quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. cassidy: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cassidy: mr. president i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of calendar number p -- number 33, s. 665. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 33, s. 665 a bill to encourage enhance and integrate blue alert plans, and so forth and for other purposes.

the presiding officer: without objection. the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. cassidy: i ask unanimous consent the bill be read a third time and the senate proceed to vote on passage. the presiding officer: without objection. if there is no further debate, all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the bill is passed. mr. cassidy: i ask unanimous consent the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cassidy: i ask unanimous consent that the armed services committee be discharged from further consideration and that the senate now proceed to s. res. 136. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 136, expressing support for the designation of may 1 2015, as silver star service banner day.

the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. cassidy: i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cassidy: i ask unanimous consent that the senate now proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following senate resolutions which were submitted earlier today -- s. res. 158, s. res. 159, s. res. 160, s. res. 161, s. res. 162 s. res. 163, s. res. 164 and s. res. 165. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measures en bloc. mr. cassidy: i ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to and that the preambles be agreed to and that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cassidy: i ask unanimous consent that the senate be in a period of morning business with

senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cassidy: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. cassidy: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. cassidy: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cassidy: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations -- calendar numbers 84-94 and 96- 106, and all nominations placed on the secretary's desk from the foreign service, air force, army, marine corps and navy and that the nominations be confirmed and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and that no further motions be in order and that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the record, the president be immediately notified of the senate's actions, and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cassidy: mr. president i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 3:00 p.m. monday, may 4. following the prayer and pledge, the morning business be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date

and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. following leader remarks the senate resume consideration of a veto message to accompany s.j. res. 8. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cassidy: senators should expect a vote in relation to the veto message to accompany s.j. res. 8 at 5:30 p.m. on monday. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 3:00 p.m. on monday, may forth.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin. a senator: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amend >> mr. president i have seen in this consent to set aside the 1149 mr. magoo called my and in president number 114090 declared that anyelating agreement reached by the president relating to nuclear program of iran is ato congressional executive under agreement to be considered under the express procedure under both houses of congress. >> is there objection? >> reserving the right to object. >> we been said out for about a week. we've had a debate on this issue. many members are working with senator corker and need to clear the amendments so they're consistent with the overall objective that was supported by the senate foreign relations committee i and 19 to zero vote. will continue to work on that process. the consideration of the minutes and for that reason i must object. >> objection is heard. >> mr. president? >> the senator from wisconsin.

>> perhaps my explanation perhaps he will withdraw his objection. during our debate, during our discussion on tuesday, when i offered an amendment for the agreement between iran and america, in the world, a treaty subject to the advice and consent of the senate, senator from maryland spoke and one of the objections to the treaty he said second item how we are going to explain to our colleagues in the house of representatives. the presiding officer served in presiding officer served in houston i served in house. house. senator menendez served in the house. last time i checked we've imposed those sanctions because a bill passed by both the senate and the house, now we're seeing the approval process is going to ignore the house of representatives solely going to be matter for the ascendant on revocation of predict that assessing like a rube eight workable solution. now, mr. president, i appreciate

the fact that the senator from tennessee and the senator from maryland did not object to my raising my first commitment to deem it a treaty. and, of course the body voted on that and appreciate that fact and i accept the -- they did not want to deem the disagreement country. fair enough. but i would like the senator from tennessee, in debating against or arguing against deeming this treaty senator from tennessee said quote we think the president has the ability to negotiate things. first of all i agree with that. article ii, section two states the president, he shall have the power by and with the consent of the senate to make treaties provided two-thirds of the senators present concur. so that actually is the

constitutional method for making agreements between nations, having the president negotiate that, completely agree we cannot 535 negotiators but we sort mission of this body involved in those agreements. we should have a role. we should have a robust role. and, of course, i believe it's so important this is such an effect, it risks so much for this nation. i believe it should be a treaty. but again fair enough. this body deems it would not be a treaty. what the senator from tennessee went on to say he said went on he said went on to this president would consider suspending the sanctions ad infinitum forever. forever. no idea there at the people on the other side of the aisle were shocked. we were shocked, yes, we granted those waivers for national security. we did not believe those waivers would be abused the way they are

being abused right now. ascended from tennessee also went on to say this is one of the biggest geo- political issue that will potentially happen if an agreement is reached within our lifetime in the senate. once again i agree with the snore from tennessee. this is a huge geopolitical issue. and right now this administration deems that agreement on its own authority and executive agreement and really at this point in time we have no role. there is no involvement. senator from tennessee went on to say, look, i have strong agreement with the senator from a senator from wisconsin. agree with the fact is really should rise to the level of a treaty. he also went on to say quote without the bill that is on the floor, the american people will never see it. think of that. think of an agreement between iran that i believe as is being

described, nobody knows yet but what i believe is being described to us put iran on the path for nuclear weapons. now, how many years has it been that president from both parties, members of congress from both parties have stood and said very forcefully, we simply cannot allow iran to have a nuclear weapon? and that we may be facing agreement between this country mother nation of the world and iran are not supposed iran on the path for nuclear agreement. the senator from tennessee is correct. i hope he's not correct but i think he may be correct that right now this president has no duty to bring that agreement to the american people. now, i happen to believe that public pressure would be so great the american people would

not tolerate that level of brazen is that level of arrogance on the part of any administration come any president to do a deal make an agreement of such import that before implement that agreement the president of the united states would not bring that agreement to the american people. and subjected to in some shape or form the advice and consent of either this chamber or congress as a whole. the final quote that i would like to quote from senator from tennessee is he said no, look if i could wave a magic wand for all of the sudden -- i would love for us to have the ability to deem it a treaty. i really would. well, mr. president, if the agreement that president obama is talking about in the

framework is agreed to between this administration and the other negotiating partners with iran, we better all hope the don't you start flying around the capital. because that agreement as it's been described to us would put iran on the path to be a nuclear power. that would destabilize not only the region that would destabilize the world. it would lead to an enormous amount of nuclear collaboration within the region. it's a very bad deal a very risky for this nation. it affects this nation. now again let me just go through the three forms of international agreements. and again there's no set criteria in terms of what is a treaty, what is a congressional executive agreement, or what is simply an executive agreement. they are considerations, precedence.

