Skip to main content

tv   US Senate  CSPAN  November 18, 2016 5:30pm-7:31pm EST

5:30 pm
changed easily. the outlook for the construction of nuclear plants in the united states and other oecd countries is bleak. primarily because of the high overnight capital cost of nuclear power, roughly $5000 compared to natural gas, $1000 or less. this makes the levelized cost of nuclear power for the foreseeable future higher than the closest competitor which is for the time being with no load natural gas prices, the levelized cost of electricity from natural gas. the cost disparity would be diminished if a carbon free nature of nuclear power were recognized. to be recognized in two ways by the assessment of a carbon emission charge based on the cost of carbon on fossil fuel generating or alternatively on a production to nuclear plants for
5:31 pm
their carbon free, to recognize their carbon free character. that's on the order of 2.7 cents per kilowatt hour. that is. that is their carbon free equivalent value. but we note that wind and solar electricity generation have that same carbon free character. indeed they do have an ongoing production with tax credit the contribution for the taxpayers in this country roughlycomparable. the task force recommends a two-part program. it it is not only about advanced nuclear reaction. first either light water reactor technology that will lead to new plan construction of lower-cost
5:32 pm
that have other advantages such as a small modular reactor. the the first aspect of the recommendation is pursue water reactor technology which no longer have a proven technology but which have the practical question of cost, licensing, and waste management. but all the new plans need to have a 2.7 cents production payment or its equivalent in order to prove itself competitive with natural gas generation which is generating carbon. for advanced reactors based on new technology the task force recommends a four-part program to bring in advanced program from the research level to the construction of a first of its kind plan.
5:33 pm
first of its kind commercial plant. the task force base the estimate of the time it cost as being $11.6 billion with huge uncertainty around that number. it would take about 25 years. five years. an important aspect of that judgment was based on carefully looking at a stage by stage development program from concept to construction of a commercial scale plant. there are many people who believe that could be short, indeed was mentioned there are 20 or 30 venture capital based farms who are exploring all different sorts of technology. they technology. they would see optimistically a much smaller time and costs for going through this development
5:34 pm
process for advanced reactors. we don't believe that is so. we believe an important way of deciding for development the task force has proposed. [inaudible] in any event, what i want to leave with the committee is that our judgment roughly speaking a $6.5 billion program for the period from selecting a plant all the way to the point where you start spending money on your first commercial plant. we talked about financing of that. we believe it should be in a well-run program roughly half of provided by the federal government. mostly in the early stages where there are great technology efforts to reduce technology. in the latter half or by private sector investors who see the practicality of these new reactor types. let me's turn to fuel cycle and
5:35 pm
waste management. i should say to you when i was with the department of energy in the mid- 70s, the department confirmed president ford's decision not to do commercial reprocessing. the department continually proposed no additional funding for the river reactor program. there there is a great effort to maintain whitewater technology for the next generation. there's no question about it, that advanced reactors will have a different fuel cycle and therefore require different approaches. for both licensing and for waste management. that is a part of the challenge of moving to a new generation of reactors.
5:36 pm
we recommend for the management of this program that we propose this 25 year $11.9 billion program the creation of a quasi- public corporation created by the congress with a one-time appropriation for that long period of a difficult technical ask going through several different administrations to pay attention responsibly execute this program. i know that blue ribbon task force you mentioned that you both support as i understand it, they recommend exactly the same the creation of a quasi- public corporation to carry out the waste management of the program. there may be a possibility for having a single as committee staff suggested to me. the corporation carrier both
5:37 pm
waste management piece of the new reactor development. the nrc today only has recent experience with licensing white water reactor plant. that means if you want to proceed to an advance reactor the nrc must develop the capability to do that licensing carefully. it it will require more time and more resources for the nrc to do that job. we believe in our report we discuss to exit the chairs of the regulatory commission on the task force, the staged approach to licensing and rate advanced reactors. some developers developers may choose to construct and license new advanced reactors and other countries, for example china. i remind those developers and everyone here that the first time one of those plans come
5:38 pm
back into the united states they will have to go through the entire nrc process again. we will always have the oversight of the nrc prospect. my final point has to do with international linkage. for a long time the counter proliferation policy of the united states and we had been a world leader has been based on the influence we have through our knowledge and our activities in nuclear power technology. the plants that are going to be built around the world are not going to be in europe were the united states, they're mainly going to be in china, india, russia, and several countries in asia which this will be their first plant, the emirates, turkey, jordan, we will want to make sure the proliferation and safety and resistance of those
5:39 pm
plans is maintained. we have a national security interests. in taking our international activities, especially in safety. in the future of nuclear power. i like to make a concluding remark. the task force was completely unanimous in this report. a wide range of people with different experiences. unanimous. especially unanimous on the point that if the united states does not undertake an initiative like this the nuclear option is not going to be there in 2030. that leaves the water question that senator feinstein, does the country need this, is it a practical thing we can do given the fact that we have a changing administration all the time?
5:40 pm
and they're very widely ranging different views on that. it's not the case that everybody on our task force believes the country must do exactly this, but we all agree that if you don't do something like this there's no possibility of nuclear power. the people say say what was the consequence of not having that and it will all be done with clean power or renewables. it depends very heavily as this committee knows on how that develops. limits eight me say it again, we give you a program to consider which is in scale and time of dollars in the scalable time and dollars, one way of getting possibly a substantially 30% or so cheaper, not zero cost of the power of the future. in if you don't do something
5:41 pm
like this the country does not have a nuclear option in the future. thank you very much. >> thank you thank you thank you to you and your committee for your leadership. we'll have around a five minute questions now and i will begin. just to reiterate, today we have 99 reactors or about that, they produce about 20% of our electricity, about 60% of our carbon free electricity i know in the region i come from the tennessee valley authority expects to have about 40% of its electricity from nuclear power within a few years. when combined with the pollution control equipment on coal and gas plants it is going to be very clean, lower cost mix of power. you are are saying though that your committee unanimously
5:42 pm
agrees that if we don't take some action like the one the committee recommended that by 2030 as a country we won't have the option of having electricity produced by nuclear power. is that what you're saying? >> precisely. let me me say to that when i joined the department of energy six or seven nuclear plants were being fielded every year. we had four u.s. manufacturers of reactors, ge, westinghouse and and two others, for competing u.s. firms. that kind of capability is not going to be there in 2030 for sure, no new plants will be built in the united states unless they have a very favorable regulatory bindings about managing the market
5:43 pm
problems that i mentioned to you. >> so we would lose 20% of our what we call the base load capacity of our electricity which is baseload capacity in this case and about 60% of our carbon free, what is it likely to replace that if that were not there? >> natural gas. but the main point out to come you think said that they're 50 or so plans that will reach 80 years of age. >> by 2038. >> i personally do not think it likely the companies that manage those plans for the nrc are likely to relicense these plants are 60 or 80 years. they're the oldest plants we had. it would require quite a lot of additional investment. without any attention to that whether or not their cost of construction is cheap but if they don't have their electricity dispatched for one reason or another there night going to be there.
