campus security vehicle. the school didn't investigate. they sent the issue to the criminal justice system, which is appropriate. that officer entered a plea agreement that required that officer to no longer be a campus security officer, which is good news. there was sufficient evidence his behavior was not an outlier. his plea agreement also required him to report on other incidents from other officers at that campus. the title ix coordinator did not investigate at that school. she didn't think there was evidence any other student was unsafe. she received the report from the county police investigating another officer. she never opened that report. she did not look at it. that tells you that we need to change our practices. i am very grateful the criminal justice system operated as it should have for the officer. i am deeply distressed the students at that school didn't receive the support they needed

from their school to make sure they would be safe and that no other student would suffer what the young woman who reported had suffered at the school. i say that to you to say, please, make sure you operate a campus that communicates to your student that every student is valued. you expect every student you admit to succeed and that you will be there to make sure all your students can enjoy the educational opportunity that our nation's laws promise to them. i'll stop there. [ applause ] >> catherine, i just want to follow up on something you said. one of the things that we experience is our students come to us the products of dysfunctional environments. one of the things we discovered on our campus was a tremendous amount of undiagnosed mental illness. right now, don't act like we don't all have undiagnosed

mental illness on our campus. the reality is, we don't talk about it. it's the dirty little secret in the back room. uncle so and so is just a little off. he's not off. right? there are issues there. how would you recommend that the institutions begin to address that the students are coming to them, the products of dysfunctional behavior that is a social but was normalized in their living context. you literally have to teach them a new way of operating. are there any resources that the department offers or any suggestions that you might have? because i have spoken to enough of my colleagues to know this isn't just an isolated incident. >> yeah, i think there are a couple levels to that question. how do we serve the student himself or herself who has the

undiagnosed mental illness and who needs to be supported. there our legal requirements are, if you have reason to know that a student needs accommodation on your campus, you need to evaluate and provide it. so where there is a student who seems a little off or who is indicating a need for help, you need to be sure that that student has access to information about how to ask for it, who to go to to seek the help and where your administrators and faculty have reason to know that they are able to reach out and offer resources to that student as well. so there is the how do we serve the student who is effectively asking for help. then there is what do we do on campuses and assimilate the students who come to us from their home lives, from their k-12 experiences that well precede their time on campus.

the reality is that racially hostile environments don't begin at 18. sexually violent environments don't begin at 18. these are kinds of experiences that students live before coming and sometimes experience once they get there. we need to make sure that we are communicating to our students at day one, before they come and every day when they are at school the environment we want them to thrive in at the school. so we encourage a statement of values. we encourage active communication about who you are and what's acceptable on your campuses and active encouragement of sharing thriving differences of viewpoints so people can express their ideas, share thoughts and learn in the campus about how to interact with others in a respectful way, in a way that is appropriate on that campus. we in the department of education recently released a set of tool kit and a set of guidance for k-12 schools about

sexual violence and about ways to ensure our students are learning before they get to college, appropriate ways to interact with each other and appropriate ways to be a good bystander and stand up for students who need it and ways for schools to focus on trauma informed learning to respond to the whole person who recollects students are as they get there. we are trying to address the issue before your students come to you and we also strongly encourage you to recognize you will have an influx of new students every year. you will have a changed campus climate every year. you need to be, every year, throughout the year, responsive to who you have on your campuses and how to make sure those students can succeed. >> thank you. i would like to add that it would be helpful from the department's perspective if there were some resources that could help the institutions engage in more preventive measures or in-depth opportunities for training for the students on the way in that would allow us to be more successful. we appreciate all the support you guys give in that area.

