certainly has the power under the commerce clause to deal with the subject of the disposal of low level radioactive waste but it is our position that the means that it has chosen here is constitutionally defective. >> as much that is speculative and in our view premature about the complaint concerning the take title provision that new yorking is asking this court to use as a vehicle for undoing this entire statutory scheme. >> the state of new york and others versus the united states and others. saturday at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span radio. >> and welcome back. this is "washington today." the baltimore sun reprinting this associated press story about the president traveling to largo, maryland and vigorously defending his policies. ridiculing critics of renewable sources and calling them naysayers comparing them to the flat earthers of yesteryear.

also the president merely referred to distracters as professional politicians but his targets were clear including the republican presidential candidates. once again, the white house using this campaign like stop to talking about gas prices and what the white house is currently trying to do. here is the president. >> here's a statistic i want everybody to remember. next time you're talking to somebody who doesn't know what they're talking about. since i took office, america's dependence on foreign oil has gone down every single year. [ applause ] until 2010, our oil dependence, the amount we're bringing in, the percentage was under 50% for the first time in 13 years.

[ applause ] we've got to do better than that. and we can do better than that. yes, we can. but in order to do better than that, we've got to tell the folks who are stuck in the past that our future depends on this all of the above energy strategy. that's our job that it can't just be -- it can't just be drilling for more oil. we're drilling for more oil but that can't be all the solution. that's just part of the solution. now, here's the sad thing. lately, we've heard a lot of professional politicians, a lot of the folks who are, you know, running for a certain office, who shall go unnamed, they've

been talking down new sources of energy. they dismiss wind power. they dismiss solar power. they make jokes about biofuels. they were against raising fuel standards. i guess they like gas guzzlers. they think that's good for our future. we're trying to move towards the future. they want to be stuck in the past. we've heard this kind of thinking before. let me tell you something. if some of these folks were around when columbus set sail, they must have been founding members of the flat earth society. they would not have believed that the world was round. [ applause ]

>> we've heard these folks in the past. they probably would have agreed with one of the pioneers of the radio who said, television won't last. it's a flash in the pan. one of henry forwardd's advisers quoted as saying the horse is here to stay. but the automobile is only a fad. >> with more on the issue of gas prices and what we're paying at the pump, we're joined by avery ash, the manager of regulatory affairs for the aaa here in washington. >> happy to be here. >> let's get to the basic issue. why are prices up and why this time of year? >> yeah, you know, there are a number of factors at play here as to why gasoline prices have been rising across the country. you know, the major reason hope to is that crude prices are higher. crude's obviously the major component that goes into gasoline prices, about 75, 76%

of each gallon of gasoline is due to crude prices. we have seen crude prices higher to begin the year here. and that's due to i an number of factors. we've seen improving economies around the world, including in europe and the u.s. so that would be expected to put upward pressure on crude oil prices. we've had also seen increased uncertainty from geopolitical tensions with iran. those tensions as well would be expected to put upward pressure on crude oil prices which we've seen this year. >> in the mid-atlantic region, prices are about $3.80 to $3.90 a gallon. bryces much higher out west especially in california. why the disparity? >> yeah, and there are a couple of factors that go into play there. some of that can be due to the state gasoline taxes that you see. but beyond that, what we've seen this year is regional disparity especially with the mid continent regions paying less

prices than those on the coasts. the reason has been the insulated prices that we're seeing for west texas immediate and some of the other center of the country blends which we have not seen the infrastructure to get to the coasts where they could be sold at global pries. we're seeing downward pressures and price insulation for those center of the country crude oil blends. as a result of it, we're seeing those regions of the country that that are supplied with refineries with access to the keeper crude able to get gasoline at cheaper prices. >> one of the industry lines with regard to gas prices, up like a rocket, down like a feather as you go to your local convenience store, you'll notice prices have been increasing significantly. yet, when there are reports about an influx of more crude oil, prices still stay up or take awhile to drop. >> that's certainly something that weigh hear each time the prices go up. there's that level of frustration. the people feel as they're filling up their tank and you watch the dials for your dollars

tick up, and there's a natural reaction to focus some of that frustration on the convenience stores or the gas station stations where you're purchasing that fuel. what we try to make sure and you kinds of hear on the flipside of that each time is that the convenience store owners make little if any money off of gasoline sales. they make a lot more money selling you 12 ounces of coffee than 12 ounces of gasoline. as prices increased, if you're a gas station, you're paying 15 cents more for gas this week than the week prior, your options are either raise prices by those 15 cents or raise prices by not quiet quite as much and take a hit and your profit margin or even sell gasoline at a loss to make sure you're still getting customers in the door. on the flipside as gas prices wholesale gasoline prices decrease, you don't see quite as much downward pressure on stations to make sure that they're pressuring their prices downward. at that point, really and it's a

