second-strike capability and china has to take into account the design and planning this size. that's a very important structure china has to take into consideration. >> trish prime minister margaret thatcher died on monday. the house of commons will pay tribute to the first female prime minister. live coverage from london and dirty eastern on c-span 3.

>> earlier today i met with families from newtown, connecticut to discuss legislature we are currently debating. it's obviously very emotional and it isn't an easy meeting to have, but it's a very necessary meeting to have when the parents of children that were murdered or when i think somebody from a family that the teachers were murdered is difficult for everybody. i want to thank them for sharing

their stories of love ones and their concerns at me. i hope many of my colleagues would consider meeting with the families as well because in a hold of pictures of their loved ones, i think each one of them had pictures of their loved ones. it makes it personal if they've gone through and we are debating legislation they are supporting handed my state of iowa, there's a lot of difference of an imap particular legislation that we might be considering. i think it is something that is very worthwhile, to send firsthand the feeling that these meetings. at the meeting they called for a debate on the legislation. right now we're in the process of having debate and i imagine we are going to move forward on this legislation.

under new procedures available under senate resolution 15, the majority leader can move to proceed to vote on some amendment. a vote against the motion to proceed does not cut off debate or vote on amendments in the new procedures in the united states senate. nonetheless, modern president, we are in the unusual position of being asked to take a leap into the on. we arrest or vote to proceed to an uncertain bill. the bill is not even the bill we will likely consider that the motion to proceed a successful. the language on background checks would change. it has been my understanding remarkably it would be replaced with language that does not now

exist. of course the worlds greatest cannot operate in this fashion. in the judiciary committee, for bills were considered separately. it is fair to say there wasn't a consensus. three of them have now been combined, but they are not ready for consideration. at the time the sponsor of the background check bill said it was not ready, that is what he told a senate committee. there were numerous problems with the bill he told us. movement of arms from one law abiding citizen to another would be legal where they go based upon arbitrary distinctions as citizens could not be expected to know, putting people in an impossible situation. this is true even though this language was the subject of a hearing in a previous congress.

a witness pointed out problems, but no changes have been made to address those issues. even from the aclu says criminalize good mark items as citizens. the bill operates in a way that would make gun safety efforts more difficult. that this not make any sense. the bill requires recordkeeping for private sales. this is a step towards gun registration. indeed we heard testimony in the judiciary committee that universal background checks cannot be effective without gun registration and the official is right to be concerned about the threat to privacy that background check language presents. he notes the government would

possess information concerning gunowners that he would not be required to be destroyed within 24 hours as msp for current background checks. he also points out the bill contains none of the restrictions in current law to prevent other parts of the government from using the database for purposes beyond why the information was supposedly gained. the background check provision is also not ready for consideration because of the new federal felony that it creates. if a law-abiding gun owner canis plasters stolen, he or she would be required to report back to both the attorney general and appropriate local authorities within 24 hours. i asked a number of questions of the bill sponsor about how the

offense would work. for instance, who would pay for the additional law-enforcement personnel? who would take those calls? uppity citizens legal obligation be if the governess placed rather than lost? but were determined in occurred that started the 24 hour period? a 24 hour period in which the gun being stolen has to be reported. the sponsor said that these issues would be clarified. well, so far however they have not been clarified. so law-abiding citizens will not know whether they are in compliance with the law of and if they aren't in compliance, they'll face a five-year jail sentence. the issues have not been clarified, but we are asked to proceed to the bill anyway.

this new offense, by the way, criminalizes inaction. that is a threat to freedom because except for filing tax returns are registering for the draft, we punish only bad actions. we do not punish an action. this card punishes failure and it only applies to those who lawfully on their guns. a criminal whose gun is stolen is not required to report the fact that god could still be stolen -- stolen a second time. with this offense, law-abiding citizens can return into silence. silence can not commit a crime. under this new offense, law-abiding citizen might be

looking at five years in jail. for a while? for just doing that thing. all of that is necessary for the time to be subject to a reporting requirement is that god wants moved in interstate commerce. the supreme court is outlined in these categories of situations in which the congress can rely on the commerce clause and of course this is not one of those three categories at the supreme court said that congress can do under the commerce clause. it can make people take all sorts of actions simply because they under prater that once moved in interstate commerce. they can face jail time if they do not do a congress demands that they do.

even the individual man a from obamacare only establish a penalty. they didn't put anybody in present. i do not think that 90% of americans would support this universal background check if they had a chance to read the proposals. the motion to proceed also close to it though that contains language on straw purchasing and gun trafficking. i've ordered to report this bill to the senate floor. many changes were made to that though and they were made at my suggestion. an amendment of mine was adopted. at the time, i still expressed concern even though i voted to bring the bill to the floor. and i spoke of my desires to have those concerns worked out before the bill would be brought

at. i said i would not necessarily support the bill a vote of and committee on the floor out here if those concerns were not responded to and they have not been addressed so far. those provisions were tied to the ever-changing background check provisions. the whole process makes me wonder whether the effort to pass a bill on the subject really is a serious effort. it seems that they have each bill is brought up, the majority can be sure they can force republicans not to agree to proceed to it. it seems that may be what they want to happen. if so, that is a very cynical way to treat a very serious issue. madam president, how come we responsibly proceed to a bill that contains language that even

its sponsor admits is not ready for consideration? >> i've had the privilege to serve america as a senior chief executive todd forstmann officer in major jurisdictions in washington d.c., virginia and maryland permanent 25 years. in all these assignments i've seen firsthand the devastation and trauma inflict it on thick dense, including the long-lasting and life altering effects that gun violence inflicts on families, friends and communities. i witnessed the anguish of seasoned police investigators when they recover guns using horrific crimes by people who would not have been allow to

possess a firearm if only background checks had been done at every point of acquisition. requiring firearm uses to undergo a thorough background check was substantially reduced opportunities for criminals and people with mental illness to gain access to firearms and use them to commit acts of violence. by proper background check cannot prevent every act of violence involving a firearm, a more comprehensive system can substantially improve law enforcement's ability to identify persons not qualified to safely possess firearms and pretend a reduction in gun violence. we now have a unique opportunity to overcome the weakness in our system by implementing background checks for all purchases, we can lay the

groundwork for a future to reduce gun violence. produce, access for criminals and the mentally ill. today we must walk through the store of opportunity and take a real step forward to save lives in event of pain and heartbreak so deeply felt in our country and communities. too many of our fellow citizen whose lives have been forever changed of gun violence. please join me in welcoming the attorney general of the united states, attorney general eric h. holder junior. [applause] >> thank you. am i to thank you for being here with us today. it is a pleasure to join us by favorite vice president, joe biden in welcoming this distinguished group to the white

house. it's a privilege to stand for so many dedicated on for senate leaders as we advance our national conversation about how we can do why we must take action to combat the gun violence that devastate lives every day. i'm grateful for your willingness to lend your voices and to respect goes to this critical discussion. i appreciate the work you need to work stations that go like the some partnership in big cities and small towns across america. i thank you novelist for your advocacy, but for your service every day on the frontlines of our struggle against god, gang and drug fueled violence. last year's events in our work, colorado, oak creek wisconsin and newtown, connecticut were shocking reminders throughout our great nation. on a daily basis, these

unspeakable tragedies are compounded by individual tragedies that tape place on our city streets and too often go unnoticed into frequently take the lives of our most vulnerable citizens. for me and colleagues across the justice department, preventing future tragedies constitutes a top priority and that is what earlier this year of his art teacher teacher join with vice president biden and a number of my fellow cabinet members to assemble a comprehensive plan to reduce gun violence and make our neighborhoods and schools more secure. contrary to what a few have said, this plan, which president obama announced in january is consistent with the second amendment and would not infringe in any way on the rights of gun owners. this plan includes a range of legislative proposals are called upon congress to pass without

delay along with 23 executive actions come in many of which the justice department has made progress in implementing. for instance, the department announced it will invest with a $20 million this fiscal year to strength in the background check system to share if i by irving states ability to share information with this update. this will enhance reporting of mental health information, felony convictions commit misdemeanor convictions and felony and misdemeanor warrants. in addition, last month issued guidance to federal agencies that require law enforcement to trace guns recovered in investigations. and the justice department was continuing to review gun safety technology innovations in the process of undertaking a review of upper headers. beyond this work, i'm pleased

the senate will consider a number of gun violence reduction proposals. this afternoon i'm proud to join the vice president urging both houses of congress through each and every one of these measures the kindly individual consideration they deserve. let me say more clearly than that. each of these measures deserves a vote. the american people deserve these in spite of the pressure the special interests on the lobbyists are exerting in back rooms on our elected representatives. i'm confident with the support of countless ordinary citizens and expertise that the leaders in this room, we can take a commonsense step we need to keep deadly weapons from falling into the wrong hands. i recognize as you do there's no single prescription for addressing challenges confronting colleges.

those whose lives have been impacted by gun violence victims and survivors are depending on us. in december, days after the tragedy of sandy hook on chernobyl to newtown. in what without question the worst career. i walk the halls for unspeakable acts took place. i saw the dried blood. i saw the horrific crime scene photos. i met with the first responders in the crime scene search officers arrived after school just after the first call came in. when these brave men and women asked her broken heart and tears streamed faces to do whatever it take to prevent such a thing happening again, i told them i would not rest until we have secured the commonsense changes that our nation needs. i promised them as i promised survivors that i would never

forget. i know you all will not forget. this afternoon i ask you to help us keep our promise to these communities and to the american people can pursue reforms turned peregrinations security, protect the men and women who bravely serve in law enforcement and make safer children's futures. this time it is my privilege to introduce a remarkable leader who has been at the forefront of this administration suffers to do just that. public servant of extraordinary passion, a dear friend, the vice president of the united states, joe biden. [applause] >> general, thank you very much. and we are good friends. we have been good friends for a long time. eric means what he says when he hides a promise to all those folks.

