mix, energy secretary steven chu's testimony on his department's spending request for next year. the administration is asking for nearly $30 billion, a 12% increase. the energy department budget request includes increased funding for renewable power projects and for communities that invest in the electric vehicle infrastructure. this is an hour and a half. >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the energy and water subcommittee's budget hearing on the department of energy's fiscal year 12 budget request. the doe is requested 30.5 billion for fiscal year 2012.

that's an increase of 4.8 billion or 19% from fiscal year 2011. about 1.1 billion of the $4.8 billion increase, or 25%, is for the national nuclear security administration's nuclear weapons for non-proliferation and naval reactor programs. this subcommittee has already explored em nsa's budget request with the administrator two weeks ago. the rest of the increases for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects, loan guarantees and basic energy research. it's my understanding that the doe submitted this budget request before congress passed the 2011 continuing resolution. and so it doesn't reflect the new spending reality. so it's clear that doe and congress will have to make some

joint painful decisions and focus of the limited resources that we have on the highest priorities. i think knowing your highest priority is a substantial importance to a secretary. i hope that you will highlight kim those, don't feel shy. i would like to just highlight the three largest increases in this budget. the largest single increase would be for the office of energy efficiency and renewable energy which would see an increase of 1.4 billion or 76%. the only programs in this account that see a decrease our hydrogen and water power and i know we want to ask you about that, too. given the across-the-board budget increases for all other programs, it's hard to determine which of these r&d programs would have the biggest impact on energy use and the clean energy economy.

second, the office of science would see an increase of 5.52 million or 11%. so those are the two, office of energy efficiency and office of science. innovation clearly drives economic prosperity, and the office of science has been one of the leaders a new scientific and technology delivery. for example, argon national lab in illinois who spent ten years researching catho materials for a lithium ion battery that was small, energy efficient and low in weight. general motors used this technology to develop the batteries it now uses and the chevy vault, the first mass-produced plebeian hybrid electric vehicle. so that's significant. but despite these type of successes, the office of science must do a better job explaining how basic research can lead to nuclear energy technology and

how we can better leverage large scientific facilities to help american industry remain competitive. i would hazard to guess that there would be a substantial priority for all of us. further, we will see an increase of 370 million or 206%. of course it sold a promise of advancing high risk high reward technology even though arpa is a new agency of it like to ask that you would apply the program management to other doe offices, such as the rigorous peer review process and contador client brandt negotiations completed in just two months. streamlining contacting processes and assembling high quality program management teams i think would benefit many doe energy programs. my last observation is outside

of the nnsa the the problem of energy doesn't provide a five-year spending plan. without the plan and makes it difficult to buy off on committing to programs that create large out your obligations. so joining us today is of course dr. steven chu, the secretary of energy. i have the greatest respect and fondness for secretary chu in the full disclosure. i happened to meet him when he was the head of lawrence berkeley lab and his achievements are many and are quite astounding so we all grant that you are the most brilliant secretary, secretary chu, and we are delighted to have you here. but let me turn to senator alexander for his remarks if i might. >> thank you, madam chairman. when i was the education

secretary and was in your shoes i didn't get that kind of a compliment from the chairman of the committee so i'm a little jealous but i agree. dr. chu, your one of the president's best appointees, you've been a terrific leader and i am glad that you're spending this part of your life in this form of public service. i want to in my remarks and then questions when my time comes, i want to focus on some of the things senator feinstein talked about, and for me i would say it would be putting the priority on energy research for our country, something i know dr. chu, you have long advocated. her in 2008 and went to the oak ridge national laboratory and gave a talk called the manhattan project for clean energy independence and suggested that we apply the same rigor and

ambitious goals to energy research the we did to the manhattan project and world war ii and listed who several objectives of such a new manhattan project. most of them had taken from the 14 grand challenges of engineering and 21st century of the national academy of engineering has edited the included plug and electric cars, carbon capture, solar power recycling nuclear fuel, advanced a biofuels green buildings and fusion. you were a part of the national academy sector to to say to congress what we should do to help our country be more competitive as we call america competes based upon your report and you moved to form ups in several areas and in the request you want to form or so i would like to indicate my broad agreement with that strategy and

work with you to find ways even in this tight budget situation to prioritize spending and find more money for clean energy research. my colleagues wanted to talk this week about subsidies for energy for big oil we should talk about all subsidies i suggested on the floor this morning we might talk about the big win for the taxpayers are on the hook for $27 billion over the next ten years to subsidize wind mills which is more money than if we cut of the attacks breaks to the five oil companies that is just an example. and the was based upon the production tax credit put into place temporarily in 1992. now, my staff's research indicates we only used about, -- spent about 6 billion on energy research and federal government every year and i would wonder whether some of these long-term

subsidies for energy with their big oil or big wind might be better spent for energy research. there are other parts of the budget, even this budget where i wonder whether the energy efficiency section. i wonder if energy efficiency should go up at the level that it's mentioned here or we should increase the research budget. there's $4 billion of bonds and recovery act funding and with the rise asian and energy grants seeking 384 million more would that not be better spent to to get federal research budget up closer to seven or eight or $9 billion a year i liked arpa. it is a promising area. we are only able to find $180 million for it although it is authorized 300 it is fully authorized. so i would like to weigh in in favor of energy research.

i think many of my republican colleagues see energy research as inappropriate role for the federal government, long term subsidies. some of my republican colleagues have problems with. i do it long term. short-term i support jump-start an electric cars may be natural-gas trucks just starting the nuclear plants to loan guarantees, all these things that you've suggested. so i will be looking to work with you to see if we can prioritize money from the current request, may be little long-term subsidies and apply more dollars over the next ten years to what you call hubs and i called the manhattan project for clean energy independent. thank you. >> thank you, senator alexander. we will proceed in five minute rounds and use the early bird rule as people come to attend. secretary why don't you proceed with your remarks and then we

will go to questions. >> thank you, chairman feinstein and ranking member eric and other members of the subcommittee. first for your kind remarks and also for giving me the opportunity to present and discuss the president's fiscal year 2012 budget request and the department of energy. president obama has planned to in the future by out innovating come out educating and helped building the rest of the world while the same time addressing the deficit. many countries are moving aggressively to lead in to clean energy. we must rev up the great american innovation machine to create jobs and win this clean energy race. to that end, president obama called for an increase investment and clean energy research, development and deployment. in addition his proposed a bold but achievable goal generating 80% of electricity from clean sources by 2035. the department of energy fy 12

budget request of 29.5 billion supports the goals and strengthens the nation's economy and security. we recognize families are feeling the effect of high gas prices right now and while there are no silver bullets to the challenge president obama is committed to breaking dependence on foreign oil field in easing the burden on families. it helps reduce reliance on oil but it's a loving her next generation of biofuels, and excluding electric vehicle research to the deployment. and energy efficiency programs we will save money for consumers by saving energy. in addition the budget supports the research development and deployment of renewable energy, the modernization of the electric grid and the advancement of carbon, captured sequestration technology. the budget also supports the loan guarantees for the renewable energy efficiency technology.

nuclear energy as important role to play in the energy portfolio and that's why the budget requests additional guarantee authority and invests in the research and development of advanced nuclear technologies. to unleash innovation coverage of supports the ground-breaking research to the office of science for example we are investing in basic energy sciences, advanced computing, environmental sciences all key areas for economic competitiveness. in addition widely used facilities provide unique analysis tools for materials, chemistry and biology research. the budget invests 550 million advanced research projects agency for energy and this will allow to continue to support research project that aim to deliver game changing clean energy technologies arpae for

example through a combined total of $24 million from arpae, six companies have already been able to advance the research efforts and share the potential liability of their cutting edge technologies. these -- this enables the companies to achieve the milestones that in turn have attracted more than $100 million in private sector funds to the project. this is precisely the innovation leverage that is needed to in the future. another key piece of the effort or the energy innovation hubs. through the hub we are bringing together of scientists and engineers to achieve similar game changing energy goals of a concentrated effort over a longer time horizon is needed to establish innovation leadership. the budget requests 146 million to support the three hubs and to establish three new hubs in the area of batteries and energy storage comes margaret technologies and systems and critical materials. finally the budget supports the energy frontier research centers

which are working to solve specific scientific problems that are walking clean energy development. to better integrate and maximize research efforts, the department is organizing along the lines of business. this will help create some worth more than the parts. and any specific technological area we are examining the current business projections and looking across arpae, the office of science and applied technology site to determine where we in the doe can add the most value to accelerate the pace of innovation. for example, we want an initiative with participation from arpae and also the size of the office of energy efficiency and renewable energy. to make the solar energy cost competitive with any other form of energy before the end of the decade and this would position the u.s. to lead in this growing industry at a time when industry, congress and the american people are making critical energy decisions we've made sure to adequately fund the energy information

administration, the nation's premier source of independent statistical information about energy production even a modest increase to support the eia will go along way in providing the congress and others with an unbiased data analysis needed to make informed decisions. the budget also strengthens our security by providing $11.8 billion for the department's national nuclear security administration. the request of 7.6 billion for weapons activities provides a strong basis for transitioning to a smaller yet safe secure and effective nuclear stockpile without additional nuclear testing. it also provides much-needed resources to strengthen science, technology and engineering capability and modernize the infrastructure of the nuclear security enterprise. to support the goals of securing the nuclear material around the world in four years, the budget

invests $2.5 billion in the defense nuclear non-proliferation program. through the investments, the obama administration is laying the groundwork for the nation's future prosperity and security. at the same time we are mindful of our responsibility to the taxpayer, streamlining operations and cutting back in multiple areas including the the eliminating unnecessary fossil fuel subsidies. the united states faces a choice will believe in innovation or will we fall behind? to lead the world and clean energy we must act now and we can't afford not to. thank you and i am pleased now to answer questions. >> thank you. i'm going to try to get three quick questions in my first round. one is on hydrogen and one is on the sunshine initiative and serve on the loan guarantee program. you proposed to cut the hydrogen 100 million fy 12. that is 70 million from the 2010

level ne uzi vote all funding for the fuel cells in the energy program. we gather your advisory committee was dismayed by that but i think it's important you tell us what your current view is on hydrogen technology, and whether it can be successful or not >> sure. in terms of the cells we have a research program for stationery fuel cells. there has been very good progress made in the fuel cells and in the longevity bringing down the cost. the idea of the hydrogen economy is something that is very helpful with the fundamental issue is we need a source of hydrogen that will make good economic sense. right now hydrogen comes from reforming natural gas. when you reform natural gas to create hydrogen and carbon monoxide so in terms of the benefit there is nothing less you sequester to carbon dioxide. in order for that to happen i