but i go to the foreign affairs manual, the state department, they lay out the considerations. what should be considered in determining what an agreement is? treaty come a congressional executive grid or just an executive agreement. the first is the extent to which the agreement involves commitments on risks affecting the nation as a whole. the third consideration whether the agreement to be given effective without the enactment of subsequent legislation without congress. the fact that we have this bill proves the fact that it needs subsequent legislation by congress. number five, a particular type of agreement. that's what we're talking about here. the congress waiting in in the form of my commitment saying we want to roll come we want a more robust role that is truly offered in this bill. the seventh is a proposed duration of the agreement. we are going to be living with the impact, the effect, the

results the collateral damage of this agreement between iran and the other negotiating parties for a very, very very long time. so based on those considerations, based on the fact that in the state department's own foreign affairs manual, in determining whether something is a treaty or an executive agreement gore a congressional -- on a congressional agreement there should be consultation with congress. i consider this amendment consultation with congress. all i'm asking, all i'm asking with his sentiment is provide a minimal, a minimal constitutional threshold a minimum constitutional role for congress and ultimately approving a deal between iran and the rest of the world and america. so all this amendment really does, in fact it just asks the

president to bring that agreement before the american people, before this congress, i'll us to have input, to affirmatively approve this in both chambers, both the house and the senate with a mere majority vote of both chambers. because what is currently on the floor in this bill, and cannot get a great deal of respect for the senator from tennessee. i know in his heart he believes this senate, this congress should have a far more robust role in involvement. in such a consequential agreement. but i also realize the challenges had dealing with our friends on the other side of the aisle, and have very little involvement they are willing to agree to for the senate and for this congress. if the bill is passed, we need

to clarify what that means in terms of approval. public the best way for me to point that out is i had a third amendment that i tried to introduce. it was amendment does going to specifically describe what this bill does with a vote of disapproval, what the threshold really means in terms of approval of this very consequential deal. and so i would offer an amendment called it a very low threshold for approval congressional executive agreement. it would've allowed the agreement between iran and the rest of the world to be approved by this body come by this congress with a majority vote in the house and a vote of only 34 senators here in this body. now very appropriately that amendment was ruled out of order. it was ruled unconstitutional by the parliamentarian, as it

should have been. because that is not approval of a process. that is not the way congress should weigh in have input, be involved in such a consequential agreement. but that's exactly any very convoluted process votes of disapproval that would have to be first of all approved voted upon by 60 senators and then, of course, if that is vetoed we would have to override that with 67 senators and two-thirds majority in the house. and again what this bill does, it will allow a very bad deal, potentially very bad deal between iran and the rest of the world and america to be approved by a majority vote in the house and a vote of only 34 senators here in this chamber. so again with that reality come with that clarity of what this

bill does the minimum role, the minimum role that this bill allows, i would urge all of my colleagues to support my commitment that really provides for what should be the minimum involvement of congress, a majority vote, an affirmative vote of approval in both the house and the senate to any deal that this administration concludes with iran. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. >> senator from tennessee. >> i want to thank the senator from wisconsin for his great service on the foreign relations committee, and i think he knows there's another amendment offered by another senator senator from texas that i think is very similar to this end we are working right now with the other side to try to bring that out. >> would the gentleman yield speak with short.

>> the difference between the two as i understand that is, the senator from texas and it would have been higher threshold than this. i think it would rise to 60-vote threshold. i'm not asking that much. i'm asking for something actually less than that. to again clarify what this would bill allows in terms of approval by this chamber. so even though we discussed this earlier, i don't believe i can combine the two because i think it's important to clarify the issue with an amendment that requires what i really deeply, truly believe should be the minimum, the minimum role, the minimum affirmative approval of this agreement a mere majority vote in both chambers. that is so reasonable. that is the minimum role the american people out of that in terms of having a say on this. i have never insisted on anonymity or and four years in

the senate, i guess a deeply about this that i really ask please allow a vote on this one an amendment. >> if i could, mr. president. the senator is right. he doesn't offer many amendments, nor do i but the very first amendment we voted on was the senator from wisconsin's. we had a conversation yesterday which i thought led to is considering combining this request with the request of senator cruz, and i know we're working on that particular issue but i understand and we're trying to process these. i think he knows you know are trying to process votes and the very first one we process was the one from senator from wisconsin. so i appreciate i would appreciate is concerned. i think he knows i share his concerns about this agreement. and i'm trying to get done what

is possible. again if i could wave a wand and called a national study waiver that senator johnson and myself and senator cardin and others voted for years ago when we gave, when we put the sanctions in place come if i could wave a wand and those goes away then we would be in a position where we would actually need to have, you know, an affirmative vote. but i do appreciate his concerns. i think he knows that we're trying to work through an immense down here and i appreciate his patience as we do so. >> i just want to join senator corker. senator johnson is a very valued member of the senate foreign relations committee. i for -- i've enjoyed working with him. i know his passion on these issues but i just want to underscore a couple of points. right now as of last night there were 66 amendment at that have

been called at this moment in out of the committee 19-0. the number of republican amendments were 66. the number of democratic amendments are zero. i point that out because we are trying to maintain a bipartisan cooperation that we've had through this process so the senate can speak with a united voice. because that gives us the strongest possible message as to the congressional role. and i must tell you, this is a delicate balance how we brought this bill forward. i don't think i am under -- underestimate the surprise that we receive from her college whenever there was a 19-0 vote in our committee. so i just come there so many members were working with those pedophile dynamics and i thanked each one of them, try to find areas where we as we worked in the foreign senate relations committee to find a common spot.

and am optimistic and senator corker's optimistic that we'll be able to do with many of the issues that republican members how brought up in 10 minutes they have filed to put in direct response, let me point out the sanctions were imposed by the united states congress, by both the house and the senate signature of the president. what is being negotiated between our negotiating partners, united states and iran is an agreement if they are successful, that deal is struck double prevent iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state and will provide overtime relief from iran from international and human sanctions that have been opposed to that is a framework. we know that the sanctions brought into the table. we all understand that and we are very proud of the world we have played but it is congress and only congress that can permanently change or modify that sanction regime. we are going to have to act.

so i just take exception with senator johnson's of you that we're not going to act. we are going to act because only we can permanently change the sanction regime. but what this bill, his does, is an orderly way to consider the congressional review of this agreement or do you when it is finally reached it and i just wish my colleagues would not prejudge this. i've heard summary people say that something is going to happen. we don't know what the agreement is going to be. we don't even know if they will give the company with an agreement. but i will say this about the obama administration. when they came out with a framework agreement, there were many members of this chamber who said iran will never live up to the commitments in a framework agreement, that they will break out, they will not pull back and the sanctions regime will not be able to stay in effect. and guess what.

a year later, they have complied with the framework agreement, and they have in fact, the sanction regime has held tight during this period of time with negotiating partners. do i fear many of the concerns of my friend? idea. i do share those concerns. i have concern as to whether the agreement will in fact a strong enough to prevent iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state. that's going to be what we are going to look in our committee if we could pass this bill in the same bipartisan manner which we did in committee, if we can do that, the senator from wisconsin that chairman, ranking member, all of us in the senate foreign relations could are going to get all the documents, we will have the time to review it and be able to answer those questions. the votes were having on the floor this week is whether we're going to have that opportunity.