ladies and gentlemen, sheriff, you know when your colleagues know better than any group of americans the devastation that occurs to the social fabric when we go through these horrific tragedies. it literally ripped the fabric of the community apart. i hadn't planned on sameness, but i went up later to newtown and i got to meet with the troopers who went came back again. these are a bunch of tough, smart warriors like all of you. i have been doing this a long, long time and i see a lot of familiar faces out there. type in your ally in my entire career and you and my allies.

but i've never seen the look i saw on the faces of those troopers, a hollow look like they had seen, something they or another, i would be able to forget in their whole lives. i thank you offered being here today and i thank you for every single day you do what you do. you on the front lines. it's an overused phrase coming but she really are and our cities and towns, the first ones that deal with the violence. but i don't think the public understands is it's not just your physical safety that is at stake when you're out there protecting us. do you guys in and that would be

enough to really knock them out for generic can offkilter in wonder whether or not much of this makes sense. i had ruckus this morning at my home with 13 of the families -- family members from newtown. i literally have become friends. i mean, i spent hours with the families and i just wish that everybody in america could have used her out -- let me be more precise. i wish the numbers of contrast had been able to eavesdrop on the discussion of my home today. we sat through 9:00 to a little we sat through 9:00 to a little after 11:00.

i miss the security menu with the president. he understood way. i listen to these families. i listen to the individual members of the family talk about the toll it has taken on them. one remarkable woman who has a background in psychology and psychiatry said, in, how do they explain not doing anything? my little girl, my bp was in the bathroom and got shot through the heart. she was hiding in the bathroom and she got shot through the heart.

and i haven't lost a child, lost a spouse. it is just sad a profound way of asserting. don't they understand? talking about filibusters, what are they doing? you know, one of the father says to me, not identifying them come even though i know their names because they don't get superb area. one of the dad said to me as we were so common it's beautiful day. some of my staff members who were there, not the table, but in the house were talking about what a great day it is. if it has that locked up the front door to lock onto the mini bus that took them to the house i sat to soccer and thought i

should take this up. i knew i should've gotten them the night before because i now and you all know exactly what that beautiful day, the most beautiful day since that december day that they've experienced to lock out and see those soccer in the front yard where my grandkids kick it around in the dark chases. one of the pictures -- a picture is eric s. every one of those kids as well as the teachers was this handsome little boy and a soccer uniform. you guys know because you've dealt with it. that saddam hussein this is not a beautiful day. this just brings back every single bit of pain i felt that

moment. no one said anything about the soccer, but i could tell. i knew. you know, when i got them on the bus, i thought to myself, why don't people out there understand is? what has to happen? to break through the consciousness of the people up on the go? the public is so far beyond where the congress is, so far ahead of the way they are

talking. they don't understand. they really don't understand these bright, accomplished innocent mothers and fathers and has been. they don't understand how we could even be at this point debating ms. the truth is they don't see you how will 100 bright women and men don't get it. they know just a simple proposition that things would be better if we get more guns out of bad folks hands. it is not a complicated notion. they now would be better off if we kept guns out of the hands of

people who demonstrated and used his guns to do that they, including two thirteenths and other kids. they know things to be better if maybe one of their children would be alive, if we didn't have a policy could walk in and buy a clip, and magazine that housed 30 rounds. you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure it out. the cops came in two and a half minutes to 79. he have to change that round, that magazine another three times. somebody would be alive. they don't get how really smart people don't get that. he really don't get it. one mom said to me, how is that

they don't understand? what should i say to don? they are all going up on the hill. it was a legitimate question, as if they are going to speak to some ancient aztecs or somebody speaks a different language, like what do i say to them, mr. vice president? you spend time up there. think of that. think of the questions. what do i say to them? in the past 113 days, 3300 people have died at the end of a gun and witnessed the aftermath of it. the cream of the crop for the nation's law enforcement in this room today.

you could cite for me what's happening in your jurisdictions in the last 113 days. 3300 dead. a lot has changed in 113 days. first of all, all the preliminary work has been done about how to respond. the president about the proposal. this reported out what they think we should do it now it's time for every man in london in the senate to stand up and say yay or nay. i am for or against. it is time for them to say what they think should or should not be done to diminish the possibility. over the next 113 days below 3300.

but it appears that not only are some of the senators not willing to stand and be counted, they are going to stop anybody from being able to be counted. i mean, it is almost mind-boggling. i served in the senate for 36 years and you got 13 senators including the minority leader saying i will filibuster proceed on dealing with this national tragedy. one even proceed. now maybe you they will have seen the light. maybe that will change. what an embarrassing thing to say. imagine what they're saying.

close your eyes. i travel almost 700,000 miles around the world. i promise you in the last four years -- i promise you in sophisticated capitalists and more sophisticated capitalists, they are reported sandy hook. what do you think is being said today in those capitals about us? at least as of now, you've got 13 senators the most discussed legislative body in the world saying we are not even going to talk about this. the tragedy that traumatized the

nation and cut the tension of the entire world after all the thinking and debate and discussion with overwhelming majorities, think of the proposals the president of the power make absolute sense. the climax of this tragedy could be were not even going to get a vote? imagine how this makes us look. i cannot believe the senate will do it. i know i keep being told by staff they are going to do it. at the end of the day, i cannot believe that will actually happen. that they will follow the lead of the minority leader and a 13 or whatever the number of people live. i know too many people on that side of the aisle. i just don't believe this. but the other thing that's happening, this discussion to filibuster this is the american

people have overwhelmingly responded. you've heard me say 50 times. i met with 228 interest groups in america. from the nra to the brady group, the law enforcement to governors and mayors. erybody, psychiatrist, school officials. there's hardly any difference for all the groups think with notable exception we should land. they understand the issue. they understand what is at stake. by a majority in every category, got honors, non-gun owners, hunters, non-hunters olyphant by an absolute majority that each of the things were proposing should be an act to them a lot. and we can do it and you guys

know better than any group of people without diabetes once in till the the second amendment. not even a little bit. one of the issues filibuster today so strenuously is the extent name background checks. look, i thought we reached a consensus on convicted felons that people with serious mental illness adjudicated as that, that fugitives, wife beaters should be out on a gun. if i'm not mistaken because i did this last time in 84, everybody including the nra.background checks made sense. remember those good old days? and made sense. keep guns out of the hands of those folks.

so for the life of me, i don't understand the logic of those who say i don't want to expand background checks to people. after 40% of the gun purchases are purchased without a background check. i don't think we should extend it to them, but i think this is to sense. how can that be? how cannot you? how can it make sense to have the background system we have today, knowing that 40% of the people who purchased a god dog go through a background check? there's no constitutional argument. there's not even an engine in its argument. this safety has been factory license gun dealers in the united states of america. 58,000. and they can easily come as

exists now, access the mix to see who should be prohibited from owning a gun. they've already done that since the system has been in place, you now come the nra says criminals won't go through. 2 million people have gone to buy a god, gone for a background check and been rejected because they are felons, because they have a serious mental problem, because they fall in the category of an abuser. they are competent to own a weapon. to tell me 40% of the people who buy their cotton summerall stuck in a a background check, but the other 60% due? and none of these people are felons? wife beaters, mentally incompetent? it makes no sense.

in make no sense. the american people get it. that's why all my time in public life it's the only issue were 90% of the american people agree. 90%. now the nra is engaging in a campaign which i've not unaccustomed to disinformation to try to scare people. they say we, the federal government want to put every private firearms transaction right under the thumb of the federal government and keep others names in a massive federal registry. kind of scary, man. black helicopter crowd really a subset. but guess what? they want to say the universal

background checks are done on workable federal nightmare, bureaucracy, that law-abiding citizens don't want. even if we get a true universal background check, i will never keep criminals from buying guns. none of this is true. let me explain how the background checks. not for you guys. you're not standing on your head. you walk in and they hand you a form. they say you've got to feel the same. it's your name, where you live, where you were born, your gender and race and if you want to make it quicker to get this done, your social security number, which you do not have to give. they pick up a phone, call the

fbi or gets on his computer and put this information in and goes directly to the system. 92% of the time within less than three minutes, the gun dealer pops up on his screen were told by an agent that in fact denying or go forward. it doesn't say denied because the guy is a wife beater. it doesn't say denied because they want to buy certain my thing. it doesn't say denied because they are a felon. it just says tonight. when a gun dealer calls the fbi or goes online, he doesn't even say what kind of gotten the prospective purchaser wants to buy. there is no record.

within 24 hours of being told that you can sell background, the fbi must destroy the information. what is the information? name, address, country of birth, if that area. they must be destroyed. there is no record kept. some big database. no information about the prospective gun. they don't even know what do you the gun because you may go up and say this is the god i want to by unsightly and say we can't afford that. and you don't the gun. they don't know whether you actually purchased it. all it says is this person wants

to buy a firearm sold in your store, you are allowed to sell it to them. the fact is that even if it is approved by john, workers kept your name, never any record of of what would be new but. there is no central registry. if the gun is approved the purchase, the dealer that's the information about the god and keeps the form in a file in the gun shop. they've got to keep it for 20 years. remember, 58,000 of these gun shops around. if you make this universal there'll be 150,000 places for

this have to be cut, scattered all over the nation. no central registry for anything. no way that uncle sam can go find out whether you own a gun because we are about to really take away all your rights and you're not going to be able to defend yourself. we swooped down and gather up every gun in america. it is bizarre, but that is what a sold-out theater. obvious it jesting is to be able to add to the existing system. no information. we're not adding any more information to this forum, but everybody who wants to buy a gun onto that they are not selling to some crazy guy or a felon and

the community ought to know it's not being sold to a bad guy or a felon. .. and have to fill but for melt before i can buy my shotgun.