all right. we'll let you off the hot seat now. curtis? >> yes, sir. >> you are the president, as you stated, of hbculea. you have a tough job, a very, very tough job. i know that you are working across the institutions to do this, but maybe you can share with us some of the trends that you are seeing in terms of community policing externally and community policing internally that really help to alleviate some of the issues that we have seen outside of our campuses. >> fair question. so over the last couple years, i'll start with externally first. >> thank you. >> community relations is a huge deal for us at this particular juncture. if we started a few years back, i would say that community

issues was not at the forefront. the conversations we would have, marijuana was. as the laws across the country changed where you have states where students come to campuses from states that were -- where it was legal, they find themselves in a trick bag for the most part. they are thinking what i did at home, i can do here. subsequently, that involves them being charged with misdemeanor charges. if i have a student spending $160,000 a year or for a four-year degree and goes to get a job, they can't because they have a misdemeanor marijuana charge on their record. a lot of chiefs around the country where i work, arkansas baptist college, have a program in place where i work with the city and local judges and district judges to seal in clear records once students have, one, paid their debt to society. then, two, we need the folks to work and be able to be employable to get jobs.

that's part of an initiative from a community standpoint as far as outreach. the thing you are seeing before we started the talk about relationships in communities, with these guns on campus and gun violence on campus, i get a call every time we have an incident, thank you very much for the phone calls. curtis, what happened on this particular campus? i can tell you at a time over the last five years or so where you would see incidents where students would have bb guns on campus, or something of that nature. over the last five years i can tell you now where we may have found one real gun, i will find ten guns a year. i'm not only seeing guns, i'm seeing sawed-off shotguns, ak-47s. some campuses where we have campus safety personnel, you have unarmed security officer on the campus

where i have ak-47s being used. they are an extreme disadvantage it causes a problem for them and the community. the risk factor goes up. so the deal now is, how do we mitigate those issues not only from an internal perspective, but external perspective. we have taken a forward approach, if you will, approximately two years ago. i started to reach out to christiatharine and her team. i ask her as it relates to issues pertaining to sexual assault. it's a mixed bag when we look at a student who may have been accused of sexual assault. one, they are going to be adjudicated through student affairs on your campus. they are going to go through a law enforcement process as well. then you have a title ix investigation that is going to occur. the thing that is on the backside of it from a point of perspective is all three of those investigations can be discoverable and brought to trial to use against a

perpetrator or alleged perpetrator. now, how does due process work into that process, especially if it's a case that's unfounded. now you have a slanderous opportunity for somebody that may not have done it. we have those cases and god forbid, very sensitive to the issues where we have a sexual assault and we have to move forward. what happens when a victim who was not sexual assault screams rape? how does that affect a student in his career as he or she moves forward? we have it with different genders. we have to be cautious with that. we're moving forward with those issues. two years ago, we started with a focus group discussion in atlanta with the national center for campus public safety that centered around bringing campus safety chiefs to the table to start having these conversations. from that particular movement, along with some of the other things from community policing standpoint, we moved into vermont area, i want to say,

doing a legal issues conference, 2015, with national centers to discuss this issue we're dealing with with national policing. those are some of the things we have to get better at dealing with. the campuses have to get better from the perspective of what do we need to ensure our campuses are safe? now, let's be real here. we are a call center for most campuses when you talk about police departments and security departments. we are not a profit generating area. i can guarantee you the first time you have a shooting on your campus and your enrollment dips 200 students within the first 48 hours, you understand we need to invest in our campus safety process. when you have to field those phone calls from parents and i can tell you, september 27, 2012, when i lost someone to 2012, when i lost someone to black on black violence, i had a

young man that walked up with a glock handgun with an extended clip in his pistol and shot the young man three times. now, to respond to that and i'm looking at my campus thinking, we look like virginia tech. i have emergency responders. i'm one of the first people on the scene. you have to forgive us. most of your chiefs, when we get that information, we don't care how we are dressed when we get there. i had sweat pants on, flip-flops and a bullet proof vest and my gun trying to get to my student who is bleeding out on the sidewalk. and i'm thinking to myself, one, i have to secure my campus to make sure the rest of my campus community is safe. two, how am i going to pick up the phone and call his mom and dad? if you have never had to pick up the phone and call a parent to basically tell them you lost their child while they are in your care, god bless you. for those of you who have had the opportunity to go through that, you understand where i'm at with that.

