yucca mountain license. it comes at a cost of $15 billion. 9.5 dot is billion has been collected from every american -- $9.50 billion has already been collected from every american. the u.s. treasury will be paying out taxpayer dollars in judgments to utilities or the department of energy's breach of contract. billions of dollars and over 30 years of research was jettisoned not for technical safety reasons, but for social and political opposition to a permanent repository. when i visited yucca mountain, i heard first hand the overwhelming support from local residents and the surrounding county. we will hear from those representing locals close to yucca mountain, those who would be directly affected the most. they took it upon themselves to take part in an independent, investigative program. they found that nuclear fuel could be stored at yucca mountain. they also know it has the ability to infuse desperately needed jobs directly and indirectly related to the yucca mountain. we must not be kept from keeping a promise to taxpayers. we must give american people the assuredly up a safe permanent storage site for -- assurity for a safe permanent storage site for spent nuclear fuel. i will yield back the rest of my time and recognize the ranking member from georgia. >> i appreciate the participation of all our witnesses today. mr. green has asked me to fill in for him. i probably represent as many people touched by the nuclear energy industry as anyone in congress. i am proud to represent a large percentage of people who work at the savannah river site in south carolina. the workers, the family, and the associated industries number many thousands. the other positive economic impacts are high. the county gets 75% of its tax revenue. those benefits bring challenges. the nuclear energy industry is only as safe as we make it. we have managed the processes and the ways well and we had a state industry. as the industry grows, and as the waste accumulates, we need to have a concerted waste management's strategy. i believe we are too far down the yucca mountain road to turn back now. if we are not going to pursue yucca, we need to work on another strategy and we need to stick with it. that is why i am disappointed that the blue ribbon commission is unable to participate today. i am hoping they will have some concrete solutions to offer. it is in the committee also best interests to have them back as soon as possible. it will -- it is in the committee's best interests to have them back as soon as possible. i yield back my time. >> as mr. barton makes his way up here -- that is okay. the chair would like to recognize congressman barton for the five minutes he will apportion out to mr. gardner. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank our distinguished first panel. it is good to see you. we are glad that congressman hastings is back. just remember, this is the energy and commerce committee. no more shenanigans as you were trying earlier. our nation is sitting on 13,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel. our nation is sitting on over 65,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel from commercial power plants. there is 78,000 tons of nuclear fuel in many states. as you well know, we spent over $15 billion in taxpayer funds in 2009. it is clear that the safe and permanent storage of nuclear waste is a critical element of a long-term energy strategy. study after study has shown that yucca mountain is suitable for storage of that waste. we are here to discuss the decision to terminate being yucca mountain repository. this administration has, for what i think our political reasons, has determined that get the mountain is not a workable option. i think it is unsettling that the department of energy stopped short of characterizing yet the mountain as unsuitable. instead, it said unworkable. it did this to circumvent the law as defined by the nuclear waste policy act to avoid explaining to congress the basis for their determination. we know the economic impact on this decision is tremendous. there are more acceptable and less costly alternatives can be identified, which will only prolong the need of interim storage for nuclear fuel. there is already a $15.60 billion tax pair liability. this is not only a financial issue, it is also a national security issue. we cannot have over 78,000 tons of radioactive waste scattered across 75 sites. we need a central depository. in my opinion, that repository is yet the mountain. at this point, i would like to -- in my opinion, that repository is yucca mountain. at this point, i would like to yield. >> you have already heard about the amount of money that has been spent. you heard about 65,000 tons located in 33 states in 75 sites. you heard about the legal liability of the federal government being sued because the federal government is not taking responsibility for this material. that liability is in excess of $15 billion. it could easily go up to $50 billion. it is a $14 trillion federal debt that we have. i want to thank chairman shimkus for holding this hearing. hopefully, we can find a solution. i will yield back. >> i am supposed to yield two congressman barton. >> if the chairman will yield to mr. murphy. >> i will yield to the remaining time to dr. murphy. >> the utilities have sued the department of energy arguing that the country no longer has a disposal plan. the administration is acting in violation of the law. we heard about the 65,000 tons of spent fuel. nuclear provides 20% of electricity in this country. it stands poised for renaissance. it only the administration will give the taxpayers a explanation an offer congress a solution and acts in accordance -- in accordance with the law. i yield back. >> the gentleman yield that his time. >> i am a strong advocate for serious oversight. throughout my service on the committee on oversight in government and this committee, i have led numerous investigations into government agencies and entire industrial sectors. i take the role as a congressional investigator seriously. today, the committee is holding the second hearing on shutting down be yucca mountain waste depository project. questions have been raised about this decision. i support 8 fair and impartial inquiry. that does not -- a fair and impartial inquiry. that is not what is happening. the chairman has already reached his own conclusions. in january, he told the hill that he wants to ask questions about whether the decision to pull the plug on yucca mountain was all politics. he stated that he thought people already knew the answers to that question, but we should go through the process up and see the badge of asking the questions. -- of asking the questions. chairman upton has made similar comments. an investigation should be a general inquiry not a process of asking questions to reach a predetermined conclusion. the chairman tried to prevent members from asking relevant and important questions. he was off base in the criticism of my questions. it is an effort to prevent democratic staff from committee -- from attending interviews by staff. we protested this new policy, which i asked the may de a part of the record. the nine staff access to interviews been -- denying staff access to interviews necessitates duplicate interviews and calls into question the fairness and credibility of the committee's pingree. our job is to keep an open mind and -- and credibility of the investigation. we should not hesitate to be critical. but we should not prejudge the facts or use unfair or partisan procedures in conducting this investigation. mr. chairman, we are still at the early stages of this investigation. i hope we can resolve these procedural differences so we can focus on the work of the investigation. we can do it together. i think that is the best goal of an oversight investigation, to work together to see and we can get the facts and all of them wherever they may lead. i hope this hearing and the witnesses we will hear from today will get us back on track. i yield back. >> before we go through the witnesses, i would ask unanimous consent for one minute to respond to the comment. is there an objection? >> you can respond. i feel it is appropriate. >> first of all, the issue raised is not timely with this hearing. the point we want to make is that the majority staff has been in discussion on this issue in good faith with the minority staff. you are asking for a double standard. it is my understanding that the minority has had meetings with other witnesses and has not included the majority or provided notice to the majority. if we are going to have a rule about this, it has to apply to both sides equally. if you agree to allow us to participate in your questioning of your folks, we can reciprocate and allow you to question hours. when you were in control in the last congress, republicans were not included in the discussions of witnesses. having put that on the table, i will say that if we can come to an agreement where you are interviewing your witnesses and you invite us, we will invite you when we are interviewing. that will resolve the conflict. i yield back to you. >> it is important to distinguish between consulting with agency experts and bringing in fact witnesses to obtain information related to investigations of an alleged wrongdoing. interviews up nrc employees from which the minority were excluded were fact witnesses regarding our investigation. if we agree that when we interview anyone who has pertinent information on the facts of the investigation, we should all be included. i think your suggestion would be appropriate. my staff has spoken with the three of the individuals who have been entity. each of them spent several hours in these interviews. the reality of what we did is that we spent more time with the same witnesses and we should have been there together. the investigation related to the yucca mountain licensing process, the minority has not conducted any that interviews. there have been documents produced on the committee about this matter. i think you lay out a compromise that should help us reach an agreement. if we are going to have witnesses that are pertinent to the investigation, give us a facts we want to know about. just as we shared documents, we should interview those witnesses together. >> i will just say, i am not the chairman of the full committee. i am is speaking as the chairman of the subcommittee. i will have to run this through the chairman, mr. upton. >> i will have to run it by my committee. my last point is -- if we identify it, we will share it with you. i hope the full committee chairman shares the position you put out and that i suggested affirmatively in response to it. >> the gentleman yield that his time. yieldsl welcome our- -- that his time -- back his time. we would like to recognize congresswoman berkley from the state of nevada. the time is yours. >> thank you, chairman. thank you for inviting me to testify today. let's can write to the point. the people of nevada have been saying no to yucca mountain for one decade. we will continue to shout know until this problem goes away. we do not want our home turned into a nuclear garbage dump. this is more wasteful spending on a $100 billion dinosaur in the nevada desert that should have gone extinct years ago. members of this committee will hear from others who will say that about's efforts to stop this is political. nevada's opposition has always been based on the danger that yucca mountain poses to our state and our nation. the about's resolve has only been renewed based on the true has only's resolve been renewed based on the true danger this represents. the state of nevada had a small delegation. we were unable to protect the state from the 49 others. there is no radiation standards that currently exists. there is no way to create radiation standards to protect the public from nuclear waste with a 300,000 here shelf life. there is a gao report that shows thousands of e-mails that make a mockery of the scientific studies. i would be glad to present those to you. or originally, they were going to store nuclear wastes at yucca mountain. then they realize there were ground water problems. then they were going to use a titanium shield. then they were going to build concrete bunkers that contained the titanium shield that contained the canisters. then, the last secretary of energy in the bush administration said he was going to create an army of robots that were going to go down to yucca mountain because man cannot go down there to protect us from the nuclear waste leakage. they did away with every pretense of science when they eliminated every other consideration as a dump location. people have been trying to silence nevada's criticism. this is an area that has been rocked by violent earthquakes in the recent past. we know the risk it creates. proponents of the dumping shows that water will enter yucca mountain resulting in three days of radioactive materials. people have downplayed the risk of many americans living along the waste route. each canister is an accident waiting to happen. with a mechanical failure or a deliberate 9/11 strike, this threatens to kill or injure americans. it could shut down major portions of our interstate highway and rail system. the fact remains that you could never eliminate the risk for communities unprepared to deal with radioactive contamination. we are talking about shipments passing homes, hospitals, schools for 40 years. at the end of those 40 years, there will be more ways in the cool pods then there was when it began. some amount of nuclear waste will always remain at the nuclear facility. the danger posed must weighed against what is available. containers can remain for the next 100 years until we figure out what to do with this garbage. the nuclear industry is already utilizing dry cask storage. there is no reason we cannot require plants to remove nuclear waste into hardened containers. the nuclear waste issue can be resolved without dumping $100 billion down a hole in the nevada desert. we can do better than something that is incredibly dangerous, decades behind schedule, and whose budget has ballooned with every passing year to a staggering sum even by washington standards. the cost to build an operate yucca mountain would exceed the amount it would cost to move waste into dry caste. it will not mean savings for families in nuclear states. they will continue to pay in the yucca mountain that is slapped on power bills each and every month. i am truly amazed that those who favored yucca mountain continue to demand we open the floodgates and led tens of billions of dollars in additional spending come pouring out. -- let tens of billions of dollars in additional spending come pouring out. the time has come to let this die and to permanently end efforts to breathe life into a program that is too dangerous and too costly for our nation. in conclusion, nevada remains, in case you do not already know, opposed to more wasteful spending on a project that threatens life, the environment, and the economy of my community and others across the nation. i will play my body on the railroad tracks to produce -- to prevent any train from taking nuclear wastes into yucca mountain. we need to find a solution to replace the failed yucca mountain. if anyone who was watching what happened in japan and has the audacity to suggest that in our country, shame on you. germany just announced they were ending their nuclear program because they had no way to store nuclear waste. if germany can figure that out, the united states of america should be able to figure that out, too. [laughter] i yield back the remainder of my time. >> it is a good thing i have a good relationship with the trucking industry. thank you. we appreciate your time and your passion. your opponents have been on this issue for many years. >> i hope to bring you out onto the right side of this issue. >> i think i am. iwould like to read a -- would like to recognize doc hastings. >> thank you for the opportunity to testify regarding the importance of the yucca mountain project. first and foremost, there should be no disputing that yucca mountain is a national repository for high-level defense waste and commercially spent nuclear fuel. congress has voted to reaffirm this decision several times. billions of dollars and many years have been spent studying what to do with nuclear waste. yucca mountain was determined to be the answer. it is the law. some may disagree with the law, but it is the law. the obama administration has acted outside the scope of the law to pursue a politically driven mission to shutdown yucca mountain. time and time again, the department of energy has asked to provide evidence to justify their reason to withdraw the license for yucca mountain. they have been unable to provide any reason, a only saying yucca mountain is unworkable. the nuclear power industry it looks to a future that requires them to store nuclear waste in one place. they are hard at work cleaning up the defense waste as the legacy of our nuclear weapons production program. high-level defense waste is to be a stored at yucca mountain. it makes sense to talk about them together. the state of washington and south carolina have filed a lawsuit challenging the department of energy's ability to with draw the yucca mountain application. the administration continues to before the vote is released on this matter. the gao released a report that the decision to really yucca mountain -- release the yucca mountain is political. today, hanford is the world's largest environmental cleanup project. the department of energy is building, right now, a $12 billion plant that will treat 53 million gallons of high-level defense waste currently stored at underground -- stored in nderground tank atha hanford that are scheduled to be stored at yucca mountain. it is designed to match the geological structure and make up of yucca mountain. increase funds are requested to complete the plant sooner than the 2016 timeframe. taking the goal post at halftime will add risk to the project and has the potential to waste limited cleanup dollars that are difficult to secure. the waste treatment plant must move forward. that requires more than proper funding. it requires yucca mountain. i have an article on this issue that i would like to submit. >> is there an objection? hearing done -- >> the federal government also legal commitment will not be kept. cleanup progress will be jeopardized. with more defense waste scheduled to go to yucca mountain than any other state in the union, the risks could not be more real. richmond is the home to the northwest's only nuclear station. without nuclear mountain, the spent fuel would have to be kept -- without the mountain, -- without that the mountain -- --ca mountain our country cannot afford to waste billions of dollars going back to the drawing board. it is time for the ministration to follow the letter of the law and bring the yucca mountain online. i would like to thank you for the opportunity to be here. with that, i yield back my time. >> each administration has its own priorities with respect to addressing the energy needs of our country, particularly nuclear energy. i lived through the gnp bubble and the current bubble. after spending billions of dollars going into ever- changing directions, how do you sustain a program which a 30 year life time frame in an environment of ever-changing policies? what can we show the taxpayers for our investment? it is not a problem i blame on the department of energy. new administrations and secretaries are nominated to enact their vision on the future. it is the short-term nature of our political cycle and it does not lend itself to solving long- term problems. the way we address this dilemma is by enacting statutes. the statues become the law of the land binding future congresses and administrations. if the administration or congress decides it does not like the current law, if there are ways to change it. in that new law. absent that, the current law binds us all. one of the most glaring decisions is the unilaterally withdraw the license application for yucca mountain. let me be perfectly clear. we know why this decision was made. it was not about science or the suitability of yucca mountain or the need for a geological repository for nuclear waste. it was a promise made during the heat of a presidential campaign. it was pure politics. we could spend days debating the suitability of yucca mountain. there were over 50 scientific studies done on yucca mountain. we know more about this patch of earth than probably any other patch of earth in the world. we could talk about the $15 billion already spent on yucca mountain, the 9.5 down as billion collected from utility consumers and whether that should be paid back to the consumers. as well as the billions paid out from the lawsuit resulting from the government also failure to receive spent fuel. the department energy's decision to release the license was made for political reasons. the president is obligated to follow the law of the land as enacted by congress. the nuclear waste policy act was amended in 1987 to designate yucca mountain as the depositary for high-level nuclear waste. -- as the depository for high- level nuclear waste. i was not in the congress at that time. yucca mountain is still the law of the land. congress has reaffirmed its position. i would ask to put this in the record. 