does it make sense for me if i'm going to walk across the field on the other side of the pike where there is a gun show going on to do the same thing. what's the difference? what is the logic. why should i deal to go on line and by the same gun to get a background check for to buy from any of the 58,000 licensed dealers. to vote on common sense measures that will make our cities and states in the neighborhoods more safe than they are today that will diminish the prospect that our loved ones will be the victims of gun violence. senator boxer has an underlying bill that says about school safety that passed overwhelmingly out of the committee. senator leahy has a gun

trafficking build the attorney general helped him with that says we are going to be able to identify those people that are selling illegal guns and any strong purchase and the like. senator schumer has a background check bill that says you have to get a background check that the central universal there is no reason these shouldn't be voted on immediately and in addition senator feinstein has an amendment to prohibit weapons of war on the streets shouldn't be doubled to be sold and there is no question on the constitutionality of her amendment. even justice scalia pointed out the government has the right to prohibit the sale of certain types of weapons. it's constitutionally permitted. senator feinstein has an amendment to keep the weapons of war off the streets and not aimed at you. all of these are basic common sense things and they all deserve a vote. there is so much more we can talk about but i have today.

it's time to stand up. it's time for these guys to stand up and be counted, to stand up so they can not only look the nra and the point people say what am i going to say to the nra. question what are you going to say to those parents? look them in the eye and tell them you've concluded that there is nothing you can do if? we have an obligation to try. we know if we do the things we are talking about we will save lives. you have all seen the urgency of this issue, and you know what we have to do. and that's why we need your voices again this week to tell the congress they need to act and act in time. i am so convinced that those folks that were trying to stop any action are in a time warp. just like immigration is moved

beyond where people were 20 years ago. just like other things have moved beyond. but you are the most voluble asset. you are the most respected people in the community. you all are the ones that i think the members of congress least want to look in the eye. you notice whenever they run you talk about how you love them and they love you. they want to be seen with you. it's because of your credibility so we thank you for being here and urge you to go up in uniform and ask them tell me why. whose rights are being violated

by any of the things we've talked about and you know the statistics. we know in places where there is universal background checks and states the number of domestic violence murder is down, the number of incidents of non-violence is down. its work. it doesn't solve all of the problems, but it works. you've always been there with us and every one of these tough issues. i promise you we are going to win this fight. this is not going away. this isn't one of these votes if they block the vote somehow we are going to go away. the american public will not stand for it. they will not stand for it. so please make your voice is heard like you always do, and again thank you and may god protect you all in the line of duty. you are an incredible group of people.

thank you. [applause] [applause] politically equal and his partner she never went too far within the boundaries of what a proper victorian should be in

the 19th century. but everyone knows that they shared an office in the department's. she was active in discussions at the many state dinners that they had come and she was not a prude but she is very much a woman that knew what she wanted and she said her rules out and everyone had to play according to those rules and she was respected for at. carvin captured and hydraulic

fracturing. the senate energy and natural resources committee is about three hours this morning to consider the nomination of dr. dr. earnest moniz that served as the department of energy. it's been at the center of the most pressing issues facing the u.s. economy and the environment, how to manage a newly accessible reserves of natural gas, combating climate change, making our economy more efficient and supporting new energy technologies. i believe our country needs energy that transitions america

to a lower carvin economy and is built on three pillars: strong economic growth, reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and energy innovation. it's no accident that the early focus of this committee's agenda centers squarely on those matters. our first hearing focused on natural-gas. technological advances in the recent years have allowed the country to tap into the reserves and natural-gas that were previously not economic to read now this resource has the potential to buy the country with a lasting economic at vantage but for manufacturers and steel companies as well as families and businesses that can save on their power bills. the savings can make a difference in today's tight budget climate. last week when i visited the piatt middle school which cut its energy bill by more than 35%

in the past year due to lower natural gas crisis. the european industry country to take advantage of cheaper gas. about how much of that gas to export abroad the committee will inquire into dr. moniz's views on how to have that advantage for the american consumers and business. just as important as economic benefits natural gas also has the potential to bolster america's standing on the issue of climate. in fact of the energy information agency reported just last friday the u.s. carbon emissions last year dropped to the lowest level since 1994 thanks largely to the rise of natural gas. the climate impacts of the

flaring in a policymaker can address these environmental industries natural gas can provide a quick and burning base load power that emits 50% fewer greenhouse gases than traditional fossil fuels. agreement among stakeholders on practical environment the protections can give certainty to natural gas producers and maximize the benefits of the domestic gas and that is the short term to make a larger impact on the climate change our country needs more renewable power to be the natural gas plants can serve as a partner to intermittent solar and wind because they can come on line and a power down quickly. our country needs to reduce our carbon footprint. the draft u.s. natural assessment issued earlier this year lease out the impact the country can expect from a changing climate. in my part of the world for example the pacific ocean along the coast is projected to rise by 2 feet by 2100 but addressing climate is not just an issue of

avoiding the natural disasters. it's also critical to maintaining the nation's competitive advantage in a tough global economy. today the low-cost natural gas provides the nation's economy with a competitive advantage. however new technological breakthroughs could put our competitive edge advantage at risk in the foreseeable future. congress in writing the 2007 energy bill did not anticipate the natural gas revolution. a lot of major industry figures didn't either. the challenge now is to find policies that can spark a similar resolution in renewable energy. as a technological the germans policy it makes sense to pursue to transition to a lower carbon economy to ensure that we don't lose our competitiveness in the world. only the congress has the tools to address the global nature of this issue in% of the solution

that actually reduces the domestic emissions while keeping our economy competitive. renewables has to be part of that solution. this month the committee is going to take up bills and encourage hydropower and geothermal which we would call the forgotten renewables to read every electron of renewable power presents plants in the court against climate change so the country does have the potential to maximize a variety of types of clean energy, and we also look at the implications of tax reform which can encourage renewables as well. when it comes to clean energy, one big challenge dr. moniz will face the secretary of energy is dealing with the department's loan program. the bottom line is the taxpayers need more protections when it comes to federal financing. it is also clear that there is a big difference between investing in the wind farm that has a customer and power purchase agreement on the one compared

with investing in manufacturing plant to make a commercially untested product if. the chairman bingaman was asked in the wall street and bush administration official who critiqued the loan program whether or not the program ought to be carved into separate financing programs based on financial and technical risks. he thought that idea made sense and we will be looking into that answer as well. the committee also plans to take up and efficiency bipartisan bill crafted by senator shaheen and portman that can result in major energy savings. both kinds of advances are lowest answers to energy. finally any serious effort to build a lower carbon economy has to address the matter of nuclear energy. the questions have arisen about how to dispose of nuclear waste and this has raised important

matters with respect to how to proceed on the issue. that's why senator murkowski along with senator feinstein, alexander and i have been working for months now on a long-term answer to what is a decade problem. i am hopeful we will have a proposal in the coming weeks to build on the work that fine work done by the previous chairman jeff bingaman and the president blue-ribbon commission. finally, as the congress works to address nuclear waste from the civilian reactors it is just as important that the department take responsibility for the legacy of contaminated waste sites light the defense nuclear facilities wrote in the letter last week despite billions of dollars that has been spent to clean up radioactive waste there is a host of unresolved issues. the first one on the list is hydrogen buildup that could cause explosions and waste. this is an issue that this committee talked about in this very room 16 years ago.

dr. moniz and i have a number of conversations about this issue in the past, and i think we have agreed we will have a lot more in the future. it is unacceptable that the department still has no viable plan for cleaning of hazardous waste from the bank of the columbia river has a century after the contamination occurred and more than a decade since dr. moniz served as undersecretary of energy so we look forward to discussing all of these issues and more and many recognize my friend and colleague senator murkowski. >> thank you. i think you've done a good job since outlining some of the things that we hope to work on as a committee for the very broad perspective but i think that does set the stage for what the doctor will be dealing with should he be confirmed as the secretary of energy so i appreciate the way the udall landed this morning. i want to welcome to the committee senator bingaman our former colleague and a great

chairman of the committee. it's good to see you again and of course general scowcroft we appreciate your leadership on the blue ribbon commission. it's nice to have you here ready to felch for dr. moniz this morning. and i do appreciate your willingness to serve this administration as the secretary of energy. i think at bodes well for you that you have senator bingaman and general scowcroft with you here this morning. you may very well prove to be best nominee that generates the bipartisan support i would certainly hope so. i'm enjoying our discussions before the recess. i'm impressed both by your work and your knowledge year. i also appreciate your intellectual honesty. you've spoken in a free speaking gas trade and you have unconventional gas from criticism at the same time you have refrained from

opportunistic weech changing your mind about nuclear power after fukushima. you will tell us what you think no matter what the issue and that is important to all of us. and i will be critical because as you know, we are not signing up for the easiest job here. if confirmed, you'll find yourself in charge of thousands of scientists many of whom are engaged in an exciting cutting edge work, but you also are going to inherit a eight range of challenges and problems. 35 years after the department of energy was created we are still in search of a broad coherent and consistent policy in this arena. i think senator wyden has laid out the contours but we don't see that reflected in what comes out of the department. energy related programs and initiatives remain fragmented and scattered throughout the federal government not enough money is getting to the bench for research and development and