the 109 schools that we have that make up the hbcu family, i see approximately 60% of our campuses on an annual basis, i don't see the other 40%. the only way we get better in the way our organization was created, was in 1999, we had a handful of brave men and women who decided we need to be able to talk about those issues that are central to hbcu families. this organization was created. very small and very humble in the beginning to where we are today, which we are growing. we have a voice on the national platform now that basically we are trying to make sure the vision is there. we want to make sure we are actively involved. >> let me say, being at a school in texas where our legislature felt that it was okay to pass campus carry because, you know, the english professor is so

threatening to the student body, it is particularly concerning because you don't want your campuses to turn into the wild, wild west. you don't want it to be a shootout. so, it is comforting to know the work that you all are doing. but it is an issue that there is no perfect answer. >> oh, absolutely not. to the point of conceal carry, i had a young man decide, he came to campus. great student, conceal carry student. realized he had his weapon on ed side. oh, i need to place that in a secure location until my performance is done. he stuck it in what he perceived to be his friend's backpack. come back after the performance is done, checks the backpack where he thought he had put the gun. the gun is gone. another student realized, oh, my god, i have a gun in my bag.

as opposed to bringing it to campus safety, she thought it was cute to buy two ounces of marijuana and a couple hundred dollars for the gun. she sells it to a local drug dealer. i say that to say this, my perception on guns is, as many laptops, cell phones, things of that nature that come up missing on a daily basis, what makes people think their guns won't come up missing on your campus? if we are saying we are institutions of higher learning, what role in higher learning does guns play on a college campus? it does not. it is not an enlightening factor. [ applause ] >> one word, also, to finalize, there will be, i want to say in 13, 14 and 15th of november, will be an open carry form at mckinney, a college in mckinney. i can't think of the name of the school right now, but i'll get that out to the body, on conceal carry or open carry. we have the opportunity.

southern baton rouge, johnson & johnson will participate in that. we have another college chief who will also be participating in that forum to have these discussions to help shape policy as we move forward with this critical issue. >> thank you very much for your work on that. we are going to take this in a slightly lighter direction. nancy? >> no pressure. >> right. right. how are you doing today? >> i'm doing well, thank you. >> great. i know that nrj is making significant investment in research around school safety and justice. in addition to that, your work on the 21st century policing. perhaps you would like to share with the audience what your research is finding. >> right. so we have, for years actually, invested in policing science and

have done so, i think, incrementally given, again, different focuses that have come to our attention. but it was certainly the president's task force in 21st century policing that elevated this and really identified the six pillars where research recommendations were proposed and, of course, encouraged the academy to be responsive to them. so last year we went ahead and released a solicitation and direct response to that report and happy to say that we were able to support over $6 million of research in this space. the projects that we supported, i think are so vital today. for example, we funded one particular study that the researcher at howard university will be looking at civilian

oversight and the impact that they are actually having on accountability and department of justice interventions, which, again, you might think we have evidence on how doj interventions, consent decrees or collaborative reform efforts fare once again in place, and we don't. so one of the things that i really want to make sure that we convey as scientists is that the evidence base in the area of policing is rather thin. that means that, unfortunately, we often don't have the guidance to provide to local, state of tribal criminal justice systems on how to proceed and what policies or practices are in the best interest of their communities. i can't understate that enough. that is significant.

because for us, it means that we are often left conveying to the field that we are investing in these areas and hope to be able to provide that information. so for example, the infusion of technology within law enforcement, we have supported body worn cameras and ensure that obviously police officers have the tools they need and it is a tool. yet, we today are unable to convey the impact that this is going to have on police departments, on use of force, on strengthening relationships with communities. so yes, the tool is out there. yet the impact is still unknown. i can talk about safety and wellness and obviously, we, too, recognize that keeping communities safe is our primary

objective. at the same time, we have officer involved shooting incidences that are rather complex, which means we need to think about not just the actual individual, maybe, who is hurt or wounded, but the diad that exists between that officer and that citizen. that research does not exist. again, when i say the evidence base is rather thin, i hope you see the need to continue to invest in these important areas. we also, of course, through our comprehensive school safety initiative and partnerships with federal agencies like the office of violence against women and cdc are ensuring that we identify and create that evidence base to ensure our k-12 and colleges and