34 recorded votes in recent years in which congress has reaffirmed its support for yucca mountain. i cannot fault secretary chu or others were pursuing this policy decision. they work for the president and he made this misguided decision to ignore the law. based on these simple facts, the licensing board reviewed the administration's request and denied that request nearly one year ago, june 29, 2010. the commission reviewed and voted on the licensing board's decision, but has yet to release its ruling one year later. the nrc is supposed to serve as a watchdog driven by policy and not politics. its reputation has been eroded at a time when its public confidence has been needed most. yucca mountain serves as the clearest example of an ever changing policy that is costing taxpayers billions of dollars and diminishing our ability to advance a long-term energy policy for our country. i thank you for inviting us here today. >> i would like to thank my colleague mr. simpson for joining us. it is the condition of this committee not to follow up with question. ns. thank you for your time and we will see you on the floor for votes. >> without objection, the vote totals that mr. simpson mentioned will go into the record. >> i would like to place ton the first panel, mark gaffigan and peter lyons. we want to thank you for joining us. we will start from my left to your right. your full statement can be submitted for the record. to begin, i would like to ask mr. mark gaffigan, the managing director for the u.s. accountability office, thank you for your attendance. you are recognized for five minutes. >> i am please to be here today. >> can you hold for 1 minute? >> i am still pleased to be here. i would like to summarize my remarks in three areas. the current status of yucca mountain and the nation's nuclear waste policy. the nuclear waste alternatives that have been discussed and lessons learned that my help inform -- that might help and form us as we -- inform us as we go forward. in 1957, the national command of science -- national academy of science first certified the disposal of nuclear waste. acceptable repository has been proven to be difficult. the federal government made a commitment to take the nation's nuclear waste. the department of energy has been debating yucca mountain as a permanent repository. however, after decades of work and expenditures, the department of energy is seeking to withdraw its application. the department of energy has not cited technical or safety issues. it has stated yucca mountain is not a workable option. this decision is being challenged in the courts and by an nrc board ruling that requires the department of energy to continue with the application. the department of energy has proceeded to determine 8 -- to terminate yucca mountain. doe establish a blue-ribbon commission to determine nuclear waste disposal strategies. when identified three categories of alternatives. the first alternative is keeping the waste on site, on 80 different sites in the u.s.. this is our current de facto policy for disposal. it does not address the commitment of the u.s. government to take possession of the ways. taxpayers have already paid nearly $1 billion in legal judgments because of the government also inability to meet its obligation. another $15 billion will be paid out by 2020 with the bill being estimated to be another $5 billion per year coming from the taxpayers. also, with continued on-site storage, the department of energy will not be able to meet commitments to states. this could have negative and packs -- negative impacts. the third option remains a geological repository, the goal of yucca mountain. despite the promise of future technology that may reduce the demands on a geological repository, the best thinking of dexter today is that the matter what, there will be some -- the best thinking today is that no matter what, there will be some way to prominently dispose of -- permanently dispose of nuclear waste. if we are to learn anything from the nation's struggled to implement nuclear waste policy, it is the lesson that public acceptance is just an important a consideration as any technical or safety issues. transparency, economic incentives, and education are important tools in achieving public acceptance of any nuclear policy. funding and leadership will be crucial in successful nuclear waste management. stakeholders have suggested that an independent organization not subject to political changes with a predictable funding stream may be best suited to carry out this policy. in closing, let me emphasize that iany nuclear waste policy will offer benefits and costs and challenges. with the current uncertainty in the nation's nuclear waste policy, those costs and challenges increase with little additional benefits. thank you, mr. chairman. that concludes my opening statement. i have submitted a formal statement. i welcome your questions. >> i would like to turn to mr. freeman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. rather than repeat any of the statistics that have been provided today, let me abbreviate my statement, which contains a synopsis of what we have done at yucca mountain over time. i hope it will be submitted for the record. getting down to the nub of the matter, our work has highlighted issues that continue to get attention from the department management. there have been a number of financial and performance reviews. closure of the project could significantly impact the department's the environmental remediation liability, currently estimated to be $250 billion. we will evaluate the impact of the closure with the ongoing financial work we do with the department of energy. it's a strategy becomes available in the near term, -- the department may be subject to significant assessments due to missing the deadline. more than $800 million have been expended in the treasury judgments for payment to commercial nuclear waste producers. in addition, the department had estimated contingent liability for spent nuclear fuel to be in the billions of dollars. a viable path for nuclear waste disposal becomes more pressing day-by-day. there is an unavoidable reality in increasing the volume of nuclear waste. one draft recommendation from the blue ribbon commission on america's nuclear future said the united states should proceed expeditiously to develop an integrated, comprehensive plan for managing the nuclear fuel cycle. this concludes my statement. i will answer any questions the subcommittee may have. >> thank you. last, but not least, dr. peter lyons. welcome. you have five minutes. >> thank you, members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. i grew up in nevada. when i led the environmental programs, all work on the processing of nuclear fuel reported to me. i am convinced that nuclear energy must remain a part of our nation's clean energy portfolio, an acceptable solution to the nation's management of nuclear fuel is a prerequisite for nuclear power to play this role. the successful management strategy for used fuel must be founded on strong technical criteria and public acceptance. the gao made a similar observation. for example, there are successful repository programs in switzerland, finland, sweden, and france. our own experience with the waste isolation program relies on our success in achieving social and political success. it stands in stark contrast to the yucca mountain project. it is time to move beyond the 25 year-old stalemate over yucca mountain. i accepted this position with full support for the administration's position. let me turn to statements made in the gao report with which the department has serious concerns. gao presumes any alternative would take longer than the yucca mountain repository to implement. the gao report uses 2020 as a firm date. the department has consistently stated that the 2020 date was subject to a number of contingencies offer which the department has no control. there was always considerable uncertainty about when and whether the yucca mountain repository would open. among other things, the opening would require new legislation for land with tall, a san nrc license and a new 300 mile railroad. many related actions hinging on the availability of state issued permits. in shutting down the yucca mountain project, the department of energy is committed to building better and more workable alternatives. as the report notes, the more widely accepted alternative is identified. that is a point secretary chu has emphasized. the department disagrees with the statement that the proposed termination of yucca mountain, which had been planned to be opened in 2020, would prolonged storage at reactor's size and increase storage costs. there is no basis to do soon -- to assume that the closure of yucca mountain would prolong this process. there are other things that could be put in place sooner than yucca mountain might have opened. i would like to highlight and a statement that the department exception with. terminating yucca mountain would mean committees would be less liable to host nuclear waste facilities. with secretary chu's the emphasis on public acceptance, it could enhance the credibility of the department. in conclusion, the department is acting responsibly in determining the yucca mountain project. we can and we should do better than the yucca mountain project. working together, the administration and congress can seize an opportunity to craft a new option with a higher certainty of success. i look forward to the chance to put a successfully -- a successful used nuclear fuel management program into being. >> thank you. i would like to begin my first round of questioning. i recognize myself for five minutes. let's start with mark gaffigan. how much money have we spent on yucca mountain. >> about $15 billion. >> where did that money come from? >> $10 billion from the nuclear program. it is a tax on the rate payers. they pay 1/10 up a cent. -- of a cent.. >> are those fees still being collected? >> absolutely. the taxpayer spending continues. the current estimate is $15 billion through 2020. >> what happens to this liability for each year the repository is not accepting waste past 2020? >> card estimates are 500 billion per year -- current estimates are $500 billion per year. there are about 72 lawsuits and six have settled. there are department of justice costs and about in it. there are costs on the defense side for more storage needed at these events facilities because yucca >> is that the current law? but law says the department of energy must study, characterized suitability and develop a repository at yucca mountain, correct? >> is correct them about a law says. the law says further that doe shelf filing application for a license to construct a repository. >> yes, sir. pilau >> also established the office of civilian radioactive waste management and director for that office, correct? >> correct . >> the law makes clear -- all these questions have been responded affirmatively -- the law actually makes clear doe's duties and act -- obligations and the yucca mountain and those obligations presently are to support the application pending before the nuclear regulatory commission, correct? i'm talking about block. -- on talking about the law. the character -- be very careful about how you enter this. >> that is what the law says. >> thank you very much what provision of nuclear waste policy act, what provision of law is the secretary relying on to withdraw the application? >> i am not a lawyer, asserted our general counsel has reviewed that and believe the secretary has the authority to withdraw the application. >> i think you might need to get with your general counsel. you better be very careful in answering these questions. i'm out of time -- and not out of time but i will finish my questions and i will turn to the ranking member, mr. greene. >> i apologize for being late. i know we finished opening statements and i would like to put my opening statement to the record. i would like to ask consent to place in the record a letter from the blue ribbon commission on america's nuclear future and also from they chair of the board of county commissioners of clark county, nevada. >> without objection, so ordered. >> i thank our panel for being here. i think most of you know that a number of us did a congressional trip to yucca mountain last month. i appreciate the opportunity to view and up close what has been going on since the 1980's. i appreciate the opportunity of the folks from local county to express their concern or their interest in the opening up a mountain. while on the trip, i heard various reports on the cost of building up a mountain. i know and the testimony it was $14 billion? >> we put it all in today's dollars, about $15.4 billion. >> is there any of that that could be recouped if we decided to forget about it and look for another long term facility? >> that money is spent. >> any other opinions from witnesses on the panel? >> we pointed out that the retention of the intellectual property in deride as a result of the expenditures associated with yucca mountain and that is an extremely important focus of the department. hopefully, if the decision is made to terminate the site, there will be a tremendous body of knowledge that will be useful going forward. >> that is certainly our hope and anticipation. >> i would agree with mr. friedman. >> do each of you agree that we should have long term storage facility? >> the national academy of science back to 1957 said we need some permanent form of repository. that is the current thinking today even if we go to new technology. there will be some waste of money to dispose of it in a permanent solution. >> i would agree with mr. gaffigan's comment that i would also a great. -- i would also agree. >> i have some concern because i know the only other alternative is along the texas border and new mexico and we could just the opening another can of worms if we started out there. in nevada nobody runs for office out there supporting up a mountain. i don't know that anybody would run in new mexico if they said they wanted to support a high- level nuclear storage facility in new mexico. that is one of my concerns. we need one and we spent $15.4 billion and now, in the last year and a half, the decision has been made to literally put a fence across it and shut it down. how long would it take us if we started a new right now? did up a mountain start in 1982? the discussion of it, the decision on the site? >> early on, it was one of nine sites that was considered. eventually, that was whittled down to about three sites in 1987. the 1987 amendment directed that only up a mountain be considered. >> when did the decision making stars? >> it is fair to say we have been out -- at this since the mid-1980's. >> i would agree that there was some characterization started before 1982. >> we are talking about 25 years to where we are now. do you think if we decided to do something that would take another 25 years to get there? >> i think it is important to note that as the blue ribbon commission work through this process and evaluates successful models from within the country and in the international community that there may well be approaches to the management as well as the selection that will be suggested by the brc that would lead to a more expeditious movement on this. >> dr. lyons, is it true that the blue ribbon commission was given a mandate not to consider yucca mountain? >> the blue ribbon commission is not a sliding commission. >> but there were given a mandate not to consider yucca mountain. >> they are not a sliding commission. >> is that yes? >> they are not a citing commission. >> no interim storage would be considered with yucca mountain? it amounted could not be considered? >> i did not say that. they are not evaluated -- >> it is my understanding that the blue ribbon commission was given explicit directions not to consider up amounted. >> they are not a citing committee. si they are not. tes. >> they are not considering sites. >> there are two sites in texas where we store the on site. we would hope that we would have some long-term permanent storage i support recycling so we don't have to put as much of their but that is not available in our country that is my concern is that by starting over a year-and-a-half ago, it could be 25 years or maybe longer but we are looking at least 10 years away. many of our temporary storage sites were not designed to be a long-term they are now. >> if i may -- the blue ribbon commission recommend but i cannot speak to what their final recommendation would be. they could recommend interim stores that could lead us to at least useful options for some of the repository could be in operation. >> the chair recognize the vice chairman of the committee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. are the current sites at nuclear power plant facilities above and below ground and concrete containers suitable for safety? >> yes, that is reviewed on a regular basis by the nuclear regulatory commission. >> are they adequate for how long? >> some are good for 30 years or so. >> give me a number. >> 30 years after the cessation of operations at the site. >> i want to keep going. it has taken us 30 years to get this far. does doe maintain a balance of the nuclear waste funds? >> i'm sure they do. >> is a broken down by source? >> i don't have those numbers but i assume it's available. >> can you get is that information? >> we will provide that. >> it's available for the public, make sure it is updated and i would like to know if we can have that information. >> the number is around $25 billion. >> i would like to know how it can be broken down. >> it can be provided. >> what makes you think you can suddenly complete this bite 2020? >> i did not say that. i said we may be able to do it sooner. >> will the termination of yucca mountain prolong the process? >> i said there is a significant question in my mind whether yucca mountain will as to how someone can do it, >> i'm trying to go by the law. the law that congress passed, by the president and going through multiple administration said this was the site that was elected. is there something unsuitable scientifically about the upper mountain site? suitable, yes or no? >> license application was based on technical criteria. >> is it possible, yes or no? >> in ddot judgment, >> you stated that doe noted the application was crucial. i am trying to find out if it is scientifically credible or not. the doe messed this up over the last 30 years. should we set all the work they have done the last 30 years on deciding that yucca mountain is suitable, is that scientific garbage or credible? >> as i indicated, >> i'm trying to find out -- >> it was based on the technical