too often it appears the silos in the department stand in the way of progress. in recent years i've become concerned that the dot is not clearly and unambiguously working to keep energy abundant, affordable and secure. as i see it we need a stronger voice in the council of the administration for energy. if that were not enough of course we've seen the department whiffs. but unnecessary deaths we all recognize the situation with cylinder others also 8123. all do well to remember success is not measured through spending or good intentions but actual results that are achieved. the chairman and i are working to increase the amount of oversight conducted by this committee and we believe this will help improve an

opportunistic we can reform some of its programs in the end of those that aren't working as planned but we will also need help from our secretary of energy. policy and management are different animals and of the person that we confirmed to run the d.o.t. must excel at both before. i look forward to working on how your background has prepared you to operate and agency for this size and scope and i welcome the committee. >> dr. moniz, welcome and normally at this point i administered the oath, that you have had the good fortune to show up with the energy equivalent with a couple of all starts, and i think what people do is german bingaman and general scowcroft both are with

us to get what we will do is let both of them make their introductory statements on your behalf and administer the oath and proceed. it's really hard to fathom being there and all the rest of us being here. it's great to be back at the committee. members of the committee it's an honor to be here with the general to help introduce dr. moniz to the committee. as the committee and those coming in as the chairman and the ranking member said, there are many challenges for the secretary of energy. and it's important that we have a person with substantial knowledge and varied skills in order to succeed.

in my view in order to succeed, a person in that position has to have certain attributes and i think all of us if we were choosing the secretary of energy would want to choose somebody with those attributes. i've listed five that i think are important and i am sure that you can add to that list. but let me just go through my list of five. first, we would want a person has the secretary of energy that had a knowledge of science and engineering. obviously much of the country's science and engineering work is funded through the department of energy and is managed by the department of energy and i think that is an essential qualification. second we would want a person with a demonstrated managerial abilities and that is essential because of the vast range of responsibilities given to the

department of energy. we want a person with an understanding of how that department works. also the workings of other departments and the federal government that share the responsibility for science and engineering in national security. and we need a person that is familiar with the securities over congress that have the responsibility for oversight in the department of energy. fourth we would want a person with a deep understanding of our nation's energy challenges and i will have a little more to say on that and finally our department has responsibility for the maintenance of a nuclear deterrence and we want a person that understood how to achieve that as well.

his qualifications as a scientist are well known, and universally respected and second as has demonstrated as manager real buddy both in the public sector and that one of your nation's greatest universities he was undersecretary of energy from 1997 to 2001 and had responsibility for the day today operation most recently as the director of mit energy initiative he's pulled together the resources and for that institution to move the country forward in meeting its energy challenges. third, dr. moniz has an in-depth knowledge of how the department works, how the department of energy works, how it relates to other departments he understands their rightful oversight responsibilities that compress and its committees have with regard to the department of energy and risk committee of

course. fourth, dr. moniz has a deep understanding of the nation's energy challenges. all of us on this committee who served on this committee and in the last few congresses have heard dr. moniz testify on the excellent studies he and others at mit have prepared the major aspects of those energy challenges over the last ten years those studies and reports covered nuclear power, geothermal power, renewable energy, coal, natural gas, transportation sector and the electric grid. those studies have made a contribution to the understanding both here in washington and around the country on how to secure the nation's energy future. of course understanding our energy challenges includes understanding how well-designed public policies can help to meet those challenges and help us to

finance needed energy development and infrastructure. finally, with regards to the department of energy responsibility for maintaining the nuclear deterrent, but bob moniz has hopes the challenge to perform the job as well. i believe the president has chosen well with this nomination of dr. moniz to be secretary of energy. we are fortunate to have a person with his outstanding qualifications willing to take on this challenging job. i hope there will be very strong bipartisan support for dr. moniz in this committee. and in the whole senate as well to be at thank you. >> thank you come senator bingaman. when you're talking about good fortune, dr. moniz is fortunate to have you in that corner. general scowcroft, welcome. >> thank you, mr. chairman. german wyden, ranking member

murkowski, members of the committee, it is both a privilege and pleasure to appear before you in support of the nomination of dr. ernie moniz to be secretary of energy and is an honor for me to try and -- to july and senator bingaman in support both this nomination i've been involved in national security issues related to energy and nuclear security. and the doctor has been a key element in that involvement. i can honestly say i do not know anyone to my department of energy at this difficult time than dr. moniz.

his comprehensive command of the issues involved for his acumen and judgment all of which underpinned by enthusiasm and good humor for simply to be unparalleled. the latest of our many efforts to gather was the president's blue ribbon commission on america's nuclear future familiar to the members of this committee to the commission benefited enormously from dr. moniz's expertise as well as from a series of earlier studies of nuclear energy for which is responsible. i show the threats of nuclear proliferation by developing the international support for nuclear fuel. such arrangements could contribute to preventing the

future spread by processing by newcomers to nuclear energy thereby providing incentives to prevent some of the difficulties that currently bedevil the international community in cases like iran. dr. moniz has published this topic with two of my associates now deputy secretary of energy and the late ernie. i also share dr. moniz's interest in the promise of small modulated nuclear reactors which may have benefits for the u.s. industry and leadership, energy, security and the environment and provide a safe and practical alternative for developing countries that choose to pursue nuclear energy. this country faces a complicated series of issues in the way of energy and nuclear security. and as i have said at the

outset, i simply cannot think of anyone more suited to these difficult circumstances to be at the helm of the department of energy. thank you, mr. chairman. >> general, thank you. i know what the last meeting when we talk about nuclear waste with senator murkowski and alexander a big chunk of the meeting seemed to be to praising you so we look forward to calling on your council on these nuclear waste issues to the dr. moniz the rules of the committee apply to all nominees come and they require that they be sworn in connection with their testimony. if you would, please stand and raise your right hand. >> do you solemnly swear the testimony you're about to give to the senate committee on energy and natural resources shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you god? >> now before you begin your statement is the tradition of the committee to ask three

questions with respect to your particular qualifications before the committee. first, will you be available to appear before this committee and other congressional committees to represent departmental positions and respond to issues of concern by the congress? are you aware of any personal holdings from any investment or interest that could constitute a conflict of interest or create the appearance of such a conflict should you be confirmed and assume the office for which you've been nominated by the president? >> the personal with holdings and other interest have been viewed both by myself and the appropriate council and the federal government. i've taken the appropriate actions to avoid any conflicts of interest and there are no conflicts of interest or appearance is to my knowledge. >> are you involved or do you have any assets held in a blind trust? >> malae do not, mr. chairman. >> thank you, doctor. i know that you have family

members here and we would invite you to introduce them. >> i will start with my wife of 39.83 years. [laughter] i know academics focus on numbers. >> one of the rare cases of precision and accuracy. >> very, very good. >> why don't we now recognize you to meet your opening statement and then have questions from the members of the committee in order of their appearance. >> thank you mr. chairman and distinguished members of the committee. it's a privilege to appear before you as president obama's nominee. if confirmed by the senate, i will look to the best of my devotees to advance the public interest across all divisions and trusted to the department of energy. energy, nuclear security, science and environmental remediation. the chairman's permission i will like to start with some thanks first reenforcing those.

i cannot adequately express my gratitude for the appearance here they've made major contributions to energy and national security to the core missions and high priority areas for the president. it's an honor to work with them and they are friends and mentors and i hope they will continue to be in the years ahead. a second from i want to think all the members of the committee for taking the time to meet with me to share your perspectives on the challenges facing the d.o.t. and the nation. third i think secretary steven to i think if he's brought new ideas and new ways of doing business. and finally my family for their steadfast support and in particular my wife who we have already met. i would now like to take a moment to describe for the committee some of the experience that if confirmed i will apply to the missionaries under the secretary of energy.

i've been at the faculty since 1973 as a sissy director and the office of science and technology policy and as the dod undersecretary and these have given me a very deep appreciation to the importance of american leadership and science. if confirmed i will work with the community and the congress to ensure to the researchers have continuing access to cutting edge research tools for scientific discovery and training the next generation. energy technology and policy. since 2001 when i returned to mit from the department of energy my principal focus has been at the intersection of energy technology and policy especially research and education at the future will carbon economy. as a central role in advancing the science and technology foundation for the transition to the low carbon economy that will serve the nation's economic environment and security goals. the president has advocated and all of the above energy strategy

and if confirmed the secretary, i will pursue this with the highest priority. as the president said when he announced my nomination, quote we can produce more energy and growing our economy while still taking care of our air, water and climate. the need to mitigate climate change risks are emphatically supported by the science and by the engage scientific community. the dot should report the portfolio of low carbon options and to advance the 21st century electricity delivery system. the u.s. has also experienced a stunning increase in domestic natural gas and oil production over the last few years. yet even as we produce more oil domestically which is very important, reducing their dependence transportation fuel also remains a natural security objective. in 2006i was appointed the director of the mit energy initiative research program that we developed which reflects the same all of the above commitment

to read the initiative was intentionally built up with strong partnerships with a range of energy companies. if confirmed i hope to be able to build on this experience so that s to convene industry, environmental groups from academia, investors, policymakers and other stakeholders for constructive and consequential discussions about america's energy future. i've also had the pleasure of serving on president obama's council of advisers on science and technology as recommended and the administration wide review with the d.o.t. and the executive secretary's role and if confirmed by plant to help develop by gathering strong input from the congress and private sectors decoders and by enhancing the departments and political and policy planning capabilities. nuclear security the president started with a broad speech in 2009 and has laid out a vision of nuclear security.