think we have to develop more sources of natural gas that can allow you to do those things. so the first is to develop sources of hydrogen that will make economic sense and discussed the excess carbon dioxide. there's a hydrogen storage issue and right now despite the best efforts we are going to continue to do research in this area is still high-pressure tanks so there is the storage part, there is the source of hydrogen which i think is the most fundamental issue. it doesn't come out. it's a transformation of energy from one form to another, and the fuel cell part is actually going along well. the stationery because the higher efficiency is something we see can be deployed quickly in the next five or ten years

there are commercial companies doing this so we will continue in research on developing better fuel cells for stationary sources and we are also looking o th hydrogen economy soevllo that's why -- >> quickly how realistic is all that? >> i think the fundamental thing is the source of hydrogen that right now it's natural gas, but natural gas will have to be significantly more abundant and less costly. we are going in the right direction but have to significantly more abundant or the gasification of coal again with carbon sequestration, but that is a technology issue to make it cost-effective, but there has to be -- it is turning a hydrocarbon into hydrogen and sequestering of the carbon. >> the son shot initiative which seeks to reduce the cost of solar power to roughly a dollar

watt and at that press the delete as the solar power generation becomes cost-effective without subsidy with other forms of electricity generation. i'm gerry pleased to see that the son shot initiative will include the foot of a tape manufacturing initiative. as you will recall several years ago, you told me that so devotee yet was not cost-effective but he expected at that time that it would take four to five years to become effective, cost-effective so i would like to know what progress has been made there as well. do we need to focus resources on the sun shot initiative on domestic manufacturing? >> the cost of photovoltaic energy has gone down by, it's been decreased worldwide. the full cost of 10 megawatts or

above the large-scale it has come down that much. in this decade we've talked to businesses not only in the united states but abroad and every manufacturer says that in their business of the cost does not come down by another we can't produce them then we will probably go out of business. so they are actually banking on this and then taking that as the starting point we start to engage in the company's and then to say can we accelerate this, can we do something with these companies and with research that can actually make come accelerate the progress so the ambitious goal is to say can you reduce the cost by 75% instead of 50% by the end of this decade that is the price because at

that price in many parts of the united states then without subsidy it is competitive with any other form of energy. savitt is a big deal. when you drop by 50% there are certain areas of demand i think it will be and so our goal most of our energy endeavors is to devise a plan so we can get there without subsidy. you know, like, too share the belief that you might need to subsidize for a little while, but you don't want to subsidize for a hundred years, ten years, five years, and is there a technology pathway that can be felt this without a subsidy? so the son shot initiative is that, to say this is within reach and there has been remarkable progress. in terms very quickly of your question about manufacturing, mfg. innovation is another key part of what we need to do in order to be competitive the rest

of the world and it said manufacturing that began with things like henry ford, that he was willing to invest five years of money into the beginning company to develop the assembly line. they started by making the cards but transformed the automobile industry. so there are things we are investing in the we are actually quite excited about, new approaches of even a totally new approach to in effect during could transform the landscape and so we are helping companies research and develop new manufacturing things the will give us a competitive edge in decades to the two decades to come and that is an important part of what we are doing as well. >> my time is up. senator? >> i would be glad to defer to him and go after him. >> and was looking on the wrong site for you. we recognize the republican

leader. >> thank you, senator alexandre. mr. secretary, welcome. i'm here to focus your attention on the diffusion plant which i believe has been enriching uranium for 60 years. it happens to the economic engine of the western kentucky many people think of kentucky as a coal state which we are, but we are also a nuclear state. the plan test will hundred and please, it is in the process of closing down. there are, however, 40,000 cylinders of depleted uranium which are typically referred to in the business as cattails as tails. if they were the enriched would be a profitable venture.

these are government owned resources, highly valued, stored in a lot which could be sold or creative revenue for the government. and in the meantime, happily enough for western kentucky, keep 1200 people from collecting unemployment. so a revenue raiser for the government and avoidance of unemployment for 1200 people. are you familiar with details issue at the uranium enrichment plant? >> yes ibm. >> it's my understanding the department doesn't have a current plan for free enriching those is that correct? >> that's correct. >> kentucky's i plan rate is right at 10%. we cannot afford to lose one more julca kalona 1200. if there is a potential for the

doe to save these jobs, would you not think the would be worth pursuing? >> we are certainly concerned about any job impact on actions we take but there's another issue is i would be happy to talk to you about having to do with a there is another commitment for uranium and another to uranium enrichment plant and we are bound, we cannot release more than 10% because there are for example the uranium industry and the united states would be affected and so we are bound to only release 10% or less of whatever is on the market and so we have commitments in 2011 and 2012 for another enrichment process going on and so we've made that commitment and have to figure out how beyond that what to do

about the planned bill we are aware and sympathetic to this plight. >> let's assume we don't do that, then the question is to we have the funds and the budget to safely and securely to idle the plant after it closes and returns to the control of the government? >> what we need to do is work with you on a trillion to figured out a path forward for the jobs. this is now i have to be candid of the diffusion technology is one that is energy intensive and i would rather us invest in more forward leaning technology and improved centrifuges as an example and i do think the heat united states would like to have an in-house institute.

islamic but that isn't the issue is it? so the issue is as bleak wheat wheat and rich details and actually make money for the government or if we are not going to do that, will the government pay for it for the cleanup because we've been getting the cleanup funding of an annual basis but there is apparently no plan in your budget for cleanup after the operations ceased so under this scenario the government loses an opportunity for revenue, we lose 1200 jobs and you're not funding the plan at which would cost money as we enriching what actually gain the government money to manteca. am i correctly understanding? >> it certainly will be our obligation to clean up if and when it closes down but that uranium who will be there and

again to go forward, in the most perspective we come if there is the technology that they can cut more effectively in rich we would be more by used to doing that. but we have an obligation to you know, if this is finalized we would have an obligation to clean up that plant. >> when are we going to see the plant? >> well, we can get back to you and your staff on that. >> we have 1200 employees sitting their wondering if they are going to be without a job and i & as a tough time for everyone but here you have an opportunity to continue 1200 people working actually raise revenue for the government reenriching details and i think what i hear you saying is you have no plan for either the moment is that correct? >> right now we have to make very hard decisions given the

budget reality as the chairman feinstein said. we don't expect the congress to give the proposed budget. >> how many of your decisions give you an opportunity to raise revenue? >> well, we are actually raising revenue as you mentioned on the side for the same reason. and so it's raising revenue in the most cost-effective way, and we are always -- we always like to raise revenue. but remember we are at a limit of 10%. >> not a very satisfying answer if you're an employee in kentucky. i think i correctly heard that you have no plantar region rich details and to have not intended

by 2014 or not even going to meet annual clean-up needs met on an annual basis and have no current plan for addressing the shortfall. >> we can look for the clean-up issue but again the tails are still there and it's not as though we are going to move on next year or the year after. >> but you start reenriching now and the government makes money. you're leaving them sitting there and you've got the cleanup obligation which costs money. i'm curious as to why you think this makes sense. >> because if we do this enrichment with this old and now it is very energy consuming technology that was developed during world war ii, and there are better technologies that we would like to use and develop and define what in house and the

united states, so again it is a decision for the budget. >> so you would rather make the money leader than to make the money now? >> well, we can enrich it now but then we can't make the money because we can't really sit on the market because of already what's been put in place. >> thank you very much. >> i tried to be as little as possible. >> thank you very much. >> senator lautenberg, early bird, you were next. >> thank you, madam chairman. thank you, secretary chu, for the wonderful work you do for our country. and for helping us now to try to solve problems that will directly affect how the economy recovers and how we protect

ourselves, lack of energy to fuel the needs. in 2009 china surpassed the united states in private sector clean energy investment for the first time. 2010 china began to pull away attracting $54 billion in private investment. they recently announced the government would begin investing the equivalent of $75 billion in clean energy annually. now, will your agencies roughly 30 billion-dollar budget invest enough for us to regain the lead in the global clean energy race? >> you are quite right to be concerned about the investment but it's not only china. i would ed korea, the european

union, germany, great britain, other countries are also looking at clean energy development efficiency site and for generations side house going to be the big business opportunity in the world market going forward in the coming decades. so what we need to do is position the all the states so that we can be a leader in this and other technologies. it's quite frankly ours to lose because we still have the best research, the national abs system that is incomparable and we need to develop the mechanisms to allow the american industry to make inventions and manufacture in the u.s.. in terms of what you specifically are asking for their helping companies for example with loans or loan guarantees.

we have been oversubscribed loan program i think senator feinstein -- we couldn't get to that part of it and it's something that we feel is a highly leveraged way of supporting the energy investment because when we see the company's build manufacturing facilities abroad this is one of the factors that comes through loud and clear that they are getting loan guarantees from countries like china. so i would love to work with congress. part of our guarantee program would cover. it's highly leveraged and so it's not -- it's a guarantees of those programs i think would be an important part going forward. >> all right. but, secretary chu, does that suggest we are going to fall further behind with the kind of

budget we are talking about this morning? >> i think that's where the president has chosen to the energy budget and other agencies going down and the president said that this is a very clear in order to preserve the future and to win the future in order to actually go forward that investments in the science and research, development of these things is going to be crucial to our economic prosperity going forward and that is why there were hard decisions made and the energy budget solve the increase that it did. >> earlier this month you appointed a panel, to study and make recommendations on the practice. cornell university recently released a study that says the natural gas extracted using cranking as the technique to produce can produce much more

global warming pollution than coal and given the added penetration commitment for reducing greenhouse gases with your panel consider recommending that the industry that captures some of these can captured from the natural gas? >> welcome this committee is actually going to be meeting for the first time today and tomorrow. i'm aware of the cornell study there is another paper just published last week in the national academy of sciences which i read very thoroughly and it does raise some questions that need to be answered. we are very concerned about the environmental law impact, but we also see if you can do this

safely and not have access missions or pollution's that it is a transition to the clean energy future and it's producing energy in the united states and so the administration wants to do this in an environmentally responsible way and we need to do it in an environmentally responsible way. there is no question about that, but there are these studies we are very well aware of and i personally am given the charge of the committee has spent a couple of weekends reading about this stuff and learning and there are some concerns, but we want to get all the perspectives and find out what is really going on. >> we will be anxious to get the panel's report and hope we can establish the fact this doesn't present another environmental problem, that worsens the