criteria. >> is it scientifically suitable or not? this is not hard to do. yes or no? >> in the judgment of doe, yes but they don't have the final answer. >> that's important. you mentioned some legal counsel. i would like you to provide to this committee all communications regarding the judgment and legal counsel of the department of energy saying they don't have to comply with the law. oral, written, email, anything. it is important have an opportunity, will you provide that for us? >> the department has provided 40,000 pages already. >> it is important we have this parsed out so we understand when someone receives legal advice that they can comply with the law. i hope you can do that. back to the question with regard -- the doe has ruled that the site was suitable back in 2002 and you just confirm that. a reversal will require new physical evidence that the criteria is not suitable and the doe would have to follow steps laid out in the law. do you have that physical evidence that the site is no longer suitable? >> again, sir, as was pointed out in my testimony and by other speakers already, secretary chu has made the statement that a workable solution is public acceptance. >> i'm asking about the facts. we don't get to say that we get to selectively enforced laws based upon the fact that the polls change or we need votes in states. i'm asking you for my scientific -- this is where doe is he a credible or not. i really want to be credible i have the highest respect for the scientists in there. this is an opportunity to be a scientist or go by polling and politics. has there been physical evidence that says the site is no longer suitable which says your compliance by the law says that we cannot use up the mountain and more? >> the license applications based on technical criteria, based on general counsel, the secretary's view is that we have the authority to withdraw. >> i hope you would provide that information to us because that is the crux of what we are doing today. >> we will continue to provide the information >> when we were going over the subject of the cost invested in the program so far, there was an attempt to explain some of the knowledge and the lessons learned. i would remind you that the more you spend on something of doubtful authenticity, the more likely you are to think you have the real deal. if you spend $5 million on a pen and ink sketch of leonardo da vinci, it is likely to be real. if you spend $5, it is likely to be fake. i'm not sure we have a good understanding of the difference of the magnitude. i want to try to see where we can go from here. i want to change the subject a little better than have been present when secretary chu has some that the cost to the american consumer. the fact that we were a nuclear pioneer country in this world and we went down a bunch of different paths and got different designs for different reactors here and there is part of the legacy cost of being a pioneer. he was talking to one of his colleagues in france and the french colleagues said it is simple. we have 80 different reactors. it is a good lesson to learn. we have 80 different waste repositories in this country whether we know it or not and whether we like it or not. we have all our approach toward dealing with the problem for the foreseeable future some of this is what storage, dry storage, some stable, some say for the others. and the american consumer has been paying for this long-term waste repository program that is stopped dead in its tracks right now. 2/3 of the cost has been paid by taxpayers whether they supported or not another 13 of this has been paid by the general fund of taxpayers to begin their income tax to run the government. all the money that has been paid in i gather has been spent and the money is coming in. maybe this is addressed in part to the blue ribbon commission by one addressed to you is what can we do to divert that income strain to provide stability and predictability and safety in the meantime brawl those utilities that are operating these plants now and try to operate these 70 waste repositories on site. for example, the money they are forced to extract from customers in the form of an excise tax can be diverted back to those utilities on the condition they be used to take what stores and chains into dry storage which is inherently unstable, an asset that would not be stranded, something that would have lasting value matter what we do in terms of its long-term repository -- wouldn't that be a useful thing to do in the meantime? >> i would say there are a couple of hurdles. under the nuclear waste policy act, the money is being collected for long-term waste repository. we talked about using a centralized repository. the doe says they can i use it for that. there have to be a change in law and that. the doe is proceeding to collect the money. they are proceeding on the basis of yucca mountain by 2020. mr. alliance may have some doubt about the 2020 date but it is still being used by doe going forward. >> the department and recognizes it has the responsibility for the long-term management of the used fuel. >> i recognize the you have a need to set aside something in the future for the handling he will incur in the future but to have no idea as to what we are handling. might ratepayers are ammonal and our customers are handling it now. the questioning has shined a light on a problem when you have a law that tells you what this policy will be enabled state 25 years to appropriate. if we have a change in law to do anything positive, can we at least open the discussion and put on the table the idea of changes we can agree on to try to manage the problem on site as long as it takes to get our act together? this will require another act of congress to fix for it was seven interim strategy. let's work together on that. i yield back. >> the chair now recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. they are supposed to call but at 2:30. we'll try to get one or two more rounds of questioning. we will have to adjourn because there are three boats in a row. -- three votes in a row. >> the nuclear waste policy act of 1982 created a federal legal obligation to accept nuclear fuel and dispose of it in a deal logic facility, is that correct? >> there was a commitment on the part of the federal government to take possession of the waste and explore a long-term repository. >> is it accurate to say in light of this law that congress resolved how to manage spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste back in 1982? >> bett was a decision made by the congress, that's correct >> the development of the act was not the development of a single congress or some partisan maneuvering, was it? >> no. >> in point of fact, in 1982, when the nuclear waste act was enacted, there was a republican president, a republican senate, and democrats from the controlled the house. in 1987, when congress determined in yucca mountain consistently the top of the top three sites was to be examined for a repository, there was a republican president and democrats controlled the house and the senate. in 2002, leadership of the congress was reversed by congress overwhelmingly result to support up a mountain development 306-17. when the nation, through its elected representatives, result how to solve the nuclear waste problem it did so in a consistently bipartisan fashion. wouldn't you agree? >> those were policy decisions passed by the congress. >> dr. lyons, the department of energy motion to withdraw allied requests application said the secretary has decided that etiologic repository at yucca mountain is not a workable option for long-term disposition. was the secretary's decision based on internal department scientific evaluation by the administration? >> as indicated, the license application was based on the technical criteria and the secretary, in his evaluation, recognize the importance of technical criteria and social acceptance criteria. >> is it based on any scientific evidence that the amount and is not workable? >> no, it was based on the concerned that there were two major criteria. , as i indicated very >> isn't there in fact temple scientific evidence that yucca mountain is scientifically viable? >> that remains to be determined if this moved through the process. in the doe's estimation, when they did -- submit a license, that was their determination. >> has the department determined that the yucca mountain repository is not suitable to meet the relevant safety standards for long-term storage of spent fuel and nuclear waste? >> no, there is no doubt that has been presented along those lines. however, again, the decision has been made to withdraw and the legality of that is being tested for the nrc and the courts. >> in fact, doe still stands behind the quality of its application that the repository can be built and protective of the public health for 10,000 years and more, isn't that the case? much in theadmit as application to the nrc? >> that was the technical criteria and others that were deemed met by the department of energy. >> technically speaking, yucca mountain remains a workable option. why is it not workable in the view of the doe? >> i don't know how else to say it. the secretary, in his view which i agree with, these technical criteria and social acceptance criteria as key to ever moving ahead toward successfully opening a repository. >> what scientific evaluations has doe performed to make this evaluation? >> i just indicated it was a question of social public acceptance. so >> this is the opinion of the secretary. did doe informed of this opinion. was anyone in the white house involved in this decision in any way? >> that was before i was involved. i simply cannot answer to that. i know the secretary certainly had the benefit of general counsel but it was within his rights to withdraw the application and that is now in the courts and the nrc. >> the chair recognizes the chairman americas, mr. dingell, for five minutes. >> mr. gaffigan, we have a situation where the federal government has invested huge sums of money in a thing that we cannot use. we have taxed the daylights out of the ratepayers. how much is that found we have taxed into the rate payers? >> the current balance is about $25 billion. >> , tet we spent of that? >> almost $10 billion. we spent about 10 + there is another $25 billion sitting there. >> got a gigantic hole in the ground. there is a lawsuit going on in this matter, is there not? >> there is, sir. >> the federal government is being sued? it has never progressed to the point where it will lead to a judgment, is that right? >> there was some oral arguments taken in march of this year. the basis of those arguments was whether there was a final action of a government and whether the nrc would rule. that was the gist of the oral arguments for it we have not heard anything cents. >> i'm just a poor polish lawyer from detroit. you have stated. doe officials said they held frequent meetings and focus groups to help drive the shut down. what does that mean? >> we had a hard time knowing what that meant. >> does doe know what it means? >> we think they know what it means. we ask them to document this. they said that a draft plan and a were working on it. >> has the draft plan been submitted to anybody? >> not that i know of. >> it was not completed and the department moved ahead as expeditiously as possible to shut down by the end of fiscal 2010. >> i think it would be nice if you could share with us. would you submit that please? >> i honestly don't know if it a heck is completed. if it is available, yes. >> submit the darn thing to the committee and we will tell you what we think of it. in your testimony, secretary lions, you said the doe takes exception to the statement in the gao report that a final impact of terminated yucca mountain is that the committee may be less willing to host spent to repositories or other storage sites in the future due to further erosion of the doe credibility. you go on to say that on the contrary, a new start could lead to enhanced and of the credibility of the department's approach. i don't mean to make light of a difficult situation but to your knowledge, have communities around the country been volunteering to host a nuclear waste repository? >> yes, sir, there have been communities that have corresponded with us. >> who has volunteered to do this? >> one i know whereof is in new mexico around a carlsbad area. >> is that for high energy waste? >> this is a local community. >> mr. friedman, how much is closing out the amount and project costing the federal government? on a yearly basis or -- >> i'm not sure of the answer to that question. >> which to get that submitted. >> if i can, i certainly will. >> it is not going for peanuts, is it, it is going for lots of money. >> they are finalizing some of the technical studies that have been done. >> how much is it estimated that the clothes out of yucca mountain will impact the department of energy and bar mental remediation liability. do you have an estimate on that? >> we do. >> would you submit that? how much as the united states invested in the yucca mountain project? how much of that was from the nuclear waste fund and how much it was from the federal government? >> it was about 2/3 - 1/3. how much is that come down to? >> $10 billion from the rate payers and $5 billion from the taxpayers. that does not include any judgments. >> i know my questions seem repetitive and everybody who comes up here from the department gets the same ones. we have heard about how much spent nuclear fuel is stored at various sites throughout the country would destroy the damn stuff. we don't reprocesses the way the french do. it costs lots of money. we sit around and you guys, and explain to us and a little while later, someone runs a committee and you explain it to us again. we got a facility here that everybody wants to do something with. we got a resource that we are not using. we are threatening nuclear which is important to this country in an energy shortage and all the problems we have and it seems we have no long-term plan for dealing with spent nuclear waste and the best we can say is that there -- we seem to be proceeding about -- down a dangerous path with more and more of this stuff piled up members of congress need to know what's going on. we need to protect the funds collected and we need to have a long-term solution either stored that will work or reprocessing. when are you going to get to this? this question was going on when i was chairman of the committee. it was going on when i was a young man. wide -- when can i look forward to being young enough that i get an answer on this question? >> the best answer is that is the charge of the blue-ribbon commission. there will have their interim report in july. i'm looking forward to that report and i, too, have been working many years to understand what the long-term solutions acceptable in this country will be. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> to my colleagues, first question -- we have votes on the floor and we will finish with the chairman emeritus for five minutes and then we will recess. what is your pleasure, to ask the first panel to come back because some of you have been waiting to address questions to them or do we go to the second panel? you want the first panel? >> i think you should let this panel come back. >> that is my question. that is what i am posing to my college. i think we will ask you to come back after votes to finish up here. >> i know we have the votes while go to this >>. we have the nuclear waste policy act in 1982 as amended in 1987. that is 29 and 24 years ago. under that law, the nuclear regulatory commission and the department of energy are authorized to find a permanent repository for the high-level nuclear waste from civilian and military applications in this country. yucca mountain has been chosen as the repository. it has been through innumerable hearings, studies but back in 2008, a license application with tender to the nuclear regulatory commission by the department of energy. i think the law gives them four years to make a decision. with the change in the administration, the obama administration last year passed to withdraw the application. the board empowered to make the decision within the application should be withdrawn in an unusual decision chose not to allow it to be withdrawn. we now have a very convoluted process at nrc where we're trying to determine if there is or is not a vote. we're in discussions on a bipartisan basis with the chairman of nuclear regulatory commission on that issue. the purpose of this hearing is to determine what the legal criteria is for the department of energy to terminate the amount in. the distinguished deputy secretary or undersecretary has said that that decision was based on social public acceptance. is that correct? >> secretary chu has testified many times, yes. >> where does it say that social public acceptance is the criteria? >> i didn't say it was in the nuclear waste policy. >> why wasn't a part of the decisionmaking process? >> our secretary with benefit of legal counsel and this is in the courts -- >> the secretary of energy decided that yucca mountain wasn't not acceptable because it was in the desert? would that be a criteria? if he decided he did not like the color purple, with that the criteria? >> the secretary would have substantially stronger criteria. >> i don't think social public acceptance is a criteria. >> as i noted in my testimony, there are many, many actions that are still required if yucca mountain were ever to open. many of those decisions require concurrence is from the state of nevada. >> my understanding is that everybody at your level and above has to pull up your hand and take an oath of office or an oath to uphold the constitution and a fan the laws of the united states. with a current public law that has not been amended that gives the department of energy the authority to tender an application. that application has been tendered. the secretary decided to try it and the board responsible for accepting that withdrawal said no. i would assume that the secretary of energy is knowingly and willfully violated federal law. >> the day after day aslb made that decision, the department decided to review. >> we are not in negotiation but we are in a situation where we are trying to determine what the chairman and the current members of the nrc, just what they decide or not decide to do. that is a convoluted mess if i have ever seen one. >> i cannot comment what is going on at the nrc. this is also in the courts. the legality of the withdrawal will be determined. >> i've got 51 seconds -- if this congress affirmatively states that the application should continue to be reviewed and yucca mountain should continue to be considered according to current law, is the secretary of energy and the president of united states going to honor that law? >> if we are ordered by one of those mechanisms to rezone the license, we have indicated repeatedly in testimony that yes, we can and will. as part of our thinking, congress has not provided any appropriations in f y 2011. >> i have a feeling we will before the end of this year. with that, i yield back. >> we stopped funding for the last air out of 2011. the first part of the fiscal year was under a continuing resolution. >> this is very disturbing on a couple of bases. in the state of washington, my state, we have people did to -- diligently tried to follow their obligations legally and in their profession to get this waste ready to ship to yucca mountain. they will be ready to ship 9700 canisters to yucca mountain. they're doing their job. the department is not doing its job. that is on a local concern. on a national concern, i think this situation is one of a failed state. they talk about failed states around the world. because of the failure to follow the clear block, this is the equivalency of a failed state. we reached a national decision. it is unpopular in a beautiful part of the country as it will be in any part of the country. yet, we cannot execute a