step by step productions of nuclear weapons are ensuring the safety, security and effectiveness of our stockpile as long as we have nuclear weapons, strengthened efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and measures to prevent terrorism. the doe has responsibilities spanning much of this agenda. the department is interested in the response of the to maintain a safe and reliable nuclear weapons stockpile and the absence of testing. when i served as undersecretary, the review of the science based stuart ship program i also served as the secretaries lead negotiator for enhancing the security of the nuclear weapons material, the dod expertise to the large extent on the knowledge, skills and commitment of the national laboratory scientists and the technically at first intelligence group as critical to the nation's defense. if confirmed i intend to make sure that these assets continue to assist in the nation. environmental remediation.

environmental remediation on many sites and often decades of nuclear weapons production during the cold war remains a major mission area for the department. this is a legal and moral competitive and confirmed, i pledge to work with the committee on the effective committees and other stakeholders in the most transparent manner. a discussion about the environmental remediation inevitably triggers a broad discussion about management and performance throughout the dod. if confirmed, i hope to work again with members of the committee and others in congress and the administration to elevate the focus of the management and performance at the doe. in summary the department of energy has significant response to devotees on america's economic energy, environmental and security future. with your support in addition to that of the president i feel both prepared to address the challenges and optimistic about the outcomes. thank you and i would be pleased to respond to your questions. >> thank you. we will begin with questions.

just for the record i want to make sure that we are clear. you share my view that it has to be a priority to accelerate the transition to below are carbon economy, is that correct? >> certainly. i do very much and we are of course and a historic trend towards low carbon, and i agree completely with you we should pick up the pace. >> those who disagree say that renewable energy like hydro and geothermal carbon capture make the argument that renewables is not price competitive with traditional power sources to be the department of energy runs various programs that finance clean energy research and development and innovation. but could u.s. energy secretary to help bring down the cost of renewable energy and help our country to be globally competitive? >> mr. chairman i think there

are several directions, but i would emphasize first and foremost, i believe it is the department's push on the restriction of development agenda to lower the cost. in fact, to be honest, engineering friends don't like a characterization that in the end of the goal of innovation is in fact to reduce the cost. in the low carbon agenda first i think in some cases we are seeing remarkable cost reductions already occurring. certainly one area that we've emphasized strongly energy tessin absolutely dramatic reductions to the wind is in many places competitive and another places, we have still research jobs cut out for us but i believe again and see all of the above strategy that would include carvin capture in

sequestration and cost reduction would be important and would include small modular reactors and certainly including as you labeled them the sometimes forgotten renewables like hydro and particularly engineered geothermal. >> very good. let's turn to natural gas. we've got the lower prices, the world wants it and we want to make sure and the committee is already looking at this to see if maybe we can come up with a strategy we can have it all where we can have this manufacturing renaissance that may be possible to have some exports. we are going to try to have it all from obviously easier said than done. on the issue of the prices which we are going to focus on this committee for businesses and consumers. i am concerned that given our

advantage the department has used some data which is outdated, number one, and doesn't look at the regional impact the way that you all have done. my question here is if confirmed -- i certainly support the -- would you revisit this issue to make sure that we get the most current data so that we can think through on a bipartisan basis in this committee the implications on this price issue for natural gas. >> i have emphasized very strongly and i think we are on the same place that we need to have strong mls test brown did in the best data so i think as we move forward in making any determinations including those which i & we will have to tackle if confirmed in terms of the export license question we

certainly want to make sure we are using data that is relevant to the decision at hand. the second point on the regional issues of course some times the aggregate would be sufficient but for many issues involving the energy infrastructure, the regional questions are extremely important. >> i appreciate that. the reason i ask is you have focused on some of these regional impacts of gas pricing that wasn't done in the administration study and that's why i want to work on it with you. one must question if i might add that deals with fracking natural gas. the board is to look into these various issues. they came forward with a number of policy recommendations in particular we are concerned about the lack of confidence that the public has with regards to these issues the defense

counsel and colleague and friend who looked at a variety of approaches in quoting a stronger role for the state soft a set of minimum federal standards. the fracking chemicals and the like. but could you do as the secretary of energy to make sure that it is done in a responsible manner and to help address the public's concerns. the department of energy is not charged with doing their regulation but i see the department could contribute in many ways for example.

going back to your earlier theme we could use some new data on the emissions. for the data to speak about and to make decisions to it as it relates to the shale gas that is being made available in alaska house a result of this production boom in the lower 48 we've got about 35 trillion cubic feet of mud and gas and perhaps another 300 trillion cubic feet of both gas both onshore and offshore that is stranded to the end of

the state is looking to what they might be able to do to look the gas to tight water and then make it available for exports to that i not going to ask you to prejudge anything in terms of what might happen with an export with the views on the natural gas exports given what we know about the current reserves and the market conditions are these good or bad for the nation, can you speak to the exports

specifically? >> thank you, senator. the first point i would note to the historical fact that alaska has been exporting lng for some time but of course --. in terms of exports, while if confirmed, number 1i would have to really be in the position to delve into the current situation with regards to the licensing applications. they're clearly has to be a public interest criterium applied and i believe the natural gas act suggests that one should move forward with licenses unless there is a clear public interest issue to but i would also note that the

secretary did note if to get to make it transparent analytically based evaluation application by application. this should be easy. is hydropower a renewable resource. >> you mentioned we all talk about in all of the above approach to energy what. how extensive is your view when we are talking about all of the above does that also include

coal? to estimate your studies have seen coal as being a continuing major part of the energy supply in the united states and certainly in the world. we do think that as we go to a low carmen economy we really have to push hard on completing the investments that have been made nearly $6 billion on establishing as a viable and cost competitive approach. we need to make sure through extended storage of large amounts of co2 in various demonstration projects. we can provide public confidence in long-term storage of large amounts of co2 and second, we need to focus on innovation that

can really reduce the cost of carbon capture dramatically >> one last question this is relating to the potential attacks on the electromagnetic pulse and the geomagnetic disturbance says, the discussion about all of this is certainly not new. do we have sufficient information to characterize and simulate the susceptibility of the power grid to either the tax or do we still need more study on this? >> senator, i know i need more study on this and i feel we do in general. i think this is part of a broad issue where we need to introduce a robust resilience into the whole grid for many kinds of natural and unnatural suppress so i think this is an important area to pick of the level of study.

>> thank you mr. chairman pete >> thank you, senator murkowski. senator stabenow i believe has to go. set her, and you have five minutes that you can donate to the senator stabenow and then you would be recognized next? >> i would be happy to lend five minutes. i did enter the room earlier but i got here before you and i have to get here after you saw that i recognized. welcome and i want to join colleagues indicating that i think that we are very fortunate to have your willingness and to public service. from the michigan perspective i want to reiterate what you and i have talked about on so many fronts that not only.

the issues and of climate energy independence and michigan is very engaged in the areas that you are involved and as you know wolfe's. the technology alternative energy and i'm very pleased to say michigan as number one and the korean energy patents for the country there are other issues as well, safety issues and others but when we look at the fact that the world's largest manufacturing economy is in america, about 18.2% of the

global manufacturing done here for the first time in 13 years we are growing now as of 2010 and creating jobs and moving forward. what we do another exports and pricing i believe is critical to that growth. we've concluded that for all natural gas prices could lead to 5 million manufacturing jobs, and my concern goes back to the issue of accurate data went looking at the proposals for the efforts that you have to decide upon as it relates to export proposals. the company coming before the committee decided to fight over 100 new projects that have been announced through their company alone at a value of over

$95 billion. that sum for the department and i am concerned that other projects in terms of economic impacts have not been included as well. i'm certainly not an expert on the science of natural gas but i do understand there may be a way to look at this, the components of what gas being most significant and valuable to domestic manufacturing for. in evaluating the export of natural gas in the applications coming before you, do you agree that we need clear criteria for evaluating economic impact how can we come to a way that we can address both the desire and the need and economic impact of

export. >> thank you, senator stabenow. building on the questions the chairman and senator murkowski, first it's clear that if confirmed to be able to look really hard at those studies and the data that we have and as you've said, there are many factors for example really understanding and of serving what happens with elasticity of production when and if there are exports are we producing more gas, are we producing more white guess that provides liquids for the manufacturing industries, so there are multiple components. i think the important thing as you said this first of all to no

to and the overarching public interest criteria the status of the domestic natural gas market is clearly right up in that list of criteria, and we will then move forward if confirmed to it i think we have an obligation to make judgments license by license applications but using all of those criteria including the one of cumulative impact. >> thank you again price matters. getting this right is incredibly important for the american economy on multiple fronts and i look forward to working with you. >> thank you mr. chairman. with a graciousness, senator we will go to the senator for the five minutes and then senator himes.