5:44 pm
>> to reiterate again, you gave us a recommendation is set unless you do something like the 25 year $11.6 billion program to create advanced reactors we won't have the option. if we did something like that we were more likely to have the nuclear option. >> leme pull it back one step further. in the first five years we are proposing part one and r&d face, meanwhile you, meanwhile you have these white water reactors coming on. they may fit the bill. but they are going to need some help and there's no certainty that would be there. there may be someone who comes forward with a light water reactor proposal which is as good as the reactor. were were not married to any particular technology.
5:45 pm
we want to see the best technology developed speemac's have one of the difficulties and you mention five difficulties in the report. one of the difficulties is nuclear power doesn't get credit for being carbon free. a time when many people think carbon free electricity is important. if i heard you write he said in order to get credit that would be equal to the credit given to wind power for example it would be 2.7 cents per kilowatt hour. >> roughly. which wind and solar, of course as you know, the penetration of wind and solar increases there's an intermittency cost which has to be carried by somebody on the grid one way or the other. that is not included. >> sweat the moment taxpayers give wind for example a 2.7 cents advantage over nuclear power, both of them are equally carbon free. >> yes. and i hope i would not be misunderstood to say think we should take that away. >> i might do that, but against
5:46 pm
understand. >> my point i want to underscore , carbon free electricity generation is important in the united states and the world and nuclear is an essential piece of that here and elsewhere. >> you know john, on you for a long time it's interesting to me because i look at this so differently. i look at it from the california perspective. i've been to southern california and have seen three times the reactors. they have a problem with the steam generator, they by two from a japanese company. they are faulty. they end up having to shut down the plant, they have 3300 rods in spent fuel pools. no place to put them. they have a big security force, they have a plant on a shelf
5:47 pm
above the pacific with 6,000,000 people living living around. then i get a call from tony mpg nd they are going to shut down both of their reactors because they believe they can now find cost-effective, clean, clean energy to replace their 1100 megawatts. so i have all of this spent fuel sitting in metropolitan areas in an earthquake prone state when the rim of fire is going around the pacific with big quakes, the latest. >> [inaudible] >> the 7.8. i don't understand the push for this in the absence of a push to safely secure the waste.
5:48 pm
we have tried and he has enormous patience with me we have tried for years to get a pilot waste. we know there are people who want to build a waste facility where some of this waste, even if you went ahead you would be filled. we have 77,000 metric tons of hot waste over the country. to me, until you have a methodology to properly harbor this waste for the millennium it's ridiculous to talk about any of this because something is going to happen. one day and it's probably on the pacific coast, some kind of fukushima is going to happen. all of the probabilities of the big quaker up. so i sit here and i listen and
5:49 pm
it's like i'm in a fairytale. that what i see in my state with for the biggest reactor shutdown, waste piling up, it makes no sense to me. i don't understand why the industry doesn't help us push for waste facilities and they don't. >> first of all i want to remind you, these are very sensible questions to raise about, that's our task was to describe it. you may say just the way so long, but i want to make some remarks about it. this congress commissioned a group of people under the chairmanship of brent and lee --
5:50 pm
2012 they came out with the report which was a systematic approach to managing the waste. i have to say about enough to remember in kansas in trying to put the waste away. i will tell you, that proposal from congressman hamel and -- is the absolutely sound way too, in an orderly fashion address all of the concerns that you properly are racing. >> we had hamilton in. we sat there with the chairs of the authorizing committee. we put put together a nuclear waste policy for this country which was voluntary. we went through three chairs of the energy committee working on this. from new mexico, where caskey
5:51 pm
worked with us all along. we have a bill bill in there that is the two appropriators, the two authorizer's, all support and it sits in committee and that nuclear waste industry does nothing to help pass it. why? i don't understand this. we see the accidents take place. it's a kind of madness to build stuff and not be able to properly dispose of the waste. >> pass the bill. no california, i want to turn to california. >> i know little about except that i have two grandsons living in palo alto. so i have a much bigger issue in their safety. i don't know how california is going to manage without those plans. but i don't think it is so clear that it's going to be cost free
5:52 pm
in a risk sense. i would say i don't know the head of pg&e but i know a lot of people in california who know a lot about energy. i don't think it's gonna be so energy to get that in chase. >> all i can say so far so good and we have to keep at it. but but it is not at all clear how it will come out. >> i guess i plead with the industry to help us get a permanent waste facility. one won't do it. there has to be a number of them. the whip accident which is now costing in the billions of dollars it's expensive stuff. we deal with the waste with the plutonium and uranium processing. it is the same kind of thing. comes in in the hundreds of millions and it grows to the billions of dollars
5:53 pm
to build these facilities. somebody like me that sees what's happening in california says why are we thinking of this if we can't provide the infrastructure to do it right. >> we have to be players because there's going to be bigger problems in india and china. the people building these plants are going to be russian firms, japanese firms, chinese firms, we have have to be players and that. >> thank you senator, were we have to figure out how to pass that. >> senator udall. >> thank you so much mr. chairman thank you both for your commitment to this and having this hearing. mr. deutsch, thank you. an interesting testimony up until now. i hope it will continue. 110 nations have ratified the paris climate deal which will demonstrate and initiate a need
5:54 pm
for nuclear power. here here at home, more than 360 businesses and investors support the paris climate agreement in the low carbon energy future for the united states. very concerned about president electron statements about withdrawing from the paris agreement. many nuclear companies and supporters recognize the need for nuclear energy to meet emission goals especially in the short term when we need to manic movement on admissions. what withdrawing from paris have potentially negative consequences on the future of nuclear power? could you give me a yes or no on that and then you can expand of course. >> i don't think so seven or. >> i don't think i can give you a yes or no. i don't think it's a question which micro dashes here are to on the secretary of energy advisory board. not to make comments.
5:55 pm
>> but you are the expertise that you have directly reflects on this question. >> senator, just not going to be able to be helpful to on this. i would go in a completely different direction. this is not the occasion to direct the question of paris there in morocco now is secretary carrie musser coming back, they been planning for cap 22. but i'm not the person to ask about this. >> okay. today, 20% of the u.s. electricity and as the chairman said, 6363.3% of our carbon free electricity is produced by approximately 100 light water nuclear reactions. many of the plants may be closing before their 2030
5:56 pm
planned retirement. which will result in an increased proportion of energy produced by carbon emitting sources unless other renewables, solar, wind are able to replace the capacity of these. what structural or statutory changes are needed to ensure that current nuclear energy fleet remains a part of the u.s. carbon free energy grid and what structural or statutory changes are needed to enable nuclear innovation and modernization of reactors. >> the answer is there has to be market redesign. that subject is dealt with in great detail and what choices have to be made in the report. i would not have, you would not want me to talk about all of them but let me say that you cannot have the circumstances now with around the country, not
5:57 pm
everywhere, you cannot have the market you have giving preference in dispatch electricity to non-baseload generating plants so they cannot make money even if they were cheaper. you have to find a solution a solution to that on a state-by-state basis. it is a very tough task but otherwise you will continue to have more early retirements like what happened in california. >> i want to ask the first question in a little different way. there are many efforts both at the international at level, state-level, and at our national level to push us towards renewable sources of energy. pulling back on those do you think would be a good idea?
5:58 pm
>> no. nuclear energy has a production tax credit incentive and has had it for many years as you know. however that credit has now expired and the nuclear industry is preparing to ask congress for new forms of support. on the other hand while renewable energy credits were recently extended they are being phased out and there's no guarantee they will be extended again. rather than congress debating and continuing new technology specific tax credits like the nuclear ptc, with the best policy be a technology neutral price on carbon which would promote all clean energy technologies including nuclear renewables and carbon sequestration? >> i didn't quite get the last sentence.