saturation rather than improve it. >> thank you very much, senator lautenberg. >> thank you madam chair. mr. secateurs the government has traveled to visit with you and senator corker about the environmental cleanup and oak ridge urging focus on the dangers of the mercury and factoring in the large population of the region i would be remiss if i didn't say thank you and underscore the importance of that. my questions are along the lines of my comments and opening statement about energy research. does it sound like the department has about $6 billion more for energy research -- what should it be? if you were professor chu, i mean, what should -- let me put it another way. you talk about helms and i talked about manhattan project. aren't we do both talking about

accelerating energy research and focused way? >> yes >> i'm here to defend the president's budget but i would love to see increases. i think that this is the research we do with a goal of gaining the private-sector to pick up this stuff and run with it and it gives them as the chairman feinstein said and the national laboratories, we are using a light source, a facility to actually get the leading edge in the development series of patents that allows to make better batteries -- >> if i may interrupt, we are talking about 500-mile batteries and 1 dollar solar power and a better way to recycle and trying to lead the country in that and even the republicans often agree research is inappropriate role of the federal government while

we might worry about some other things given the importance of that as we've given the budget problems we've had with 40 cents of every dollar being borrowed we all know we are going to have a rough two or three or four years to make up the budget shouldn't we be looking hard at such things as long term subsidies? i think particularly my colleagues want to talk about big oil all week and i think we ought to talk about big wind, and i mentioned earlier that we are committed to spending $26 billion, taxpayers are, over the next ten years on the wind subsidies and production tax credit past as a temporary measure in 1992. now we've got in your budget money for research on offshore wind. it seems to me that is appropriate. it seems to me that to continue to subsidize over a long term a mature technology isn't appropriate. jump-start an electric cars,

just starting natural gas, research for offshore wind, all of those things might be appropriate but if we look at the long term energy subsidies whether they are big wheel or big wind it looks to me like we could find money to take a fairly modest energy research budget of $6 billion to make it seven or eight or nine or ten and move much more rapidly towards a low-cost clean energy future rather than a high-cost clean energy future. if we have 1 dollar a solar power that's cheaper, if we have 500-mile batteries that's cheaper, the uses a lot less gas so why shouldn't we be developing a policy that takes money from these long-term subsidies and putting them into energy research? >> i would agree with you absolutely that what we need to do in designing and our duty to any energy research and look, we are responsible the entire

innovation chain and what we need to do is design things and have a program going forward where we don't want to store businesses that can't survive indefinitely without subsidy. that's not the way to do things. so i think we are in total agreement with that. whereas you spoke about this for example offshore wind has great possibilities. we need to solve that to get it going and as we see it is going to be an international race, and it is, and it is an international race and therefore it is going to be the research. >> the amount of money to do their research is relatively modest. you ask for an offshore wind was 27 million mabey for small nuclear reactors $60 million. arpae is 100, you asked 500 but you've got 180 and the big subsidies whether it is a big wind or big oil it seems like

the money could be better spent and one of the things we might be able to help do is reduce the long-term subsidies and focus more on energy research where i think there is that the defense the appropriateness of the federal spending. thank you, madame chair. >> thank you, senator. senator cochran? >> madame chair, thank you for chairing this hearing. welcome, mr. secretary. we appreciate you being here to help us understand the administration proposal for spending in your department for the next fiscal year. i'm pleased to notice that it is recommended that nuclear energy continue to have a place in the national strategy for energy independence and guaranteed supplies of energy for the country. there is an increase in funding

for the office of nuclear energy we noticed in the budget request. i wonder what do you think the priorities of that office should be in terms of reaching our goals and helping maintain our energy security as a nation? >> i would love to answer that question. the way we are looking at this is what the industry is going to be doing and what can we do to add value to this thing's for example using high-performance computing which is a sweet spot. high-performance computing like what is done at senator alexander's laboratory in oak ridge and the fastest civilian allies disputed china pushing out ahead, but to use high performance computing to design

next generation reactors and how to deal with these things so you can skip engineering steps and engineering design you can simulate and watch your space, so we think we can do things of that nature. center alexander's spoke about how to develop fuel recycling that makes economic sense and makes antiproliferation census of the amount of electricity you generate from the nuclear fuel could be ten, 20 times more than what we do today. as for the same amount you can do lot more i think that's something that's very much part of what we want to do for a new recycling technology there's a long road but we have to continue this new ad the ants reactor technologies, things of that nature. >> one decision that is made by the department relates to the

strategic reserves in our state of mississippi, that program is dead in the water as i understand eight. there is a decision i am advised that cancels the expansion of the strategic petroleum reserve in the state. we've submitted requests for information, explanation, what plans do you have for that program, and we haven't received a response from the department of energy. i wish you could go back and see if you do have a response to that question. we would like to know about what your plans for the future are with respect to the strategic petroleum reserve. or you can ask for that now if you like. >> we will get back to you on the details but right now the strategic petroleum reserve we are required to have the supply in case of the disruption of supply of which it comes from

the petroleum reserve and the rest of the civilian side and right now we are repairing one of the cases but we are at close to the full capacity so but we can get back to do on the details of what we have going forward. but we are close to maximum capacity. we have a cabinet or two that needs repair. i don't quite remember what this was mississippi or not but we have to attend to that. >> we do know that we've been trying to get answers to questions about that for two years now i'm told and haven't gotten a satisfactory response so i don't know that there is a response but we are entitled to hear what your plans are. last year after the president recommended canceling that

program, congress voted to rescind all of the funds that we had worked for to provide the department about $70 million for the expansion of the strategic petroleum reserves. so there's a breakdown in communication and about whether you need the money and if you're not going to use the money we may be help you think of other ways to do that than what you are planning to do with the money. there was a blue-ribbon commission chartered last year by president obama to study nuclear waste disposal options. i wonder if you could give any information about this program, whether or not to have a specific plan. we understand the recently canceled program is in the

limbo, not clear about whether the funds are going to be used for that program or not. it gives me the impression that we are having a hard time finding out what the department is up to in some of these areas. can you tell what your plans are for storage? >> first i believe that there is a first draft in some of the recommendations from the blue ribbon commission. i think rather than commenting on the drafts that have been put out and would rather than give an official report, but it's -- let me comment on one or two of them what they have said is first that one of the things they said goes to senator alexander's point that while

there is no immediate technology that we can use for reprocessing we still should continue to develop that technology. they have looked at other countries that have found that where there was a process that seemed to have more acceptance in those regions of the country and so they are at least in the draft recommendation saying we should look at those process these. we have examples of a low-level where things are found very successfully and there have not been opposition. so we need to go far has a responsibility of the department of energy and as you know we are positive on the nuclear power in the future and would never

occurs it is the department of energy responsibility to deal with the waste. >> madame chair, my time is expired. >> thank you very much, senator cochran. >> welcome. i am pleased to see the doe has continued its support for the deep underground engineering laboratory and other words. that in south dakota. i appreciate that your agency include $15 million of the project in the fy 12 budget request. i understand the doe is your conclusion of an internal review and interested in its results. specifically could you talk about how the doe is prepared to work with the project team to ensure that your recommendations

are known and included in future for initial and construction planning? >> first, i know we are undergoing this review and i have not specifically spoke about this. we are working as you know at the national science foundation having very discouraging to us about that especially since they started it. but in any case, i think we are trying to figure out a path forward on the investments that have been made by south dakota and the the portman of energy and the national science foundation center in the interim we are continuing to get funds to continue doing this, but if we lose the long term what was supposed to be roughly a 50/50

partner we are trying to understand how we can go forward or what our options are especially in what ever funding we will be getting in fy 12 and going forward. and so these again are going to be very difficult choices, and we are -- there are a few requirements we would like to have done and we still need to get some of those experiments done but as was said, i have not seen that reported and soul we will be waiting for that. >> on a related note as you know a great deal of activity is already under way at the home state, and we had previously hoped it would be providing more support for these activities. in lieu of the significant

construction funding and in order to preserve the great progress and investment we have already made, what does the doe prepared to do to ensure no jobs have been lost while your long-term plans for the project are for high-energy physics in general? >> we are very aware of that and are trying our best to keep it free dedicated scientific team that has been assembled on this and while we try to put this path forward again for 11 to 12 there's been to be continued funding. we don't want to lose the scientific team, and just as we don't want the water to come back in and so again, i don't

know exactly the timing of when the office of science will bring forward a recommendation to me but i'm sorry it's disappointing but that's all i can say about it. in a completely unbiased point of view i have to say my old laboratory i know personally how it's affecting a lot of people. not that i'm going to play favorites, but it is i know personally as you know i visited and i know all the investments made in who this. >> you referenced high priority experiments. could you list a few? >> sure. for high-energy physics, we are investing in what we call the

high-intensity frontier. we are also investing in the highest energy machine, the highest energy machine that is there and so right now because of what happened decades ago, the highest frontier energy machine is training the concern and they had a pickup, but they recovered well so what we've done is we still want to be -- we still view it as high-energy six as a significant part of our program. we still want it to go forward and so the good news is american sciences are actively participating in that and for the first time american science is now the lead of of the major detectors. but we also want to make investments here in the united states and so we have gone

forward. he may and we collectively made a decision that the collider is going great we need to invest in the future which is the new sources for the fema the lab, so we have every intention of continuing to invest in those and again as you know in one of the experiments in the investments is the use in south dakota. so that's why we are especially disappointed in the event everyone's holding last year. ..