and i know that these memos are well intended to i understand that. i understand the deep feelings that each members have but the bottom line is if the amendment my friends talk about it on the bill, we are not going to get that review. we are not going have an orderly process. that's the facts. so i think the debate on the floor is critically important we've been debating this bill for a week starting last thursday. 19-0 vote in committee. not a single democratic amendment. we think it's time to move this bill forward to the united states house of representatives. and yes senator corporate and i are going to accommodate -- senator corker and i will accommodate suggestions made by members. we will continue to work that path. .. is an extremely important issue. it's got to rise above our

individual desires so that collectively we can achieve something for the american people. that's what they want us to do. we have it in our grasp and i really applaud the leadership of senator corker. he's got to work with all the republican amendments that have been filed. believe me, there's a lot of frustration in the democratic caucus as well as to why this bill is still on the floor and hasn't passed by now. but if we get everybody's patience, i am confident that senator corker and i will be able to work together so that we can accommodate the reasonable requests of our members and get this bill moving to the united states house of representatives. but let us maintain the balance that the senate foreign relations committee did and let us do what the american people want us to do, and that is listen to each other. we have different views. i understand that. but the way that you can reach common ground is to listen to each other and reach a reasonable compromise that

doesn't compromise the principles for which we're trying to achieve. that's exactly what the senate foreign relations committee bill does and i urge my colleagues to exercise some restraint and let's get this bill to the house of representatives. i yield the floor. mr. johnson: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from is with wisconsin. mr. johnson: i would like to respond to a point frequently made by the supporters of this bill that this is the only way -- the only way -- that this body, the congress, the senate, the house of representatives will exceed secede the details of the bill. our commander in chief will be so brazen, so arrogant as to negotiate and conclude an agreement of such import, of such consequence that -- and he would then keep it secret from the american people and this congress. i hope that's not so.

but if that's truly his belief, i would be happy to modify my amendment to require that same disclosure of the information of the details of the agreement. i'd be happy to do that, be happy to work with the other side to do so. but barring that agreement i still am urging my colleagues and i'm urging this body to allow a vote on my amendment to clarify what this bill is and what it is not. it is not advice and consent. what it is is the minimum the minimum threshold the minimum involvement, the minimum input on the part of the american people through their elected representatives to pass judgment to affirmatively approve such a consequential agreement with a near majority of vote of both

chambers of congress. is that asking so much? and it is true that we passed this bill out of foreign relations with a unanimous vote because we were granted assurances because i realize this is with a unanimous vote because we were granted assurances. this is a delicate negotiation. my friends on my friends on the other side of the aisle simply refused to have what i consider a minimum involvement and i appreciate doing a bipartisan agreement, reaching an agreement but our understanding is that it would be a completely open amendment process. the sen. from maryland points out at 66 to one. let's start voting on that. the start voting on hours. eventually will tire. what this bill is and what it is not.

let me say what this bill provides. if it passed sure, we get the information, which we should get regardless but it sets up a process a very convoluted process disapproval which would require 60 votes from this chamber to pass. we assumed it would be vetoed. it would require 67 votes to override the veto and two thirds majority -- two thirds of a a majority in the house. so let me clarify one last time instead of requiring the bare minimum of an affirmative vote of a majority of members of both chambers of commerce this bill would allow approval of this agreement by a simple

majority in the house, and knowing 34 senators providing that rubberstamp approval to a bill that could be incredibly consequential and that we will live with the consequences of for many many years to come. with that, i yield the floor. >> i think the senator from wisconsin and appreciate his service, thank him for his support of this bill's. i agree. i wish it was different than it is, but the fact is that we will have a right to vote whether to approve or disapprove, but that will occur for five years down the road and most of us want to weigh in our before the sanctions regime totally dissipates.

with that i yield the floor and noticed the absence of a quorum. >> time and time again i have said a nuclear armed iran is a a threat and the senate needs to have votes on the merits of this agreement. the pres. to the pres. has backtracked on his own words saying that iran needed to live up to all of its obligations under international law. yet they still have not expose the past military dimensions of its nuclear program. after this process began he said iran has no need for a fortified underground military bunker yet our negotiators have conceded the existence with centrifuge cascades of that underground military bunker. the president has said we have to have fully verifiable anywhere anytime access to all sites to

ensure that they are not cheating to include the military sites yet the leaders continue to say we will not be able to access's military access military sites and there will be no intrusive military inspections. i the sen. from florida and many many other senators of submitted multiple amendments to ask for votes on these points. we have been consistently blocked from bring up these movements were about. is fine if you have to vote no. if you think that iran should keep an underground fortified bunker with centrifuge capability, fine if you don't think they should have to disclose the past military dimensions of the nuclear program's, but we need to vote. you need to vote no. is even five you agree that you think this is a delicate agreement that must be prevented, but we need to vote. if you don't want to vote,

you should not have come to the senate. if you're in if you're in the senate and you don't want to vote, you should leave. be a talkshow host. this time we have a vote on all of these critical issues. we're talking about a nuclear armed iran's the most dangerous threat to our national security. the amendment i have offered 1st was simply take the language of the bill that came out of the senate foreign relations committee and add those three points. first, -- 1st that iran should not keep its nuclear facility before it gets sanctions relief, but they can't get sanctions relief and tell until the expose the past military dimensions of their nuclear program, except fully verifiable

inspections regimes we deserve a vote on this. i i call my amendment number 1197 to the desk. >> the clerk will report. >> 's. >> i ask unanimous consent the reading before it poses

is underground fortified bunker and before it submits to a fully verifiable inspections regime, 2nd requiring israel's right to exist as a state because they continue to say that israel will be wiped off the map and if they get nuclear weapons they will have the means to do so. mr. pres., it is my intent is to insist upon a vote and record a vote on this amendment's. the senate needs to vote. if you disagree with these policies vote no. if you agree and think it will upset the delicate compromise and vote no and explained that, but we need to explain that. i know yield the floor. >> mr. president, the senator from maryland.

>> let me.out a couple of things. there are now 67 amendments that that have been filed by republicans, none by democrats. this bill passed the senate foreign relations committee 19 to zero. working with republicans have filed amendments to try to accommodate them, and we have been making progress. we have been trying to schedule additional votes command i i want to thank the senator and those were cooperating with us in the way that we can try to move this bill forward -- and we

will continue. the lakers again. a way to receive a vote members are concerned about. >> mr. president, senator from tennessee i want to thank the ranking member. i want to thank all of the want to thank all of you go out with cyclic site. i have i have a sense that the context of this is changed.

i regret that. working with members on controversial votes. as we already have. the only two votes we have had thus far were considered poison pill votes. my friend from maryland was willing to add more poison pill votes if you want to call them that, tough votes, but i think i think that the context of this debate may have just changed and i yield the floor. >> the clerk will call the role. [roll call] >> mr. pres. >> the sen. from arkansas. >> i asked the quorum call be suspended. >> without objection. >> let's have a talk about poison pill amendments. these are not poison pills. pills. these are vitamin pills designed to strengthen the legislation in the us

position. you can object that israel has a right to exist as jewish state and iran should not be allowed a nuclear weapon if they we will recognize that right? the pres. president himself so that they should close there underground fortified military bunker before they get sanctions relief. we relief. we are simply asking for a vote on what the president himself is said. at the sen. from maryland was to talk about procedural tactics, let's be perfectly clear what is happened. the very 1st amendment brought to the floor on this bill was designed to stop any other member from being offered. for those of you who are watching you should know that the only thing that amendment says is that any final agreement must be submitted in farsi and old english, non-controversial proposal which are sure we can adopt by unanimous consent and move on an orderly fashion. yet they continue to object to unanimous consent's designs to stop the senate from having to cast his votes. the amendments we have offered are no more than a

procedural tactic's and with the sen. from maryland is doing himself, an amendment that could've been offering committee, been voted on easily on tuesday being used to block consideration. these are not tough votes. if you want to vote no do that will -- we need a quorum call. >> without objection.