5:59 pm
>> the last is, and it's a long one, rather than congress debating and continuing new technology specific tax credits that i mentioned earlier, like that nuclear ptc, with the best policy be a technology neutral price on carbon which would promote all clean energy technologies including nuclear, renewables, and carbon capture. >> absolutely, yes. and i would include in that all the oil and gas drilling things as well which gives subsidies to certain kinds of fossil fuels. the the answer is yes. a single carbon charge how the revenue is spent is critical to how it looks elsewhere. but i would be be interested. it would be the most efficient way to do it some members of my
6:00 pm
task force think that is exactly what should be done. >> but that is not part of our report because we are asked to frame an initiative not to say balance it with these things. >> thank you very much. >> thank you senator udall. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you doctor deutsch for being here for your work on the report. have to say i shared the issues that you raised in your testimony with respect to the importance of nuclear power as we are addressing the need to reduce carbon emissions, not only in the u.s. but throughout the world. i also share your concerns about the importance of american technology when it comes to nuclear safety around the world. i remember talking with one of our injured needs in new hampshire who relayed to me what he was doing with russia after
6:01 pm
chernobyl in an effort to try and address safety there. i think those are very important and relevant as we think about our policy. i'm disappointed as you have heard from several of the people here that i served on the energy committee under chairman dickman when we produced an energy bill that would've addressed nuclear power in the future. another bill is being negotiated and it's not clear if that will make it out of congress. i think we have not been responsive in the way that we should in order to address the future challenges. in new england, 30% of our total electricity comes from nuclear power. the retirement of nuclear generators is of particular concern. you recommend significant
6:02 pm
reforms in the energy and electricity markets to help value of the baseload power that is produced by nuclear reactors. i wonder if you could discuss in more detail what those reforms should look like. as we we look at new england wholesale electric operator i think it's a challenge that we have both now and are looking at in the future. what kind kind of things are you talking about? >> let me say i will not do as good of a job as i could if i were here with some of my task force members who really specialize more in this than i do. let me just take the case of illinois. they closed i think to reactors because there is no way for them to dispatch the electricity. at night, wind, bid negative prices so they get dispatched in
6:03 pm
order to earn the three sensor or whatever it is per kilowatt hour production crest tax credit that they get. so the fact is you have to fix that. you cannot have a situation where some sources of technology get dispatched with a favorable rate because of a government subsidy. others don't have the subsidy, if they can't dispatch it that's a specific step. many of the states do not acknowledge the kind of rates that need to be set given whatever dispatch rules they have so that a company can get back its investment over time. that's a negotiation between the regulatory commission and the the company but there is a balance. every state is different. some parts of the country like the southeast are much more
6:04 pm
accommodating. without market reform of some kind this is not going to happen. again here's a a situation, everybody on the committee is unanimous. >> should work have a role in this? which of their role be? >> i'm going to get myself into trouble but yes i think it should have a much larger role and i guess there is a supreme court decision that gives the more ability. but we have a long jealously guarded history of having local and regional utility set their own rates on their own basis. fundamentally this dozen my mind require more of a role, but it's a government battle but i'm sure you would have to face. >> i'm almost out of time. i also wanted to raise an issue that were seen in new hampshire with the nuclear power plant
6:05 pm
because they will come up for relicensing in early 2020. having countered issues with concrete degradation, they us are reaction and they have led to concerns about the safety of the plant and the relicensing process is this something that that the committee looking at the future of nuclear power has looked at? how should we address safety issues like that? >> i believe that you're making the same point that i try to make earlier. when these plants turn to be 80. >> this one is not going to be 80. >> it's a relatively young. >> as they get to be older questions are going to be raised
6:06 pm
that new plants would have to conform to and i have the question of are you willing to make an assessment of the risk and say to them know we are not core to relicense or you have to repair this. that will be done on a case-by-case basis. i don't know the circumstances. i1 time i knew it well but i don't anymore. those questions in those questions in concrete is a big deal. >> thank you mr. chairman. doctor you been a terrific witness and it's good to have your experience in your straightforwardness here. i think i'm speaking for all of us we think you and your committee for your time and work as secretary. if you have additional comments that you would like for us to consider while we welcome you
6:07 pm
can send those to us after you leave. i think it is time to go to the second panel. we will excuse you and asked doctor mckenzie and doctor eisenhower y introduced earlier to come forward. doctor eisenhower is the laboratory director of the nuclear science energy director at oak ridge national laboratory. doctor mckenzie nuclear program director and senior scientist and national resources defense council. doctor eisenhower we will start with you if we may. i will ask each of you to summarize your testimony in about five five minutes which will give us time to consider and to ask questions. senator feinstein has an important appointment at four. we will conclude either by then or not long after that. >> thank you chairman eric and ranking member. i'm very, very pleased to participate in this panel today.
6:08 pm
at oak ridge national laboratory i am privileged to lead a very talented group of scientists and engineers as we address scientific and technological challenges in both fusion energy, radioisotopes, radioisotopes, nuclear modeling and simulation, and nuclear security. our nuclear fission efforts include a vast reactor technologies, light water reactors sustainability, accident teller fuels, used nuclear fuels, modeling and simulation such as the consortium of advance simulation of light water reactors. materials in extreme environments, manufacture maintenance maintenance technologies and safety analysis and licensing approaches. this expertise enables broader contributions to nuclear security, safeguards, not proliferation related r&d. we are familiar with the so-called nuclear cliff which is
6:09 pm
the point in time when the current fleet of plants rapidly retires. how will we replace that capacity? how can we rapidly innovate and enable affordable and reliable advanced reactor technology? the united states has historically led nuclear energy and innovation. i believe believe we must continue to do so. development of the next generation of reactors will supply clean unaffordable energy and ensure the u.s. industry is positioned to compete internationally. rapid deployment of advanced nuclear systems requires a science -based design and licensing approach, with contemporary science-based tools tools and techniques development can be accelerated in laboratory and high-performance computing environments and this can
6:10 pm
accelerate licensing. materials used in nuclear systems directly affect economics, performance, and safety. the opportunity is at hand for new generation of reactors that will also employ a new generation of materials. we have the opportunity to see into reactors as never before. modern instrumentation and sensing techniques can optimize up operations and enhance safety. predictive modeling and simulation tools provide basis for regulatory action and licensing. innovations innovations can be introduced quickly and designs can evolve on the trying board. recognizing the challenges ahead we must move forward deliberately to avoid the nuclear cliff. future future u.s. policy for nuclear energy will be critical. decisions are needed with specific goals, rapid innovation will be essential and requires
6:11 pm
collaboration among national laboratories, industry, and universities. we must leverage existing assets, for example oak ridge national laboratory has unique facility such as research reactor and hot cells for the safe handling, experimentation, and analysis of nuclear materials. we are working with idaho and oregon national laboratories to implement the department of energy's gateway for accelerated innovation and nuclear, or gain initiative which is providing easier access for the technical capabilities of national laboratories. the timelines and economics is a hurdle but they can be overcome through approaches such as increased use of modeling and simulation, advanced manufacturing techniques, and development of new materials. there is a growing national
6:12 pm
interest in the deployment of advanced reactors and the associated fuel cycle as evidenced by the number of summits, symposia, workshops and hearings focused on this, such events reflect a collective sense of urgency. national laboratories are vital part of meeting the challenges to the future of nuclear power. a sustained r&d program is needed with clear long-term goals, programs will be taught require regulatory risk, improve economic competitiveness, develop the next generation of scientists and engineers, establish advance facility capabilities and address the fuel cycle. we are prepared to help solve these challenges and we are partnering to employ
6:13 pm
rapid innovation. together we will succeed in bringing the best of scientific understanding and engineering capabilities to bear on deploying the next generation of a carbon free nuclear energy technologies. thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts with the subcommittee i request my written testimony be made part of the written record. >> thank you doctor icennour. >> chairman alexander, ranking member or members of the subcommittee, thank, thank you for providing the national resources defense council, nrdc with the opportunity to present our views of the future of nuclear power. nrdc is a national nonprofit organization of scientists,
6:14 pm
lawyers and advocates with over 2,000,000 members and supporters. we have been engaged with nuclear energy since our founding in 1970 we maintain a nuclear program which i direct. future of nuclear power in the united states is uncertain. it faces significant significant challenges. as we have heard, most reactors will reach the end of their life in the decades ahead in summer risking near-term shutdown. in addition difficulties arise from safety, security, proliferation and nuclear waste. the role of nuclear power is a low carbon energy resources being superseded by advances in energy efficiency and renewable technologies. only four reactors are under construction in the united states. in georgia and south carolina. one type of small modular reactor, the new scale smr may soon submit a license
6:15 pm
application to the nrc. with many nuclear closures and few nuclear bills the future of nuclear energy is one of decline. today's hearing considers advanced nuclear reactors and how they could impact nuclear power in government support for the research and development. to summarize my written testimony in a few words would be, be very cautious on advanced nuclear. first, see what results we get with our current government investment in new nuclear projects, importantly, prioritize unfinished business for nuclear among others. for decades, nuclear scientists and engineers had sought to develop advanced nuclear design that reduce the amount of waste generation, that lowered risk and improve safety.