7.2billion cubic feet every hour. as one article today described is that it's a startling powerful beasts purging its way south. this committee jurisdiction has done a remarkable job in the course of the last decade with a lot of hope to build the mississippi river system. it's going to be up to us to watch to see how it works in the coming days and weeks and be prepared to do what we need to do to make sure people are protect did should this ever happen again. but they do submit that into the

record without objection. >> so what are. a thank you for the comment that i think every member. i come from earthquake country. >> it's tennessee, he and senator cochran followed us with the north and mississippi are experiencing right now, but this committee has jurisdiction over the system. three questions really quickly. one, mr. secretary, you and i spoke in several times about this project pending before your department now. it's far and loan program has supported more than 30 billion in loan, loan guarantees for about 28 efficiency projects. one of those project is pending in louisiana right now and it is every missed your tension is it's very timely. our legislature is meeting as we speak. they have reserved basically

$60 million to support this project. the application has been pending before you and your department for two years. do you have any other dates for us at all the next auto works, what the timeline looks like it when they know yes or no? because it's a keeshan we think is quite strong and quite competitive. it could create over 1000 jobs in this part of the country. but as important as that, it could produce vehicles that can achieve 40 miles per gallon, which another chair who has been a leader would appreciate any technology for combustible engine, but new technology that seems to us to meet the goals are what the president and you are touting. can you give us any of it about where we would be with this

application? >> well, i don't think it would be appropriate in this hearing. as you nonpolicy, we really -- the details of specific loan applications would have to honor the relationship we have at the opera can't. >> generally -- i realize you can't get the vehicles. but generally associate with your cool of creating new automobile companies that are pressing forward with new type elegies to produce automobiles that combustible or efficiency? dispatcher to meet with the goals of your department? >> well, if you're asking -- what you're asking is are we in favor of the advanced technology automobile programming has ended long in the answer is yes, we think of the seat of important part in actually hoping not only

innovative companies, but also established companies in developing a new line of automobiles with the advanced technology ticket better mileage, higher fees. that means we can again take back the leadership role in automobiles. i mean, to be candid, we had this for three quarters of a century, but it is something, you know, europeans and koreans are now wrestling with. so we are in favor of supporting innovative technology. >> i don't want to lose my time, but sheesh you could please give to mathieson can be the end of the week and at date on this because i've got to tell her legislator something. they been holding $70 million to support the senate public private partnership. and you know we've got strings

like everyone. my second question is in sunderland percolated to this. we had a breakthrough, as you know, in this country and finding almost 200 years of natural gas reserves. this is terrific. people want to say we have no reserve, which isn't true. we know how much natural gas we had to the industry has surprised self-appointed finding. so my question is on the striking issue, which is a department doing and are you being aggressive to find some conclusions? we think it is safe under certain circumstances. what are you doing to come to some final determination on this so we can take advantage of 200 years of supply of natural gas, which could reduce our greenhouse gases i understand that 40% to 50%. if you could do that in 30 seconds or less.

>> 30 seconds or less. first, we have to establish what's really going on in it could be different in different regions of the country. so one of the things and that's why the president the department of energy to find the subcommittee. so we need to find out what's going on. >> when do you expect some results and conclusions? >> we are taxed at 90 days from now we will have a primary set of recommendations. the subcommittee then goes to the court. >> adam chair, that's a very important component in our work next year because natural gas is 40% reduction in greenhouse gases could be the 20000 year supply. the technology you believe is fair. you're going to find a safe press forward. if we could just take a focus on that. my time is right now, but i'm going to submit a question in

writing about exporting natural gas in the pending application you have. >> thank you very much, senator. >> madam chairman, senator graham had to leave and asked that he be afforded the opportunity to submit questions for the record. >> absolutely. >> thank you. secretary chu, it's great to see you again. thank you for visiting maine to see the exciting research technology and development under the way in the area deepwater off sure when. i would say to my friend and colleague from tennessee that deepwater wind doesn't face the same challenges as land-based wins because it can be located out of sight and the winds are

much stronger and more persistent offshore so you have more energy produced. but there is the need for investment into technologies. so that's the challenge of siting turbines in deepwater offshore can be met. i'm very excited about the work going on at the university of maine to bring the secretariat to the key milestone was reached just this month in which three scale models floating turbines were successfully tested and that is providing key data to advance the technology. one of my concerns is that our country should not lose the global race and developing deepwater offshore wind knowledge he.

if you look at this chart and i believe the secretary has it as well, we are losing the race right now. consented means permitted for those who are not into the lingo here. but as you can see, europe is making considerable investment in deepwater offshore wind. asia is as well, while the united states really lags. and yet, this offers the potential of providing clean, domestic energy to large population centers in close proximity to win resources. i am pleased to see the investments that the department of energy is making. and just for the record, to make sure that i understand the department you submitted.

it is my understanding you just livered the operating plan for the remainder of 2011 to the appropriations committee this week and it includes funding under the category of it technology demonstration project for wind energy. and just to clarify a comment is the intention of the department to do a competitive solicitation for deepwater wind energy using some portion or all of that funding? >> if it's deepwater, the answer's yes. >> and that is the answer is hoping to hear, so i'm pleased that is the case. senator is phentermine point that we have technologies that will not move forward unless we

have a partnership with the federal government, with state government and with the other and i believe the investment of 26.3 million will help jumpstart the investment. i would note that the state of maine has passed a bond issue and is providing millions of dollars for this as well. we've also put together a consortium of private companies in maine that are investing and we are working with a company that is partially owned by the netherlands but also is investing in this technology. it really is very exciting. can you give me some idea of what the timetable for putting out the solicitation for the 26 million as? >> i would need to get back to

in the details, but we hope it is soon. see, this is really good. you're on a roll in a couple weeks. >> but also is great news because i think it is important that we move forward. >> faith in the best news is senator alexander said a kind word for wind. [laughter] >> believe me, that is my day. i sent him a little note. >> as i read his book. [laughter] >> i mention there mention their second bush admin may call the deep sea when consortium that is led by the university of maine, but it is a broad based collaborative at first that involves 35 partners, including the state of maine, academic institutions, utilities, industry leaders and what we found is that kind of

collaborative of disciplinary approach is absolutely essential when you're spurring innovation further. there are a lot of federal agencies that are involved to jumpstart offshore wind and i'm hoping we can see a similar collaboration and departments that are involved so we can avoid duplication deficiency and stretch those resources. could you share with us how the department of energy is working, particularly with the department of the interior, which has some permitting responsibilities, but other federal partners as well, like the national science foundation, fish and wildlife service says. >> yes, i think because these are in federal waters that this

department of the interior's jurisdiction that i are very supportive of this, but of course you have to go through necessary requirements because exactly what you said they are, there could be environmental concerns. you have to make sure their thoughtful about them. there's a general knowledge meant to be get the type elegy to work and so it's research. the opportunity for offshore wind in deepwater wind as they are close to population centers. deciding problems are not as create. environmentally, we made sure that's okay. the opportunities are great, but it's a point of reliability and technology. and so, that is why we chose to shift the research of unsure

wins as a mature technology. so focus on the more innovative aspects and that's when we reposition the program. >> thank you. thank you for her efforts in thank you i'm a madam chairman. >> senator murkowski. >> thank you permanent chairman and secretary. good to see you as always. i've a whole laundry list of questions and many of them are questions that were asked if you at the hearing before the energy committee back in february. figure 16. i didn't have an opportunity to ask other questions, so we submit them for the record to be received in writing. we have not yet received this response is, so i wanted to alert you to that because some of the questions i'm going to ask you now or hopefully once you have already asked and are in the mail. if i can just let you know we are still awaiting.

>> i apologize for that. we are trying to get our system to be more than quicker. >> we will look forward to receiving them. i wanted to ask you a little bit about the budget increase for geothermal. your budget calls for an increase in funding. it's actually tripling of running from 101 million -- to 101 million from the existing 43 million. kind of pleasantly surprised me because i am a big advocate of geothermal and what we can do with that resource. but the question to you this morning -- this afternoon is whether or not the department will be able to spend this out in a timely way. you have been updated on this, but we've been dealing with a project in alaska and enhanced

geothermal project that we feel has great prospect, great hope and really encouraged about it. it's exactly what the department has supported in the past. but the sponsors of patches to a nightmare of issues in dealing with your golden field office. some of the issues have come about because of things the sponsor was involved with. but if you are able to secure more money in the budget for the geothermal component, what assurance can you give us the department is able to get these dollars into the field in a timely manner so we can move these to elegies? >> i think it was remarked already before, if we use -- we have an existing that you can create a funding organization that is nimble, thorough, that has a high standards of

processes. and we are now focusing very quietly on getting not way of doing business out of the department of energy. their pockets where where it's very good and pockets where it's less good. so we are very committed in order to get these processes moving in a much more efficient way and quite frankly, you know, it would improve the way we do things. so i will look into this because what we are finding that sometimes we have a field office that is almost a competition with central headquarters and all the sudden they start to debate things going on. >> was glad you recognize that because that seems to be the sense we have us are working with constituents on that.

if you can look into that. again, from the bigger do you want to make sure these dollars are directed the site that actually they are being translated out into the field. let me ask you about nuclear and section three of two of the nuclear waste policy act that requires the establishment of the nuclear waste fund, collect the fees from the utilities and contained within the act is expressly identifies the sole permanent repository and further directs u.s. the secretary to propose an adjustment to the sea that is collect good for the utilities -- if the man is insufficient or an access to meet the cost of construction. so given where they are but the application, do you believe the fees that are collected and deposited within the fund are in excess of the amount that is

needed. do you think the fears in order? where do we go with the collection of vcs? >> well, you're right this success has yet to be determined in the nrc and also in accordance, but regarding the fee, we still have a responsibility to deal with others that feel. again, a draft recommendation from the blue commission with the need for a suggested a draft, but they suggested both interim storage site but eventually as again will be dependent on technology going forward, there will be an eventual times we developed the technologies recycling.

there would need to be a permanent waste disposal and most likely underground. >> i understand i understand that. and so far, what is happening with collection of the fees? is the department -- are you with the secretary looking at whether or not an adjustment might be appropriate given the fact you have this withdrawal that is pending? >> we have outlook data. i think your question i would rephrase it is right now that doesn't mean that going in the future we have this responsibility. we do have a responsibility and because of that, it would be unwise to save the next five, 10 years, no fee. i'd rather have it be a slow, steady. a virtual bank if you will. >> i think the frustration has

been that there's a plan in place, i should understand why it would be depositing fees. if there is no plan, you're just asking for a collection of fees that seemingly is not going to go anywhere. i understand and i think you and i agree we have to deal with the repository issue, but i think you also understand some of the frustration the utilities have out there. i'm over my time. i thank you, mr. secretary. thank you, madam chairman. >> thank you, senator murkowski. senator murray. >> thank you pretty much, madam chairman, secretary chu, welcome to the committee and ensure you whenever an officer know that i'm going to ask you about. obvious late nuclear preservation method of washington. as you well know, hanford is the largest federal nuclear cleanup site in the country and is part of the larger contract won by the department of environmental management program. when you go back through

d.o.e.'s limits, the department was created to manage nuclear activities and the federal government has a fundamental analytical response ability to clean up the contamination that's been left behind by our nations nuclear weapons production activity. so i had her in this administration doesn't seem to take the legal obligations seriously because i look at the budget and see you continue to increase programs that don't have any legal obligations associated with them, but yet remains largely flat. i don't think i'm the only one of my colleagues on the senate committee that concerned about that. i wanted to ask you today, what is your plan to increase the em budget to meet our legal commitment on plants? >> first, because of the recovery act as you well know, with your help and others in the administration asked in the additional $6 in 2011 and 12, we

