We have some distinguished guests here. We're looking forward to hearing from Congressman Waxman and the Q&A. Southern California Edison is seeking permission from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to restart its badly damaged San Anofi nuclear reactor, one of them within a matter of weeks. As you know, the aging power plant is located on our fragile shoreline in a tsunami zone riddled with earthquake faults. A senior San Anofi engineer testified recently that the facility is not designed to withstand current earthquake risks. What is wrong with a regulatory process that can result in restart two years before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has completed its ongoing work of promulgating regulations based on lessons learned from Fukushima, tsunami, and seismic hazards. There's nothing wrong with that and that's exactly what we ought to insist on. We want a full review of the lessons learned from Fukushima. That San Anofi power plant, one of the power plants there, was fairly new. I don't remember exactly details, but it wasn't that old and yet it wasn't operating appropriately. When the head of the NRC testified before our committee, I asked why didn't you know about it? How did this happen without the NRC reviewing it? They said that they are aware of it now and they pledged to us that they're not going to allow San Anofi to start those power plants again, any of them, until they've done a complete and thorough review. It's not going to be a matter of weeks, it may not happen at all. But as a result of that, I wrote a letter along with the other Democrats on the Energy and Commerce Committee to the Cal ISO to tell them that they ought to be sure that we're ready for the summer because if we don't have the electricity from San Anofi and I don't expect we will, we better be sure that we have the ISO looking at the grid so that we don't have energy blackouts. Congressman, I was told by the NRC that they will not wait for their analysis of tsunami and seismic risks before they make their decision on restart. They're two years away from analyzing and promulgating those regulations and they said they will not wait those two years. They're going to base it on answers to a confirmatory action letter and it can happen in a matter of weeks according to recent NRC committee meeting, that public meeting that I witnessed and asked questions at. So I'd like to get you know. Well, I appreciate that clarification. I don't know that it's tied to the review of lessons learned from Fukushima, but they are going to have to come in and show us that based on all the science and inspections and all the bells and whistles that we need for protection that they're not going to let the nuclear power plant reopen and we'll call them before the committee and find out if they're going to make a decision without fully vetting all the concerns that they are to be looking at. Good. I have a question sent in by someone who couldn't make it. Which is why is the NRC allowed? Why is the NRC allowed to list radiation as a privileged pollutant? It is a known carcinogen and the allowable limits for radiation are hundreds of times higher than other carcinogens. Why do you allow the NRC to establish a standard for low level radiation called whatever is reasonably achievable and why is the NRC allowed to specify permissible standards rather than safe standards? This gives the perception that the NRC and the nuclear industry run roughshod over the U.S. Congress and particularly the Energy and Environment Committee. Let me hold on to this question because I don't want to give you an answer when I don't know the answer. So I'm going to find out more about it and see what the NRC has to say about it. So thank you for it. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, thank you.