6:16 pm
such benefits from advanced nuclear are still theoretical. importantly, there is no evidence that advanced nuclear would be economically competitive in the future. in our testimony, we respectfully offer five recommendations. to the subcommittee in consideration of the government's role in advanced nuclear energy research and development. i will go through the five recommendations. number one, one, and i think this was echoed in today's hearing, give priority to solving the nuclear waste program. many thousands of tons of fuel must be isolated from people and the environment. our recommendation constructed deep geological repository using a consent & space process before spending money on advanced nuclear. recommendation two, wait on the construction of the -- 2000.
6:17 pm
assess the lessons learned from these projects for the safety, reliability, safety, reliability, cost before looking at advanced nuclear demonstration plant. number three, consistently apply a nuclear weapons test to advanced nuclear design. among the energy technology choices for the united states nuclear power is unique in the overlap between civilian technology and weapon. the risk can be managed in attempt to be managed but never eliminated. preventing proliferation is of importance for the future of nuclear energy. recommendation for, consider the full impact of the fuel cycle associated with advanced reactors including severe accidents. many aspects are still not worked out including the issue of decommissioning.
6:18 pm
recommendation five, get clear on the economic competitiveness for advanced nuclear early on. every teacher cautioned that sending advanced research can mean taxpayers are responsible for far greater sums in the future. to conclude, if an energy policy goal is to preserve the nuclear power option in the future we hope you maintain a healthy dose of skepticism regarding the benefits promised by advanced nuclear technology concept that seeks support. >> thank you. chairman, mr. mckenzie it's interesting because we have no nuclear waste policy in this country. as such, we pile pile up fines,
6:19 pm
i think 20 million per year which are in the hundreds of millions of dollars on yet still fail to act. you have looked at this, why does that happen? why wouldn't the industry want to nuclear policy, a process by which -- we have debated and discussed it. we've come to the conclusion, you know that it has to be practical. it has to be voluntary, states have to want it. we have what a new new mexico with whip. they take great pride in it. a stupid accident stupid accident or the most sophisticated agency, los alamos who contracts out the kitty litter and they use the wrong
6:20 pm
kitty litter and it explodes. so it is very hard for some of us to conceive of a future that is properly carried out and now that these smr's are being proposed i am told the only way they are economically cost efficient is if they are grouped together. so if you're going to put 300 or 400-megawatt reactors in one place you still have to deal with the waste. how do you do that? i guess i have developed a jaundiced view about the practicality in this country. i was alerted by what senator shaheen said about the concrete. going into it, john deutch said
6:21 pm
it was a serious problem. now i will go and look and find out exactly what it is. so if either of you have some comments to make because i think our first responsibility is safety to the public, is to see that these things are secure and the waste is secure and they are our is functional and well-built as they can be. it runs scrupulously, and that is difficult to have happen. it does not surprise me that people coming up for companies coming out for relicensing may opt not to go ahead. if i could be candid on why i think industry hasn't supported nuclear waste solution in a
6:22 pm
vigorous way of think it would be because the current waste situation is consistent with the industry business model. storage of a nuclear fuel, mostly in wet pools summoned dry -- in reactor site. that is fine with the business model. energy fee objects to the nrc finding that long-term storage to find that it wet pools does not represent an incredible danger or risk. yet that is tolerated by the regulator. so they just use inertia in the industry. >> correct me if i'm wrong, i believe believe you store them for 5 - 7 years and they should be removed from the spent fuel pool and be put in try tasks. hopefully transportation related
6:23 pm
dry casks so they can be moved to a permanent waste facility which we do not have. i can only speak for california which i know, these things are stacking up. there is very real danger and spent fuel pools. if the water disappears, the pool is fragmented by an earthquake and you have these hot rods, 3300 piled hundred piled up, it is a big problem. so no one seems to care. that is what really bothers me. nobody seems to care. >> it's a very difficult problem. the nrdc advocates for consent -based & space approach on repositories. that also includes authority of the state level for regulating radioactive materials. that is not there. that's a that's a component of whip and we believe why whip was able to go forward
6:24 pm
in the first place. we believe state authority in regulating right radioactive materials is a key element to include. >> thank you. thank you senator. thank you thank you to both of you. i will have a few a couple of comments. i would not want people to leave this hearing without a different view been expressed about the safety of nuclear power. there's never been a death in connection with commercial operation of nuclear reactors in the united states. there's never been a death attributable to reactors in the navy since the 1950s when they began. they're the only most celebrated accident that we have had in the united states was a 3-mile island in 1979. despite years of testing of everybody in the area, no one was hurt. based on the safety record, no
6:25 pm
either form of energy has a better safety record. the nuclear regulatory regulatory commission which has extensive careful regulation has determined the use of fuel is safely stored for many years in the places where it is. and that is on-site. i agree we need to move it. i would like to get it out of california too. we have a place to put it. the places yucca mountain in nevada. the law nevada. the law says that is where it should go. the court say that is what the law says and the scientists have said it is safe there for a million years. and yucca mountain is large enough to accept all of the used nuclear fuel that we have stored on-site in the united states today. so we have a stalemate in the congress. the reason we have not passed the legislation senator feinstein and i like to passes
6:26 pm
because we take the position that we should move ahead on all tracks at once and if we get stuck on one we should still, namely yucca we should continue to move on the others. some of those who support yucca mountain say if you don't move on yucca you will move on anything. well we have to solve that. that is our responsibility really. the help of others to support our position is true. but that is our responsibility to work out we will continue to try to do that. i just had maybe one or two questions. you heard the testimony about the proposal for a two advanced reactors to be license and ready for construction in 2030s from doctor deutsch's report. do you think the goal is achievable, and if so what you think it will take to accomplish it? >> i do believe it is achievable. one thing i reflect on i like history also is senator
6:27 pm
feinstein said, when i drive and the oak ridge national laboratory i drive past the graphite reactor. that is a lesson in history of what this country can do. a reactor that that was built in nine months, went critical and in november of 1943. that reminds me of what we can do when we decide to do something. so the question is, how do we get there. we have to first of all decide to do it. we have to move forward much like mr. deutsch was saying. we have to decide we are going to do this. we have to set clear goals. we. we have to have focused effort. focused our nd that will help move us along the way. it will take a public private partnership to do this. the final element i will add is along the way we have to continue to work with nrc to
6:28 pm
have the appropriate regulatory framework in place. >> you talked about the big computers at oak ridge in the work you're doing on modeling and simulation. as we talk about relicensing and taking seabrook from 40 years - 60 years are taking some of the existing reactors from 60 years - 80 years which the commission is considering, how can the supercomputers you work with help with determining it safe and appropriate to do that or not? >> an example of that is the consortium of advanced simulation of light water reactors or castle. that has developed a high fidelity model of nuclear reactor. we are able to understand that very clearly what is happening with the reactor as change