>> when he thanks for taking time to have discussions in my office. i think they were very, very helpful. as we mentioned the department of energy has quite a presence in nevada. whether those issues are renewable energy on the test site or perhaps yucca mountain its heavy in nevada, and your comments and the discussions that we've had has been very helpful. i do appreciate your comments on the nuclear security and the opening statement. the nevada test site is an important tool for the nation, and we seek to combat nuclear proliferation to the military and the prevention protection response to terrorist that would use ready of logical or nuclear material as a weapon of mass destruction. but, doctor, by far the biggest question in the mind when it comes to the department of energy is regarding the feet of the proposed nuclear waste repository at yucca mountain. rather than objectively evaluate and yucca mountain as one

proposal on many the shavit number thrown by designating it as the woman potential location to be evaluated. but was plagued with problems including a science and the problems. given this it's no wonder that nevada doesn't trust the assertions that yucca mountain is safe. the people of nevada deserve to be safe in their own backyards and no amount of free insurance from the government will convince us that nevada should be the nation's nuclear waste dump. but i do recognize the need to address the problem of nuclear fuel costs spent fuel but it must be solved through careful consideration of all alternative based credible scientific information rather than politicians here in washington, d.c.. so given your role the question is given their role on the blue

ribbon commission, the nomination to head the department of energy do you believe that we should look yet believe capacity yucca mountain in the long term spent nuclear storage? senator thank you and let me say the pleasure is mine to be able to speak with you and all the other members of the committee it's very helpful. as you know part of that. the commission will require working with the congress and we've heard about the work going on with fi members of this committee and senator feinstein in addition, so i think moving

the agenda of storage and parallel and aggressively moving the agenda of repositories moving the agenda of deciding what would be the best kind of reorganization of the program or the best authorities believe the authorities to assign and all of those agenda items in my view are linked in order to underpin the success of the consent based approach. >> i appreciate those comments and the administration pushing back on this storage site and i hope that with your leadership and your understanding and the dangers posed to nevada in this particular issue that we can get past this issue and find a reasonable work together on where to store the spent fuel. you mentioned in your comments about and i certainly do appreciate that also.

renewable energy is critically important to nevada we look to continue looking for ways to broaden the development so what role do you see a renewable energy planning in the overall energy portfolio. if we take a step back it is a pretty remarkable story. much of it has been already said the highest production of oil and 15 years and of gas ever on the renewable just and i think four years the lower co2 emissions and a greater manufacturing when we take a step back it's been a pretty remarkable run i think over these last years. the low carbon economy is absolutely critical and of course renewables, nuclear are

the three major conwell and renewables and biofuels but renewables are central. wind of course has another significant performance hand technologies in many areas we have work to do for example would be wonderful not for nevada and to get offshore wind to become competitive in price. that would take more r&d. a solar is making tremendous advantage of the lead to advances and in nevada i think you have the photophore taken to the concentrated solar options. the former we don't take enough look at this. we are down to the order of 1 dollar for a solar modules. we can argue whether this 90 cents or a dollar ten. but this is fantastic progress

and on the solar thermal has now more and more technology for for restoring the energy for many hours, 46 hours, then the solar becomes much more like a dispatch racecourse into the grid so i think these are tremendous opportunities. you mentioned geothermal as well. that is another -- >> dr. moniz thank you for your time. >> i think my colleague. >> thank you mr. colleague. it's very odd to be on this side of the digest and have senator bingaman introducing dr. moniz on that side but i will carry on the mexico's legacy here and i want to stick with one of the issue is the senator brought up regarding the spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste. as you know engender larry, secretary chu announced a new strategy on the high level radioactive waste and that

strategy was very much in response to the recommendations of the department's blue-ribbon commission that you were part of. the strategy for the management and the disposal of the used nuclear fuel and high level radioactive waste includes plans now for both short-term consolidated storage and the development of a permanent repository. and on page five of the department strategy the outlined the administration agrees that of the linkage between the opening of the interim storage facility and progress towards a repository is important so that states and communities that consent to hosting a consolidated in to dump storage facility do not face the product that they detect a permanent facility without consent. what are your thoughts on maintaining that strong linkage between the interim storage and

final disposal for the facilities so that a state can be sure that the interim storage doesn't turn into a permanent storage? >> senator come as a member of the commission, i support that storage. adis storage on the way to dispose although i should add reemphasizing as well that one of the benefits of a few decades of storage is the option that it could be direct disposal of spent fuel it could possibly in the future mean doing some falsely of the fuel but the same thing as far as the repository has spent fuel or high-level waste and the linkage is clearly important. >> i want to talk for a moment as well about technology transfer and i know that you spent some time in mexico and the national labs in los alamos.

with a sister labs we have an incredible mission that can help promote economic development and provide quality jobs throughout the country but i think we can do better job of tapping into the resources to the transfer and technologies developed by the labs to help foster new government industry partnerships to spur the technological innovation and boost job creation especially in the areas that you outlined in the clean technology and clean energy. i know you've had some experience with transfer at mit energy initiatives and i wanted to rescue do you think that the d.o.t. and other lovers are doing as much as they can to help facilitate the technology and are there better ways to leverage the laboratories resources with both universities and the private sector. >> that's an important question for the laboratories.

>> and my last go around, we did engage in some successful technology transfers but we also i think salles that there were other barriers that could be lowered. in this case but i think is an example is perhaps we could do more, would be interested in the feedback to do more of working with the states for example because you mentioned universities but it's not only universities, it's the investment climate, the so-called innovation ecosystem and perhaps working collaborative flee to build that up it will provide more pool for the technology out of the laboratories. >> i look forward to working with you. one of the important issues is setting the culture that

reinforces the idea that this is an important part of what the labs do. i will leave you with one quick thought. at less alamos has been making good progress towards meeting the commitment to the state of the mexico that they made regarding planning of legacy and a quicker way stand one of the priorities is simply the removal of 3700 cubic meters of least that is stored above ground. unfortunately the fy 13 nclr we didn't get the additional 50 million that the obama administration had requested that i hope to be able to work with you to make sure that we continue to prioritize the work that they are doing is working. they meet those commitments they've made for the state and i certainly would appreciate your thoughts and look forward to getting together with you and making sure that we continue down that road.

>> i don't know the issue at the moment. >> thank you mr. chairman. congratulations on the nomination and for taking time to visit with me yesterday. i wanted to ask about the gas exports in 2011 you co-authored the report entitled the future of natural gas and can be strongly affected by the energy supply concerns of its allies and do it on to explain the cut off to europe demonstrated russia's market power of a situation where the allies have an adequate alternative supplies of gas but i want to show a chart that shows how vulnerable many of the nato allies are to the russian gas. you will see for example it makes up 48% of the gas consumed in germany, 71% consumed in poland and turkey, 100% in latvia and lithuania, slovakia a bipartisan l3 seven january i introduced a bipartisan legislation of republicans and democrats together cosponsoring which

would expedite the experts to nato allies and to japan. i've heard from many of our nato allies and japan that they have to buy our gas we talked about yesterday the gas in the global market. do you believe that the exports from the united states to these countries would strengthen our national security interest? >> thank you. that is an interesting question. i think many dynamics and the gas market address this question working with allies i want to start with that and exports are clearly one but i but also noted that if you look at the last few years just to the fact that the united states had this gas revolution led to the essentially diversion of a lot of lng there was targeting the united states to europe created

a remarkable amount of stock market pricing and put pressure on the russian imports so i think there are many ways in which these dynamics come together. one of the things five noted in my opening statement towns welford we would like to pursue the so-called quadrennial review sounds like a process but i mentioned it here because the point of this it would be a mechanism for getting the many different threads of energy when you call it policy from the multiple departments this would include in this case the state department of defence so that the natural security interests are part and parcel of our energy decisions. i want to switch to an issue of nuclear energy. i would like to ask about the united states enrichment corporation also known.

i & you remember of the strategic advisory council from 2002 to 2004. you are one of nine members of the council and paid adviser for the work. the pledge your nomination and the reason i'm asking this is because there is the extraordinary steps by the department of energy has been taking to bailout the company the commerce privatized in 1996 and many in congress have concerns about the department of energy agreement which was announced in may of 2012. it's contributed to a 20% drop in the price of uranium and putting the project said risks with good paying jobs in wyoming and other states some have called for you to recuse yourself from decisions involving so the question is if confirmed what will be your position on using the public

their rhenium for the benefit? >> on this and many other cases i will always be consulting very closely with council. i think there are several issues that come in here. one is the issue which is not directly to the point i will come to that in the second but there is this issue of the requirement to try to maintain an american origin enrichment technology for national security and support of allies. second as well up to your .5 think that in my own history of the department previously, and i would certainly if confirmed absolutely going forward always taking into account balancing

issues the help of our domestic industry in my last go around that was manifest in the way that we manage megatons' to megawatts program pretty much shielded the domestic industry and that would be an important criterion and any decision that we've made and i think a system, and integrated uranium plant along these lines i think is what we need to do to deliver. ..