university campuses are safe. $75 million each year since 2014 goes directly to research in this area. this research is hoping to bring together not only criminologists, educators, law enforcement, behavioral health specialists to identify the comprehensive strategies to ensure we can prevent violence. and rerecognize that early childhood trauma plays a significant role in the pathways of individuals who enter your institutions or those who, unfortunately, don't have that opportunity. so we have invested in a longitudinal study that is going to be tracking individuals from high school into college campuses, or not. past, obviously, four years, to get a better sense of how this early childhood trauma that we see, of course, can only be compounded, given other

stressors in life, how it shapes individuals trajectories. so when i think of what you can do for us, as a science agency within the department of justice, i would encourage you to have your faculty and students reach out to criminal justice agencies in your communities and offer your support and expertise. i travel throughout the country and visit jails. i visit local police departments, i visit prisons. when i ask, what do you need from the community? what do you need from the scientific community and the academy, i am told repeatedly, regardless of which setting, they wish they had partners to help them understand the capacity of their data and inform policies and practices. they need that. they want that. i hope you take that challenge and encourage and find ways to bridge with these local, state

and federal criminal justice agencies. i also hope that you become aware of the many opportunities we have to support research in this space. we have opportunities for individuals interested in all disciplines. you know, if you care about the criminal justice system, there is room for you. we have a table outside, which i hope you stop by and see. but nij.gov will provide you with the many, many programs we -- and solicitations we have for graduate students, for young scholars and early career investigators who have never been through the grantsmanship process. that's what i kept hearing from young faculty who said i can't compete with the x. i can't compete with, you know, the bigger institutes. i can't compete with my mentor for funding. so i created a specific solicitation to support them in their endeavors.

we have graduate fellowship opportunities in the areas of social and behavioral sciences as well as as in s.t.e.m. please, please, please, if you can do anything to encourage, again, future scientists and help me create that pipeline, i hope you encourage them to think about their role and how they can serve our criminal justice system in the way we try to do so every day in the department. so thank you again for this opportunity. >> thank you very much. [ applause ] >> calvin, i know earlier you spoke a lot about the work you guys are doing. maybe you could tell us some of the opportunities that there are for partnerships between your agency and the hbcu community.

>> thank you. i have to jump on nancy's question a little bit to add more to that, if you don't mind. one of the things that's missing -- i not only work at the fbi, but i work at the cops office, community oriented police and services. the universities in this room, some of the largest programs you have on your campus are criminal justice programs. in those criminal justice programs, i have to say, not enough hbcus are bringing enough ideas to the table about the way to do things better. a lot of white institutions are bringing those ideas to the table but they don't include the community that really needs and really is the " - -- really is the ones who need that information. if you have -- when you have criminal justice programs, i think part of the responsibility of that criminal justice program is put ideas on the table and push those ideas to the federal level so that they can be funded

and so that they can change the way that things are done. what nancy is saying is people are putting ideas on the table, but they aren't working. when we go to study them, they don't get studied fully because they don't work. if you have ideas that work, you should be bringing them to the table and adding them to the discretionary process so they can be funded. there are not enough ideas in the process for us to be able to fund. the fbi is all about partnerships. we are ready for partnerships at all times. we have over 100 campus liaison agents who are working with every individual campus in the country. they are visiting the campuses talking about the things we offer and the things we are able to help them with, help you with. as i said earlier, we want to help and be reactive and ability to overcome instanz and things like that that may happen on your campus that are traumatizing your campus, from active shooters to

earthquakes, whatever it may be. we are there to help with that, with evidence, emergency operations, all those things we are able to do. we also want to help proactively, we want to be able to help you to be able to understand how you can work through these problems beforehand. we want to be there reactive, but we would rather be there before these things happen. the honest part, again, is a lot of your agencies, a lot of the law enforcement people on your campus, as curtis was saying, a lot of them are unengaged with us. we are reaching out to them because some of them are contractors, because some because some of them have so many jobs that they're doing on campus on top of security. a lot of them are not reaching back to us to be able to fulfill and to be able to have these partnerships that you need so bad. so i would go home if i were you and say to your chief, to your campus security person, what is the nature of our partnership with our federal and local partners?