feel we can meet our legal commitment, not in yours it, but in tennessee and south carolina and other states. going forward pass that, 2011, 2012, this is going to be something where we want to do this for sure and it's going to be a matter of what happened, starting with our 12 budget. we feel comfortable through 12. beyond that, what is going to happen or 2012 budget, which is what the seriousness is about is the real question. and you know, we've put in a request in 2011 in a 2011 we did not get the full amount of that request and so, we have to make adjustments. i think all the state has

concerns are very concerned about this as well. and so, we are trying to -- you were here, but with senator sanders says tennessee has nuclear concerns, they have higher population. this not only nuclear concerns. there's also green waste concerns as well. so what we need to do is try to make the best assessment of the things that have the highest risk and get them off and get them in the most efficient way possible. so you know, that is where we are. as you know, in order to bring the waste treatment plant on, there is a risk we would go over budget, because in other parts of art em portfolio, it em has

done a number of projects ahead of time, and had a budget that we've diverted additional funds to the waste treatment plan. >> when they get into that for just a minute. overall, the only legal obligation to your department has a nuclear weapons cleanup and waste storage. and it's disappointing we have to fight the administration year after year to meet those slagle applications. i mean, i'm sorry you missed your testimony. i have another application, but i did read it and it highlights significant increases in a lot of other program offices come including those without any legal obligations. it's troubling to see the em budget, legal obligation continue to struggle in the department is asking for funds for other programs. so i will ask you about some specifics and i appreciate the work the department has done on the waste treatment land and its use of independent reviews like the construction project

reviews. however, i have to tell you i am concerned about the singular focus on the waste treatment plan. i've been very clear with you and everyone in the department and the administration that if the administration in tends to move forward with the proposed modified funding profile for the waste treatment plan, the only successful way to achieve that is through the administration to increase funding for the entirety of the program to make sure we meet legal obligations across the complex. and to be very frank, i don't see that happening in your keeping up your site of the application. the waste treatment plant is a priority, but we can't increase funding for that and decrease funding further legal obligations to meet the funding level. so that is my question to you is how are we going to meet all the legal obligations. the only way to do is reduce the entire em budget. >> well, as i said, because of the recovery act investments, we

will be meeting are the obligations in the coming couple of years. as for that, there is vacant or in. i'll be honest with you dare, but there is also, you know, we put an -- the president put in a large increase in the energy budget department because of the nuclear security issues, but also in large part because we think investments in the research and development and deployment activities will position the united states for future prosperity. yes, we don't have legal obligations, but i think we have to make these calls as to what would be with whatever funds that congress gives us, would be the investment? >> i don't see how you can say we can't meet legal observations, but funding and the department of energy. >> as i said, because of the

$6 billion -- >> we're talking about fy 12 and beyond. >> we will be meeting legal obligations. after that, it again depends on what the budget needs to be. we also say we also are trying -- the obligations of our cold war legacy is something that is quite frankly the third-largest government playability. this will be of billions of dollars, but we need to develop a plan going, not just for me, but for my successors and how to meet these liabilities in the way. and again, this again goes back to how to best spend that money. so in order to meet these

obligations in a budget scenario, either way as they can do our business is better in the way we do at yam? >> mr. secretary, has to service the request of the department of energy stating this is our priority, we have to be a legal obligation not to expect your department to do enough i am disappointed. but i have to say it is a legal obligation. it is a moral obligation. it is a real obligation. we have two highways that they are looking towards the columbia river and we expect your department to let congress know what the obligation is and how we meet within your budget and that's what i'm requesting. >> thank you very much, senator murray. you might just want to stay for this first question. i've become very interested in the nuclear fuel cycle, particularly following day you

cheap. we have 104 nuclear power plants in this country. california has two. my understanding is we have around two dozen plants that are of the same model as the oily water react yours at daiichi. some have said we have something better and then daiichi comes back and says we upgraded our steamy thud as well. in looking at the two nuclear power plants in california and particularly the spent fuel part of it, which is what senator murray is really referring to in a sense, the fact that the spent fuel pools are really to some extent fallible. they are re-stacked. they can have large numbers of rats and men. in our state, they are kept there as much his 24 years.

the ranking member and i had the head of the energy commission, mr. just go, before a senate that this is good for 100 years. i don't know how anybody knows this stuff is good for 100 years candidly. but what i also saw with the dry tasks and transfers of the rods. when asked questions, i were told these casks were specially built for transfer for some form of repository. and i've really come to my own conclusion that the way we best protect americans is having some regional facilities for the storage of nuclear waste can be done over hundreds of years, supervised by government. otherwise, who knows what mother nature will bring down. i mean, i never remember funnel clouds in the pacific.

i never remember the level of hurricanes we've had. last night, television said a tornado may be on the ground in a part of virginia. so who knows what might have been. and i am very can you we really need to pay attention to spent fuel and what happens to it. do you have any comments -- i've caught you unaware, but if you have any comment on this subject, i certainly would appreciate hearing them. >> well, okay. i think regarding the skills, certainly the accent of pushing the guy she is something are paying in the nrc is paying a lot of attention on. i think that -- i am guessing what would probably happen again

in our jurisdiction, that it is certainly true that when you have a pool of show with water, that it is a higher risk than a dry cask storage where you have natural air circulation. you don't have to worry about some things that could reach the pool and things of that nature. it's just very passive and more robust. and so, certainly our transition to the so-called dry storage is sent and that will be happening. that is i think one of the recommendations of the blue-ribbon commission. i don't want to guess with the nrc is going to be doing about this good but certainly it is something they are saying that there will be a number of these

dry test facilities and i believe that is one of their recommendations. >> i was very impressed with the testimony that dr. bernice from mit on the subject. but make out with one of my favorite issues. your renewable guarantee loan program. i believe you have just $200 million in the budget for that, that she was sent letters to renewable energy developers would applied for loan guarantees say in their application were on hold because dear we believed these would have difficulty making the september 30th construction start requiring that. i don't know really how we developed wind and solar power without a very aggressive loan

guarantee program. and i thought we had it and just putting these projects on hold and so little in your budget really concerns me because i don't know anybody that can do that without a loan guarantee. >> so come the reason we put -- this has to do with the fact that if you didn't have a certain time conditional love that goes through the approval process, that you have conditions that have to be met and then you would have to start on the project of course on the 30th. and so, we let that the portfolio of our projects. we could, with these conditional phones, see that we could use the remaining funds. but we didn't think it would be fair to the companies to

continue investing in knowing that as we approach the september 30th deadline, were they still would have to do other things. you have to secure 20% funding. there'd be other conditions in each one with different. we thought it would not be fair to say it is put on hold until there is a path going forward on whether there will be continued funding. i know that senator bingaman and senator murkowski looking at other mechanisms for financing these things and i am supportive of a capital loan program i want to work with congress on that. >> well, thank you very much. we'll see what we might be able to do and we will certainly consult you. so, i have to excuse myself. senator come to speak on the floor for the nominees. may i turn it over to you?

you can go full board. >> all just have a couple of questions. i was going to follow up on senator feinstein with the loan guarantees. since nuclear power produces 70% of our carbon free electricity and other renewables produce a few%, why should nuclear power have to pay for a phone subsidy in wind and solar not pay? >> well, because there was, somewhat before my time, but the reasoning was that nuclear power is a more mature type allergy, also, fossil fuel has to pay for their credit subsidies and that's the nuclear loans actually should get lower than credit subsidies scores.

i mean, the one we did do with southern and others had a pretty modest subsidy. but it was felt because it was a more mature technology, you know, things have changed. >> did you just testify wind was a mature technology? >> we -- yes, it's a mature technology and if we are going to fund -- well, it is a mature technology and the scent that if we fund research and development , we would rather fund research and development in deep offshore wind. >> well, i am all for wind research and development, but i am just wondering when does a mature type allergy and produces a puny amount of intermittent power, why you give it in

addition to paying for its loan guarantees, why you pay for its loan guarantees and not a nuclear power loan guarantees? >> again -- first -- >> at some of if were building a lot of nuclear plants right now. >> way. so we put in a request for researching nuclear energy and so i think to be fair regarding the loves, for example, again if you look at the companies that before have been putting for loan applications, they have assets in things that one could actually save and there's not as much of a structure for the deployment of wind. and as that goes forward, >> mr. secretary, there's a tube

by 1% subsidy for the wind power produced in the country, which is costing taxpayers 26 plus billion dollars over the next 10 years and you don't have anything like that for nuclear power. >> yes and no. i think there is no production tax credit, for example. i agree with that completely. you know, people who are against nuclear fuel feel there are other things the u.s. government does for nuclear. and so gosh, i thought you were pro-wind. >> including the offshore wind. let me ask you one last question and will conclude. do you have a request in your budget for research for the small modular or? which i know is the priority of yours. my question of mine and as many people as it could be an opportunity given our experience this maria is with the navy,

that these could be react there's that we could build here, so if you're, lead the world in building and they would be cheaper. and so there has been a scenario i had the best course mall reactors perhaps. my question is, is the amount of money requested for the theory -- but without permit you to do? and two, are you set up? very organized? anything from the united states navy and its experience in the 1950s was small -- not react yours. >> okay, we've put in a request that the large fraction would be to help firms complete engineering designs for nrc approval so they can go forward. there's another fraction of a smaller part that would be forward essentially research and development that could complement what is being done in history books. we feel that if they are

being -- if industry can invest in the research and feel, with the end to do it. but if there are other things -- >> art of your money, if i understand it, goes to pay for things the nuclear regulatory commission would normally pay for it. ending, you are helping them pay for some of their work. >> no, it's actually to help the company's complete engineering designs that the nrc would require them. so it's really to help the companies, just as we help with the engineering design. now, we do have a lot of experience with companies that are participated in the nuclear navy search and experience. one of the companies that want to go forward and try and get licensing for the irc. it is a very different type of reactor. the navy react yours are hazing

ritual radio that there's. it will be designed so they last through the years. a very high-performance react to your admiral donald binet said, in fact, when they first onboard the energy i asked, can we use your experience with nuclear reactors in the navy because this is a small budget reactor in the civilian fleet. he looked at me and said come you can't afford my react to. they are very high-performance react to. but there are things that do link over in some companies that built the navy reactors want to go forward with the licensing. the most critical thing again as we are looking, what we had value to this the industry along with public important?

i think we both agree small modular reactors that give a different model for how to try it upstate and drive at the effectiveness, drive down the cost and to recapture the nuclear lead. and that is why it then out in front in pushing small modular reactors. i think it is an opportunity very different because the economy is building very large the 1000 to 1500-megawatt reactor because the the licensing and everything else. now you build an assembly line plant if she can ship in the united states or anywhere in the world. you can right size the generation to the transmission infrastructure as such. so it's a very different model, but it means that you have to be able to essentially mass-produce react tours. you know, it's not proven we can do this, but we think there is

an opportunity they are and were also trying to engage with industry and the right economic files to do this said the utility companies and also it's by size. if you have to spend a billion dollars, you know, they think very hard about that because you're spending a large fraction of the company assets on this next project if it were delayed a year or two they would have financial consequence. but if a factory generated income on of those things go away. and so, the uncertainty into the race in the schedule is another real opportunity that takes away a lot of insurgency people might have. >> senator feinstein mentioned before she left the chairman of the nuclear regulatory commission has said the judgment is nuclear fuel rights could be stored safely for 100 years. do you have any reason to disagree with?