>> next week the senate will continue debating the bill to allow but not require congress to approve or disapprove the nuclear agreement between six world powers and iran. the senate has been considering amendments to the around all week command we are expecting more next week. just a few minutes ago the house of representatives approved a budget outline for the next fiscal year's which would cut spending for the program program which help students pay for college and housing programs for housing programs for the poor and reduce spending on food stamps. 40 million additional dollars. taking up an energy and water spending bill. >> the energy water spending bill, the 2nd of the 12 annual appropriations spending bills. joined by ari matter. what are some of the examples of the agencies and programs this bill covers and how much different as the spending level next year's as compared to the

current fiscal year? >> the majority of the funding goes for the army corps of engineers and the real mission. this is about a billion dollars larger than last year's bill. >> last year's bill never made it into law because it was rolled in to the big omnibus measure, is that right? >> that is correct. the big question surrounding this bill will it happen again this year. the veto threat from the white house over certain provisions. our question surrounding that's. >> one of the issues of regularly comes up in a debate is the yucca mountain nuclear waste storage area. what is the status of that, the proposed status of that? >> right. well the obama

administration and congressional democrats have effectively muffled the program. this bill would restore funding and require the energy department to use it for the repository's. of course that is one of the things the administration as opposed to. >> the army corps of engineers, the amount they are saying more or less than the current fiscal year >> that is about on par. is actually more than the obama administration requested. it would allow firearms uncertain core engineer property which the administration and democrats are opposed to its. >> you tweeted about the administration's opposition to the measure. omb issued a veto threat for

the house energy and water spending bill. here is a look at their tweet. under fund investments in developing clean and secure american energy and senior advisers would recommend the president veto. what was the white house original proposal? 's. >> right. well, this bill would be about $1 a billion dollars less in funding them what the white house requested. funding for fossil fuel research and the nuclear energy programs. this is a long-running fight we have seen between republicans and the administration. they want to increase funding for those areas and the administration usually democrats want to increase funding for renewables'. >> in your article on bloomberg dna looking at the debate you talked about possible amendments that may come up including rolling

back the epa greenhouse gas emission standards. what else are you looking for in the debate? >> well, they well, they are considering offering amendments that would rollback energy efficiency standards for light bulbs and ceiling fans possibly suspending rules of the energy department requiring furnaces to be more energy efficient. amendments that have come up in the past. >> as it stands now if it passed the house and senate the white house. to veto the bill. >> the senate has not written a billion. what direction they take. but yes. a strong veto threat right now. >> ari re: natter, bloomberg energy reporter. you can follow his reporting on twitter. thank you for the update. >> thank you for having. >> also on capitol hill vermont senator bernie sanders spoke with reporters

an independent who has announced plans to run for president is democrat 's. he spoke with reporters just outside the capitol where he did not actually say he was running for president presumably because of rules that prohibit campaign activity on grounds. >> thank you all very, very much for being out here today. let me make a brief comment. i'm happy to take a few questions. we don't have an endless amount of time. let me just say this country today has more serious crises since the great depression of the 1930s. for most americans they are reality is they are working longer hours for lower wages and inflation-adjusted income, earning less money than they

used to despite a huge increase in technology and productivity. all over this country a have been talking to people. how does it happened? producing more working longer hours for lower wages, my kid can afford to go to college's how does that happen while at exactly the same time 99% 99 percent of all new income generated in this country is going to the top 1 percent? how does it happen? the top 1 percent owns almost as much wealth. it is unsustainable and cannot continue. we cannot continue having a nation in which we have the highest rate of poverty with the highest's population of millionaires and billionaires.

how do we create an economy that works for all the people rather than a small number of billionaires. the 2nd issue directly related is the fact that as a result of the disastrous supreme court decision on citizens united we now have a political situation where billionaires are literally able to buy elections and candidates. let's not kid ourselves. that is the reality. you have billionaire families now prepared to spend hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars' in elections to buy the candidates of their choice, often extreme right-wing candidates. i am the former chairman of the senate veterans committee, and i don't believe the men and women who defended american defend american democracy fought to create a situation where billionaires on the political process. that is a huge issue. right now in terms of issues

we have a republican party with virtually few that recognize the reality of climate change let alone that it is caused by human activity let alone that the scientific community tells us this is a major global environmental crisis. i want to see this nation we need the world and transforming energy systems away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency's and sustainable energy. real unemployment in america is not five and a half percent. if you include people who have given up looking for work real unemployment is 11%. we need to create millions of jobs. the best way is to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure and i and i have introduced legislation to do just that. in my state of vermont.

let me conclude by saying this. i've never run a negative ad my life. you asked the people of vermont and they will tell you i hate and the test negative ads'. i believe in a democracy that elections are about serious debates over serious issues not political gossip not making campaign soap boxes. this is not the red sox versus the yankees. this is a debate over major issues'. my conservative friends differ with me. that's fine. that's called democracy. that's a good thing.

allow us allow us to discuss important issues facing the american people, and let's not got hung up on political gossip or the other soap opera aspects. [inaudible question] >> essentially without giving you a detailed proposal a detailed proposal i regarded as unacceptable that you have major corporations in this country who make billions of dollars in profits. up a nickel in federal income tax's because, among other things they stash their money in the cayman islands and bermuda and other tax havens. the wealthiest people in this country and largest corporations have to join the united states of america and come back to this country and retain and respect the responsibilities not to shift jobs to china not to avoid paying federal taxes. we need real tax reform with the wealthiest people and largest corporations paying their fair share of taxes'.