get the answer to that question and it really will help you understand where your campus is. i'm not just talking about the ability of a fire department to come. but if something was to happen on campus, what is the nature of the response that would happen on your campus to be able to really help you? at some point, everybody becomes overwhelmed. there's no incident that's happened whether it's virginia tech or k through 12 or wherever that whoever was the initial responding people were overwhelmed there. there are resources available from fema, from other people after that to help with the additional things needed to get you back to where you want to be. you don't want to miss any days of school because in the end, you have residential students that have nowhere else to go. so every day you don't have class is a day they don't know what to do. we want to get to a point where you're getting back to what the new normal is for your agency and your organization.

so you need help to be able to do that. we need you to partner with us to reach out to us as we're reaching out to you. >> thank you very much. so we are just about out of time, but what i would like to do is give everyone maybe 30 seconds to make a closing statement, and then that way we won't be egregiously over our time limit. so we'll start this way and come on back in. >> you start with me? i just finished talking. we're available to partner. we're open to partnership. and, like i said, our agents are responsible for partnering with every single campus in the united states, whether you are a white serving institution or black or hispanic, whatever it may be, they are supposed to be there helping you in this. it's up to everyone in this room to hold us accountable like we're holding you accountable. your students are holding you accountable. thank you so much. >> thank you, calvin. nancy. >> i certainly want to again just hope you visit nij.gov and

see the many resources we have available on -- not only on, obviously, our historical investments but also our strategic plans. we have released various strategic plans in key areas. safety, health and wellness, one. we'll be releasing our strategic plan, and this is a five-year research plan for the next five years, which has been shared with omb, which means my department, my agency will be beholden to making these investments which we think is important. i certainly also would hope that you reach out. i will stick around and be available to answer any questions you may have. because if you are unsure about how to connect with your local state criminal justice agencies or maybe there are faculty or initiatives at your institutions that you think certainly may be ideally fit for our awareness, please let me know. we certainly want to be as

informed as possible on an array of issues that you're addressing facing our criminal justice system. again, thank you so much for the invitation. it's been a pleasure. until next time, always. >> thank you, nancy. real quick on my end. those institutions who have not been actively involved at the hbcu level, i really need to see your chiefs, your security directors. i want to thank publicly the federal agencies because we shifted probably four or five years ago to having the federal agencies provide our training at the national level. and the fbi, of course, has done a wonderful job. catherine and her team at ocr have done a tremendous job. and the list goes on. there's two people. i don't see jacque batiste. probably a year and a half, two years ago made eight personal mission of his to basically ensure that we had access to the things at the national level that we needed to have.

so my hat is off to jay. the last thing i'll leave you with is continue to pray for hbcu as we lay to rest leroy who -- retired chief leroy crosby of hampton university who lost his life last wednesday and departed onto glory. and we're going to go down and love on his family and make sure he gets a good home going. thank you very much for your help. >> thank you, curtis. catherine? >> my thanks also and really want to emphasize that you are such unbelievably strong leaders on your campus. your students are looking to you. please be the change. please set the tone that you want for your campus. make sure you're communicating to your students that you support them, that you will be there for them, and this is the campus they deserve and it is of their dreams. i really appreciate the leadership that you engage in every day. i hope that you set a tone that you don't wait for a next moment of horror that brings on gaffes of the type we heard today but that instead, you are campuses that you'd want your own

children to thrive in. >> thank you. so we would like to say thank you to the audience for joining us this morning. can we have a great round of applause for our panelists. [ applause ] and in closing, let me say this. this is the issue of our time. you heard the attorney general tell us this. i think inherently, we all know this. what comes into conflict at times is how we respond to the issue of our time. this is not the moment for there to be separation between our students and ourselves. we must work collectively. working collectively means we must give their issues the audience which it deserves. it won't be comfortable. they will say things that may make you feel uneasy and may not tap into the truest, best version of yourself. you must fight that because this is one that we can win together

but we cannot win apart. and we need to work together. this is our moment. we cannot stand on the sidelines and watch rome burn. we will be judged negatively from an historical perspective if we do not get this right. so i would encourage all of us to sit down with our students, listen and give audience to their pain and their concern and find a way to work together. on behalf of -- i guess you're here to do the on behalf stuff, all right? oh, i was headed to church. let me just say thank you, and i am now going to give way to the executive director so that i will be invited back. [ applause ] >> how about pastor sorrell, family. amen. amen. amen.