>> i think the feel rad and dry cat storage has what i call very different than spent feel somewhat storage because the things we sought in fukushima. i don't think the nrc said you will swear you want to go to dry cat storage. >> no come i think he did. there is nothing inherently -- and mean, the problem is honesty of electricity and water come your spent fuel pools should be perfectly safe. >> i don't want to contradict chairman just go. >> i do want to best represent them either. maybe i heard him wrong, and the first place, you can't put these rods in a dry cask storage immediately. it takes several years before they are clear enough to put the dry cask storage. >> that is correct. during that time there is no reason to put these in a

dangerous condition when stored under nuclear regulatory commissions on site. >> no, i agree with chairman mao not the first are absolutely right the first five or six years are either too hot or too be cooled. the way we have backups in the main water supply is interrupted. there is secondary piping and things of that nature. >> second, third, fourth and fifth redundancies. i went to watts bar with one of the commissioners recently. i asked the question if the backup electricity goes out, there's another electricity systems and another when it finally way to get water in all of those. so there's enough water -- there is enough available water that the feel of us would be safe, isn't that right?

>> rate. and so, can i be 100 print center in teed? no, they think they're at these backup systems that i feel safe about but without trying to contradict the nrc, i think try to storage if you don't have water, it would be more robust, but that doesn't mean the current storage system is endangering americans. >> okay. thank you, and that virtue for coming today and the hearing is concluded. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> now available, c-span's congressional directory, complete guide to the first session of a 112 congress. inside, new and returning house and senate members of contact information including twitter addresses, district maps and committee assignments and information the white house, supreme court justices and governors. order online at c-span.org/shop. >> defense secretary robert gates says there is no evidence that the pakistani government knew of osama bin laden's whereabouts, but he believes someone new. watch secretary gates briefing

with admiral mike mullen at the pentagon today. >> if i were in pakistani shoes, i would say have already paid a price. i have been humiliated. i have been shown to the americans can come in here and do this with impunity and i think we have to be -- i think we have to recognize that they see a cost and that enterprise that has been paid. but if the leadership doesn't know, i've done us much about accountability here has perhaps anybody, but i never fired anybody because they didn't know about a problem. i fired them because once they found about a problem they didn't take it seriously. the senior leadership in pakistan didn't know, it's hard to hold them accountable for it.

>> a preview of president obama strip next week

>> history, as you know, is much more than just politics and soldiers, social issues. it's also meant to send, science and music and theater and poetry and ideas. and we shouldn't want things into categories. it's all part of the same thing. >> president obama strip to europe next week will include stops in ireland, britain, poland and france where he will attend the g8 summit.

their greatest foundation hosted a preview of the trip a little more than an hour. panelists include the ambassadors of ireland and poland. [inaudible conversations] good morning. welcome to the heritage foundation. director of lectures and seminars, it's my privilege to welcome everyone to wear louis lamé not a taurean and those who joined us on each occasion. we ask if they would make the last courtesy check that cell phones have been turned off. we will of course post the program within 24 hours on her website for everyone's future reference. posting our discussion this morning is michael frank. mr. frank is vice president for government studies here at heritage. he oversees or reshoot capitol hill and the executive branch.

he served as heritage director of congressional relations as well as having served for director to medication for former house minority leader dick armey. he also served in the office of national drug control policy and of the legislative counsel for then represented william dannemeyer california for returning here to heritage to work in his current capacity. he's a native of new york graduate appeal, earning his jd from georgetown. reassuring me in welcoming my colleague, mike frank. [applause] >> well, i will introduce tasting panel from the podium, but we will all be seated and make it a little less formal. first of all, welcome to heritage and welcome to this event. a preview of president obama strip to ireland, great britain and poland. we are honored today to have three very same diplomats, to ambassadors and the british embassy to give us a preview of what to expect in some of -- discuss some of the challenges in each of the relationships we

have with the three very friendly and important nations with whom we've been dealing with for a very long time. let me give a brief introduction of all three of our speakers. and i will preface this by saying that if you took collectively the diplomatic experience from our panel today, it is hard to find a part of the world where they have not served in area of the diplomatic relationships in the interest of the nations that they have not been on the front lines addressing over their careers or they are very, very extensive backgrounds. first -- will speak in the order in which the president conducts its business. we'll start with michael collins, the ambassadors since september 2007 to the u.s. a native of dublin. he's been a career diplomat for over 35 years. he has served -- let me give you a couple examples of where he is served.

rome, new york, washington and ireland's ambassador to saudi arabia and covered by wayne, kuwait, qatar and the united arab emirates. he has been ambassador to the czech republic come ukraine. can you figure the part of the world he has not had great experience? is also done extensive work at the u.n. he's been involved in the north-south relationship than a lot of economic issues and challenges that failing test case. also -- this is background. ireland is one of the most free economic relations in the world according to the heritage foundation. despite all the travails we been through economically the last year, i would still comes in number seven out of 179 countries in the world. our second speaker, phillip burton who is deputy chief of mission in the british embassy here. he's been in that position for very recent knee.

he also is a career diplomat, joining the foreign and commonwealth office in 1986. his postings include venezuela, india can't say person is but a key role in britain's policy towards india, pakistan and afghanistan. the u.k. has been a very high explorer and the index and number 16 in the world now and we expect them to move up the rankings as they lower the government or in the future. our third speaker today will be the ambassador from poland, with robert kupiecki born in warsaw and began working in foreign affairs to meet 94. he is a newcomer comparatively speaking. ..

to talk about the business of the president in my case mr. obama. an invitation was first extended to president obama in 2009, and the invitation was renewed following the new government in dublin in march of this year, so our new prime minister within five days of coming into office in ireland and the oval office very happy to have a conversation with the president of the united states, most particularly happy to renew and extended the invitation to the

president come to ireland and our great satisfaction the president accepted to come to ireland which he will do. he will arrive in ireland on monday for the visit to the u.k. in london on tuesday. this is a big thing for our country, and the president to ireland a visit in 2000 when the president bush was in ireland twice in 2003, 2004, but that was on other business and of limerick wasn't in the context of the e.u. summit which we were ourselves cheering at that time. it is a very big moment for us and we are happy the program has developed and i would like to share that with you. the president well in his first meeting in dublin monday morning only the president of ireland in

the park. he will then meet with a government nearby before he has an engagement with the staff at the american embassy of dublin. he will then fly from dublin to a little town southwest of ireland, population 300, where he will rediscover his irish roots. [laughter] he will then come from there he will travel back to dublin where he will speak at a major public event in the middle of dublin and public credit leader thus afternoon. so the basic element of the program and obviously it is a very big moment and because of huge celebration. a visit by a president, particularly with some irish antecedents, any president of the united states and in the country is a very big moment and if i may say so also is a very big week for ireland because

following an ongoing business at this time to ireland that for those of you who know your i risch understand and no need to reiterate just how significant that particular visit is. the significance i tell you that the last such visit of the british ruling monarchs was in 1911. so it's 100 years and the reason why it is taking place obviously now is because the service of the evolution of the peace process in particular has ensured that as we speak in ireland. but any event, she leaves on friday and the president arrives monday so you can see this as a big moment where we have an opportunity to engage with our two most important bilateral partners, most important relationships, the u.k. on the one hand and the united states on the other hand. so, we are looking forward to welcoming the president. the relationship between ireland and the united states is

profound and so many ways. so many people in this country have a connection with ireland. we ourselves have 35, maybe 40 million people but there are statistics that show the figure could be up to 100 million people that shares some connection with ireland. in a way it is a lot bigger than the ireland i represent. [laughter] so, you can understand why it's very important for us nobody but the united states who have made such a contribution to this country and whose role and place in society has given us the credential in the very special place and special contributions they've made along with other communities here in the united states or the generations. so, we as arabs to with ireland for the nostalgic part there is a hard edge to the relationship

and ireland and the united states have a very substantial relationship on the economic front in the recent times plea a huge part in ireland's economic expansion. some 95 calls in the irish people work for companies and ireland in high-volume operations, and these companies of course the gain access to the european market of some half a billion people, so it's a very important base and winning base and i say this for various companies to be in ireland to have access to the european market and beyond. we are the only english-speaking country and the euros on and one of the best places in the world according to the world bank's of these points would be obvious to many people but hard to mention them again. by all the - - coming out of ireland i will come to that in the second but exports, i your land are from 9% swing countries talk about their capacity and

their ability and their wish to grow their economies out of the challenges that we have, most either talk about the exports and we are infected and that. probably by some 9% last year. but it's not all one way. it will come as a surprise to many people to know that ireland is the 13th largest part of the united states, 13th but it's the number we have. [laughter] and something like 34 billion u.s. dollars from on your land into the united states. when people talk about environment one way it's important to acknowledge there's a second way as well and that is coming into the united states and there's over 200 large companies in the united states across all 50 states that have a reason of 82,000 jobs in the united states from the companies alone and that is an extraordinary contribution for the small country. i'm very proud of it. of course ireland has current challenges and the daunting challenges through and are going

through the period of considerable difficulty starting in 2009 in particular when our economy dropped by about 8% and 2,000 line was a little bit less in 2010 was a little bit less, so this year we are looking at stability, turning to stability and growth as well so ireland will experience modest growth something less than 1% in 2011 and we are looking forward to better performance in 2012. as we have taken very determined steps to address the very particular difficulties in our economy and we are quite confident with our partners and the imf and the european union central bank that we will find a way out of the difficulties and the president coming out of your land that we give an enormous boost. there's no way of putting it to have the president coming to the country to do all the