[inaudible question] >> i/o my brother an enormous amount. i grew up in a family that did not have a lot of money. my dad came to this country at the age of 17 dropped out of high school, never made any money. my my mother graduated high school. we did not have a lot of books. my brother introduced me to a lot. i hope my brother does well in his race for parliament in the uk. [inaudible question] >> absolutely not. let's be clear. to to say that people disagree on issues, that is what debate is about. that is what democracy is about. what i am saying is turn on these are the 32nd ads and

vicious personal attacks. the american people are sick and tired of it. i run vigorous campaigns. [inaudible question] 's. >> i think what is more fair game for my campaign is the role of money in politics. where other conflicts of interest when one family can spend 900 billion in a campaign taking money from fossil fuel and having a platform which as i understand calls for the elimination of social security medicare and medicaid, ideas increasingly palatable to my republican colleagues. the issue is not the clinton foundation. the issue is the huge amounts of money that it takes to run the campaign. and let me say this', one of the hesitancy's i have about deciding whether to run are not is obviously dealing with money.

i am going to have to raise my campaign contributions through bernie sanders .com small individual contributions and that is how i will do it. i seriously wonder if it's possible for any candidate who is not a billionaire or not beholden to the billionaire class to be able to run successful campaigns to and if that is the case i want you also recognize what a a sad state of affairs that is for american democracy. [inaudible question] >> it is too early. we don't know what hillary's stances are, but i can tell you that i voted against the war in iraq iraq not only did i vote against it, i helped lead the effort and many of the things i said i said back then turned out to be

true, massive destabilization in the region. i'm helping to lead the effort against the transpacific partnership because i believe it continues the trends' of horrendous trade policies which have cost us billions of decent paying jobs. i helped lead the effort against the keystone pipeline because i don't think we should be transporting the dirtiest fuel in the world and have to be vigorous in terms of transforming our energy system's. those are some of my views. we will see were secretary clinton comes up. all right. listen, i have got it going. last question. [inaudible question] >> not at all. we're in this race to win. you have got to understand, i asked people to understand my history. you are looking at a guy undisputedly and is the most unusual political history of anyone in the united states congress. that only the longer serving

independent but i reining at 1 percent of the vote. it's that is not the right question. if you raise the issues on the hearts and minds of the american people's try to put together a movement that says we have to stand together as a people and say this beautiful capital, our country belongs to all of us not the billionaire class that is not raising an issue that is when election. thank you very much. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> c-span2 providing live coverage of the u.s. senate for proceedings and key public policy events in every weekend book tv now for 15 years the only television network devoted

to nonfiction books and authors. c-span2, created by the cable tv industry and brought to you as a public service. watch us watch us in hd like us on facebook, and follow us on twitter. >> navy sec. may be secretary maybe spoke at the national press club about the future of the navy amid the so-called sequestration budget cuts and talked about reducing the size of the naval fleet and the use of unmanned aerial drones. this is one hour. >> change ahead. last week he directed his staff to create an advisory council to assist accelerate, and enable innovation to thrive. the week before he announced plans to appoint a new deputy assistant secretary

to focus solely on unmanned systems such as aerial drones and robotic submarines. since assuming his post in may 2009 mavis has not hesitated to try knew things he has a page on facebook. name ships for former congresswoman gabrielle giffords and cesar chavez made cameo appearances on in cas. [laughter] despite these new things there are their other things for the navy that remain constant. us vessels are currently deployed the hotspots all over the world. recently recently the navy position the us carrier battle group in the arabian sea as a security situation in yemen deteriorated. in recent days all eyes have been on the street of her

most as a cargo ship flying the flag of the marshall islands was seized by iranian naval forces. we look forward to hearing how secretary mavis plans to handle these many challenges all the while crafting a navy of a navy of the future. please join me in giving a warm national press club welcome to secretary of the navy ray davis -- mavis. [applause] >> thank you so much. thank all of you for having me here and being here. i am only going to call out one person before i start's and that is my esteemed predecessor senator john warner. [applause]

every secretary of the navy aspires to be john warner and i want to.out that this is john warner the person, not john warner the submarine. [laughter] but john warner the submarine will be commissioned in august of this year and will spend the next 40 years patrolling the waters of this earth protecting the country that senator warner, secretary warner has served so well in so long. [applause] the navy and marine corps uniquely. being in the right place at the right time. we get places quicker. we can stay as long as we need to take whatever we

need with us and don't have to ask anyone's permission to get the job done. and part of that presence has insured the global economic system for the past 70 years. keeping the sea lanes open for everybody involved in peaceful trade has been the reason that the world's economy is working as well as it does because 90 percent of all trade goes by see and 95 percent of all voice communications and data go under the sea. so the 21st century very definitely is a maritime century.

chief of navy from asia's told me one time that the difference between soldiers and sailors is the soldiers looked down at maps. they see lines, boundaries, obstacles. sailors look up over the horizon. they see no lines, no boundaries. they only want they only want to see what comes next what comes over that horizon. and our founding fathers understood the necessity for a great navy. in the constitution, article one it says congress has the authority to raise an army's but it has a responsibility to maintain a navy and in that not-so-subtle distinction lies the importance of the

united states navy and marine corps'. we deployed equally in times of peace and in times of war we have never been a garrison force and never we will be. there are no permanent homecomings for sailors and marines. we have also been at the forefront of technological and other innovations for as long as we have had a navy command we will talk about energy and low while. we led the country moved from sale to coal coal to oil, pioneered the use of nuclear. the way that i have tried to organize my thinking it's in the way that the navy approaches this presence and the responsibilities that we have this country are people's top platforms power

and partnerships with the american people with industry with our allies around the world. i'm going to start out with platforms' area there is a lot of conversation and has been for a while about the size of our fleet. and if you listen to some folks this administration is just getting the navy. we are heading downhill fast nothing could be further from the truth. and then there is this this arbitrary ship counting the

way that we cannot ships. so let me give you a couple facts here. on september 11, 2,001, the u.s. navy at 316 ships. by 2008 we were down to 278 ships and shrinking. in the five years before i became secretary the navy put 27 ships under contract. that was not enough to keep the size of the fleet from going down and not enough to keep our shipyards active and in business. in the 1st five years i have had this job we have put 70 ships under contract and have done it with a smaller top line.

we will get back to more than 300 ships by the end of this decade, 304 to be exact. the reason i talk about these numbers congress last year in the national defense authorization act says we cannot count patrol craft forward deployed in the arabian gulf as part of the battle fleet's. now, it was done because it did not match the political narrative that some people were going into in the navy was getting smaller that we were shrinking but i will tell you those sailors on board they think they're in the battle fleet. combat commanders' think

they are in the battle fleet we think they are in the battle fleet, and i guarantee you the iranians think they're in the battle fleet. right now there are three of those around the mars. i would just like to take politics out of this for a while let us count the ships that the combat commanders asked for. let's get let's get a real count of how many shots there are and recognize that the decisions that were made ten, 12 years ago are what we're dealing with today because when you build ships they take a long time and are expensive. if you miss a year building a ship never make it up. never. and so we are doing today

the size of our fleet today was decided ten at 12 years ago. the size of our fleet five years from now ten years from now, 15 years from now 20 years from now is being decided that the decisions that we make today. and quantity has a quality all its own. we have got to have enough of those on the horizon reassuring our allies deterring potential adversaries and keeping those ceilings open keeping the world economy moving. for the 1st time in history there is a dominant naval power and has been for the last 70 years that is the sea lanes the sea lanes open not just for ships flying our flagship as well as but for everybody. it's a couple of quick