thank you all so much. again to the panel and to michael. we appreciate the conversation. as he has encouraged us, these are our issues to lean into to be a part of the student conversations. our attorney general certainly was amazing this morning. we're fired up about this conversation. we hope you'll continue the conversations as you move to the breakout sessions right now. and then we will convene back here for our legacy luncheon to hear from the wonderful mark muriel from the urban league who will bring a powerful message to us as well. please continue to enjoy the conference. thank you. >> that concludes this morning's special education and justice conversation.

a look at the u.s. capital here where both the house and senate are in session today. the house started legislative work at noon eastern and is currently in recess. among today's bills is one dealing with export of commercial airplanes to iran. some news from the house where earlier today nancy pelosi announced her intention to seek another term as democratic leader. the california representative claims to have support of over two-thirds of her caucus. those elections will take place later this month. watch the house live on c-span when they reconvene later this afternoon. in the senate lawmakers are electing their party leadership for 115th congress. mitch mcconnell re-elected majority leader and chuck schumer will take over for

retiring harry reid to lead democrats. they will work on bill establishing revenue sharing for states involved in energy production. watch live on c-span2. join us later when john deutsche, chairman of secretary energy advisory board and other nuclear physicists will testify on the future of nuclear power in the u.s. live coverage of that starts at 2:30 p.m. eastern here on c-span3. tonight it's hillary clinton in her first public appearance since losing last week's presidential election. she's being honored by children's defense fund. that gets under way live 8:00 eastern on companion network c-span2. finally tonight national book awards taking place in new york city hosted by comedian larry wilmore. our p cameras are there and we'll show you the event sunday 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span2's book tv. >> this weekend object american history tv, c-span3, saturday

night 8:00 eastern on lectures in history -- >> the only essential difference between nazi mob hunting down jews in central europe and an american mob burning black men at the stake in mississippi is that one is actually encouraged by its national government and one is just tolerated by it's national government. >> professor on world war ii and its impact on civil rights. at 10:00 on real america, a 196 film on the black panthers founded 50 years ago by huey newton and bobby seal. >> it's very apparent that the police in our community not for our security but the security of the business owners in the community, and also to see the status quo is kept intact. >> sunday afternoon at 4:30 eastern archaeologist dean snow on his findings excavating balancing field in saratoga, new york, and inspiration for book

"the 1777 battle of saratoga." >> what was the little lady doing out there. at the time she died at 5' tall and 60 years old and she was a battle character at saratoga. what is going on here. >> at 6:00 eastern on american artifacts. >> the french method they put you in with wings cut down. your second training flight, they give you more wing and a little bit bigger engine on the thing and you would literally hop up and down the field. then when you're ready for the big day, you talk to your instructor, talking to you on the ground, all the time giving you a thing, pat you on the shoulder and you'd get in an airplane and make your first solo flight by yourself. >> a tour of the miller aviation museum in virginia, home to one of the private collections in world war i and ii aircraft. lesh about advances in of a valuation technology during those wars. for complete schedule go to c-span.org.

>> now, two russian journalists talk about the relationship between the russian government and russian media. topics include media censorship, impact of social media and kremlin's influence over news coverage. we'll show you as much as we can until the hearing on nuclear policy gets under way now scheduled for 2:30 p.m. eastern. >> thank you very much, everyone, for joining us today. can you hear me in the back? thank you everyone for joining us today. i'm paul saunders, the executive director of the center for national interest. we appreciate everyone being with us for this discussion of the wshz state and the russian media. now, the u.s./russia

relationship has deteriorated very sharply over the last two years, and particularly over the last several months with a variety of causes and precipitating events. in that context, there has been increasing attention certainly in the united states and in other western countries to the russian media. both in the role of russian media outside russia in what i think many in the west at this point would call russian propaganda, but also in the role of the russian media inside the countri country and its role in shaping public opinion, mobilizing