6:29 pm
occur. so it it is the use of advanced modeling simulation coupled with experimental data that can help enable the understanding and help them form the basis for moving forward for life extensions. >> doctor mckenzie, you work for a recognized group, the national resource defense council. i would assume you and the counselor concerned about climate change. >> yes, we are. >> doctor deutsch said his committee was unanimous that if we didn't take some action by 2030 we would not have nuclear power option going forward in the united states a we would lose 20% of electricity and 60% of carbon free electricity. to think that that helps us to with climate change? >> i question the 2030 has a clear for all of that power turns out. it will be more like a ramp down
6:30 pm
in power as different units reach different ages. . . >> do you think it helps to lose the nuclear option by 2030 as his task force unanimously said would happen? >> i'm a skeptic that nuclear will be able to deliver the energy, the low-carbon energy that we need to address climate change -- >> well, then today it produces 60% of our carbon-free
6:31 pm
electricity. >> but it has an uncertain future. >> well, but how much of our carbon-free electricity does wind power produce today? >> wind power produces less carbon-free energy than nuclear. but renewable energy, energy efficiency, it is, it is really making incredible advances recently and showing itself as a lower cost option than nuclear for addressing climate change, and i believe that progress -- >> so you'd be comfortable with losing the nuclear option in terms of our country's ability to deal with climate change. >> i am uncomfortable with unresolved problems for nuclear energy, unsod problems -- unsolved problems. i believe pragmatically nuclear will continue at a lower level into the future. i don't imagine it vanishing. we have the four ap-1000 reactors under construction. so i think that a scenario in which everything is gone by 2030
6:32 pm
is perhaps, is perhaps too negative for nuclear energy. but i'm a skeptic that nuclear can continue to contribute at its current level. >> what would replace it? >> well, the department of energy's own national laboratories have seen a scenario where renewable energy can be the dominant source of clean energy -- >> meaning windmills. >> solar, wind -- >> solar is today less than 1% of our electricity, right? >> that's correct. >> and wind is about 3-4% of our electricity. >> but the recent growth has been extraordinary. and that trend, we believe, will continue. >> and the wind is available when the wind blows and the solar is available when the sun shines. >> there is an issue of base load versus non-base load generation to contend with. i would say that our, the transmission grid is evolving in time and changing in time and
6:33 pm
adapting to variable, a variable generation as well as there will probably be advances in storage. i think that nuclear will probably play a role in the future, i'm not sure how large. and i do know there are long, outstanding problems to solve first. >> so you do agree finding a way to store used nuclear fuel be, i believe it was your testimony, is urgent -- >> absolutely. >> so you support yucca mountain? >> no, nrdc does not support -- >> why not? the scientists say it's safe for a million years there. >> well, the process of restarting the yucca mountain project would begin with the license application. and the resolving over 200 contentions, new and significant information that may actually
6:34 pm
necessitate starting from scratch in terms of the license -- >> so you think we can open another repository more rapidly than we could complete yucca mountain? >> we believe that yucca mountain will likely fail. so we do need to go back to basics -- >> but do you believe we can open -- so you -- it would fail because groups like yours don't support doing it even though the science says it's safe there for a million years, and the law says we should do it. >> we don't believe it would be able to get through the licensing process. >> is -- >> nrdc is not party to the licensing process. >> yucca mountain would be large enough to hold all the stored nuclear tulle in the country that we have today -- fuel in the country that we have today, correct? >> modifications are envisioned that would enable it to store more fuel and require it to include things like titanium drip shields -- >> wait just a minute. the nuclear regulatory commission has testified that yuck a ca mountain -- yucca
6:35 pm
mountain is large enough to hold the nuclear tulle from the approximately 100 reactors in the country. do you disagree with that? >> no, i don't disagree with that if you're talking about the 77,000 tons currently stored. the united states will generate again as much between now and mid century. >> right. so my view is we should open yucca mountain, put the fuel we have there, move it out of california, other laces, and open new repositories, maybe a private repository and solve our stalemate. in any event, we have had a terrific wide range of views here today both from the senators and from expert witnesses, thank you both so much for being a part of our discussion. we -- got the wrong page. the hearing record will remain open for five days, all statements submitted by our witnesses to senators will be
6:36 pm
included in the record. the subcommittee requests all responses for the record be provided within 30 days of receipt. if either of you have something you'd like for us to consider that you didn't have a chance to say today or when you go home you wish you'd said, if you'll send it to us, we'll distribute it to the other senators. we thank you very much for taking your time to be here. the subcommittee stands adjourned. [inaudible conversations]
6:37 pm
[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]
6:38 pm
[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]
6:39 pm
>> the issues that we talked about that were recommended by the task force. and tried to create an environment in which nuclear power can succeed. obviously, one is to solve stalemate. a second is to treat carbon-free-producing energy sources equally either with no subsidy or the same subsidy. and then excessive regulation -- >> but can you do that under an administration that doesn't really see climate change as a threat? >> well, climate change isn't the only reason for nuclear power. the main reason is that it produces reliable power, 95% of the time at a low cost that will help attract jobs. as soon as japan ask germany started -- and germany started closing nuclear power plants, manufacturers started looking at the tennessee valley to build their plants. i mean, electricity prices this many germany have gone through
6:40 pm
the roof was they've closed their nuclear power plants. and for a big manufacturing country, if you want to create jobs, you don't need power just when the sun shines and the wind blows, you need it all the time. >> would you support -- [inaudible] for this carbon tax or a technology had the neutral track? -- or a technology-neutral tax? >> i'm not ready to do that yet. i do want to see nuclear power treated equally with every other form of carbon-free electricity. particularly since it produces reliable baseload power, and it produces 60% of all the our we have. i'm puzzled -- i'm glad that see that some of those who care the most about climate change, like senator whitehouse, have come around to the position that it makes absolutely no sense to close nuclear reactors if you care about climate change. since climate change is caused by carbon and nuclear power
6:41 pm
plants produce 60% of our carbon-free electricity. i think most people simply -- one of the reports of the task force was that nuclear doesn't get enough credit for being a carbon-free source of electricity. maybe these hearings will help do that. >> yeah. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations] >> this week the supreme court heard oral argument in two consolidated cases brought on by the city of miami against bank of america and wells fargo arguing that under the fair housing act, the banks were involved in discriminatory mortgage practices against black and latino home buyers which resulted in loan defaults, foreclosures and less tax revenue for the city. hear the argument in its entirety this evening at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span2.