examples. went from 27 shipsive years to 70 ships and five years by doing some very simple and basic business things. competition from a mature technology stable designs. the couple of examples i used the dd 51 built into shipyards. we were building two per year. all sorts of reasons. competition being at the top each one was getting every year. in 2012 we bit of three. the low bid gives the 3rd shift. by by the way the difference in the hybrid of a low bid comes out of the high

bidders profit. one shipyard has cost the other. the next year we bit outline low bid gets five. high bid is for. because swing between the two. once again the high bidders, bidders, the difference in the high and low bid came out of the high bid profit. funny thing, the other shipyard one in a pretty dramatic fashion. we're saving about $300 million year per shift in these things. the 2nd is a virginia class submarine of which the john warner we will be the newest. we signed the largest navy contract in history last summer to buy ten of the submarines. we paid for nine. it's we had a free submarine. [laughter]

it's like one of those punch cards. i bought nine. give me my 10th one free. [laughter] as john said, it was just announced that we will have a deputy a deputy assistant secretary of the navy focusing on unmanned, only unmanned and will have a new end code and 99 on navy staff focusing on unmanned. unmanned is the future and we are the only service, the only one that does it above the sea, on the sea command under the seat command we needed a champion technology cuts across also to platforms' inner simply running too many one of programs. and you may have seen some pictures. successfully showed that it could get refueled's,

unmanned carrier aircraft to scott refueled in the air. no one is why nothing's. it is programmed. find the carrier, land, take off, find a taker. and as i said, that is the future of warfare. underwater surface or in the year. people. that is the bedrock of our success. we have thus forcing of our had. we put we put them and have them for years now under a lot of stress'. i am going to be making some announcements and may the 12th and 13th about some of the things you're trying to do it's the quality that we have got to keep some people things like career and admission programs that

let people go out of the navy for a while, come back in and compete's as though they never left. things like promoting based on merit we don't have enough women in either the navy or marine corps. we have to do a better job of recruiting, retaining such as women. along those lines, and this is sort of -- it seems like a small area but i think it is symbolically important. i was at the very 1st army navy my very 1st army navy as secretary in 2,009. by the way navy one.

that has that has been true for the last 13 years. that is a make a special anything. i watched as the corps of cadets another great of midshipmen marched out one of the most moving things' you can possibly see the corps of cadets came out and everyone was dressed exactly the same. midshipmen came out's, women were wearing different uniforms. and so we are in the midst of changing. the adjacent the academy and we are in the of changing the uniforms across the navy and marine corps so that when you look out you see american sailors and marines, not particularly female or male's. if we ask any other group to wear a different uniform

imagine the trouble we would be in. and this is symbolic in terms of not segregating women but making sure that they are substantively and symbolically the heart of our force power. dod is the largest single user of fossil fuels on earth, a little more than a 3rd of that. i said energy bills for the navy. it's both ashore and afloat. i did this for one reason to make us better war fighters. it has great side effects in terms of being better stewards of the environment but we are better fighters because of this. we will be there on our sure basis this year.

will be five years early. by the end of 15 half of all naval energy on our sure basis -- and we are a seagoing service but 03 and a half three and a half million acres of land and have 117,000 buildings. so we will be purchasing a gigawatt of renewable energy by the end of this year. and we don't particularly care what the sources. murdering wind, solar, geothermal, hydrothermal wind, landfill but energy is a vulnerability for two reasons. it's countries that may not which is the best and 2nd is price.

the 1st few years we were presented's the $7 billion of unbudgeted fuel and prices to's because of the volatility. while it is down right now, you track the long-term flow of oil and gas and the price is only going one direction with movement around the line. next year we will deploy the great green fleet. it will be a carrier strike group. we demonstrated it in 2012. the carrier strike group sailing on nuclear, every type of aircraft and every ship in the strike group will be 50-50 blends of biofuels, nat gas, nat gas, marine diesel.

we have certified every single ship and aircraft. i was ambassador to saudi arabia in the 90s. there was a great flow therefrom the oil ministry's in the 80s who said that the stone age did not end because we ran out of stones [laughter] did. [laughter] it ended because we invented something better. the navy has always been on the cutting edge of energy and energy transformation and have always -- there have always been naysayers that have always been wrong and they are wrong here too. finally, partnerships. we are america's away team. when the navy and marine corps are doing their job we're usually a long way from home. the american people don't get to see how hard the job is and how good the sailors and marines are 's. part of

our partnership is with the american people. reconnecting them to that service. one of the reasons i worked hard and we brought in rotc back to harvard, yale, princeton, and columbia. we have also added naval rotc at rutgers and arizona state from the two most diverse campuses in this country. there is a danger with an all volunteer force that the force will be separated from the people that a defense, and that is one of the reasons we have got to do these partnership things and is one of the reasons i name ships what i do. i have also name the ship's for the may grabbers

grabbers, the assassinated civil rights hero, medal of honor recipients, for senator dan in a way. i think we ought to name ships that reflect our values's candidate when those ships are around the world and people, the only americans a lot of people will ever c&s, who is may grabbers, caesar chavez, gabby giffords, we can talk about that and we can talk about that and take that story of the american value 's that the ship represents. we represents. we don't build anything that we use. that partnership we'll industry some things really

of them stable designs. pretty straightforward but it is not. if you get a new geewhiz technology, put, put it on the next ship don't force it. this is -- if we keep the design stable every ship and aircraft of the same class should come down in price. by the way, we bought a lot more ships. it has not been at the expense of their. we've also's but 45% more it's about 45 percent more

aircraft. finally, international partnerships, naval attaché from australia's here. i travel a lot for two reasons. one is to see sailors and marines were they are it's not where i am. second is to work with our international partners. i have now been a million 40,000 air miles 132 different countries and territories doing something with every single one of them. it does not matter how big or good we are it's. we cannot we cannot do this alone and have to have partnerships and they have to be set up in times of calm because in times of crisis you can search people and equipment but you cannot surge trust. that that is what we are building on a day-to-day basis. so just in terms of value the navy and marine corps bring the best value for our taxpayers' to our country where it counts when it

counts'. from the navy will always always courageous. marines, support for dallas always faithful. thank you very much. [applause] [applause] 's. >> thank you so much, mr. secretary. i mentioned in my interaction the situation over at the strait of her most with the iranian navy seizing the marshall islands flag vessel, and i wonder if you could bring us up-to-date if there is anything new to report on the situation from the navy perspective? >> there has been no change

in terms of the situation, at least as of 11:00 o'clock when i headed down this way. we have the three patrol craft in the region. the ss farragut guided missile destroyer the region and and i think it is a pretty good example of presence to give our leaders options. so whatever our leadership decides they have got a a whole range of options because of those naval assets. >> the sea is a busy place these days at the horn of africa, unrest around the arabian gulf and migrants fleeing africa in the mediterranean. how is the navy handling its multiplicity of missions' and do you feel you have sufficient resources and how should our allies be helping?