political support. it's that latter element of the question i hope we'll focus on today. we very pleased to have two speakers, each of whom is a russian journalist. to my right, we have maria, a columnist for the russian newspaper. it's a business oriented paper that until relatively recent published with wall street times, russian participation. a new media law in russia caused "the wall street journal" and financial times to sell their states. however, the paper still often

challenges russian official policy and perspectives on a number of issues. maria will speak first. to my left is anna redkina. she is the international news chief with russia 24, which is a 24 hour news channel and is part of the complex russian state media enterprise. she's also worked in the past for what many may know is a russian state news agency. anna will speak second. i hope they will each give us some very interesting perspectives on the issue between the relationship between the state and the media. i've asked them each to speak

for about 10 minutes. after that we will open it up for questions. thank you very much. maria. >> thank you very much. it's a big honor for me to be here in this esteemed audience. i wanted to point out that our discussion comes at really a good, bad time. has actually announced she was leaving soon. the announcement came a year after the ownership structure had been changed. it was, as we have said, the foreign owners -- western owners holders sold their shares to the russian businessman.

until then changing, which culminated in the recent announcement that editor-in-chief is leaving. i wanted to start the discussion, the president vladimir putin briefly described the relationship between the media and the state. back in 2004, when asked to describe his attitude towards the media coverage of the islam tragedy, attack, he said that the relationship between the state and the media is comparable to the one between a man and a woman. a real man always tries and the real woman always resists. when you actually look at what has been going on for the last 10 years, the relationship between russian state and media resembles the one mostly between trump and women, as you may have

heard. when a real man always tries but a real woman canals resist, forced to surrender. important as intelligence security background, as you know, all know very well. one of the important techniques he learned during his service is that the media is a very powerful -- extremely powerful instrument that can be manipulated to achieve the goals, strategic goals. when it comes to the kremlin today operates media, definitely that element of the control and manipulation of information to achieve kremlin's domestic or international goals is extremely important. as you know, since this president vladimir putin has taken power back in 2000, the

general trend when it comes to russia's political freedom and civil liberties has been negative. the freedom house recorded decline media freedom as you remember putin assessed to power came with immediate closure of the only largest independent tv channel at the, ntc, taken immediately to control by the pro kremlin holders. and since then the trend continued. point out, though, that the trend is not linear. it's more like it comes in waves. the waves of persecution against media, independent russia or quasi independent, come -- usually follow some big developments, be that international or domestic developments. for example, putin's usually

correlate with attack against media that gained too much independence. back in 2000, quite recently in 2012, when putin came back to hour and replaced president medvedev, the immediate -- that immediately was followed by a set of prohibitive laws against the remaining -- whatever remaining independent media on the market. most of them some degree of foreign ownership. one of the important laws passed limited foreign ownership to 20%. that, as i mentioned, for example, my own publication to sell the shares to the russian owner. now, the other question -- as i mentioned, the overall trend conveyed persecution against media comes in waves. one reason for those ways would be the change of their

president, for example, in power or a war. it is also noted that georgian war and ukrainian war coincided also with a wave of attacks against the media. in wave is kind of -- is more prohibitive and the trend is definitely negative. recently, like a couple of years ago, they didn't accept articles so i was looking for a publication to give it to. i went around to five available independent media sources where they could supply the article. because all the other ones are not really free. if i write something very sharp and anti-kremlin, it is probably not going to be accepted there. now, who -- when it comes to the media, who is in particular danger? which media outlets are in the red zone? which are the ones most likely

to be prosecuted? there are several criteria used by the kremlin when it seems who the media will be under attack next. the fundamental criteria is the access to the russian audience, the size of the russian audience. as i mentioned, the ntd channel back in 2000 was the first one to get under attack because its influence during the 1990 -- 1999 and 2000 election was very strong. it was the only one federal channel which was independent from the kremlin. now, in a similar way, the cable tv channel which was launched in late 2000 was -- actually gained strong success in 2011/2012.