decision. this flagrant statement that social acceptance is no legal howeria, i don't understand are we ever to build anything like a nuclear waste repository anywhere in the united states if social acceptance is a mandatory criteria to build something? >> i used the example in my testimony of the waste isolation plant in new mexico which has the strongest local acceptance. i know there are a number of international examples where, with careful education and transparent processing, there has been strong acceptance. do the samet you thing in nevada. ? are you saying there is something unique about nevada that makes it unique in the united states and this will be welcome as rosewater in the rest of the united states? it will smell the same no matter what name we put on it. this is just a failed policy looking for another social acceptance criteria failure around the united states. what evidence do you have that there is any more socially acceptable place for this particular situation? >> i provided the example of a pilot plant which is a different type of repository. it has strong local acceptance. >> in the decisionmaking of the department based on the best science and geology and hydrology, we decided nevada was the best place. now you tell me that we will maybe look for a less-scientific incredible, less-geographically stable, less ideologically elevated -- less hydrologicalally area. regardless of which administration is, this is an abject file failure to follow federal law and is unacceptable. i don't think want to belabor you too many questions. i just want to say it is unacceptable by any administration of any party to make a decision when we are dealing with this amount of radiation based on social acceptance. this is not a winner for this country. >> the vote is being called right now. there are three votes and will probably run around 30 minutes. we will see who comes back. be prepared to answer questions but having done this before, that maybe it for you will but you need to be here if someone wants to ask you a specific question. i will recess this year and subject to the call of the chair. >> next, we will hear opening statements from a panel of witnesses who supported the up a mountain project. this is about 45 minutes. -- who supported the yucca mountain project. this is about 45 minutes. >> we will resume the hearing. i recognize myself for five minutes for my opportunity to question. thank you very much for being here today and your time to share with us. based on previous testimony by dr. lyons, there was a great deal of discussion regarding social acceptance as it pertains to the yucca mountain license. mr. gaffigan, can you cite any precedent for social acceptance theory? >> not in nuclear waste policy. >> mr. friedman, can you cite social acceptance criteria? >> not that i'm aware of. >> and dr. lines, can you cite statutory authority for social acceptance? >> not something statutory authority but what i have tried to indicate is the number of steps that would be required to ever open yucca mountain. these are steps that nevada is an opposition to. i believe they could successfully blocked that bet you would agree there is no statutory authority for social acceptance? >> not specifically in the nuclear waste policy act. >> the answer is no, then? >> no. >> thank you. what is the theory of your legal counsel and he believes that social acceptance is a valid criteria? >> the secretary has outlined that many times. the briefs that are -- our general counsel has filed either with the nrc or in the court cases, those are available to your staff -- your staff has been very bad spells out the position of the general counsel. i will not try to repeat it. i am not a lawyer. >> mr. friedman, your role as inspector general, what is that role in a nutshell? >> i have four responsibilities. one is to act as an independent set of eyes and ears for the secretary and the congress and two is to bring to justice those attempting to defraud the people of united states and three is to be independent fact finder in high-profile controversial matters and four is to give the american taxpayers a citadel when foreign decisions are made. >> do you believe the social acceptance criteria is a valid theory? >> i don't know how to answer. you asked me whether i thought it was in the statute and i don't believe it is, per se. i would have to say is somewhat questionable from a legal standpoint. i am not a lawyer and will not make a legal judgment. >> as the inspector general, do you believe one of your role is to expect or perhaps a visit with the secretary's office about the social acceptance criteria they are using? >> we also have a responsibility under the ig statute not to overlap or duplicate what gqao has done. it is fair to say that the gao report which has been a major topic of this hearing has addressed that issue, essentially. >> he stated that it is likely that determination of the upper mountain project will signal the coming impact the environmental remediation liability which is currently estimated at $250 billion in future cleanup costs. have you seen any evaluation by the department regarding how these decisions will affect the liability? >> no, i indicated my long testimony, my complete testimony that we will be looking at this as the department prepares its financial statements for the current fiscal year. it will be responsible for coming up with a revised estimate which will reflect their judgment as to the impact of the closure of yucca mountain on the liability. we will be reviewing that carefully at that time. >> the department of energy's rison action to dismantle its nuclear stockpile will increase the volume of nuclear waste. how has the department planned to accommodate this waste as it shuts down the amount in? down at yucca mountain? >> my understanding is that the current inventory of waste in that category exceeded -- exceeds even the 10% of yucca mountain that was reserved for that purpose originally. there are lots of proposals right now to compact the waist, to mix it with itdown-blend i t, if you will. >> did the department of energy consider whether its role would be compromised by its decisions on yucca mountain? >> that obviously is a very fundamental issue. that is outside my area. i don't know the answer to question. >> do you know if doe did any analysis? >> i have not seen such analysis for the department recognizes its responsibilities for defense of high-level waste. that is never been in question. >> my time has expired the chair recognizes mr. kaskey for 5 minutes. >> [inaudible] around june 29, that there was a judge that the department of energy did not have the authority to close the amount in. >> june 29, 2010. >> yes, but you did anyway. does the rule of law have no say so? does the attorney you sought an opinion from trump the administrative procedures set up? >> the atomic safety licensing board decisions are reviewed by the safety board. i was no longer on the commission at that time. that moves the responsibility -- >> the commission has not yet issued its report and frankly, there are some allegations of politicization of the process. was there a state upon the ruling of the preliminary administrative court, june 29, 2010 borders? was there a stay up on that? the ruling has not yet been released but clearly you are disregarding it. >> not being a lawyer, i don't want to get into what a state is in this case. i stayed as accurate that they department as -- the commission has taken this view. >> you presented the action of the commission, if you will. that was because they had not issued a ruling by you have shut down the amount and even though you were told you do not have legal standing to do so. it is fundamentally the question before the taxpayers. with his blue $10 billion. it does not look like you had legal standing. i don't mean to be rude but imagine the frustration. the complete testimony of mr. friedman and the written portion speaks of a process whereby after you disregarded this the atomic safety board ruling and decided on october 1, 2011 to shut it down, you declared an abandonment of 22 metric tons? >> you may be referring to the gao report. >> i thought was your report. >> it was some property that was declared abandoned. >>computers, office equipment, trailers. >> that was up of value by bulk and by value. why did you just declared abandoned? -- declare it abandoned its? ? >> those decisions were carefully reviewed by our general counsel. abandonment is one of the mechanisms by which property can be disposed. the department was certainly working on an expedited schedule to complete the shutdown within fiscal year 2010. i should say there is a complete inventory under way now. as we go into the closeout process, there will be a reconciliation. >> one of the two men had testament which said it was a rather hasty shut down. he said the gathering of information that would of been beneficial woodbridge it was not done. the gao he if and gaig and wanted to shut down in 2010. we raised concerns about that. >> it really looks like there was an attempt to abandon the process in a way in which it could not be restarted. >> absolutely not, as each decision has been made along the way, the technical justification for that must be recorded in writing. >> who made the decision to abandon tons of material including things that could have been sold for scrap or given to other federal agencies? who made that decision? >> it was an evaluation on the prospective value of the property. i believe both of the reports in question now to that of the majority of this equipment in question was transferred to other doe sites. >> i thought i saw it was abandoned. >> it is declared abandoned but under that process, they can transfer to other sites. most of it got transferred internally. it was considered unusual but doe had the authority to do that. our recommendation was that in some cases they did not have a good inventory. they say they are working on it and we should have a full accounting. we still think that remains to be done. lastly, we think they should consider a plan to restart if they are compelled to do so. those recommendations. >> the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for five minutes. >> i thank the three witnesses for their testimony today. i am sorry i could not hear their testimony in its entirety. i will work with my staff on literature transcript as we go forward. mr. chairman, by any assessment, this is a very, very complicated issue. it is clear to me that the department of energy's decision to withdraw its application for yucca mountain is the cherry on top of a greatly mismanaged federal exercise. i generally believe that the department of energy should follow the process laid out by the act and maintain focus on the technical and scientific elements of yucca mountain rather than the political considerations. i am a realist and i understand all politics are local and if any of our respective constituencies came to us and said this is our number one issue, we would certainly fight tooth and nail to stop it even if the focus should be technical in nature. notwithstanding, in north carolina, which contributed $900 million of their hard-earned money to help finance the construction of a permanent repository for our nuclear waste. i believe a nuclear power. i have said time and time again. mexico over 30% of my states generating capacity. i am embarrassed to tell my constituents that their contribution has amounted to very little. we appear to be in no better position solving this problem as we were when we started splitting atoms. we have a responsibility to see that this process -- to see this process through and make it a high priority. the left -- let's talk about the options set out by the gao. he stated that an independent organization with predictable funding might be a way to overcome some of the administrative issues we have had with yucca mountain. what an independent organization have decreed by statute or does the administration have the authority to create it? >> no administration currently or separate authority exists. it would have to be created. >> you might grant this agency a predictable mandatory funding for eventually, the decision for the repository will be inherently political and we understand that. that said, outside of funding, how could this independent agency be able to overcome the political hurdles with any greater efficiency than the department of energy? >> we had two lessons learned and that is part of it. perhaps some consistent -- leadership that consistent policy where we are going would be a mechanism to get there. overcoming the many factors including public acceptance which is recognized by many as a hurdle that should be addressed as well as the technical and safety issues, the key to those sorts of things is transparency, education, economic incentives. those are some of the tools that have been used in other countries to gain acceptance for such a sight. >> you talked about greater transparency in the process. where did you see historical transparency? >> it goes back to the 1960's when they looked at a facility in kansas. there was a feeling on the part of the folks out there that there was not full disclosure of what the information was. even at yucca mountain, their complaints about not full disclosuredoe has worked on that and tried to establish credibility. they still have a ways to go. >> the american people may not take notice of this issue based upon the spent fuel into a loan. i guarantee you that they will notice when the cost of not completing the project becomes known. mr. friedman, in your testimony, i'm told by my step that you stated that the u.s. nuclear fuel spent capability is approximately $10 billion. if yucca mountain is scuttled, when will the government have to make these payments and to home? >> i don't know the answer to your question. i cannot give you a precise date. there will be payments that will have to be made. our view is that it is likely there'll be a significant increase in the gross amount of the payments. >> will my constituents and the chairman's constituents and all of our constituents ever see any refund of the money they have contributed to this date? >> that is not for me to say. if this project comes to a close, if there is a legislative fix or amendment or a series of amendments or new legislation, it would not surprise me that there would be some attempt to try to reimburse those who have made those contributions only to see them go for naught. >> my time has expired. >> the chair recognizes mr. bass of new hampshire. >> the answer is, the only way you can get your money back is to open this project. lots of questions have been asked today. i have to say i almost feel sorry for you, dr. lyons. you know what is going on here. everybody in the audience knows what's going on here. the democrats and all the republicans know what is going on here. it is unfortunate that we even have to have this hearing. the process of debating what to do with high-level and low-level nuclear waste began when i was a state representative in new hampshire in the early 1980's and i believe there was a sight in a venture that was under consideration in the earlier rounds. we've gone through an excruciatingly detailed and complete analysis. we passed legislation. there have been battles that have occurred through different administrations and different parties have been in charge. it has been bipartisan and we have come to as good a conclusion as we could possibly come to to solve this issue which is of great national importance. and then, the energy secretary and the president and perhaps others that have a political interest in this issue stopped the project, potentially incurred expense of legislation , spent $25 billion of taxpayer money on the basis of on defined technical criteria and social acceptance which is an interesting comment. they deferred everything to a blue-ribbon commission that cannot consider any sites. what we are proposing is that the clock wound back to the early 1980's and we begin this process over again. you are the vendors secretary for nuclear energy. you cannot make any comments. can you define social the exceptions and what it is? i know you cannot answer these questions because there are no answers. there are not any valid criteria for doing what you're doing, but give it a try. >> i am the assistant secretary, not the undersecretary. i grew up in nevada. i saw the opposition in nevada growing. i saw this as it was created. i have watched this over many, many years while nevada has progressively block the to the various initiatives that was attempted with regards to yucca. in my view, there are many steps that remain before it can be used. using the buzzword of social is that i believe this will continue to block progress for opening up yucca mountain. >> a i'm understand that there are no members from nevada here, but there is any place you can build this without local opposition in your opinion? >> i used to the plan in a mexico that enjoys very, very strong local and regional support. the way that process developed, as well as the way the suppositories have been issued i think provides extremely important lessons on how to do this job right and to generate the public acceptance, which i'm convinced can be achieved. >> i beg to differ with you. i think that it has been pretty clear. the gao and inspector general, we will hear in the later panel, that this project was ready to go. the taxpayers had funded it. they were going to be on the hope for billions and billions of dollars and the justification for its, hopefully, suspension and not termination are, as of yet, and define technical criteria, social the acceptance criteria, and political criteria. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. that concludes the testimony of our first panel. thank you very much for your time and commitment to be here today and bearing with us. we will stand in recess subject to the call of the chair. we have valine four-o'clock markup and we will give you as much information on when we will reconvene. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> next, opening statements from a panel of witnesses who supported the yucca mountain project. this is about 45 minutes. >> let me apologize and welcome the second panel. there was clapping as i was coming down the hallway. i thought people must loves me. they just wanted to get the hearing back going on. i will call the hearing to order and we want to welcome our second panel. could you start? >> we apologize, but i am very excited to have the second panel here. in order of, again, from left to right, on and on two, we have mr. charles hollis, good to see you again, sir. behalf of thend on state of nevada, welcome. mr. white and mr. chris counts -- kouts. again, your full statement will be submitted for the record and you have five minutes. we will start with you, mr. hollis, and welcome. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and members of the committee. thank you again for the opportunity to testify about local support in nevada about yucca mountain. i am gary hollis and i am the chairman of the county board of commission in nye county. yucca mountain is within my county. this testimony reflects the views of the other four county commissioners as well. these are also the views of many political and local leaders in rural nevada. mr. chairman, we deeply appreciate that you, congressman green, and others took the time to visit him at the mountain and meet local people in nevada. as you learned, there are many of us who live next to yucca mountain to support the completion of the licensing process. most of us who live in the vicinity believe the decision should be made based on sound science. this can only happen if a full review by the nuclear regulatory commission is done. if the nrc deems the repository save, i favor the construction. i am sure you understand that no one is more concerned about the safety and welfare of nine county than me and the other four commissioners. it is mine community, my family, my friends who live and work here. i would never accept a federal facility in my county if i thought it was unsafe. no matter what the economic benefits are attached, frankly i resent such suggestions that any of the commissioners would jeopardize the health and safety versus since for any sum of money. that would not happen on my watch. when congress passed the 1987 amendment to the nuclear waste policy act, it provided money for local communities to find oversight activities. nye county use that money to create an independent science program. we had on biased scientists conduct of the work. after years of effort, they found no reason to believe that the repository could not be built and operated safely. we have provided them permission to the department of energy and the public. our work was top-quality and the results were made available to everyone. to get the full picture, we need to see the evidence from every source. that includes information from icap, d.o.t., and r c, and the state of nevada. -- d.o.e., nrc, and the state. this determination can only happen if the licensing process is complete. mr. chairman, if the nrc determines the cannot be built and operated safely, i would be the first person to object to its construction. i only ask that all the facts and the sciences reviewed by the nrc and it is carried out. let the facts and dictate the results, not politics. my views are shared by leaders of other rural nevada counties. upon being elected last year, one nye county commissioner initiated a resolution for support of the licensing and we worked with the surrounding counties to do the same. these six world counties that would see the most impact from yucca mountain -- six rural counties called on nrc to complete the process. we're willing to live by the results of a fair scientific review. i would ask to be able to put six of these in the record. >> is there any objection? so ordered. >> a majority of the residents of the county support a license application. mr. chairman, let me point out that all five nye county commissioners express support. all were elected or reelected by our citizens. therefore, it is not accurate to say that there is no local support for yucca mountain. the people who live in the neighborhood to support the completion of the licensing process. i am available to answer any questions you may have the and i am here with two of the counties technical professionals here to answer questions as well. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i would now recognize mr. malsch for 5 minutes. check your microphone before. through this. >> i appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony. my name is martin malsch. i have practiced law in the nuclear energy field for over 40 years in both the public and private sectors. i am a special deputy attorney general for the state of nevada. the failure of the yucca mountain repository program is a direct result of decisions taken almost 25 years ago. a decent respect for history would suggest that those decisions crated a very high risk of program failure, but the lessons of history were disregarded. the original 1982 waste policy act foresaw many of the problems that now affect the amount and program. among other things, it sought fairness in redundancy by requiring multiple sites from which to choose alternate locations for the repository and its struggle for equity by setting up a site selection programs for two facilities, one in the west and one in the east. all was scrapped in 1987. congress decreed that all efforts must now focus on just one site in nevada and they did so notwithstanding incomplete scientific information and the fact that now spent reactor fuel and waste from all regions of the country would now be sent to a single western state. after 1987, there was only one possible site, and inevitably as more and more money was spent to became progressively more difficult to admit that your command and had been a mistake. what we know now that we did not know in 1987 is that it will reach the site in the 50 years, not the hundreds of thousands of years that was originally thought. we now know that yucca mountain is not dry. total water seepage will be as much as 130,000 kilograms per year. these, and other serious problems, led to more exotic and doubtful engineering taxes. it appeared likely that they could not satisfy certain licensing requirements said they were eliminated. these actions by congress and by the epa, department of energy, and nrc destroyed the program. public opinion had been mixed with regards to yucca mountain and it is now solidified into strong, consistent opposition. and the biannual survey is done between 1989 and 2010, opposition has remained constant in between 63%-70%. there continues to be some support, such support cannot be extrapolated to the wider nevada population. taken together, the six counties sometimes cited some interest comprised only a small fraction of the state's population. and in 2002, nevada evaluated a prospective repository and that report documents the potential, among other things, for significant risk to the tourism-based economy, and losses resulted with transportation. while that can be difficult to find an alternate project, there is no sense now in spending good money after bad. doe is finding it yet the mountain is unworkable and the establishing of the commission to look for alternatives for the management and storage of spent fuel were all of the right and lawful things to do. they have the potential to but the county on the path to a safer, more cost-effective way to manage the spent fuel. thank you, mr. chairman, and i will be pleased to answer any questions. >> the chair now recognizes, mr. white. you have five minutes. welcome. >> data bank -- i would like to thank you for your working on this issue. i am here for the national association of regulatory utility commissioners. i have been involved with this issue of disposal from spent fuel from commercial reactors and shortly after the policy act was passed in 1983 which established a policy that the federal government has the responsibility for the safe and permanent disposal of government and commercial waste and that the customers to benefit from the electricity benefited from nuclear power a for the commercial share of the disposal cost. that was the deal and we agreed to that deal. the fee payments to the nuclear waste fund began in june 1983 as required by the nuclear waste policy act. that is the only component of that program that has ever worked as intended. nearly 30 years later, the federal government has our money and we have their waste. when the department of energy's submitted a licensing application to the nuclear regulatory commission in june 2008, we knew it could take three or four years to carefully review the safety and other aspects of this facility. we run unprepared to learn that more than 20 years of steady and $15 billion spent at a different secretary of energy would withdraw the licensing application with prejudice in the march 2010 with no indication that the site was on say for the application flawed. instead, the motion to withdraw stated only that if the mountain was considered "not a workable option." the department of energy took other steps to terminate the of the mountain project documented in the april report of the gao including disbanding the office of civilian radioactive waste management that had oversaw the program. we have a question with the site to disband this project. they requested new appropriations for fiscal year 2011 or 2012 except for the support for the blue ribbon commission on america's nuclear future. when the nuclear energy institute and the national association of commissioners suggested that the secretary of energy suspend fee payments by utilities to nuclear waste funds in 2009, it was the night with an unconvincing pronouncements that of these are essential. they have the sense appealed that decision which is pending. we can only speculate how much time and money it will take the u.s. to be able to accept spent fuel for disposal, but it is likely to be decades. at seems essential that we seek out and develop one or more interim storage facilities to take the used fuel from the sides were reactors are currently shut down in the properties can not be decommsioned because of the wast such as big rock in michigan. regardless of what storage, transportation, or solutions the blue ribbon commission may recommend, they will need a certain and reliable financing support. concerning the financial impacts of terminating a mountain, and more predictable option would enhance waste management and an independent organization that said the department of energy could be more effective in determining a permanent repository. if yucca mountain's termination is sustained, this means starting over to develop a repository since there is clear consensus that least one site is needed in all some areas. unfortunately, there are too many unknowns in the forecast, how long it would take to authorize a search, and select, license, design, and construct and be able to deposit, yet another 20 years seems to be highly conservative. with that, i conclude my testimony and make myself available for questions. thank you. >> the chair will now recognize mr. kouts for 5 minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm the former principal deputy director for the department of energy's now defunct office of civilian radioactive waste management. i appreciate the ability to be here and i will focus on new recently released the gao report that was discussed earlier by mr. gaffigan. as background, for 25 years, i served in various technical positions in every program area within the office. i became the principal deputy director in 2007 and was the acting director from january 2009 until i retired after 35 years in federal service. while serving in the program, are reminded daily of the formidable challenges given to the program by the nuclear waste policy act. as impatient as those have been with its progress, i believe that ending the attempt to establish disposal or interim storage facilities outside of the confines of the act will be met by many new and more vexing challenges regardless of the organization or entity established for the effort. why would any never be more problematic? the answer for that lies in what society has changed in instance communication flow. the internet was not in any place in the 1980's and email was not available to the general public nor did the social media exist. the to a divorce last 7 news -- the 24/7 news cycle will allow for tehe spread of disinformation. the state of nevada has given the way for this to happen -- delay, delay, delay. accordingly, the timeframe of decades now did in the gao report is nothing more than notional. it does not appear to stand from the changes that have occurred since the 1980's. the report suggests that an independent entity to be more successful. the grass is always greener. it is also my belief that congress should have the final word on facility sites and that ultimately any decision will be political and former by thorough technical evaluation, just as in the case of yucca mountain. it is difficult to understand the gao report its so-called benefit to for the department of energy the opportunity to explore other approaches. the department of energy has no authority at said the confines of the act and history has shown the consensus needed will not come easily or quickly. because of the development of yucca mountain has been contentious the protracted, it is being suggested that only consensual sites should be pursued. i would submit to the subcommittee, the experience in this area proves otherwise. in my experience, they have consistently expressed concerns that do to the very long time frame repository programs take to develop, and a political consensus can evaporate with the one election, just as it has with the amount to. at the end of the day, implementing the program requires steady, consistent national leadership. the administration's decision to terminate yucca mountain is disturbing because yucca mountain has not any technical regulatory test. the thousands of scientists and engineers and others to of work on the project over the years believe this should meet the stringent regulations of the epa and the nrc. given the substantial investment that has been made in the policy that has been supported by every prior administration since 1982, i believe the nation deserves the final and definitive answer regarding yucca mountain for the licensing progress. thank you for the opportunity to discuss these issues and i would be pleased to answer any questions the subcommittee has. >> recognize myself for five minutes for the first round of questioning. mr. hollis, welcome. i think in my visit out there, my second visit, i think it was even better that i drove than when used to fly a helicopter out there because it gave me an idea of how far the definition of "local" is. the site of the federal property that consists of yucca mountain, how big is that land mass? >> the county is about 18,000 square miles. >> i was told that the federal property the blm, the doe, is of tehe size of the staete rhode island. >> just about but that does not account for the farming range. >> so it is a large aside. the mountain itself is not on the outskirts of this federal land mass. it is my recollection that we went through the gate and we still drove 10-15 miles to get there. is that true? >> the site itself, half of it is on the nevada test site and a half of it is on blm. >> so how far of a drive is not from the security gate? >> if you went in and around mercury, the gate we used to use is now closed. you probably drove 5 miles from that day to try and get to a place near the mountain, which would be my gas. -- my guess. >> where is your county's seat? >> 165 miles to the county seat . >> the town i visited, is that the closest community of size? >> approx. 34,000 and tehe county is 43,000. >> so you are local. >> yes. >> so if we want to talk to local individuals, in driving from las vegas, -- in illinois, it is about 90 miles. is that not the distance? >> it's about 135 miles. >> no one would say we are local to springfield. we appreciate you being here and a "local" voice in this debate. all you are asking for is the nrc to make a decision. >> correct. >> hwe had tehhe commissioners here. we felt the nrc has voted and we want to know the result. >> absolutely. >> and you speak for counties closer to las vegas? >> all the counties aroudnd yucca that have an impact. those six are the ones i'm talking about and i have resolutions in support of. >> mr. kouts, you mentioned you were in the office of civilian radioactive waste management which was enacted by what statute? >> the nuclear waste policy act of 1982. >> that lot is still valid. correct? >> yes, sir. >> who is in charge of and how many people are in the civilian radioactive waste management agency now? >> 0. >> would it be your opinion that if there is no one of killing the world that law that we are not abiding by a lot? >> although i am not a lawyer, it would seem to me the department is not following certain laws. >> how long would it take to reconstitute the office and reach an answer on how much that will cost? >> let me preface my estimate by saying that this all presupposes that the department did not demolishing the office as they tried to demolish the licensing process with impunity. basically, the motion that they filed was with prejudice which meant that if, indeed, if it was withdrawn, that it could never be resubmitted. if the department has treated the office that way, it will take many years. if the records are in reasonable shape and if you can coax the staff, not the federal staff, but the contractors and scientific staff mack and you can get a law firm to direct the licensing process, having said that it would probably take two or three years to reformulate the office and get it in a position where they could begin to defend the licensing. from that point, it would probably take, assuming they have issued reports, probably least another three years to get a final answer out of the commission. that would be about five or six year time. as my estimate assuming that they did not terminate the office. >> thank you very much. i would like to recognize the vice chairman of the committee, mr. murphy, from pennsylvania. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i wonder if you can tell me your background. you are an engineer by trade? >> two degrees in engineering and a licensed professional engineer. >> he worked with the department of energy? >> i joined the department of energy in 1978 and i join the program in 1985. >> and when you say the program you mean yucca mountain? >> the office of civilian radioactive waste management. i lived through all of the challenges through the act and i lived in the program was in the program during virtually its entire existence. >> and you're familiar with the legislation passed into law by yucca mountain? >> a very familiar. >> to have read it? >> many times. >> have you read anything about the social acceptance for these? >> i have read it many times and i never found anything like that in there. >> are you familiar with the department of energy or anyone ever using that as a standard to override a scientific or legal information? >> only the current secretary of energy. >> you heard the previous testimony multiple times relating to their counsel and the sector of energy saying that was the standard they were going to use. that reminds me of standards used with the white house look that changing some of the other mandates and regulations that, for social aspects of this as well. i'm curious as we go through this if you have any idea of any standard in engineering and of where this is applied anywhere else in the universe that we are familiar with the. perhaps the solar system. >> i am not. i think the irony of all this, as the nye county commissioner represented, there is acceptance of a repository there and they are concerned about safety, but bottom line, just as dr. lines indicated, that the local community around carlsbad would like it and i do not think that community is any difference in that regard than carlsbad. again, i do not understand the standard. i was not involved in those conversations, so your guess is as good as mine. i mention that scientists are trying to find a safe place to put nuclear fuel. it is a ford is now, but not long term. the department of energy describes the 25-year stalemate. do you agree with those terms? >> it cannot believe it has been a stalemate, but a very contentious process and i would not deny that, but i do not believe it was a stalemate. >> these 25 years were not spent the people just wringing their hands. >> and we had a great victory and submitted a license application in the 2008, so i would not look at that as a stalemate. unfortunately, the truncated licensing process, but i believe the nation deserves an answer on yucca mountain. >> as far as you can tell, from your knowledge and experience, that answer has not been forthcoming other than to say they are looking for consensus or social aspects on this? but we have not seen any scientific, legal, any information that would counter- indicate what has been put forward at this time? >> the answer is now. as long as i was principal deputy and acting director, i was never asked for any technical information regarding the site, so my assumption was that technical information was not part of the secretary's decision making process. had anyone else in my program dynast, i would have none. bottom line, to my knowledge, the secretary decision will not a technical one. he must have used other criteria, since i was not part of the decisionmaking process, i cannot comment. >> with that, i will yield the back of. >> the chair recognizes ranking member mr. green from taxes. -- from texas. >> we had a mark above the full committee downstairs. i also met with