little bit counterintuitive to some but the time at which these convenience stores and gas stations are able to make a little bit more money at the pump is when gas prices are deke creasing, not increasing. >> we're talking with avery ash from the aaa here in washington, d.c. you can check out the national average prices on the aaa website or go to fuel engage report.com. we are in a transition period between the winter blend and the summer blend. explain the differences and what impact that has on the price of a gallon of gasoline. >> yeah, and that's kind of part of this, during the springtime, we do tend to see an upward trending in gasoline prices. a combination of a couple different factors. the first is that people do tend to drive more during the wintertime, people drive a little bit less. but as we get into the spring travel period heading into spring breaks, to easter break, people tend to drive a little bit more. that puts upward pressure on prices as demand increases. we also see a switchover from

winter blend fuel to summer blend fuels. you know, the reason for the two different products is that the summer blend fuels are actually designed to reduce smog and be more environmentally friendly in hot conditions especially metropolitan areas. the other part of these summer blend fuels is they cost more than winter blend fuels to produce. some are about six to eight cents more per gallon. we can see upward pressure there and some from the increased demand. the other piece is just the market force. we tend to see gasoline supplies decrease at this time of year as that winter blend gasoline is moved through the market and the summer blend gasoline comes online. >> i understand that aaa doesn't make predictions on where gas prices will be in the next six months but can you talk more generally about the trends we could see over the next few months? >> aaa tries to provide the most

current accurate information where prices currently are and what some of the factors that have moved them to their current level. you know, i think when we talking about seasonally the increases we do tend to see during the spring, there is certainly some pieces in place to provide for a little bit more upward pressure here. we've made sure to remind speem as well the high we saw for last year was may 5th. so a little bit later in the year but the run-up started later, as well. high was $3.98, still 16 cents cents cheaper than today. 2008 was the all-time high on july 17th, that was $4.11 per gallon. we're still a long ways below that all-time highively. >> avery ash, thank you very much for being with us. >> i appreciate it. >> you're listening to "washington today" on c-span radio. another energy-related issue as the world reflected on what has been the one-year anniversary

fukushima disaster. nuclear experts are evaluating some of the safety issues here in the u.s. and around the world. a report released last week essentially detailing some of the lessons from the fukushima plant, the earthquake followed by the tsunami hit the facility in march of last year and resulted in the widespread release of radioactive contamination forcing more than 100,000 people from their homes. this report for example here in the u.s. is calling for what they refer to asterisk informed approach which essentially says they need to re-evaluatate some of the distances and making sure those distances are not preassigned looking at all options if evacuation were necessary. in our last hour it, senator boxer was questioning nrc commissioners on the time line for new safety rules. up next, bernie sanders looking at the issue of government subsidies to build new nuclear

plants and maintain the current ones. >> the new plant in georgia is going to require, as i understand it, about $8 billion of loan guarantees. so my question once again, the federal government, why are we getting the federal government involved in the genius of the private sector? why do we need loan guaranteeties? why aren't they going to wall street if nuclear power is so safe and can make profits for the industry? am i right in saying that in fact, we have proposals now for tens of billions of dollars in loan guarantees for the future of the nuclear industry? anyone disagree with that? last point that i want to make, if we are going to get rid of the waste that exists nuclear waste in vermont and plants all over the country, it is a very, very expensive proposition. do you think we can get the private sector to get involved in that rather than tens of billions of dollars of federal money?

anyone think that's a good idea? i don't hear that. so here's the point. the point is that despite all of the talk of many of my friends about how the government should not be involved in picking winners and losers, of course, the government 60 years ago picked the winner. that winner is the nuclear power industry. tens and tens of billions of dollar of direct subsidies are going to that industry. now, my last question in this regard is when does it end? i am a believer in sustainable energy. i think it is absolutely appropriate that when you have new technologies it does receive federal support. nuclear industry is now in this country 60 years old. it is a mature industry. when do we get it off of the government welfare programs? when does it begin to stand on its own? is it 60 years enough? how many more years do you see the federal government having to support the nuclear power industry? >> as i indicate earlier, that