[laughter] >> all right. well, i will have to consider that. [laughter] that is my only question. well, no. [laughter] when we hear testimony from the former lockheed martin ceo, norman augustine, on the report from the american energy council. we were told that the country has yet to embark on a clean energy innovation program that

demonstrates with the scale of the priorities that are at stake. the council's report showed that in 2010 the federal government spent $80 billion on defense research, $30 billion on medical research, and only $5 billion on energy research. some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are critical of government support and energy innovation. and we tend to focus on the failures and disregard the success almost every committee talked about this natural gas boom. the roots of this technological revolution are in the eastern shales project, which was a

federal government initiative including seismic imaging, which is instrumental for cracking. it was developed by a federal energy laboratory and it's not just me saying this, but former mitchell energy vice president said, you started it, and other people took the ball and ran with it, and they said you cannot diminish the involvement. my question is that i fear sequestration will further erode our efforts to promote energy innovation. how would you use your leadership role in the department to make sure that the innovation remains strong and a priority? >> thank you, senator.

i would just note that if one does very simple arithmetic, taking the cracking of energy at times gdp for research, we had another nine or $10 billion which seems to be about the right level. >> that is given our historical investment. we are actually investing less. we are under investing by roughly three. this is at a time when we know, some of us know that we have a climate change. and we have a climate change approaching.

but this is underinvestment when we are really seeing a serious threat to our national security and the world. >> i would agree and i would add that i think it shows a lot of evidence, we have a lot more capacity to do the kind of work that you are talking about. for example, we had a factor of a hundred or more applications than could be supported. having said that, we recognize that we have tight budgets and i guess to answer your question, we will try to leverage the funding as much as we can. to try to move technologies to the point of the private sector and we can develop into this economy. >> looking into that current investments, we're talking about

natural gas is the chairman said in his opening statement. but it has brought down the cost of generating electricity. it has brought down the carbon footprint in our country. that is because of doe research and development. so i think that we are being penny wise and pound foolish buyer not investing in the energy research and development. i just want to underscore that. >> mr. chairman, may i make one comment. just because i think it's important. it had some other elements as well and i think it's important to recognize all of them. it is very important to kick this off.

one was an extended and public-private partnership with industry sharing and industry guidance for the demonstration and test drilling phase. and simultaneously, congress added a time-limited her production of unconventional wells. there is a roll and then it becomes public and private partnership. we have set the scene to what it has become.

we are not this investing in energy research. >> thank you. >> is good it is good to have you in our committee today. there are two areas that i want to chat about it the first has to do with our national security. and energy production and the distribution of energy can be the cornerstone. including america's economic competitiveness. we have seen the per capita income in this country. there is no question that it could be a major part of growing the gdp back to the four or 5% range to say that we could create around 2 million jobs in the next two years and see trillions of dollars of economic

activity in our country there are energy economy. second, is an issue as it relates to the national security -- our national security. it is an important ingredient in these conversations. one specific area for my concern is the facility -- the mock facility in south carolina. it is critical to our nation and honoring the disposition agreement and the disposal of 34 metric tons of plutonium. the mock facility is designed to dispose of this by converting it into commercial nuclear power reactors. when you are ideally during the clinton administration, did you participate in any discussions about the development of the mock agreement with the russian government? >> yes, i did. i spent quite a bit of time discussing that issue. i mentioned in the opening

statement that i was deemed the secretary's lead negotiator for the position of weapon materials. this fell under that. specifically, in 1998, the department of state and the department of energy together establish a mutual disposition program for 34 times. and we produced in the year 2000, a find plan at that time. there were two pathways that were technically laid out. one was the mock approach and the second was a verification approach. that is when the administration ended and the projects went forward. you supported? >> yes, i do. the mock support is one way to clarify what it will do.

it will change this to make it less suitable. >> you agree the obama administration is breaking the u.s. and russia disposition agreement? >> welcome at this stage, i have no information other than what is in the public sphere. obviously, i would be looking into this type of issue. >> are you aware of the fact that we spent about $4 billion on that facility? >> yes, i agree with you, senator. do you agree the u.s. should finish the project? >> yes, have to await possible confirmation to understand where we are going. >> you have an opinion? >> my question is do you think

that we should continue to invest this. >> i think we need to honor our agreement. [inaudible] >> i need to await confirmation. >> you have an opinion? >> well, you are the lead

negotiator on this. >> we have art invested this with completion. my real question is should we continue this. >> you know, i would need to be confirmed and look at what we are doing and look at the path forward in what the administration proposes and then work with you and others to push through our commitment to dispose of these 34 metric tons of plutonium. >> geometer will cost to backtrack and start again? >> no, sir, i do not. >> are there any penalties that we would have to pay if this is not finished on time? >> i believe there are some agreements.

>> i think it's 2016. the reason we are having a conversation -- we consider the economy that we have today. one path we are on currently. the other we have no much it would cost and how we could finish it. my question is continuing on the path we are on. you know we should do this point?

>> many of the rumors that we have heard have to do with the ability and the probability of reduction in the spending of it. the spending is reduced by 75%, the ability to finish on time. the impact on that to the federal government would be hundreds of millions of dollars in penalties. it would be breaking the agreement that we have to be disposed of. thirty-four metric tons. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i enjoyed our conversation.

as you know, we have been able to have energy production triple in three years. that is substantial because of the partnerships we have had one of the things we have been working very hard on, what i consider to be low hanging fruit is efficiency and conservation. how do we make progress on this bipartisan basis? >> first, let me say that i totally agree with this demand

activity. if one looks at that is across the board. how do we move this. we have put this forward, and it is critical. we have many ways of accomplishing that economically this is enormously important to all of us, to get this low hanging fruit -- it is in fact the correct metaphor.

i think that we could always innovate. industry is always among those three sectors already the leader. >> we have been very good about integrating this. can you talk just about the national grid system and how we are helping on the cyberside and the energy-efficient side to

solve the problems that are emerging over the next several years? >> yes, thank you, senator. if i may go back a step and know that in 1988 and 1999, we initiated a portfolio look at the department of research. the first thing that popped out was there was no work on greece because it didn't fit into the stovepipes of fossil energy. but we now have the office of electricity and reliability. the office has really upped the game, using some of the stimulus spending. i think that we need to still be more. i think that we need to greatly

increase our ability to do an evaluation so that we get the resilience of the system in the case of natural or unnatural acts against the grid. integration is very important. and the chairman mentioned renewables and gas, and we get the kind of backup and a system. >> one of the things that has been very productive is a partnership between the doe and the dod. these strategic challenge, can we talk about how dod is working. >> i know what is happening in some dimensions. two in particular that i will

mention. one is the issue of lowering the energy footprint and energy needed in fixed assets like basics and working around building efficiencies and building integration. he can be an important template in the economy. there is also the work on fuels and an area that i think is important, the war fighter. how do we address the energy needs, which is an enormous problem for that individual out there in the field. >> thank you, jerry. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for joining me in my office. in march of last year, the

secretary issued a memorandum to our marketing administration. in a memorandum, the secretary proposed rate structures that would incentivize energy efficiency programs, the integration of intermittent resources and preparation for electric vehicles. deployment for this. there has been significant concern expressed with regard to this memorandum, suggesting the policies contained therein the cost of electricity. for small and municipal and corporate power systems that purchase power from these. how would you respond to those concerns? you agree with them? you think they are legitimate? you share them? >> well, let me say it that we

recognize the core responsibility to deliver power as inexpensively as possible. that is a very important part of where they operate. of course, it will require making sure that they are reliable. they are also growing. and they join team that put together this to make a recommendation for what might be done, recognizing the importance of maintaining the structures. another those recommendations are now going to determine what

they want to do. but i think again, the first priority is clear. it is also important to have the tma engaged as they wish to do with their customers and making sure that they are modernizing. >> would you continue to support these policies if they were to raise rates? >> well, i think the customers would not. >> okay, do you support the carbon tax? >> we have no plan to do so. i think that is the first point. the second point is the department of energy is not the locus of discussions about such fiscal policies.

our job is to, as i said earlier, our job is to push the technology innovation and get the cost of the low carbon technologies. >> have you been a past advocate on one side or the other? >> in 2008, there was an open letter to the next president, whoever it would be, prior to the election. that was a time in which there was bipartisan discussions. i noted what the implications of that would be. >> there was a recent gal report that identified some whether duke nation among the over 80 initiatives. it subsidizes wind energy.

nearly $3 billion in obligations for the federal government, while some of these programs fall into the department of interior and agriculture and commerce and treasury, leaving aside the separate question of whether we are involved in providing subsidies at all. the federal government should administer so many of these programs. should there be so many of these recognizing the reality of duplication? >> i have to be honest that i am simply not aware of this report and i'm happy to look at it and get back subsequently. clearly i am very supportive, as you said earlier. in providing the marketplace with low carbon options.

i don't think anyone would support duplication of programs if that is the case that we ought to look at consolidating some of them? >> looking at the report with you in the office. >> thank you very much, senator. >> senator? >> thank you, i enjoyed talking to you very much. i am greatly encouraged by her leadership with the committee that we will have an energy policy and i appreciate you indicating that it will take many indications. we have talked about the state of west virginia and it is important to the nation. i would like to show you that this comes from a man who is expected to have nuclear

renewables of natural gas. from 2010 to 2040, this is what we are expecting. when you see that we are still hanging on 35% here, it stays about the same. with that being said, let me show you where your money is being spent. 16% return. >> this doesn't make sense and the business model to work. but it feels like we are trying to push that in the direction where this administration wants to go. it is a level playing field. >> i want wind and solar and everything that we have. we are not all the same.

by the own estimation, you're going to be using this until we have a feel of the future. the federal government has never partnered up for a commercial projects we can prove it can be done the only thing that i am asking is what you're seeing here, where we are, where we are spending money, if you would just take a serious look at this . we have 18% and only we have 35 and 30, 65%, it seems like there would be a balanced they are.

that's all i can ask on that. how much longer do you think we can subsidize renewables? until they are able to compete in the marketplace. >> no, i am very committed to having the sequestration projects. we cannot just dormice. we need a partnership into the best that we can. >> that is agreed. then on the second question, i personally believe that for any

energy source we have to help our role in the government. we have to make sure that the marketplace has options. investors and companies and public servants we had the information that we needed to understand the options to be chosen for using energy. they are public and private sector issues. they are a low carbon future.

and we have the call option. >> you believe, you have an all in energy -- >> i'm very much with the president on the above approach. >> okay. we are working with innovation. >> i do understand. >> sir, thank you. >> senator alexander. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your willingness to serve. i have a series of questions. if i may, senator franken mentioned the importance of energy resort.

and would you be willing to work closely with senator coons as we work this next year with 35 republicans and 35 democratic senators and finally sponsored by the democratic leaders and to do so in a way that we reduce any program, duplications, and ensure that we are functioning as efficiently as possible? >> yes. you mentioned the tax credit. i believe that was about 10 years. do you think about still should be in place? >> well, it is not in the realm of the department of energy,. >> is that probably a good --

wouldn't it be a wiser use instead of having that tax credit in place for oil or gas or others -- when we want to double the amount of research and energy? >> well, i think that we are really focused on the research area and there is no question, as we said earlier, that we have substantial capacity to increase our research effectively. >> okay, we are talking about linkage in the blue ribbon commission. am i correct that the report, the concern and the commission was that it did not want the stalemate to prevent movement ahead on the consolidation storage site. but it didn't want the linkage to be something that continues

and blocks this. that you said consolidation should proceed without further delay. is that not correct? is that not the report? >> i would just think that it is parallel development and the men doing both parallel because we would have geological repositories at way following this. >> would you agree that the department of energy advance program is the best program to bring high-performance computing? >> yes, and the department has a long history in doing this. it is very important to be continued. >> one of the biggest problems that we have is contaminating

waterways. we have made great progress on that. people have the damage. the doctor is very good on us. he helped us move towards a focus. while we are waiting for the dollars to arrive to clean it up finally, that a good temporary strategy would be to head to the creek where most of the contaminated water is. and most of it gets in our waterways. >> looking in that facility, which i have not done, protecting this is paramount.