>> i know these come up on cards, but can i ask who asked the question? it is a good reason i am asking, not a bad reason. [laughter] first question gets coined. [laughter] we are handling the multiplicity of missions the same way we have always done i get debriefed every time a carrier strike group comes back in and every time and amphibious ready group comes back. the one sure the one sure thing, the one certainty is they face something that did not expect. the way that you do that is you have to have flexible platforms and flexible people. we push responsibility down further and faster than any other organization. we expect our youngest sailors and marines to do a great job command we are not disappointed. but we train to the maximum extent possible. they have got to know and they do that they will be

things coming over the horizon that are unexpected and they will have to deal with it in real-time. .. to do the missions of the country expects from us to do. and again, if you miss a year on

things like ship the link you cannot get it back. and finally, we have great allies, we really do. we have an agreement with the australians on biofuels. when we deploy the great green fleet we are going to be able to buy biofuels in australia and we have exercises all over the world. we have operations together all over the world. and it's imperative that our allies do continue to do this but also step up their game a little bit. in terms of what they are spending on, how much they are spending because the world is getting more complicated more dangerous, not less and the myriad of threats there is no threat stream anymore.

there are state actors and there are nonstate actors. there is irregular warfare. there is transnational crime. there is everything that you can think of and every one of us is going to be affected by it. everyone of us has to bear there our share of the burden. >> is there any discussion or consideration of moving a second carrier into the gulf region as was the case about three years ago when wine carrier was removed? >> no. [laughter] i will give you a longer answer for that. the thing that was the aberration was the two carriers there. when carrier gives us all the firepower that we need along with associated ships. i will give you an example of

presence. when the decision was made to strike isis the carrier was on station in less than 30 hours contract ring -- conduct in strikes and for 54 nights it was the only strike option. it wasn't because we didn't have other assets, other aircraft in the region. we did but the countries where they were would not give them permission to take off. we didn't have to ask anybody. we were flying off its sovereign air territory. >> speaking at carriers this questioner notes that the carrier-based air operations now allow us to protect project their presence anywhere in the world on a moments notice and that it was over a century ago that this really breakthrough technology, this breakthrough ability occurred. what can the navy do in 2015 that will rival this breakthrough or what will be the

next great breakthrough similar to the way the carrier was a century ago? >> part of that answer may be the carrier because the carrier is exactly that. it's what they call the deck. it's more important. i talked about unmanned. that's the revolution that's here. autonomous unmanned vehicles that can do isr, they can do strikes that can do really long-term things like refueling but can do it for others. we have got a whole lot of other cutting-edge technology and cutting-edge science projects. we have the laser weapon. in the arabian gulf we have rail goods under development.

we have got gee whiz scientific stuff going on. part of my job, part of our job is to get those from the warfighter quicker. the rail gun we have been working on since the 80s. it is way too long and we have to cut through some of that. >> a few different questions related to drones. will drones replace attack planes and fighters in another questioner says your comments about the f-35b in the last manned fighter drew criticism from the aviators. why is it more important to move more briskly into these unmanned systems? >> it drew praise from jonathan

kaine. [applause] who i believe is an aviator himself. it's important because number one we are always, we always want to have two generations of aircraft on our deck and i said then i believe the f-35 as much as we needed and as much as we are looking forward to having it in the fleet should be and almost certainly will be at our last unmanned aircraft. the f-35 is one of the selling points for it as it makes decisions so fast that the pilot is not involved in a lot of those decisions. to have the endurance to have the payload to have stealth

characteristics, unmanned is the only way you were going to get to a lot of places. you cannot subject human body to stresses in terms of g. forces or iteration that you can do with unmanned and we are not going to be putting people in harm's way. the ship formerly known as the combat ship the frigate has unmanned underwater minesweeping capabilities. today we put sailors in the middle the minefield and tell them to go find it and it's a lot better to have an unmanned vehicle out there looking for those mines and then we have got manned and unmanned ways to find them from the air but if we don't keep up with this we don't lead unless we are certainly

going to be bypassed in this because we are not the only ones working on this. i have said this before, if you are 10-year-old who wants to be a naval aviator you are going to get to be a naval aviator. for a career because we will have manned aircraft for that long. but if you were born in a couple of years you may not in that manned aircraft. you can still be a naval aviator. >> we have been talking about the f-35. now additional f-18s have been added to the budget will the navy maintain its commitment to the f-35? >> yes. [laughter] >> a question i want to know about the b-22 osprey and noting

that it has come a long way. can you comment about the usefulness of the e-20 two? >> the osprey, the tilt rotor aircraft that the marine corps has is a phenomenal aircraft. in fact yesterday the defense minister from japan was here. japan just bought ospreys and he wanted to go to norfolk to see some of our ships so we got on osprey at the pentagon and he went to norfolk and back into the pentagon again. in afghanistan it proved its worth in terms of how fast they can get in and how much protection it gave how pick they got people in and out of the danger zone close to the ground. we are still learning what this

aircraft can do and we just picked it as the replacement for the carrier onboard delivery aircraft. the osprey doesn't have to be tail hooked onto the carrier. it can land in a different spot. it doesn't need flight operations and also the osprey can land everywhere on the striker. so we are going to be able to get away from this with the carrier and take things and people directly to the ships that they are needed in. >> the world's only operational laser was deployed last year to the gulf from the uss command vessel. is the laser still deployed in what capability does it bring to any potential confrontation with the iranian military vessels? >> yes, it still deployed.

it gets deployed in a test mode but we cannot down unmanned aircraft now with it. we can knock out small boats which are two of the big threats in that region. it's a fairly small weapon. we are developing and continuing the development and as you can imagine energy power is the critical thing here. you have to be able to charge up a battery or some storage and release it instantly and recharge it but if you want to talk about value, we are shooting multi-million dollar missiles. the laser costs less than a dollar so we have to be old to save some money and do a better job in the future as these become more common in the fleet.