6:42 pm
>> c-span's "washington journal," live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up saturday morning, the hill staff writer timothy comma on the top 14 obama administration regulations that president-elect trump could undo. then we'll take a look at some of the challenges facing president-elect trump's administration with paul brandeis, west wing reports founder and white house bureau chief. he'll look at the president-elect's selection of key members for his team as well as how he'll manage his supporters' expectations. and university of minnesota law school professor richard painter joins us from minneapolis to talk about the various conflicts of interest in terms of the president-elect's business dealings and staffing decisions, particularly roles for his children. c-span's "washington journal," live beginning at 7 a.m. eastern saturday morning. join the discussion.
6:43 pm
>> a signature feature of c-span2's booktv is our coverage of book fairs and festivals, and this coming weekend booktv will be live from the 33rd annual miami book fair. saturday's coverage begins at 10 a.m. eastern. here's some of what you'll see. pamela paul on buy the book, writers on literature ask the literary life from "the new york times"' book review. "the washington post"'s wesley lowery with his book, "they can't kill us all: ferguson, baltimore and a new era in america's racial justice movement," and former democratic candidate bernie sanders takes your phone calls and talks about his book, "our revolution: a future to believe in." sunday gets underway at 10:30 a.m. eastern and features dana perino with her latest book, "let me tell you about jasper." pulitzer prize-winning journalist susan my be lieuty on her book, in the darkroom.
6:44 pm
coulson whitehead with the underground railroad and co-founder of the miami book fair, mitchell kaplan. live coverage of the miami book fair. go to for the complete weekend schedule. >> earlier this week former democratic presidential candidate senator bernie sanders spoke about the 2016 election and called on president-elect donald trump to rescind the appointment of steven ban nonas chief strategist. this is an hour and 15 minutes. >> and i look forward to chatting with e.j. in a few moments. but before we do, i just wanted to say a few words about the election and where we are today. i know there are a lot of people who are frightened, a lot of people who are extremely unhappy, and i would not be telling you the truth if i
6:45 pm
didn't tell you that tuesday night was a very, very depressing evening for me. but i want to maybe begin by telling you that as a result of having the privilege and the opportunity of running all over this country, going to 46 states during my campaign, i entered the campaign -- i ended the campaign far, far more optimistic than when i began that campaign. and the reason for that is all over this country i saw extraordinarily beautiful people, working people, young people who love this country and who are determined to do everything that they can to make the united states of america the kind of nation we know we can become. [cheers and applause]
6:46 pm
and the other point that i want to make as we move into the trump era is to understand that real change and real politics never takes place from the top on down, it always occurs from the bottom on up. [applause] and what that means, in my view, is that when millions of people stand together and they refuse to allow dem gynecologily to -- demagoguery to divide us up by race, by country we were born in, by our sexual orientation, when we stand together by the millions, we can stop mr. trump or anyone else from doing bad things to this country. [cheers and applause]
6:47 pm
so as lisa just mentioned, i have always believed that election days are very, very important days, to be sure. and elections are enormously important. but politics is not just about elections. if you think about our history as a nation and the profound changes that have taken place, what you understand is that change only takes place when millions of people look around them and they say that the status quo is not working and are prepared to fight for social, racial, economic and environmental justice. [cheers and applause]
6:48 pm
i just want to, in terms of the election, make three points. number one, in case you don't know -- and i'm sure most of you do -- hillary clinton ended up winning the popular vote by what we think after all the votes are counted by about two million votes. [cheers and applause] number two, if you are a progressive on issue after issue whether it is raising the minimum wage to a living wage, whether it is pay equity for women, whether it is rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure and creating millions of decent paying jobs, whether it is reforming a broken criminal justice system or a broken immigration system, whether it is making public colleges or universities tuition-free, whether it is demanding that the
6:49 pm
wealthy start paying their fair share of taxes, on all of those issues and more the american people are on our side, don't ever forget that. [cheers and applause] now, during the course of his campaign, mr. trump -- and i should tell you that in that campaign i was as active as i could be during the last week of that campaign. i was in 12 battleground states giving 21 speeches at rallies all over this country, because i thought that it was absolutely emmertive that we do -- imperative that we do everything we can to make sure that hillary clinton was elected and not donald trump. but it didn't turn out that way. and here is where we are today. it seems to me three things,
6:50 pm
four things. number one -- five things, who knows? we don't know. [laughter] during the course of his campaign, which clearly -- and we have to acknowledge this -- was certainly one of the most unusual campaigns ever run by a candidate, mr. trump said a whole lot of things. a whole lot of things. and be sometimes i think they would just come off the top of his head. [laughter] and toward the end of the campaign, he was actually using the term that many democrats don't use. he was saying that he was going to be the champion of the american working class. that's what he said. well, mr. trump, we have a list of everything that you said. and we are going to hold you to account. [applause]
6:51 pm
and what i think mr. trump did -- and this speaks to why i personally believe we need major, major reforms of the democratic party -- [cheers and applause] what mr. trump said and talked about is something that the pundits here in washington have not a clue about and the corporate media has very little understanding about. and that is that what he understood to be true, and it is true, is despite the fact that today we are far, far better off economically after eight years of obama than we were when bush left office, that that is true. there is another reality. and that is that all across this country there are millions and millions of decent, good people
6:52 pm
who are frightened about the world that they are living in. there are mothers out there, single moms or young couples who are making 30, 40, $50,000 a year. mom and dad are working, they need childcare for their children, and yet childcare costs 10 or $15,000. how do you afford $15,000 for childcare when you're making 40 or $50,000 a year? there are workers in my state who see an explosion in technology. they see the very wealthiest people in this country becoming phenomenally richer. they see large corporations enjoying record-breaking profits, and yet they are working not at one job, they're working at two jobs, they are working at three jobs. there are people all over this country who are 55, 60 years of age.