>> in following up, the senators question on carbon capture, what would be to continue the research, which is looking for alternate ways to turn this into something commercially useful other than carbon capture. and sequestration, but two the two of them might turn out to be two expensive for many parts of the country. seems to be to find some way to find a commercial use for carbon that comes from gas and coal plants. do you think it is important that we continue to invest in research that helps find ways to capture whole and natural gas plants in addition to

sequestration? >> yes, i do know that today we are deploying around 65 billion tons of co2. that is one form or cannot be used everywhere in the country. it is quite important. it has to be an application. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> all right. >> i look forward to working with you i am proud to say that we believe in the true energy security across our state. we rely on renewables.

we also have traditional sources, like coal and natural gas. also, this is a crown jewel, i was out at the test site a few weeks ago. and what i have seen was a very public and private partnership. could you comment on your vision for those kinds of partnerships? how do you continue to support this partnership?

>> i would be seeking all kinds of ideas of moving forward. i think that we have pioneered some ways of doing this, which is terrific. i think that we should think about having ways of regional industry working with public or quasipublic sectors to focus on moving solutions that are regionally appropriate. this was raised earlier. we could probably do more. >> i look forward to working with you at in that regard.

>> it is an area that has strong bipartisan agreement. the former chairman has encouraged how we might use this. can you articulate this and how do you see this as you confirm that? >> thank you. we have testified on this and i think it is a very promising direction and i would say that it is where most innovation is going on. the issue which remains to be seen can be determined only when we do it.

and to what extent will the economics and manufacturing lower the cost and there is a great potential payout they are which goes on top of what are typically very attractive examples in the design of these reactors. >> climate change is happening. we have unprecedented droughts. we have ecosystems that are being savaged and we have the time to act. i think there is great opportunity of presenting ourselves in the context of national security and the environmental benefits.

wichita for the remaining time about how balanced energy portfolio can will reduce slow climate change -- as i pointed out earlier, we are rich in energy resources. how do you see the development of renewable resources? >> that is an easy question. in 20 seconds. again, i agree about the scientific basis and what is completely clear. there can be limited legitimate discussions. what we need to do? we must go to a economy that will include, as we have said in others have quoted, natural gas among traditional sources and we

are seeing this bridge. we saw that with the announcement yesterday in terms of the co2 emissions. with natural gas playing an important role in. and assuming that we go to a low carbon economy at some point in the future's, natural gas will require this, while we are also deploying these options of power. renewables and of course, efficiency as an important part of that story. and the hydrocarbons. >> thank you for your willingness to serve.

i have great affection for my friend from west virginia and external cost of calls and renewables and natural gas, it did not include those. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for coming by my office. we talked about the ngf and the epa and a renewal that would require the plant owners required to install mission control technology. even in the energy laboratory, which the senator referred to.

in january, the secretary of the epa has formed a task force to look at this. to collectively find a solution. if confirmed, will you commit to working with all of the interested parties, including the senate here to find a solution that upholds the trust obligations that the secretary is charged with an honors the delivery commitments? is that something that you see yourself working hard on for working with us on? >> as you have said, the decision-making is prompting the department of energy with resources that we can use for analysis. and i would be happy to work with you and others to apply and

make sure that we have good data. >> we appreciate the work that has been done. it shows the cost benefit analysis and it is tough to justify the proposed rule of the epa, given the benefits or the lack there of. so i hope he will defend the research in this regard. >> thank you. the president has issued an executive order regarding cybersecurity for the electric grid. in other organizations, some kind of mandatory enforceable standard, we are a long way from there.

what do you see the role of doe in this regard to ensure this grid is protected? >> thank you, senator. i think that this is one of the greatest threats that we face. the department of energy and its facilities need a lot of protection against cyberattack. specifically on the grid, i think that we need to bring together the assets across the department to intelligence and electricity. we have a lot of assets. also with national security labs

on cybersecurity. so we need to work on the technologies and the distribution of integration systems and we also need to work in my view combining the national security act for the system. >> is your vision compatible with the president? >> completely, yes, sir. >> thank you. >> thank you. the senator had to run for a second. i am next on the list. i'm not sure how i got that good fortune, but following the would-be senator risch. doctor, thank you so much.

obviously, first and foremost, i want to get a couple of things straight. and i hope you will make it a priority to visit very soon in your tenure as secretary of energy. >> yes, if i am confirmed. i certainly will. and we are seeing the recent letter. my plan would be to give briefings immediately. we need to understand the issues and work with the chairman, work with representative murray and make sure that we get a plan together going forward. to do that expeditiously. >> that was first and foremost. secondly, i do think the complexity of this is based on good science and good time

frames. do you believe in living up to the tri-party agreement? >> yes, it is an agreement that we have to strive towards. i will be straightforward in opening the discussion if i think that there are challenges that are rooted in the science and technology. my intent is to work with members to adhere to that. >> you believe in that document as an agreement by the federal government? >> it is an agreement with milestone. >> okay, great. >> but about this issue of the impacts. you think this is an important enough issue that we shouldn't be looking at ways to cut funding -- i'm not trying to get you to make a forward-looking

statement. as much as i'm trying to emphasize. you believe in cutting the budget, including cleanup if it's going to miss the milestone >> well, clearly i support meeting the milestones. that will require having the budget to do it. i don't know what the budget is dead i don't know the password i can assure you that i will work with you and the other involved members to try to do the best that we can. and to use what resources we have. >> because every time a new energy secretary comes in, someone says this is the best way to do it. usually ends up costing millions or billions of dollars.

i wanted to get your thoughts on the commission you served on. >> hanford has producing storage of this military rate. should we move forward on looking at that as a solution. >> it led to comingle in the 1980s. i am no longer obligated. so it is certainly in order.

if i am confirmed, i really want to push that evaluation. >> okay. we want to move forward. making a commitment to our national laboratories and development of smart technology, hoping that you will develop a concentrated strategy. >> i'm not concentrated that. >> i feel that the department and the lab's work best when working together in a strategic way on the major mission

priorities, the grid is one of those. and frankly i'm going to be looking at a different way with the laboratory directors and they engage more in the strategic of where we all go together. >> thank you, senator risch. >> i appreciate it. probably out of all the projects that you have going on, that incorporates your philosophy and you said so in your statement here, i was glad to see that the cleanup from the cold war is a moral imperative. probably the closest one you have is in idaho. and i want to encourage you to

continue to keep your foot on the accelerator on that because that is one where you can actually have a victory and get the cleanup done over there. it would be good for the image of the doe and good for the federal government's image to get that done. i thank you for listening on that comment i want to encourage you to continue along that line. secondly, i would like to hear your ideas. we have talked about this, but i would like to hear your ideas and we just touched on it briefly. i would like you to elaborate that for a little bit. because of the social programs that we have, federal spending is going to be crimped back aggressively. the sequester that we saw is just the tip of the iceberg. order your ideas about operating

the national laboratories and how you will move forward with that, given the restrain federal spending that we are going to be in? >> senator, we had a good discussion and we are on the same page. i think that there are some statements that are important to make, which are in some ways independent of the budget levels. i don't know the budget levels are going to be. i said in my written testimony that there is no question about the national laboratory system to pursue the multiple and complex missions. but i do think that what i was trying to communicate in the last response is that i think

that we can improve the way in which the laboratory directors are engaged with the department, not just as kind of performers, but as part of the planning of where we are going. there would obviously be a special role. >> he is the right guy for the job, by the way. >> i have known john for many years. it is quite effective. so i think that i don't quite yet now. i would like to see the laboratories and one of their

work performed by significant teams who are managing a big mission challenge for the department and the country. i think the lab's work best and most effectively when they have kind of a -- you know, the kind of long-term commitment to manage a hard problem. and also, that is how they complement most universities in terms of ways of working. so that is kind of my philosophy. then we have to try to stick it into the size of the bucket that we see coming forward. >> thank you, and i appreciate it. >> thank you. i wanted to bring up an issue about the power administration. obviously one of the issues that

we care deeply about is to make sure that we continue that and that the northwest delegation, you know, there is always an attempt every few years to try to refocus that. and i wanted to get your commitment on continuing to make sure that the epa has strong jurisdiction within the department of energy, relative to other ideas that people have about living up to the structure and how it is today. >> well, i think there is no question. i understand completely importance of this. it is certainly a major player we are committed to maintaining sound management and the commitment to delivering low cost power.