>> how do you see the role of americans submarine forces fitting in over the next decade and any changes in the submarine's? >> we have dominance in the undersea domain and we expect that to continue for the next 10 years and beyond. the boats that we are building now to include the john warner are by far the most technologically advanced in the world. as i said we are building to a year and the ones we are building today numbers 13, 14, 15 of the virginia class don't bear much resemblance to the first one. the technology has proved that and it has change that fast. we are getting it onto the submarines that fast.

most people don't think the submarine is a multi-emission platform. they are. they do an amazing variety and range of missions and i think i will stop there in terms of what they do. but they are pretty astounding. but, they are going to have to replace our ballistic missile submarines. starting in 2021. this is a national program. this is one of the triads of our nuclear deterrence. the navy has to bear the entire bill. it's going to take about half of our ship doping budget every year. i don't want to pay for one navy ship over another navy ship so i'm going to try to protect shipbuilding.

we have been talking about this publicly. even they have to get plussed-up or we have to get the national funding congress has established the national fund. they haven't funded it yet but as i said we have got until 2021 to come up with an answer here. if we built those we would also and we take the money out of ship holding we would not only damage greatly our service fleet but we would also damage our tactical some rain. >> general martin dempsey chairman of the joint chiefs of staff plans to retire later this year. there is lots of speculation about who will fill the spot including talk about burying

commandant general joseph dunford. can you offer any insight and what input do you and the secretary of the navy have in helping the president to use military leader's? >> i think i have a lot of input on the commandant and the chief of naval operations when it comes to the chair and the vice chairman. that's a little bit different process and joe dunford is one of the finest people and officers that i have ever ever met. but i will give you my feeling of the hierarchy here. there is the secretary of the navy. there is the secretary of defense, chairman of the joint chiefs, there is the president there is god. [laughter] and there is the commandant.

[applause] >> would you ever support having a secretary for the marine corps? >> no. [laughter] >> the navy has until 2016 to open all combat jobs. will you allow women to be navy s.e.a.l.s? why or why not? >> number one the only part of the navy the only part that is currently closed to women are trigger pullers for the s.e.a.l.s. intel logistics communications have women vets to play with s.e.a.l. teams for a good while now. the evaluation is going on right now in terms of what the

recommendation is going to be. my notion of this is personal 80% of men don't make it through through. have some standards and make sure the standards have something to do with the job and whoever can pass, whoever can make it through. [applause] >> a question notes that women now serve on submarines. tell us how that has worked out the good, the bad and ugly. >> i made the decision for women to serve on submarines in june of 2010. the next month the cno, and i've got to tell you it was sort of a big -- the next month the cno banned smoking on submarines. everybody cared.

[laughter] we have had women now for several cruises on our ballistic missile submarines, on our guided missile submarines. first women have begun reporting to our attack submarines now and there are earning their doctrines. they are american sailors and they are doing an amazing job under the sea. i will repeat what i said during the speech, we don't have enough and we have got to do a better job of getting and keeping women in the navy and the marine corps. >> you have been a champion of her noble and green energy technology. how much of an impact will this effort have on the navy's energy energy -- navy's energy cost and

should more ships be old using nuclear propulsion technology? >> the answer to the first question i said we are going to get a gigawatt of renewable energy by the end of this year. every one of those is a public private partnership, every single one. and everyone is saving this money. they are cheaper and we will save money on all of these things. a short. of float now it does not make economic sense to do nuclear on other surface ships besides carriers or ships besides submarines. we will continue to build those is nuclear. it's a good bit higher than it's ever been over the same period of time to make nuclear make

sense in terms of capital costs. we only have three requirements. one comments got to be a drop in fuel. we are not changing our engines in any way. it has to land on a -- so we are not buying ethanol. we are buying second and third generation biofuels. even with the dramatic decline in oil and gas we think it's going to be cost competitive and is certainly going to be cost competitive over time. it's creating jobs in america. these are our feedstocks. they don't care where it comes from but our feedstock so far have come from used cooking oil, from agricultural waste from landfills and from algae. and whatever else scientists can come up with we are in the market for.

>> this questioner says the u.s. marines left behind $500 million in weapons and other gear in yemen when they were forced to retreat and abandon the embassy. has this military equipment fallen into the hands of terrorists or what do we know if anything about it and its whereabouts? >> i think that number 500 million is too high by a factor of several zeros. it's news to me marines individual weapons cost quite that much or even their cruise air weapons. i know it hasn't fallen into bad hands because marines destroy everything before they left. it was a decision about the way

they left that was not made by the marine corps or marines pretty attached to their weapon. they don't go many places without it. >> the questioner says he you served as u.s. ambassador to saudi arabia. do you see any kind of nuclear arms race breaking out in the middle east and other parts of the world when the iranian nuclear arms negotiations conclude and sanctions are lifted? >> it's certainly one of the reasons those negotiations taking place is to make sure that one of those arms races does not occur particularly in the middle east and what the president said about these negotiations about the framework of a final deal.

it's too lower tensions and make the middle east in that regard a little safer. that is an interesting place in the world and i did serve as ambassador there. as you look around the world it's not the only place that we have got things going on but there sure seem to be a good many things going on in that neighborhood. >> we are almost out of time but i want to remind the audience about some upcoming speakers before i asked the last question in a minute. the chief internet evangelist for google and the father of the internet will address the national press corps luncheon on monday and lieutenant general michelle johnson the first woman to lead the air force academy

will speak on may 8. how was your last flight? the ceos of america in delta and united airlines will appear together at a function on may 15 may 15. i would now like to present our guest with the prize possession of the national press club and that is our coffee mug. i am aware that you have spoken here i think three times previously so you may be working on a set. that makes it especially valuable. [applause] now we are running out of time. i would like to have time for a couple of questions but one questioner mentioned the navy winning streak against the army and the football game and wondered if the game is starting

to look a little interest because of the consistent navy winning. the something he to happen there so that the army can win? is this bad for the morale of the country when one service went all the time? how are you going to handle this? [laughter] >> obviously i think this is wonderful for the country. [laughter] but i will tell you we are going to be humble about this. we are going to take this one decade at a time. [laughter] [applause] >> the last question, we mentioned in the introduction you have made some appearances on ncis. are there any more appearances forthcoming in what to think about the show's portrayal of the ncis versus the real thing? >> number one you forgot to mention battleship.

out of line on that one. commence air operations. [laughter] and there is a theory that was on last year called the last ship, the second episode, keep an eye on it. [laughter] the only thing i can't get paid in this job for doing these things so i can get my sag card but i do have my own imd which is pretty cool. >> the ncis show number one i wish we had that type of equipment that they do. but just from my standpoint of

acting from the navy standpoint the story lines that they pursue pursue, the way that they handle them i think has been of great benefit to the navy and ncis and helping people understand what it is that we do, how broad the scope is and this is than the most popular show on tv for more than a decade now. the fact that so many people have that window into the navy is great and to go back to your last question it is ncis naval crew investigative service. there is not another show called did or air force investigative service. so i think that speaks volumes. [laughter] [applause] >> how about a round of applause for the speaker.

[applause] i would also like to thank the national press club staff including journalism institute and broadcast center for organizing today's event and if you would like a copy of today's program or to learn more about the club go to our web site press.org. we are adjourned. thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

coming up on c-span2 senator bernie sanders talks about his campaign for president in 2016 read in an interview with republican candidate senator rand paul of kentucky followed by a sitdown with potential republican hopeful donald trump. vermont senator bernie sanders announced he will run for president to supporters and journalists this morning. although he is one of two independents in the u.s. senate he is running for president in the democratic rye. here are brief remarks he made from capitol hill on his campaign agenda. >> thank you all very very much for being out here today. let me make a brief comment and take a few questions.