the chair on a pipeline from canada legislation that we are working on. i appreciate and energy is really important where i come from. i appreciate the opportunity a few weeks ago to come out and tour yucca mountain. i supported it for my entire career, and it was good to see on the ground what was happening. mr. kouts, through mentioned the potential problems with restarting the process, and i am concerned about that process. you mentioned your disagreement and the gao recommendation that the congress should have final say. you also take issue with the blue ribbon committee and their potential recommendations? >> of your asking my opinion on the preliminary recommendations of the blue ribbon commission, i would say three words. predictable, disturbing, and amusing. let me try to explain why. predictable and in the sense that if you read the president's executive order, it is very clear that the president had made up his mom -- mind that yucca mountain was not an option. he talked about the last 25 of his years has been unworkable, and it was a very clear to the commission about what his views were. what can matter then was that yucca mountain was not on the table and they wanted to restart the process. that is the troubling part of it. i do not think anyone that the commission really understands what it would be like for this country to go through another process to find a repository. it was a gut wrenching time in the department of energy. as i indicated, now with the social media that we have and the opportunity for disinformation, it will be magnitude more challenging than back in the 1980's. and the amusing aspects of the preliminary recommendations is that it took so long for them to come up with their predictable, disturbing conclusions. >> mr. hollis, thank you for being here today. thank you for your hospitality. we had a brief meeting and you mentioned your desire to see yucca mountain proceed as the area is protected and you mentioned resolutions passed. can you discuss the resolutions and further explain the position of your county? >> the six resolutions are just asking the department of energy and the nuclear regulatory commission to finish the process. let's finish the licensing application. that is what we are supporting. we want them to finish their job. we cannot make evaluations of the safety of the mountain without the evidence and we want all of the evidence. the evidence is that the nuclear regulatory commission has to follow the licensing application. passed to be completed before we will now. if this is -- if that is on save, i will be the first one to stand up and say no. if it is safe, i will be the first to say let's do this. >> i typically go with the people who live in the neighborhood, and you are as close as you can get. mr. white, your testimony discussed the need to develop one interim storage facility and you suggest one of nine potential locations where reactors have been shot down. can you go further in any detail on this suggestion and talent could help solve our ease the burden of our nuclear storage dilemma? >> there are a few different aspects to that question. one of the things we're really concerned about is the fact that the program has not performed at all. we have nothing. we have nine sites around the country where they have shot down reactors and many of those plants, for example, big rock in decommissioned and all that is left is an independent spent fuel storage facility and it is a dry cask. we cannot return the property to productive use, so we think there could be some lessons learned if we could consolidate at least those nine flights -- sites into one location. it would achieve savings. the people who own those sites are paying those costs continually despite the fact that they're no longer generating electricity. >> you also discussed financing the disposal of nuclear waste. if the nuclear waste fund were not used for the purpose to discuss, what what alternative means for financing disposal be? part of this came out from the rate payers, including my area, and part of it came from general revenue. where would we get the other funding? >> that is a good question, and i do not have the answer. we agreed it to, what i call, the deal, where customers would pay the cost, the beneficiaries of the nuclear generation would pay for the cost of the program. what we are frustrated by is that we have paid and paid and have nothing to show for it. i can argue that the customers paid for the design of the spent fuel pool and three consolidation and the federal government had not taken the waste. we pay to get a mine that was removed and put into dry casks. we've been paying all along with nothing to show for it. mr. chairman, and a matter what happens with the yucca mountain, we still need a nuclear waste disposal facility. the president supports alternate energy and secretary chu gave testimony that we would be unable to meet those goals of we do not invest. part of that is also finding a place to have a permanent storage, and we need to have it stored safely somewhere. if not yucca mountain, then we do not want members of congress 25 years later asking where we will put this. it is still sitting in sites all over the country. thank you for the hearing. >> i think my colleague and now i want to recognize congressman whitfield from kentucky to chairs the energy subcommittee, so very knowledgeable on energy issues. >> i hope i can let your expectations. >> i hope so, too. >> thank you for being here, we really appreciate it. i think is very difficult, myself, to come to any conclusion except that this administration is ignoring the law. the policy act in 1982 did set this up, and in 2002, yucca mountain was approved as the site. for this administration to pull back its application for construction, authorization for construction, before any decision has been made, it seems to me that it is a violation of the law. would you agree with that? >> let me preface by saying i am an engineer who has read the act, but i tend to agree with the administrative law judges at the nrc who could not find any basis for the secretary to withdraw. there was a flaw in the license application, but then i think the secretary could pull that back, fix it, resubmit, and adjust to withdraw with prejudice and say that it will never be submitted again, i certainly do not see that authority in the act. >> and then the construction authorization board agreed because they refused to allow them to withdraw the application. that was in june 2010. we have had one year for the commissioners to take this issue up and make a decision, and i think anyone who has heard the chairman testify would certainly walk away with the conclusion that he is simply dragging his feet. termsf the commissioners' of expire may be at the end of this month and he knows that the appointment of the next commissioner will be voting with him. yet, to do that, it is violating the policy act. even just the reasonable interpretation is that this is nothing but politics. then i heard you answer mr. murphy and say that you were the acting director of the office of civilian radioactive waste management. at the secretary was going to withdraw this application, it would appear that he would come to you for some technical information, and yet you testify that he did not do so. is that correct? >> that is correct. he did not. >> of the did not want technical information and making a decision to withdraw, what kind of information which the need to make a decision like that? >> i could give you my experience of the program, having been there for 25 years, and i was there for my career. over the years, have been involved in lots of meetings and have been told to attend lots of meetings. the one that's been told not to attend are those among political appointees were they discuss political issues. my assumption, since i was not invited in the decisionmaking process, was that those types of decisions were going on. there was not one appointed, said there was no one from the program politically appointed in those meetings, but that was my assumption because i was not involved. >> the logical conclusion is that it was political and it was done to help harry reid. the american people are the ones who will suffer from this. over $15 billion has been invested already and ratepayers for utilities are paying fees for this. taxpayers are now legally liable to pay over $15 billion in judgments against the federal government because they cannot live up to the responsibilities of the policy enacted in 1982. it seems to me -- and then you take the six counties closest to the repository, as mr. hollis has testified, actually in support of the nuclear regulatory commission, at least going to the process to make a final decision. they have adopted resolutions to that effect. i do not think there is any question that this is bad news for the american people. it is costly. it is probably a violation of the policy enacted in 1982. time hasntleman's expired. mr. kouts, we appreciate your testimony and we think the analysis supports your finding. yucca mountain is the most studied place on the planet, and i think you were there for most of it. i just want to remind the second panel that the record will remain open for 10 days. this hearing may be followed up by individual questions by my colleagues. if you could then answer those and get them back to us as expeditiously as possible. we would appreciate it. we will continue to move forward on addressing these, obviously, disconcerting events that many of us question the mentality of and we look forward to -- question the legality of. we look forward to entering another voice of what the vast majority representatives of this constitutional republic would like to do based on previous agreements and laws that have been passed. we thank you for your testimony and appreciate your time. members have 10 days to submit questions for the record. with that, this hearing is now adjourned. >> the white house commission and nuclear waste storage is expected to be released in july. coming up, new york's newly elected representative, kathy hochul, swearing in ceremony then the u.s. strategy and transition in iraq. she defeated republican corwin in a special election. she succeeds chris lee and is sworn in by house speaker john boehner. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, i have the honor to transmit herewith a copy of a letter received from mr. robert brim and on behalf of mr. todd valentine, co-executive directors, new york state board of elections, indicating that according to the unofficial returns of the special election held may 24, 2011, the honorable kathy courtney houkle was elected representative to congress for the 26th congressional district, state of new york. with best wishes i am, signed, sincerely, karen l. haas. clerk. >> mr. speaker. the speaker: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimou consent that the gentlewoman from new york, the honorable kathryn courtney houkle, be permitted to take the oath today. as pointed out, her elections results have not arrived but there is no contest and no questions have been raised as to her election. the speaker: without objection ex--- without objection, so ordered. will the represent-elect houkle and members of the new york deletion present themselves in the well of the house? the speaker: if all of the members can continue to stand as representative-elect raise her right hand and do you solemnly swear that you will support and defendhe constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic? that you will bear truthfully an legiance to the same, that you take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, that will you well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which you're about to enter so help you god? congratulations. you're now a member. [applause] the speaker: without objection, the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute. mr. rangel: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask that king be given permission to join with me at the time. 's a great honor for us at this time to present to you a young lady who didt the hard way, she's earned it, she's here with her husband bill, her dad pat, her dad jack and her mom pat, bill and katie, the children are here, and the symbolic of what a great country we have during this time, pearn with her credentials, it goes to show that in this great country of ours, the people govern. in order to give her the bipartisan support that she truly deserves, i'd like to yield at this time to my friend, peter king. the speaker: the gentleman is recognized. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. rangel, thank you for yielding. let me just join all of you in welcoming ms. hochul to the house of representatives, congresswoman, we look forward to working with you on behalf of the nation and the state and on behalf of all republicans, we wish you the best of luck and i yield back to mr. rangel. mr. rangel: i yield to you, congresswoman hochul. the speaker: the gentlelady from new york is recognized. ms. hochul: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. rangel and mr. king. it is truly an honor and a privilege to be here on the floor of the u.s. house of representatives where i will serve the people of the 26th district of the state of new york. i promise to work for them tirelessly every single day and continue to fight for them with every breath i have. and i look forward to working with each of you in a spirit of bipartisanship and cooperation as we work toward a brighter future and a stronger america. this is a proud day for my family and for me to begin this new chapter in our lives. a chance that will serve the people of my district and your districts. but before i begin this journey, i must thank the people who helped me get to where i am today. to the people of the 26th congressional district, i am humbled by your support and the faith that you put in me. to my family, my husband, bill of 27 years. you're my rock and inspiration, honey. my son, biy, my daughter, katie, my parents, jack and pat courtney. my brothers and my sister, sheila, who worked telessly throughout this campaign. a special thanks to the new york congressional delegation, both our senators and dozens of congressmen who supported us througho this election. to my incredible campaign team and thousands and thousands of supporters and volunteers who worked tirelessly throughout this election. and to one of my great mentors who, john lafall, whom i was honored to serve many years ago. today, i enter these chambers confident that we can tackle the challenges that are presented to us. we can and must find commonsense solutions to the problems facing each of our districts and the country. as we have learned, our constituents expect and deserve no less. thank you very much. >> sunday, representative sander levin talking about how house democrats will address u.s. debt and other economic issues. at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. next, and house foreign subcommittee meeting on the transition and in iraq. we will hear from officials from the state department and the defense department. they discuss the challenges of the upcoming transition from military to civilian personnel in a rock. all u.s. military -- in iraq. all forces are scheduled to leave by the end of this year. this is about one hour. >> the meeting will come to order. i want to warn people that we will probably be interrupted by votes in a relatively short period of time in other members will be coming in so that they can avoid my opening statement probably, but they will get here and i want to welcome all of my completion to this hearing of the subcommittee. this hearing was called to assess the obama administration's iraq policy as we approach the official transition from department of defense to the department of state lead. june 1 will mark. -- approximately months until all u.s. troops, combat or otherwise to leave iraq. as of january 1, 2012, it will jeffer see iraq's continued progress in the implementation of the goals outlined from the strategic framework agreement. having just returned from iraq over a week ago, i appreciate how critical the work of our military does as we continue carry out the mission there. in conjunction with the iraqi partners on the ground, they have helped set iraq on the course to become a stable, secure, and democratic country that respects human rights but as we look with favor upon these hard-won gains, we must remember that we're not there yet. earlier today, baghdad suffered both a car bomb and a road sign bomb injuring 16 people so far. iraq's progress is regretfully as precarious as it is positive. it is far too those look at where we are today and forget just where we were several years ago and although the -- the mission is real intentioned, i'm concerned it is well timed or unfortunately well reasoned in a number of areas. our brave men and women in uniform have fought tirelessly for over eight years to get us to where we are today. thousands of lives have been lost. billons of dollars have been spent. the worst possible outcome for us today would be to withdraw before iraq is ready to stand on its own. and there is reason to question iraq's redness. -- readiness. the u.s. faces the choices to fill essential gaps in iraqi security forces, compatibilities or accept the risk that they will fall short of being able to fully secure iraq from internal and existential threat ts by the time u.s. forces depart and with the security agreement. echoing those concerns, lieutenant general and general chief of staff of the iraqi army acknowledge that the iraqi army still depends on u.s. forces for the protection of its air case and and borders. in 2010, as the u.s. was ending its combat mission, he stated that "if i were asked about the withdraw, i would say to politicians the u.s. army must stay until the iraqi army is fully ready in 2020." at its core, the discussion about transition breaks down to two critical questions. does the state department have the compatibility to succeed? and if not, should the u.s. military remain in iraq in some meaningful capacity to help consolidate gains? many in both the u.s. and the iraqi government doubt the security forces will be able to defend internal and external threat by december 2011. and although it may be politically ex peebt both in the u.s. and iraq to seek withdraw by that date, it may not be sound strategy. it is a fact that our military forces continue play a vital role on the ground in iraq. by continuing to serve as the guarantor of iraq's stability, we allow its nations, democratic institutions to grow and to mature. and while will have many conflicts that draw our attention, america and this congress must dedicate in achieving success. it is in america's interest and it is in iraq's interest to see a democratic iraq prosper and flourish. that is our strategic objective and we should do everything in our power to ensure it happens including if need be by extending our military presence on the ground. more and more iraqi political and military figures have come out in support of extend the deadline to withdraw but as the check comes, no one wants to be left paying the bill. the domestic political costs in iraq of asking the u.s. to stay has left iraq's leadership pointing fingers and passing bucks and i saw that first hand when i was in iraq just last week. this cannot be where it ends. responsible leadership whether in the u.s. or in iraq cannot sacrifice hard earned strategic achievements for short-term political gains. we, iraqis, and americans, must not allow that to happen. this hearing is meant to been an opportunity for members to ask the administration what it seeks to achieve in iraq and how it plans to achieve it. however our goal should not be judged up or down the plans before us, it should be to fine that policy which will get us to where we need to go. the united states has spent nearly a decade securing and helping to build a foundation of a prosperous and democratic