6:53 pm
they have worked their entire lives. and now they are going to be retiring soon, and you know what? half of those older workers do not have a nickel in the bank for retirement. there are young people who went deeply into debt 30, 50, $80,000 in debt in order to go to college. but when they leave school, they find that the only jobs they can get are jobs which athem $12, $14 an hour, not enough to repay their debt. that is the reality for millions of people in this country. and that is the reality of a middle class which has been in decline for the last 40 years. that is the reality of 43 million fellow americans who today are living in poverty, something that we do not talk
6:54 pm
about at all, not mentioned on television. and some in dire poverty. we are living in a nation which has a grotesque level of income and wealth inequality in which the top one-tenth of 1% now owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90%. and that is the reality that mr. trump perceived to be true. and he said i hear you are hurting, and i hear and understand you're worried about the future for your kids. and i alone can cosomething about it -- can do something about it, and people voted for him. now, let me just tell you some of what mr. trump talked about. and we're going to hold him accountable. mr. trump said -- [cheers and applause] now, mr. trump said, unlike many
6:55 pm
majorities -- the vast majority of the republicans -- he said he will not cut social security, medicare and medicaid. now, i believe we should expand social security. i believe in a medicare for all program, but -- [applause] that is what he said. and pay attention to see what he now does. the question that will be resolved pretty quickly is whether or not everything that he was saying to the working families of this country was hypocrisy, was dishonest or whether he was sincere. and we will find that out soon enough. but number one, no cuts, says mr. trump, to social security, medicare and medicaid. mr. trump says he wants to invest a trillion dollars in the rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure. that is a good sum of money, that is exactly what we should be doing, and we can create
6:56 pm
millions of good paying jobs if we do that. mr. trump, that's what you said on the campaign trail, that's what we look forward to seeing from you. [applause] now, i happen to believe that the federal minimum wage of $7.25 today is a starvation wage, that it should be raised to $15 an hour, a living wage. [cheers and applause] many trump did -- mr. trump did not say that, but what he did say is we should raise the minimum wage to $10 an hour. not enough, but a start. and we will hold him to those words. mr. trump said that wall street, dangerous, doing bad things, he wants to reestablish glass-steagall legislation. i look forward to working with him. [applause]
6:57 pm
mr. trump said he wants six weeks of aid maternity -- paid maternity leave. [cheers and applause] well, every other major country on earth has i think at least 12 weeks of paid family is and medical leave, but this is a start. this is a start. we look forward to working with him if he is honest about that. mr. trump said throughout his campaign, a cornerstone of his campaign, he wants to change our disastrous trade policies. as somebody who voted against every one of these trade policies, i look forward to working with him to make that happen. [applause] so i think what you will see on capitol hill is many democrats will be prepared to work with mr. trump if he turns out to be
6:58 pm
sincere about the promises he made during the campaign. if those promises turn out to be hollow, if they were nothing more than campaign rhetoric, we will not only oppose his economic policies, we will expose those -- that hypocrisy as well. [applause] but there is an area where i -- and i think i can speak for virtually every member of the democratic caucus -- will not be working with mr. trump. we will not be involved in the expansion of bigotly, of racism, sexism -- bigotly, of racism, sexism, homophobia -- [cheers and applause]
6:59 pm
this country, as you all know, since our inception has struggled to overcome discrimination of all forms. and that is racism and sexism and xenophobia and homophobia. for hundreds of years, extraordinarily brave people have stood up -- and some of them have died in the struggle -- to end discrimination in america. and i say to mr. trump from the bottom of my heart, and i know i speak for millions of fellow americans, mr. trump, we are not going backwards in terms of bigotry, we're going to go forward in creating a nondiscriminatory society. [cheers and applause]
7:00 pm
and in that regard, i call upon mr. trump to rescind the appointment that he made of mr. bannon -- [cheers and applause] a president of the united states should not have a racist at his side. unacceptable. [applause] and there is another area which concerns me very much, and that is despite virtually all of the scientific evidence, mr. trump throughout his campaign
7:01 pm
proclaimed that his view is that climate change is a hoax created, for whatever reason, in china. couldn't quite figure that out. [laughter] and i say to mr. trump, climate change is not a hoax. it is the great planetary crisis that we face. can and that if -- and that if we do not act boldly to transform our energy system away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable energy, the planet that we will be leaving to our children and our grandchildren and our great grandchildren will be far less healthy and habitable than the one that we have today. and this is an issue in which millions of americans and people all over the world -- this is
7:02 pm
not an american issue, this is a global issue. because if the united states backs down and gives up on the effort to combat climate change all over the world, china, russia, india, other countries are going to say why are we doing it? why are we transforming our energy system? look at america, they're not doing it. so millions of us have got to stand up and tell mr. trump to read a little bit about science -- [laughter] [applause] to start listening to the scientific community and not the ceos of the fossil fuel industry. [cheers and applause] let me just, before e.j. comes out, let me just read a few
7:03 pm
words, couple of pages -- [laughter] in order to get the discussion going from the very beginning, the introduction to the book. and this is what i wrote. when we began our race for the presidency in april 2015, we were considered by the political establishment and the media to be a fringe campaign, something not to be taken seriously.
7:04 pm
>> >> we had 22 states and nephew were a landslide proportions if we had pledged delegates to the democratic convention 46% importantly in virtually every state we won a strong majority of the younger people, the future of america. from white, black, latino and asian american and native americans. we set the agenda for the america of tomorrow. thank you.
7:05 pm
[cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] [inaudible] [cheers and applause] >> i love you to. is great to be here tonight with the senator sanders will within -- even organized by politics and prose it is an institution in this city not just a bookstore but a community organization. and what they do to organize public discussion and public debate is extraordinary and i'm happy to be here for
7:06 pm
that. this is a grave and serious moment. i will get to senator sanders and his book has really nice things to say about the media and its tendencies. [laughter] to focus on the side issues but tim mead said to have written the book senator, there are a few minute set at the beginning of the book about yourself that even i did not know and i think people in the audience as they approach the book may be interested in knowing. i did not know for example, that the boy scouts gave your political career possible in the manner of speaking. i want to ask a couple of things about your early life. [laughter]
7:07 pm
the boy scouts story is quite wonderful. for every student athlete bernie stance -- bernie sanders got cut from the high-school basketball team. obviously influenced by the corporate media. [laughter] but you went on to become a track star as a runner and i am curious you are a democratic socialist but very competitive. i would like you to talk about those two experiences. and i have another one before we get to the other questions. by the way iran through hundreds of questions they're excellent i tried to flush them together in categories smr specific but sports quick. >> i grew up in in brooklyn
7:08 pm
new york. [cheers and applause] some of you may have heard of it. and lower middle-class i lived in a rent controlled apartments my family did not have a lot of money. but the book that had a profound impact on me go one way the world has changed me for the better when we were kids we would go into the street or the schoolyard and play ball from morning until night will. all to ourselves with no coaches or referees we worked out. staten island think about it in retrospect the very democratic approach everybody knew you could not bullshit. [laughter] if if you were the best 1/3
7:09 pm
best we knew who would bring the bases or the back door the balls it was a means of young people without supervision to work out things so they could play one freer playing basketball my team will be to your team another comes on day beat me everybody understood the rules. very much a democratic approach. and i said this is the country there are stars in the night. hugh new? we slept in the l. bean to was a structure without any
7:10 pm
door and the love matches this it was set pretty primitive way but that was the first introduction to rural life and influence of my decision of the early to move to the state of vermont. >> lou with the indoor mile the york city. from. [cheers and applause] with those organizationally nice talk about social people in that racial equality you don't and actually talk about the
7:11 pm
league. what was said about that moment so what made you join them? >> so why did we become the people we become? i did not like to see stronger kids picking on though beaker kids. but that was instinctual. with racism and poverty in the university of chicago
7:12 pm
tided spend an enormous amount of time reading a everything i could about history and politics sociology economics but i wasn't a good student. but the young people socialist league helped me to put it to win two together. we don't like poverty or racism or war or exploitation. what did they have in common? so why added time when do we have 43 million people? why do we have an unfair distribution of wealth?