the economic issues are really beyond our scope. >> whose scope is it? do you think the federal government should spend another 60 years supporting these guys. >> refer the question to the department of energy. >> how many more years do you think the federal government has to subsidize nuclear power? >> i see these as policy deliberations that occur in the congress and the loan guarantee program is in law and executed by the department of energy. >> mr. chairman. >> i think, senator, when we look at nuclear power plants, one of the things we want to make sure is they have the financial resources to be able to support safe operation. >> right. >> so it is very important that these utilities can finance the plants and ensure they have appropriate workforce. so you know, in the end, these financial -- do have an impact on safety. and it is important fa -- >> but why can't the private sector make them safe? my friends over here tell me about the genius of the private sector. they don't want the federal

government involved in all kinds of private sector activities. why can't the private sector pay for that in. >> you know, senator, i think as you know, we try and stay out of those specific decisions and try and remain as an objective determiner of safety. and no more would we want to make safety decisions that are based on cost i think in a good way than in a bad way. >> how many years does the federal government have to continue to subsidize? >> senator, i think these are decisions for the political leadership of the country, not for the commission. >> how many more years? >> i don't have anything to add to what my colleagues have said. >> let me just conclude, the federal government has picked winners and losers. the big winner is the nuclear power anniversary and all of my conservative friends who want the government to be involved in the nuclear energy are silent. >> the senator bernie sanders is an independent from vermont and a member of the senate environment and public works committee.

let's turn our issue to a trade issue and reuters reporting that a senior u.s. senator warning the white house today to expect a pretty tough battle over legislation that would boost trade ties with russia because of moscow's human rights record and foreign policy especially because of its support for syria. the statement today from senator jon kyl, the number two republican in the senate. he held -- he was participating in a hearing on a russia trade bill. now, russia is on the verge of joining the world trade organization, the u.s. is under pressure to repeal what is now being viewed as ladies and gentlemenly symbolic cold war era provision known as the jackson van nick amendment named after henry scoop jackson, democrat from the washington state and charles van neck, a democrat from ohio. the amendment we should point out according to this story is at odds with wto rules.

that measure tied u.s. trade releases with the former soviet union to the rights of jews and other religious minorities to em greats freely. the soviet union collapsed years ago and russia has been judged to be in compliance with many of the provisions. here's part of the exchange as it took place earlier today with senator kyl. you'll hear from alan larson, and paul williams who is the president of the american society of composers, authors and publishers. >> you've got a little bit stronger hand to play if weep explain that on, for example, the bits, we want the duma to ratify the treaty that the united states has ratified. exappropriation is not instinct that in this day and age ought to be permitted among rule abiding commercial nations. and we'll talking about ucose in

a moment here. but isn't it rather than urging the administration to begin addressing the problem, isn't this time that we would be better off addressing these problems so that we could get the commitments up front rather than trying to achieve them after we've granted the status? let me ask you first, mr. larson. >> senator kyl, you raise a very important point. it's not an easy one to be quite honest. i think that in my experience in diplomacy, it is important not to you let perfect be the enemy of good. i think my own personal view is that we should seize the opportunity that's created by pntr extend pntr and have russia be in the wto. but if we stop there, then we've only done part of the job. i think as i said in my oral remarks, i think this is something that the congress and the administration should work together. it should not be -- need not be

a partisan issue. it's something that. >> let me just interrupt. this is not a partisan issue. >> i know. >> and yes, congress and the administration need to work together. my question goes to when we are most likely to get cooperation, which let's face, it has been very difficult coming. i want to ask mr. williams a question if i could here. >> can i just -- >> sure. >> one half sentence to finish. >> thank you sir. i do think it's a very important that congress sees the opportunity to ask the administration to come forward with a plan for how they're going to implement these other sides of the rule of law trying and. >> great. and i appreciate that and our leverage is we'll withhold action until that plan is forthcoming and we can negotiate with the russians. none of us here object to the proposition that russia can exceed to wto with u.s. approval and our good folks doing business abroad will do even more and that will help us here in the united states. there's no disagreement about

that. the question is, how do you negotiate the very best situation with a country that has dragged its feet over and over and feet over and over on. i hope to get to the ucos situation in a moment. you talked about the practical problem of the russia court system. given the track record you identify, do you have concerns of russia pntr with the intellectual property reforms and other wto commitments s reduces the ledverage we might have? >> yes. i know when you move into the area where i lack the expertise where i say one is better than the other, i have to point out i'm the wrong person to tell you we need to make the adjustments before and after ptnr. as music creators, unlike these

gentlemen and i understand your stance to completely -- we are in a position whether it is granted or not, our music will continue to grow and the movies will continue to grow in the country. my specific concern as an organization, we don't have a specific stance on pntr. i am sympathetic to it. i can imagine watching the prospects of china stepping in if we can't do business. for my organization, i have to represent them and i would say that what we need is no matter what happens with pntr, we need action from the united states in dealing with russia and dealing with the government with the value tax that is totally unfair. we hopefully will not wind up with a situation like china. senator, i get more money from honduras than china. >> that is the point i'm trying