iraq, a premature withdraw risks squandering those gains. it would be a failure of colossal proportions to seize defeat from the jaws of victory and yet that is precisely what i fear may come to pass. and i will now yield to the gentleman from new york, the distinguished gentleman mr. ackerman, former chair and now ranking member of the committee for five minutes. >> i thank the chairman. today's hearing is indeed a very important one. at a hearing on this same subject last november, i suggested most americans and most members of congress think that we're basically done in iraq. our combat troops have left iraq last year and the rest of our 50,000 troops are coming home at the end of this year. as a political matter, iraq is yesterday's problem and yesterday's news. the only problem is it is boat at odds for the administration's plans for it as this committee heard last year from jeffrey feldman, american assistance is intended to "help iraq meet its needs, stand up its economy, and cement its democratic system over the next five to seven years." i will reap what he says. five to seven years. -- repeat what he says. five to seven years. to do all this assisting and stand uping and cementing the u.s. mission in iraq will be spent in billons of dollars operating five major facilities and employing as many as 13,000 people who will be operating a fleet of military vehicles and helicopters and maybe engaged from such diplomatic operations. diplomatic operations as "counterrocket artillery and mortar notification and neutral san diego response." -- futurization response." deputy assistant cole warned that "we are now at a point where the strategic dividends of our sacrifice are within reach as long as we take the proper steps to consolidate them." meaning what? he said long-term strategic partnership with iraq based on our mutual interest and mutual respect. secretary feldman emphasized essentially the same point voting that "the strategic importance of this moment cannot be overemphasized. i thought then that we had a major problem. i'm now convinced that we have a total disconnect. while the administration is planning for a iraq that is going to be continuing its re construction with a multi-billion dollar presence, the public and congress aren't just moving swiftly to the exits on this, they've actually left the building. if there's one less son the obama administration can seem to learn is it has to be that there's nothing explains itself and nothing sells itself. if the administration thought last year that it was vital to our national security interest to spend billons of dollars over the next five to seven years to establish its strategic partnership with iraq, then a vastly more robust effort to sell this policy to the congress and the american people is necessary. with all due respect to our distinguished witnesses and they are indeed distinguished, this panel at this time will simply not be enough. personally, i prefer that we do not repeat our dismal performance in afghanistan where after driving out the soviets and then driving out the talibans, we as nation abandoned our prior ally to their faiths. it was short-sighted and produced exactly the bad results that were anticipated at that time. now all the natural trauma and where are we? we are on our way at the very moment when a smaller smarter investment would finally give us some hope with salvaging foreign policy benefit from the horribly misbegotten war in iraq but the administration is going to have to sell a lot of members on an outgoing effort that those members do not want and they don't believe we need and that they have been counting the days until it's been finished the collision of our expectations and the administration's policy is not going to be pretty. and with that, mr. chairman, i yield back my time. >> thank you. the gentleman yields back. the two votes have start on the floor. i didn't hear the bells go off. but we can probably get through the introductions at least before we go over for a vote. >> two votes? >> two bells. ok. and we'll begin with the ambassador. ambassador patricia heslock -- i've been told it rhymes with a very popular insurance company commercial but i'm not going to do my imitation but that is the correct pronunciation? excellent. and he's currently serve as the state department coordinator for the office of the management resources in this capacity. she's responsible for coordinating the u.s. transition from military to civilian operations in iraq, working closely with our ambassador to iraq, james jeffrey whom we spent considerable time with when we were there. the u.s. military and other u.s. government departments and agencies. ambassador haslach has served as coordinator for food security initiative. emission for assistance transition at the u.s. embassy baghdad and director of the office of afghanistan ambassador to the asian cooperative foreign. she received her b.a. from gond university. i appreciate you being here today. i will introduce the other two witnesses. and secondly, -- i've been informed that we actually have five minutes to do on the vote in which case we'll save the introduction of the next two witnesses until we come back. so we are in recess here briefly and we'll be back as soon as the votes are other. we are in recess. >> the committee will be back in order. we have dr. collin cull for the middle east. dr. cull is on a three-year public service leave from georgetown university where he's professor in the edmond a. school. he was a senior fellow at the center for a new american security and served as coordinator for the obama campaign expert group. in 2005-2006, he was a council on foreign relations fellow working on counterinsurgency and stability operations. he received his b. ph.d. from columbus university and his b.a. from the university of michigan. we welcome both of you here. and last but not least is christopher d. crawley who serves at the assistant administrator for the middle east from 2007-2010. prior to this assignment, he was usaid administrator in iraq. mr. crowley joined usaid in 1971 razz an area development vizner vietnam. he has since served as director of the regional mission for central asia, director of the office in india and deputy mission director in egypt. in 1994, mr. crowley was the first mission director in gaza. she holds a bachelor of science from the ohio state university masters degree in international relations from the university of pennsylvania and a masters degree in public administration from the john f. kennedy school of government at harvard university and we welcome all three of you here this afternoon. we operate under the five-minute rule. so if you could keep your remarks to that time, there is a lighting device on the table that will warn you when the red light comes on. that means your time has concluded and we'll ask questions for the same period of time and without further ado, we will welcome you, ms. haslach. >> thank you, distinguished key members. thank you for holding this hearing and inviting me to appear before you today to discuss the issues facing iraq and the challenges associated with united states transition from a military-led to a civilian-led presence. i would like to take this time to submit our joint written testimony for the record. we have significant natural interest that require the continuation of strong u.s. support to ensure that we do not lose the process that has been achieved through tremendous sacrifice. we face a critical moment that will determine whether we achieve our self-reliant iraq. we must recognize that the ripples of iraq's success also extend beyond iraq and the united states. iraq is poised to become a political and economic leader in the middle east region. as a middle east faces deep challenges, iraq must take center stage as the beacon of democracy and an anchor of u.s. support. countries around the world look for our efforts to assess the sincerity with which we approach the world and the people look to iraq as an example of what is positive and whose purpose is to serve the people. the transition that we are executing in iraq is invite toll our national interest to pursue and strengthen these interest, we must strengthen our long-term partnership with the government of iraq and the iraqi people the framework agreement, an agreement signed between united states and framework serves at the road map in building these ties. we have found determined partners committed to the shared vision. with this strong support from the vacation we look forward to building a long-term partnership that will strengthen iraq, secure the national interest of both countries and provide stability to the region. the time is ripe for this transition the security situation while still a concern continues to improve providing an opening through which the people in iraq focus not on fear of violence but on the process of rebuilding a stronger economy and a government that is less cut up and committing to improving the nation the people of iraq -- what the state department and our partners around the interagency are trying to accomplish with this transition its the forefront of the agency. it will shape the in the middle east and in conflict and post conflict areas around the world. this transition is one of the most important international interferes that the united states is undertaking and its success or failure will have global implication. we can cannot fail we do do this always find full for the cost it helps people to bear. we have to secure our footing in our direction. the transition that we are implementing now began years ago and it is a critical that we follow through. the strategy that we will continue to pursue is the best balance between what is necessary to achieve our vest and what we can honestly call upon our american people to support. it is the sacrifice that the americans have made in iraq that we must continue our critical missions there and through these historic strategic framework agreement made between the united states and iraq, we found that our two countries two classed as adversaries now share a common to goal, a sovereign and prosperous iraq that is a strong ally of the united states and is committed to and capable of insuring security providing services and address the will of the iraqi people. now is the time to work together to achieve that goal. i would like to thank ambassador jaffray, general and often his troops and the many offices and bureaus throughout the department of state and other u.s. departments and agencies that are involved in this transition. planning and implementing this transition has required the effortless of their men and women many have been risking their lives. thank you again for this opportunity to appear before you today. i will be happy to answer any questions the committee may have. >> thank you, madam ambassador. dr. curl, you're recognized for five minutes. >> ambassador haslach has discussed the overall u.s. policy with regard to transition. so i will focus on the security situation in iraq which is enabling our drawdown and say a few words of the support from the defense department to help them them up for success. i know members and concerns about the readiness of the government as u.s. forces draw down between how to and december 2011 in compliance with the u.s.-iraq security agreement. attacks continue to pose a threat. in mid may, an attack consist of three car bombs targeted policemen and skilled 200 people. and al qaeda and iraq conducted a series of bombs that left 14 dead and dozens wounded. it is important to emphasize these enemies do not the support of the iraqi people and these attacks do not spark communal civil war. moreover, despite these recent attacks, the underlying security situation remains strong. with attack levels remaining their near lowest level for the last two years. this is remarkable considering that the iraqi security forces have assumed for security for the entire country and our u.s. force numbers have declined when the obama administration came into office to roughly 47,000 today. january 1 2009, the security forces have been on the lead, a role that they have embraced with each passing month. on september 1 of last year, we made the transition from operation iraqi freedom to new dawn and the commitment to end the combat mission and cementing the role. while the united states continue to provide vital support, including training, mentoring and advising and providing certain critical technical enablers, we need to be clear that the iraqis are very much in charge and they no longer need such large number of u.s. forces to help keep the violence in check. they have been successful despite uncertainty. it remains unclear when the iraqi will name a administer of defense. jaffray continues to engage other leaders to emphasize the importance of reaching a finley on this issue. beyond our efforts, the department of defense and other agencies and offices have undertaken unprecedented planning for the transition of iraq. they have a networking relationship and we are working together at all levels to achieve a successful transition. as one would expect for this transition, challenges exist but d.o.d. is doing everything it can to help the state department achieve success. in november of last year, d.o.d. serve as liaison and worked day-to-day issues. d.o.d. also worked for synchronization. it is cochaired at the level and meets bi-weekly to review status and progress of the subordinate and functional areas. additionally, to ex depicturesly respond request for equipment, a security of staff, a board was accomplished in 2011. the process consists of representatives from all the offices which feeds resources of equipment. chaired by the joint staff for approval. currently in iraq, a team has been established in each of the remaining locations and the issues resulting from a downsizing of the site foot print. the transition is not a turnkey operation and each presents unique challenges. each team needs to establish new parameters and remove containized housing unit. d.o.d. will also provide specific functions on a reimbursable spaces. in conclusion, i want to emphasize our continued engagement with iraq remains vital. we are now at the point that our differeds of our tremendous sacrifices are within reach as we take the proper steps to reach them. based on matchupple interest and respect, continue to have many advantages to the united states. it highlights the urlacher of u.s. engagement and shoring one our partners. d.o.d. strongly brave pla we mousse -- must work with iraq. >> tough. mr. crowley, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. ranking member ackerman, honorable members of the committee. thank you for holding this hearing and inviting me to appear before you today to discuss the international developments role in the transition from a military l.e.d. to a civilian l.e.d. presence. the situation in iraq has dramatically improved but iraq is still very much a post-conflict developing country facing considerable development, human rain showers -- resource and fiscal challenges. restoring public institutions and creating conditions for private sector-led group. but continued support is required to further neuroture iraq's pledging democracies and improve is to -- manage its own wealth. the primary objective then was to restore essential structure and services. beginning in 2007, u.s. u.s.a. shifted is resources to complement the civilian surge which began at that time. this program focused on community ability at administering quick respond funds for the reconstructive teams. support is aligned with the regionic framework agreement which look out lines the security cooperation between the united states and iraq. the agreement focuses on stainment development. and as characterized by increasing level offense post ownership of the cost of these programs, mr. chairman, the key challenge ahead for the alaska government will be in economic growth and strengthening of institutions of democratic governors. now is the time for iraq to transition from the legacy of war and insurgency to one of good governance. you say the governance programs will continue to strengthen the compatibilities of iraqi ganches nance at the national pro-ventionle and local level. and this includes the decentralized model of digs making and control of resources. u.s.a. will help iraq expand its non-oil sectors such as agriculture, financial sector, development and small and medium enterprise. u.s. also will help the sector in iraq by strengthening primary health care. we will continue to assist ethnic and regis minority noirs and internally displaced persons. u.s.a. is a strong and growing network work of working relationship it was the public and private sec portion without iraq. community action groups, farmer cooperate i have, all of who have been trained in our trains. continue to work to improve the lives of their families and communities. >> u.s.a. philly expect to dwapt the circumstances that the military withdraws. we will continue our programs for both americans and iraqi this has will be a major strength of our abilities. and as a prayway to project our presence more widely into the country. in this way, we are better able to monitor and evaluate the impact of our programs. u.s. will build on the gains that have already been achieved. u.s.a. will develop their own abilities and resources to ensure a sovereign stable and self-reliant iraq. in closing, i would like to thank ambassador jaffray and ambassador hack less and the -- haslach and the many officers of the u.s. departments and agencies that are involved in this transition. all have provided tremendous support. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today and i will be anticipate to answer any questions and look forward to you and your congressional completion. >> thank you, mr. crowley. and we want to thank all three of the witnesses for their testimony here this afternoon. and the members here will have five minutes to ask questions. the administration has developed so-called minimum compatibilities, m.e.c. benchmarks which refer to an in-state which "iraqi security ministries, and institutions can provide internal security and posses maximum availabilities to defend existential threats." in its june 2011, the department of defense assessed only the iraqi navy is on course to chief its met goal prior to december of 2010. and iraq will not be able to secure is air space before that date. overall, the department of defense reported the potential for the iraqi security forces to meet and maintain performance "continues to be reliant on u.s. it's." in march, 2011, centcom commander james sent the testimonies that there are going to be loose ends unless the vacation asks us to stay and work on these issues. and those loose ends would be difficult for them to overcome on their own. doctor, you mentioned one example recent of violent cocurse which wit i was there there before, after the fall of zam but before we and before the surge i was there and about a week to two weeks ago and the day we were in baghdad was the day that the occurrence happened out in kirkuk and we met with people who -- the general whose staff were some of the victims. and of course that evidence of the ongoing threats to this country. with that being the case and everything we know at that point, how realistic for us to be able to transition from department of defense to state -- is there any precedent for anything on this scale? and, you know, what do you think the committee should know about that? >> you know, it's our assessment that the iraqi security forces will be -- have pretty good compatibilities in terms of internal defense. we've sent billons of dollars and many years building up a very compatibility counterinsurgency force. and in terms of internal events we are likely to see a new caps. they'll have some chance on individuals. they'll have questions in logistics. the biggest thing is the gap on internal defense. maritime will add significant challenge as it relates to air defense. and they're also going to have some challenges as it relates to combined arms. it is important to note that even in the absence of a continued true presence, there will be ways for us to continue get after these challenges. both the. u. place and through the steapt's police development programs. so we will be able to adopt get after anything bnt the operation would require it and from your recent recent, they haven't yet asked. the administration were to ask, we how old be happy to start that conversation with them. >> let me get to a second question if i can. and if you want to follow up on anything there, you can. i understand that the special inspector general for iraq reconstruction as issue an audit for the police program and has interested an entrant office to get an opportunity. they have told that sirg has not authority even though it's funded by our program, which fund has property over. by view is that he has done important work on police training which is clearly part of iraq's instruct and i want to look at this prop going -- and it is appropriate to block the information on how preparations to carry out a prospective appropriation more than a $1 million are preceding. please let the know what you plan to do. the facilitate ability will continue to do its work. >> thank you. pleasure. we saw to be consistently forth coming with our responses to all of the various didn'ts for documents and document during the cigar. and i worked very closely with cigars when i was in iraq. we appreciate the effort to perform investigations of three-construction activity in iraq and provided them with materials that we feel fall under its mandate. as the department engages in the significant transition our assistance is also trance pangsing from wlarnl write re-- place. we do not read the responsibility and is tongue statue as extending to the operations and support of our depp mask platform in iraq. those are our responsibilities and within the pursue of over over site intent thes such as the accounting office. the investigation and the house of preparations committee. general and the commission on wartime contracting. >> thank you. and just le me conclude with a quick statement that we've spent billons of dollars over there and auditing those dollars and making sure that's being spent appropriately or ripped up by some entity as critical. we will add your cooperation. thank you have. i now yield to the ranking number from new york. >> thank you very much. is there somebody in the administration that's in charge of selling this to the american people? >> well in my building, it's the secretary of state. >> i mean who has the responsibility of explaining to the american people why we're doing this? that the american people think we've already done. >> you know the only thing, both our secretaries are heavily involved. it's a top priority for both. and vice president pass and right off the bat to lead our government's efforts. but in terms of a government spokesperson, i guess -- are the what you're both kaeding is that there is none. and i'm suggesting here is a key problem. the american people are done with it and don't have to make the further servicement -- investments and it seems to not be the case. these kinds of things are going to be very, very difficult to do in the ensuing months if not years given both the realities and the political terms that we have to come and eel with. and that's not leslie a good thing. this this seems to be -- iraq seems to have been a marriage of convenience and everybody seems to agree that there should be some kind of a divorce. but when? and everybody thought we were waiting for the final papers to come through. and now, we seep to have a little remorse for that. maybe we're sticking around for the sake of our children, and now they are all saying we should leave and it seems like a mess because we're not saying unless they ask us. i don't know why you can say that to the civilian population that's going to pay for child support. i guess i will move on to something else. is there any war in the region, in the entire region that we can afford to ever finally leave? >> my postal starts from egypt to iraq and down -- portfolio starts from egypt to iraq and down. countering violent extremism, safety insecurity of israel and other strategic partners. so i think we are heavily invested. we have a sizable presence. we are likely to remain postured at a pretty high level even as we draw down from iraq. so i don't know whether to question his effort. >> draw down means five to seven years and billons of dollars. you start multiplying that across the region where everything is five to seven years, that's going to shift to five to seven years by the time we get to six years and it's going to cost more billons of dollars. i'm not advocating leaving this place yet. you know, but i just want to know because of the lack of an answer to my first question. if nobody's in charge of selling i, nobody's going to buy it. >> i will say that we've made a consistent case of the administration, the president did so again last week when he gave his big middle east speech of emphasizing a long-term relationship with iraq and so we have, i mean, iraq's been so important to our national interest for 20 years that we've either been at war with iraq or in iraq for 20 years some clearly, we've made an investment. >> what about a financial partnership? you're talking about billons of dollars in supporting a partner that's richer than we are in many ways. >> not really, but they seem to have some bucks. and they're going into financial partnerships with other people which means they're cheating on us. >> representative ackerman, we have no intention of leaving iraq. i think it was pretty clear in our opening statements all three of us and in fact, we've asked for since -- >> the american people think we've left. they think we've made the political decision. you have no intention of leaving and everybody else in the country except those who are really finally tuned which is a very limited audience thinks we've already done that. and i would suggest that's a disaster of a intermediate term problem. because it ain't going to be just iraq on the great in this situation. and somebody in the administration really has to start brinking about that, long-term even if long term only means five to seven years, how do you sell a billion program? to people who think they're done with the payments. >> representative ackerman, if i may, deputy secretary will be chairing a round table with approximately 30 presidents and c.e.o.'s of major u.s. companies to talk the challenges and the opportunities of investing. he will be having a number of press interviews along where ambassador jeffrey to be making the case that iraq is worth all of the effort and worth the long-term commitment that we've made. thank you. >> those people might have a financial incentive to invest in iraq because it might be good for their 30 or whatever companies. but the american people don't necessarily own that portfolio and aren't going to see it that way. if i could put on my public relations try and try to understand what the american people are going to be coming. if you anti got no wish to sell it, you anticipate it got no one to buy it. i thought english better than that. thank you, mr. chairman. >> and the gentleman from virginia is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. welcome. i wonder if you could comment -- first of all, what is your understanding of how much syrup funding there is in this fiscal year? >> for iraq and/or for afghanistan. >> i can't speak to afghanistan, congressman, because it's not in my portfolio. i believe we requested $25 million. >> mr. crowley, are you family with the cert program? >> yes. >> is it your understanding it's well in excess of a billion dollar? >> not in iraq. >> not in iraq. i'm just talking about cert. >> i'm not sure what the overall dimensions are. >> you don't know what the number is? >> no, sir. >> if it were, what are the conditions of programming of that money? you work for a.i.d. it has all kinds of constraints and regulations and legal requirements. what the comparable constraints of the use of and reporting of and the auditing of the funds? >> well, i know how surf funds are used during the period i was there and by the large, they were used by the reconstructive team to deal with rapid response compatibility to put economic issues on the ground. these are more short-term programs to respond to local situations. u.s. works in a long term term -- >> i am familiar with how the i.d. works. would it not be a concern to you that i agree with your -- that was the original intent. but when you have that kind of intent, that's a relatively modest amount of money. when you get to very significant sums of money, would it not not as a professional, would it not concern you that now we have a different management challenge when the magnitude isn't $25 million. it's $1 billion plus? next door to afghanistan, i know it's not your portfolio but would that be a concern to you as an a.i.d.? >> yes, sir. i would be building in all kinds of safeguards and overlapping mechanisms to make sure that money is spent approximately. >> hmm. i would too. >> is it any concern at all? i know it's not your portfolio, but at the pentagon, any concern by the -- pick up anything by the water fountain? >> congressman, i'm not going to speak to afghanistan. it's not in my portfolio. >> i'm asking you to speak about whether you have a concern on behalf of the taxpayers of the united states that we have a program, irrespective of where it is that has now ballooned from terms of value. it's not a $25 million exam pro-am and there are only two countries we're really talking about here and does it concern you at all from a management point of view point of view even in the theoretical round. so you're comfortable that it has so little super vacation and so little -- supervision in a way that it would be comparable how we do constraint the program. >> i would disagree with your characterization. there's a great deal of coordination between d.o.d. state and u.s.a. i.d. the organization has done regular assessments of it. i can't speak to the magnitude or the specific projects in afghanistan because none of us work on afghanistan. i would encourage you to direct that to our completion we do and we will be happy to take that question back. in iraq, there was $100 million of surf requested. we didn't spend all of that money and in fy-12, we requested $20 million and this is to finish off the project in that last bit of 2011 including the first part of the fiscal year. >> i thank you for the advice. i already took it. and i did talk to the head of the state and he would not share your confidence, i think in the program and in afghanistan, a number of people have already been fingered for frankly because it's a cash program and the amounts are relative tiff to eight amounts quite substantial that we actually have some people who unfortunately have yielded to temptation. and it has to do with a lack of accounting and accountability. anyway, i commended to you and sense you offered, please get back to me in terms of what constraints are in place and accountability mechanisms are in place in this growing program. thank you. >> your time has expired. we'll go to a second round. the gentleman has any more questions. >> all right. what do you think about -- no. >> just a couple of quick questions. i assume all the panel members would agree that it's not only in iraq's best interest, but also in america's best interest that we see a democratic for the most part, iraq prosper and flourish. i'm seeing nods of ascent by everyone there. how is it in america's best interest? i know it's an obvious question but why is it in our best interest at this point beyond? not taking into conversation the fact that we've lost, you know, thousands of our men and women there which is clear and a lot of treasure has been spent there or money. but how is it in our long-term best interest that iraq is essentially a successful country in that important tumultuous part of the world? and i see two of you chomping up to bits. >> i agree -- we have a recent example of when iraq is just the opposite of that. it's pretty clear it's in our interest that we have a stable and democratic government in iraq, especially in that region surrounded by some less stable and less democratic government. >> i know that. but why is it that >> well, it's for our own security but it's also for the security of the region and it also is for world's economic benefit and for the potential that iraq, you know, as to become what it once was before. a middle income country, a prosperous country, a stable country, of ours, a depart of other democracies in the world. we have only to gain from iraq being a democracy. we have a lot to lose if they were to revert back. >> dr. kahl? >> i would add that iraq historically has been a source of instability and aggressor state in this part of the world and it's our hope that a democratic iraq would be a more moderate country that we can work with in the middle east which is, you know, a region that's vital to our interest. i would also point out that given the kind of know zake -- mosaic iraq, only a system that can lead to political mechanisms to combat extremism that will keep iraq stable over the long term. i mean, sadam was able to keep a lid on instability. iraq has come out of that and is now on the right directry and as president obama said, we have a breast in entering that tra ejectry and it magtis all of those arguments. >> and obviously as i had stated in my opening statements, the unitas has spent nearly a decade securing and helping to build the foundation of a prosperous and democratic iraq. and it is a premature withdraw could risk squandering those gains. and that would be a failure of colossal proportions. i assume all the members of the panel agree with that statement? ambassador, did you want to -- >> this goes back to your actual first -- your first question too. i mean, we are not abandoning iraq and we have asked for assistance to help to continue to train their police forces. we have asked for assistance to train and equip the iraq security forces. and in fy-12, we asked for a substantial amount of money which we feel is essential to help iraq defend itself against the existential threats that you were asking about before. so our plan is actually to stay there and to help them with the u.s.a. i.d. to help them in the capacity building side, fragile institutions, years of instability and repression. and so we're not done. but we feel that we're well on the way to a much better situation there. >> and i assume that the panel would agree that iran, at least in the last 30 years or so has been a -- shall we say an unhelpful actor in that region and if iraq falls under their influence or they're not able to stand up to iran, that would be a very unstable and would certainly hurt the u.s. foreign security interest around the world. that's correct? i think i'm seeing affirmative. dr. kahl, did you want to say something? >> yeah. a strong iraq is likely to not be a puppet dangling at the end of iran's strings. >> right. >> a strong iraq that has relationships with all its neighbors which is what all iraq's leaders want is going to be a -- want to maintain sovereignty and independence and a naturalistic place and i don't think the iraqis want to be dominated by iran. >> right. without objection, i grant myself one additional minute to make one final observation here in the time that i have with that one minute and that's that one of the things that was a bit disturbing although not probably something you wouldn't expect would be the fact that the par meant containers we met with about whether or not there needed to be u.s. involvement beyond the end of this year were unwilling to make that commitment, although to a person every one of them indicated yes but we really can't say that publicly because we run for office as well and they said that's for maliki to say and spokes people for maliki, those are the folks that you have to go to. and it's not unlike what we see here on washington when some of the big issues, everybody points the fingers to the others maybe through congress, democrats or republicans but this is an important key issue and the politicians in iraq are going to have to step up to the plate as well because for the united states to pull out by the end of this year and turn over complete , the future of that country before they're ready could literally, you know, have defeat out of the jaws of victory and that's what we don't want to see here, for the united states or for the vacation as well. i want to thank the panel and at this point, i will yield to the gentleman from virginia, mr. continually if he has any additional questions? >> i do, mr. chairman, thank you. >> you indicated that your understanding of the program in iraq was that it was $25 million? >> for fy-12, the request. >> and was $100 million, my understanding for fy-11. which we didn't spend all that money. >> am i reading the report right that says 2003, the total amount of funding in iraq was $3.89 billion? >> since 2003. >> sir, i will have to get back to you on the exact number but we have spent a considerable amount of money in iraq since 2003. >> more than $25 million a year. >> yes. that's why i sad $25 million. >> i understand. i'm trying to get a magnitude, mr. kahl. is it your testimony that if i understood you correctly and your answer to my previous question, that you're satisfied or you believe that we can be satisfied that all of the right accounting and transparency is in place as just as it is for u.s.a. i.d. programming? >> what i would say is that served with an innovation in iraq, largely to enable our counterinsurgency operation and we learned better how to. so it would not surprise me if going back and looking at how the program was executed, there were more problems of how it's executed now. the program is more accountable that there's better coordination and that money is better used now than the case in 2004 for example. but are there no challenges? every program of this size has a challenge. >> no one suggests there is not a challenge. the question was whether you felt there were adequate mechanisms of accounting -- accountability in reporting and transparency as there are with u.s.a. i.d. programs, especially that the pentagon is satisfied. >> i feel that we are in a good place in executing the programs in iraq which is the portfolio that i cover. >> i understand. you made that clear. you can't speck about anything outside of your portfolio, however, certainly, since the taxpayer pays for this, it's not an unreasonable expectation that we might expect of what you learned in your portfolio has applicability elsewhere. would that be a fair thing? >> it's true the way the program is being applied from afghanistan, learn from the lessons from iraq but in terms of how it's being execute odd then ground in afghanistan, i can't speak to that. >> all right. i look forward to having

Related Keywords

Vietnam ,Republic Of ,Nevada ,United States ,Upton ,Georgia ,Alaska ,San Diego ,California ,New Mexico ,Russia ,Washington ,District Of Columbia ,Mexico ,Kirkuk ,At Ta Mim ,Iraq ,India ,Egypt ,South Carolina ,Yucca Mountain ,Greene ,Niedersachsen ,Germany ,Poland ,Switzerland ,Clark County ,New York ,Canada ,Japan ,New Hampshire ,North Carolina ,Texas ,Iran ,Afghanistan ,Savannah River ,Kentucky ,Rhode Island ,Illinois ,Virginia ,Nye County ,Michigan ,Pakistan ,Springfield ,Baghdad ,Israel ,Gaza ,Israel General ,Pennsylvania ,Kansas ,France ,Polish ,Americans ,America ,Soviets ,Iraqis ,French ,Iraqi ,American ,Sander Levin ,Shibley Telhami ,Christopher D Crawley ,Karen L Haas ,Todd Valentine ,Kathryn Courtney ,Peter King ,James Jeffrey ,Pat Courtney ,Gary Hollis ,Harry Reid ,Peter Lyons ,Gao Ig ,Kathy Courtney ,Al Qaeda ,Las Vegas ,Jennifer Granholm ,John Boehner ,Charles Hollis ,Jeffrey Feldman ,Chris Lee ,Kathy Hochul ,