celebration and acknowledgment that he will do but also a particular time in ireland it will be very important. i just want to very briefly in conclusion refer to the president's own background. the president will go to the town in the south coast of ireland and we have many presidents in the united states can control, depending how you count them but in 1850 president obama's great, great grandfather whose mother's side sailed for america at the age of 19 and he was a shoemaker and his great, great grandson would be returning to ireland next monday as president of the united states. it is a story of improbable success almost a an irish legend in the story of the irish people the courage, about the devotee and reach. the time when our economy is facing the difficulties that we are facing is a very grabbling

that the president would invest time in coming to see us obviously and join us and the ability to celebrate his background but also giving the opportunity to promote the message we do want to promote witches' ireland is very much in business and on its way back. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much. good morning, ladies and gentlemen. i'd like to start by thanking the heritage foundation for organizing today's even into and giving the opportunity to talk about this and for acting as our host. unfortunately he couldn't be here today because he flew back to london last night to help in the final preparations of the visit to london but he says his greetings and his apologies and

asked to pass those on. this is going to be the president's first state visit to the united kingdom. he was last there in april, 2000 decline that the g20 summit. but of course he had a very regular introductions with a minister cameron says the general election in may of last year. he was here in washington last summer. they need to the international meetings and the g20 summit and the interest on the telephone as well over the big issues. the united kingdom, the united states is our closest ally, so the state visit has both symbolic and a substantial importance. before i say a little bit about the statement itself and what we must expect i just want to say a little about the foundations of which the partnership between the united states is built. it ranges across all fields in

both a government and private interaction so to use a military jargon and the full spectrum relationship by also want to pick out that very broad deep relationship three areas to highlight. first, the prosperity. it is a time of economic challenge across the globe and we work for a closely together on the global economic issues and how we are all dealing with those challenges on trade but also bilaterally we have a very important trade and investment relationship. so, by way of example, the u.k. and the u.s. are the biggest, single biggest investor in each other's country investing about half a trillion dollars in the economies and there is a time when lots of talk with china is simply worth noting that u.k. investment in the united states

is 570 times larger than chinese investment in the united states and nearly 1 million in the u.s. due to work everyday for british companies and in the united kingdom work. i think that is injury strong indication of the commercial and economic relations between and have employment and work together to ensure a more prosperous future. we are the closest possible allied by afghanistan whether some 10,000 british troops engaged on the u.s. trustees for the u.k. by some second largest military contribution, and we have a shared approach to the security challenges that the

world faced today from terrorism sponsored by al qaeda, iran and nonproliferation and north africa. the third and final is innovation research and education. again, we are very close partners and the u.k. is the top choice for american students who want to study abroad with greece. we come back today so if we look at the 2010 nobel science mind of those went to the u.s. and u.k. partnerships but of the partnerships have the recipients have come into the u.k. and the united states from other countries. we both act in global times and work together to make the most of that time. >> i think they are often seen

as being not about the pompous circumstances tree for those of you that got up in your pajamas and watched the recent role you don't know if you're going to get on that side. as i said earlier, there is also going to be a significant amount of substance, the president arrives in london and on tuesday will be welcomed by the queen and the first lady will be there as well. the substantial state where action between the president and prime minister will be a wednesday and that is when they have details, detailed talks. the backdrop of course is the turbulence and a rapidly moving international stage partly in north africa and the middle east but also the aftermath of the

death of osama bin laden which is a great achievement in the short fight against terrorism. so i think the president and the prime minister will be discussing these and will be talking about the situation in afghanistan and pakistan. i am sure they will also discuss how we can work together for the year of spurring and support countries like egypt and the transition which is a call that the g8 summit in france taking place after the president's visit to london. and i am sure also will discuss how we got our bilateral relationship in the sort of fields that i've been talking about, innovation, the defense partnership, cyber where the u.k. will want to play its part in joining the international strategy in washington on monday on where there is a high degree

of commerce between the u.k. and the u.s. approaches and how we can work together on things like the development field globally. so there is going to be a lot of talk and substance. i wanted to close by making -- picking up on what the ambassador said about the queen's visit to ireland. it is genuinely historic event and it does symbolize the relationship between the two countries and it's appropriate to place the president given all she's done during her time as president to bring the communities together. i had a very good fortune to work with tony blair and the time of the agreement reached and i know from the first hand experience from the united states in helping to bring about

that agreement in the call they gave to the efforts of the u.k. government, the irish government to simply reach an agreement so there is to my mind a neatness and symmetry to the fact that immediately after, the president will be visiting the united kingdom as a united states supports the peace presents achieved in that part of the world. thank you. [applause] >> good morning, ladies and gentlemen. i'd like to echo the words of my panelists and thinking the heritage foundation for providing the opportunity to highlight to europe. the last stop on the president's route to europe, president obama will look the right on the afternoon of the 27th of may and come back to washington the next day and evening.

president obama long expected the await but by other countries of the european union and it is also full received by almost all americans leading to the united states and the large group of taking the rules from central europe. the president's visit takes place in a very special moment as a net two months will take over the presidency of the european union and at the time of the president's visit we will hold a mace to delete a major summit of all central and eastern european heads of state for the president will be a part of this summit and we intensify our efforts in the democratization through to nisha and i will say a few words about

it in a moment. six months after the president visits washington in december last year so in a short period of time it is the second opportunity for the leadership to meet and substantially discuss the present program will be divided into two parts. on the first day president obama will participate in the concluding working dinner of the heads of state and the agenda will be of the meeting divided into two elements. the president will jointly take stock of the economic transformation and transitions from autocracy to democracy and they also think the

transformation and the transition model to the emerging democracies especially north africa which the other portion of the conversation will be to the common experience regarding the situations. we also have a substantial bilateral agenda which will be sealed with the premise you're deily to -- prime minister and a press conference and then as far as the topic of the discussions are concerned they will be divided into three areas. those three areas will be held a strategic title in the united states but the three areas

comprise political relations, democrat these could dhaka decisions and economy with the most prominent of economic relations which is now being occupied by the energy cooperation. in terms of security, the president will take stock of the cooperation and nato and the joint position in the 2004 trips continue the mission. there are common challenges in the same part of the countries of the dillinger is in line with expected counter withdraw. we ( a major portion the abortion of the discussion. the president will also take stock of what they solve a discussed in december last year

where they indicated the problem of the project for the bilateral negotiations including increased presence of the u.s. forces with the prospect of the regional leader. so i think by the time the president will be able to announce those undertakings it will involve the project of the missile defense in the united states by goodyear 2018. the second class of topics to be discussed with the president and the prime minister would be the democratization. the democratization in the broadest possible among the european union has played strong leadership regarding the bureau's. which also increased or activities regarding to nisha a few weeks ago and the democratization team combining

experts of the various heels of constitutionalism public life led by the legendary former president who visited to nisha pulled in meetings with representatives of the society, and last week the foreign minister in the first meeting for the foreign minister of the european union of what he calls substantial discussions and working as strong as a humanitarian so those issues based on our joint interest commonalities will be as i mentioned the meetings between

and last but definitely not least, the economy. over the last couple of years we have seen steady growth of our trade with the united states and it's a jury significant growth for the last three months of this year for the prospect of the economy exchange between the two countries. but there are projects mostly connected to run by the american companies that they will occupy the interest and the time of the leadership. [inaudible] by various sources, poland has a lot of reserves under.

so it is a huge prospect when it is properly put into the introduction to were not only satisfied but also the offer the opportunity and thus changing the balance and in balance of the energy sources and points of origin and it's not only the economy and energy related issues of the highly political point that is being discussed by the european union and obviously the united states and other countries interested in this issue. as i mentioned, the discussion of the president's visit also has the european context of a call the european union presidency and in july this year

there is one special issue that is free much on the agenda. they are the only country that is of the visa waiver program, and i would like to remind all of you president obama in december, 2010, declared that by the end of his presidency he would like to solve this issue so i believe that five months after the declaration in a legitimate we can answer very concise enough faith and by the administration and in the congress, so the question is -- i believe it is also an issue [inaudible] so is the case. thank you very much. [applause]

>> thank you. we can now turn to our audience for questions and i did ask if he would be so kind when we call on you to identify yourself for the purposes of the speaker. general? >> there is a microphone coming. >> georgetown and then the national journal. can you talk about all levels of the european concern in your countries and over all the continent over the american failure to deal with the debt limit, and the american deficit. is that going to be a topic of discussion, is that an area of concern? >> we fight for the limit --

>> on the part of the u.k. i wouldn't use the word concerned. i think it's the wrong word. there is a very keen interest as you would expect for the administration and the economic sphere that the coalition government in the u.k. came in a year ago and agreed on the policy for the u.k. now set on that path. but i think i'm sure they have a discussion around the global economy and how to ensure our chairs growing prosperity for both countries and others of them as an interested in the depths of the economic ties between us and the investment called for the future of the united states is important to the u.k., too. >> i have a huge amount to add to that obviously the economy, the economic hyrum and is a primary source of discussion and

we have economic challenge is in ireland and it is always a matter of importance to us to get the perspective of the president of the united states having been at the meeting over st. patrick's day that is on the agenda, so it's certainly interested in how we are managing our way out of their economic challenges and we will be very interested in having this perspective of the challenge the united states is as well. >> question. >> jerry shaw with nhk. first for the president's trip to poland. i know that there is an outreach for both of the russians and the

u.s.. how much of that comes down to improve relations between the u.s. and russia directly? >> welcome with the polls reaching out to both the russians and to the u.s. to improve those relationships, how much of that is dependent on improved relations directly between the u.s. and russia? >> since the beginning of the president we follow close to recent policy of the united states. under the logic and we support the objectives of the process. in the meantime we are sometimes refer the reconciliation because it's not only of political relations but also the issue of

this historical problems. there are many avenues of dialogue and importance for the next two or three years in the activities of the performance. >> so we are satisfied with the outcome of the work and if we would put the context that i was is a major with the russians and the american process i think there is some degree of commonality in the expectation of the positive outcome and if this process produces the most stable predict all relations with russian partners we would move on to the benefits of the international relations.