to make. we try to anticipate all the things we could hold china to. we had a very thick document with china. it is very difficult after you have granted the status to get them to make da-- to fulfill th commitment. that is the status to russia prior to the other two legs of the stool. i'm not suggesting we have perfection anytime when you deal with an emerging country like russia. you should try to understand when you have the best negotiating position to demand those things that after all are simply matters of law. >> the issue of trade with russia, i should say and russia's entry into the wto and the questions from senator jon kyl today on capitol hill before the senate finance committee. this is "washington today" on

c-span radio. comments by afghan president hamid karzai asking the u.s. to withdrawal troops and confine them to bases. this is a blow today as the president talked about the troops being pulled from the villages. karzai's request took place after a meeting with leon panetta with the end of the combat role to afghanistan more than a year ahead of schedule. that would derail campaign plans as the fighting season is about to begin. the afghan president making his move over the shooting sunday of 16 afghan civilians, most of them women and children by a rogue u.s. staff sergeant. the u.s. angered at officials over the public trial by flying the suspect to kuwait. the white house briefing, jay carney asked about all this. >> i want to ask about karzai's

comments today. he wants a pullout of the forces from the villages and pulling back to bases. he wants to take the lead in 2013. i wonder if either of those are consistent with where the president stands right now in afghanistan and on the taliban and its declaration that they stop. is that a major step back? >> let me deal with the segments of the question. first of all, as you know, the president's policy, strategy in afghanistan, is to drawdown the forces that were surged into afghanistan. that is happening now. 33,000 forces will be withdrawn. 33,000 troops will be withdrawn by the end of the summer. as he said yesterday in his comments in the rose garden, our

strategy is to shift to a support role in 2013 and to complete the transition to full afghan security lead in 2014. so -- without getting into the specifics of what you do in certain parts of the country and the nature of different deployments, it is consistent to say as we saw in iraq that that kind of transition involves a change in the footprint as more and more portions of the country are turned over to afghan security lead, which is happening already. so, with regard to the statement from the taliban, we support an afghan-led process to reconciliation. there is no likely resolution to the conflict in afghanistan without a political resolution.

and our conditions for participation in that process by the taliban have been clear in terms of the reconciliation. those need to lay down their arms and renounce al qaeda and promise to abide by the afghan constitution. we continue to support that process. >> followed by the claims that the u.s. has changed the terms for those negotiations, is that the case? >> the terms have been as i stated on many occasions and just did again. the fact also is that this is an afghan-led process that we support and it is also true that we're not going to get into great detail about every conversation we've had or meeting we've had with the various parties. but we broadly support a process here that is essential to the

long-term resolution in afghanistan. >> the comments by jay carney, the white house secretary. the meeting that took place with the afghan president and leon panetta in kabul. the taliban intending to keep fighting until the last foreign soldier keeps fighting in afghanistan. they refuse to negotiate with president karzai saying they were upset over the interview last month saying he began joint peace talks with the u.s. and talib taliban. you can read more by logging on to wsj.com. secretary of state hillary clinton saying the u.s. government is recommitting itself to ending modern slavery. she spoke at the president's anti-human trafficking task force meeting. this is the 150th anniversary of lincoln's speech of emancipation

proclamation. here is part of her speech today. >> it is an important part of our diplomatic engagement. our report is the most comprehensive assessment of how well governments are doing to address this crime. the tip-off offices are supporting programs that provide assistance to survivors and help the governments build their capacity to fight this crime. and thanks to our leadership, the international communities are getting behind the effort. nearly 140 countries have enacted modern anti-trafficking laws and nearly 150 are party to the trafficking protocol. we have taken action here at home. we learned that survivors were being made to pay taxes on restitution payments from their abusers. some of the people in this room, as well as colleagues from the treasury department who are not with us today, saw the problem and said this is not right. we will do something about it.

now the treasury department has made clear that they will not pay taxes on the victims of slavery. we thought it was unfair for diplomats who victimized their own domestic workers were because of diplomatic immune ty. now we are making sure they understand their obligations and responsibilities and we're taking action when they have evidence that they are not. we are trying to ensure that resources and support are available to victims wherever we find them. one is at the department of human resources, a national human trafficking resources center. it fields an unprecedented number of calls and it is really making a difference in reaching out to survivors and helping us prosecute abusers. other departments recently held a pu