7:13 pm
how does that influence politics? so now as a result of citizens united it is far worse who decided role for one -- world war i. so to put two and two together. been that is why i evolves into the analysis to explain what goes on. >> one thing that i noticed of personal terms is to come back to clothing a number of times and the first crisis that you face is purchasing clothing suitable to the
7:14 pm
mayor at that time just wondered to court roys sports jackets it wasn't my intention to become the best mayor in america or even to wear a tie that often i thought that a little sprucing up would not hurt. overnight my wardrobe double the size. [laughter] >> and that is absolutely true. the people of burlington vermont but a few years ago i had the distinction to be named the worst dressed member of the united states senate. [laughter] [cheers and applause] and all i can say if you think i am badly dressed now , . [laughter]
7:15 pm
>> i like button-down shirts myself. so let's move to a the political a little bit. when you talk in the book about speaking for running for president, you have interesting thing to say about mrs. clinton. you talk about in experience you had with her explaining her health care program and that she knew the plan backward and forward and also answer questions 25 years later when president clinton was trying to pass health care reform. twenty-five years later are marvelous that performance of you were also critical of her on the same page the clinton approach was to move the interest of forestry and corporate america with the needs of the american middle-class which is an impossible task of the clinton administration can boast positive accomplishments unsupported bill clinton with the policy
7:16 pm
flaws. so tell me after this is all over, what this is your attitude toward the clintons or mrs. clinton put. >> the section that he referred to what was any event that i went to let the medical school. then i was in congress and hillary clinton was first lady leading the health care reform and i could hitch a ride with airforce to with her friend we chatted for a while. got what blew me away was she got up there and i missing now before an hour she spoke without any notes whatsoever on any enormously complicated program which
7:17 pm
was the health care approach she knew that all but the point was she had helped to write that, she knew what she would answer the questions flawlessly to have an extraordinarily intelligent than that has not changed i have a lot of respect for her we have known each other 25 years. for better or worse of little more in the last year and a half. [laughter] and she is in very impressive and the like her a lot. on the other hand, what is very clear is her politics and bill clinton's politics are very different than mine in terms of their policy views and in terms of their understanding of how you change america up. in terms of policy the clinton administration rot
7:18 pm
before word nafta up. that was the beginning of a disastrous trade agreements of the corporate world and the clinton administration for deregulating and of all street of robert rubin from citibank so at the end of the day politically you have to make the decision this is a debate we will have within the democratic party right now. which side are you one? can you go out to raise substantial sums of money parks with the powerful special interest and then convince the american people
7:19 pm
toward do have to say be will take on these oligarch one end of drug company and the insurance companies and the corporate media and we will bring millions of working people to gather them currently exist. that is the fundamental difference of bill and hillary clinton and myself. >> i will just put this to you now. there were a number of people in the audience who basically talked about how the democratic party treated you and truly, what he would do about that again when the and clinton supporters new from a list doing this they
7:20 pm
want me to ask you to do think what you did in the primaries hurt the very clinton? i am sure you saw in did not like a letter where she talked about the message that you were giving. but now she says his refusal to concede in a timely way she could have had more votes that further contributed the message contributing to the catastrophic victory of mr. trump. >> i say to those critics number-one you can argue the exact reverse that maybe i would have been elected president of the united states. [cheers and applause] but the presumption behind that question that serious debate that it is a bad
7:21 pm
thing for democracy but my campaign was brought millions of people into the political process the majority ended up voting for of hillary clinton but if you see the progress of animals that were released with the dnc was not a neutral force in the campaign.
7:22 pm
and we had to take on virtually the entire democratic establishment i do think it made her a better candidate because by the end of the campaign she was against the keystone pipeline, by the end she was against the teepee p. [applause] and to make public colleges then diversity's tuition free and i think those another idea is that we incorporated into the democratic platform which is the most progressive platform and that made hillary clinton a stronger candidate.
7:23 pm
>> i'll think it says you should not have run but the critique after the votes were counted. >> that the people in in california and those others. >> i'm talking about after california. >> then i l. fully prepared barry few people were more supportive of her than i was. let's be clear about that. [applause] bought also determined 30 imports 4 million votes but
7:24 pm
i want you to speak to what those people told me during the campaign talked them when colleges intuitions freeze and expand health care. that ended up happening in that was an asset for secretary clinton. [applause] >> there were a number of questions about the media i will just read a paragraph from your book, and according to was study of media coverage of the 2016 coverage, only 11 percent of coverage focused on the candidate paul the seat decisions and leadership abilities and professional history. i find that hard to believe link in number is much too
7:25 pm
high. so talk about your critique of the media and how does that fit in with the fact that donald trump has been waging a campaign:of a media as allegedly liberal and is trying to discredit factually oriented media correct added your critique fit with his greg. >> does not fit at all laugh laugh. >> i thought you might say that. >> here is the issue. for the title of the chapter is the corporate media a threat to our democracy it is serious stuff. all the more serious because it is not discussed on television. and it will not be in most newspapers but here's what you got five. you have approximately six major media conglomerate.
7:26 pm
for who now control 90 percent of the media which means a handful of giant conglomerates exercise enormous power of what they see and hear and read. so then idea that nbc, cbs nbc, cbs, cnn and fox are objective to give both sides of the story. the function of corporate media and i hope it upshot anybody, is to make money. they make money. in fact, some delight donald trump and correct me if i am wrong, cbs and cnn poll said he was great for them he was outrageous and said our wages things and his ratings went up put him on. there he is saying something courageous to attack
7:27 pm
somebody. that is great tv. we had the misfortune to not be a campaign to believe we should not viciously attack our opponents and try to run as positive in a campaign as and i could. [applause] and i believe a campaign is taking a hard look at the real issues facing the country and offering solutions for those problems. i could not do that in three seconds and that is not what media is interested in. and study after study most television coverage is attacked and now works for television. i quoted some guy.
7:28 pm
did a study. [laughter] this is what it said. then looked at television over a period of time to see how much discussion there was a policy on television. the evening news. or sunday news shows for quick turns out two-thirds of the entire discussion of poverty was based on things that i said for gladys pretty pathetic that plan candidate the of one of the most important issues facing the country do know how much discussion there is about preparing the american health care system with the rest of the industrialized world where every country guarantees health care? virtually none.
7:29 pm
so the point about my critique is that, mediates me that is of the point but in a democracy we need serious discussion and that is not with the corporate media is about. [applause] now trump's problem is that she was a pathological liar. pickup i have many republican friends but every day he would say something that was completely off the wall the only person in america would go one television to celebrate the destruction of the twin towers.
7:30 pm
and is absolutely convinced on and on that those. they tried to say that isn't quite true. that is a very different could take. >> i am looking for a question that someone asked to fall a lot of that which is something like what if in the heck happened flecks or a third grader asks why did so many people vote with four donald trump of that is the case greg. >> i tried to cover that in my earlier remarks and be clear fare are people in america who are racist, there are people who are sexist and homophobic and saw in those very ugly remarks they saw somebody they felt comfortable with but i will also say that i


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on