questioned? >> i want to ask about libya in particular and north africa and middle east more generally. is their concern in any of your countries that this is less of an opportunity the president will probably see again tomorrow and has said before for the democratization of the region and more of a risk perhaps of military operations to more expense on the part of countries particularly given what's happening in libya and whether anything like that could happen again elsewhere in the foreseeable future whether that be syria or iran or anywhere else. >> i think tom has said this

very clearly. the change we are seeing in the arab world has been going since the beginning of this year so it could go on the first for some time and i don't mean completely unfolded. every country is different than us. that includes libya. but i do think i see the press minister is a major opportunity for opportunities of change in the united states as well and shared values around space, open, free society and changes that we are seeing in countries like egypt and transitioning into nisha. those are the ones we want to support and one of the subject to the prime minister and the president will discuss is how best we from the outside recognizing that we are not necessarily looking at on the

ground support will also be the topic. soledad said, clearly there are risks of what is going to be in the uncertain process, and i think the challenge for all of us is to look at the way in which we are able to respond to the collapse of the berlin wall and to bring the countries like poland into the european union and for those people to find a way to provide a positive incentive to change to do so in a way which is more on the values we think there's an opportunity. >> mr. ambassador? >> poland doesn't shy away from its own international effort has

was set in the democracy in the various parts of the world. but we would be interested in holding multilateral aspects and organizations especially the european union as we take over the president's organizations. >> [inaudible] heritage foundation. i'd like to ask the british representative ever since president obama came into office and removed the desk of winston churchill from the oval office there was the expression in this country and perhaps in britain, too, that this president wasn't quite as the special relationship as his predecessors. do you think that one object of

the presidential visit will be to correct this impression? >> i don't actually buy your thesis so i am not convinced that this is an impression to correct. the truth is the british media are one of the there's an interaction between the prime minister and the president of focus on the premise of this year in july and i'm sure next week in london the claim to the relationship is less special than it was i think the full spectrum is very deep and remains as healthy and robust and positive as it has always been and i think their remakes of the pen minister into the discussions they have in private will reflect that. so i don't think it is a

pressure that needs to be corrected. >> yes, the director of the council would like to ask the ambassador whether there is also an emphasis on the economic diplomat side because poland's transformation to democracy was supportive of course by the economic development that went along with it and you had the shock therapy program and then things like the enterprise fund that i was with that provided financing to tens of thousands of businesses. in conjunction with the democracy building efforts that you initiated and north africa are you also bringing along those kind of people who initiated the economic changes? >> thank you very much for this important question. and i think the important transformation, the result of this transformation points to

one single conclusion, that your effort in the security free market economy is worth every penny spent and whether it is enterprise found i think we are the only country who receives american assistance and returns of recent for the budget so when we look for effective, cost-effective relationships we look forward to working with you in the future. but with innovation whether we discuss the cooperation there are two ingalls from which we are looking at this. one in the democratization and implementation, the use of the transformation experience possibly in other parts of the world and others to continue the part of the economic cooperation focused on innovation, focus on

the technology and the robie a few positive messages conveyed by the u.s. president -- u.s. presence including high-level contact and the new areas of cooperation as we post in the next couple of years. >> when president obama first took office there was unhappiness in poland over some of his policies on missile defense. can you talk about where that stands now and also if we expect an announcement that they will be moving some f-16s from states and poland and talk about the importance of that in polish?

[inaudible] both countries agree that the adaptive approach will also involve poland starting from 2018. and this is the timeline working and consulting with the united states as far as missile defense is concerned for where the f-16's come from him but we are working for some time since 2010 that there will be the rotation of military presence and will continue. we have our bilateral negotiations taking place, and by the time of the visit it will be possible to announce the principles and we are very close. >> what is the significance of that? what is the importance? >> let's say a threefold. the consequences that we think

about first the increase of the u.s. military presence. it will benefit not only of security civility but also benefit greater in the relationships we want with the united states. there's the prospect of joint exercises for our operations within the north atlantic alliance as i believe if we look at those countries in central europe for the armed forces and the proper decisions they make regarding the authorization and equipment there's also the regional cooperation to deal with the presence of the united

states so i would agree much point to the conclusion that it might be appropriate relationship if it is progressive aspects like the two presidents announced. >> cade hour from bloomberg news. i'm wondering how the imf is going to factor into the conversations at all and have any of your country called for the reason i am? the imf, the controversy of what is going on. i know it is going to factor into the conversations of who should take over if he does indeed have to leave. and i wonder if there is going to be any discussion of that.

>> by don't know. [laughter] we have with the world bank's and the european commission in relation to the package obviously there are some issues around the interest rates which are subject of ongoing negotiations and the matter now is i think very much an issue that is ongoing and ongoing ensure but in terms of the conversations for the personality i just couldn't say what kind of conversations there might be. >> i would echo that to anticipate the conversation i think i would emphasize that the imf is an organization as the director who was clearly in

charge of the organization. >> if the free market organization with us quite a socialist was in that position in the first place. [laughter] >> my name is james with the heritage foundation. my question is falling on the polish investors's comments about the program and poland not being in it. after 9/11 for quite a few years no countries were admitted in the united states mostly because of the security concerns that bad people would come to the country that want to harm americans. then president bush, w. bush was traveling to the nato summit and he announced they wanted to bring in new partners into the visa waiver program and in the fall of 20088 new partners came into the program including the estonians, not the ins, lithuanians, hungarian and czech. so the many countries that were

former soviet bloc were brought in but of poland. so my question is to part. how does that resonate with the people's poland, the fact that your partner is an article 5, one for all oral for one but allowed to travel the same basis as most other europeans and in the second question is actually a little bit fun, my british guest and irishman. it is ireland and poland a few -- as ireland and britain view them as security for its? and are they allowed to travel freely throughout europe? thank you. >> thank you very much for the question. it's the only country that slipped out of the visa waiver program and then published. there is no single national security threat coming from poland to the united states not

to mention the long standing of the polish military cooperation engagement with various parts and the great relations. i would venture to say to the united states figures that the embassy has indicated rather steady outflow. there is a free moment to be to movement that we are part of the movement and i have no reports about the travel around here. we understand how complex the situation use in the united states, but there is no i think

logical outcome for decision regarding the 21 years now for the u.s. citizens. 21 years after the presidential declaration of the willingness to solve this issue i think there is the right moment and the legitimate that we would like to have the answer. >> could i just respond to the relation of whether we have the security threat, absolutely not. the first countries in 2004 when poland joined the european union completely and competition to the member states of the european at that time of course principally among them poland, and since that time we have had the privilege of hosting in the

country 100,000 to think the figure may be around 200,000 polish people in our community and they were a vibrant part very welcome indeed to years of from the security threat to your very welcome as members of the european union on the shores sometimes they are referred to as a lot in common with the polls and certainly polish people have made a contribution to the economy through the period of particular 2004 and on. >> with the investor just said, like ireland the u.k. opened up as they join the european union and some other countries transition period which freed up the controversy will issue in the whole of the u.k. the experience i think is when one

looks at the way spanish, portuguese coming when they join the european union now the experience has been positive and the gaps in the employment market and the numbers are falling back because you know that you have the public expenses for the economic development and the fundamental level is a to treat them exactly as we would in the header in the european union. >> thank you. >> the question over here. yes, sir. >> daily telegraph. could i ask all of you what reaction you think president obama will get from the public in the country? and how widely popular he was at the time when he came into

office during the campaign do you still think he got that same popularity in the country now? >> i think president obama can expect a huge enthusiastic welcome in ireland. a visit by president of the united states are rare enough since president clinton in 2000. so the public event that is the duty to preceded by the event there would be a lot of energy around the whole event but i think the message still has an enduring quality to it which will designate very well particularly with younger people with home and as they remind of

the fact for everybody at home these are tough times and the president of the united states to come to spend time with us to deliver a positive message we enjoy with the united states and in relation to the future and we are looking forward very much anything other than hugely warm and enthusiastic. also as my colleague said just the acknowledgment that there will be the u.s. role in the peace process is something that shouldn't be underestimated we are always at a point in ireland where we take it because it has been hugely successful but it wouldn't have been the success and what have the partnership of the two governments and parties on the ground but particularly our american friends, and of all

parties and across, so president obama would be the embodiment of the contribution and it is a process we don't take for granted. the united states remains very important so it is hard to get a positive and i think to say we have or challenges of the moment i think among her presents a very bright moment for us. >> from the u.k. i've worked in the british government cleared lot on ten downing street and i've seen from the side quite a lot of state visits to the united kingdom of which we normally have to a year and to be completely frank, quite a lot of them come and go without the public noticing. there are some among them all

and it might just be a photograph i am absolutely sure it will be like that. there will be very, very significant interests in the media but also in the general public in the president and first lady's visit and i think it will be extremely positive. >> [inaudible] >> for obvious reasons i can't go into detail. islamic the same situation has been expected for a long time so there is the interest in poland regarding the leaders and with regional and bilateral regarding

what i also know from talking to polish america it resonates well in the united states and among the polish americans. >> what is it about him and his message that still -- [inaudible] here's what i'm getting at. why was he so popular two or three years ago is he still popular in europe? >> anybody want to tackle that? >> i will get my feet into the water in doing so. i think the president has been in office now for two years and she is a person who the american people have chosen as their elected head of state, and that's a very significant thing for the world, given the united

states role in the world but it's also true i've spoken with many politicians and i think there is still news about him which means there will be keen interest. >> any more questions? we have one back here and there will be the last question. >> some questions for investor collins. ambassador, looking at the financial report year as a understand the total public support to the banks about 65 billion euro, 42% of 2011 gdp do you think the subject will arise upon the discussion with the president has to understanding the full extent of the banking crisis and the role with the united states may play in capitalizing banks or improving lending domestically from the national perspective as i understand it this seems to be

a top priority for ireland. >> well the hour top priority for us and it has been a source for people in ireland and many people find it hard to fathom some of the numbers we are faced with. we just recently stress tested the banks to a very, very high standard. that stress test is taking place of the moment but of course it is a matter of interest for the united states as to how this is going to be false. it is a matter of significant interest to the partners because of the relationship in terms of just the way these things are not interconnected globally. it's no coincidence i think that we have a bilateral which wouldn't normally be something that we would have as part of

our menu of the activities so of course the united states is interested but we have set the course already to be we've defined the policy and mentioned some of those figures there. policies both within the imf and the e.u. which we are falling into getting previews that suggest we are following a prescribed course and overall it is something that the united states has a great amount of significant amount of interest in and i am sure the president will just speak to the premise or after and succeeds the track we are following but we are very determined, very committed to follow the course that brings us out of the crisis as soon as

possible and the steps being taken on absolutely crucial to our economic recovery. >> okay, with that i would like you to join me in a warm round of applause for the guest today. [applause] thank you once again for being here. >> [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

..