at the best period of tv reign, it had access to about 12 million people in russia, which is almost 10% of russia's population. now, that definitely is something the kremlin would not allow you to have, being completely independent. translating to th 12 million people. that's why in february 2012, tv reign came under attack and ultimately was cancelled from cable tv broadcasting. nowadays, i'm sorry, they survived, but nowadays, it is only available on the internet and most of its broadcasting is paid. nowadays, its audience has shrunk down to 1 million people. when you have a 1 million audience, that seems to be all right. several media outlets with quasi

independent broadcasting, such as eco-smart, for example, have about 1 million people in their audience. they seem to be surviving. now, if you are okay under that criteria, the second criteria is the aggressiveness of your message against the kremlin, right. if you are extremely aggressive -- in the content of your message and the broadcast is in opposition -- kind of very anti-kremlin, in that case, you are in danger. so those large, independent, again, better use the word quasi-independent media outlets, sometimes they try not to be overly aggressaggressive. if you are too aggressive, even with a relatively small audience, you are likely to be closed. that happened with such websi s

websites. if you want to survive, try not to be overly provocative. try not to give the -- also as pointed out by the former editor in chief of rbc, another good publication in russia, the kremlin elites tend to become more susceptible to the content of the media that is not in their favor. so if the late 2000s, certain things, investigationss could b published and not result in persecution. today, the officials are much more sensitive to what is published against them. we see the increased number of legal persecution of the media that publishes things that are about corruption of certain officials, for example. as it happened with a story

published about an official. he got sued and ultimately lost, obviously. had to destroy all the available publications on the topic. over the time the kremlin becomes more frustrated with the content. persecution tends to increase over the term. ultimately, when it comes to specifics of taking control of the media, i wanted to point out three distinct features that characterize the kremlin, the state/media relationship in russia. i'm often asked if russia's -- of course, there are a lot of similar trends, but in general, the censorship and the criminon

over the media is more nuanced than it used to be in previous years. the most important part to emphasize is, first of all, the censorship and antiquing in the media, even if it has trends like i described, does not follow a precise, exact rule. so there is a certain degree of selectivity in senscensorship. when two media outlets publish the same article, one can be persecuted and the other not. this can happen. c the question is why. kremlin seems to be learning from china, taking a similar censorship approach. first, the approach is less costly. rather than prosecuting everybody in russia, you just put several people, punish them and everybody else learns.

self-censorship. russia has strong and reliable traditions of self-scensorship. obviously, people understand the signals. a lot of people will stop saying bad things or publishing thing, stop passing them on social networks because it can also get you into trouble. the second important characteristic is that very often, rather than completely eliminating certain information that is available in the media, the kremlin makes the narrative. it creates the stories or half-fake/half-true stories to complement their regional message. it creates this noise environment in the media. the audience ultimately doesn't -- perceives a bunch of different descriptions of a

certain story without knowing which one is right. that, for example, happened with the coverage of the downing of the mh-17 flight in ukraine. you'll probably remember. rather seeing what would have happened in the soviet russia, saying it didn't happen altogether, rather than erasing the news, the kremlin outlet broadcasted the news but broadcasted a bunch a different and diverse explanations of who may have been behind this crush. the ukrainians might have targeted the putin plane, which was flying nearby at the time. or maybe it was the united states which supplied a special missile that, you know, targeted the flight. and what is created by this approach is that, very conveniently, the audience that receives these messages thinks that there is no smoke without fire, right? the same approach is actually

used in russia's domestic audience and the same approach is used by the media here, as well. when russia today informs you about certain news, it usually gives you different explanations of this news, which you perceive as, yeah, maybe, maybe. maybe separatists had something to do with it but there is never smoke without fire. the americans or ukrainians definitely had something to do with that, right? the reality has then shifted to support the pro-kremlin positi n position. rather than saying it was the separatists, we now think something suspicious happened there. it can't be that easy. it's very convenient because this way, this message provides a degree of flexibility to the kremlin. ultimately, the last thing i wanted to point out, this third,

important characteristic of the kremlin, scensorship is the corporate, legal dimension of taking the media under control. in a book on putin, it's pointed out that putin has a legal education and he can -- you can really see that in a lot of his policies. usually, he doesn't just do something, usually whatever kremlin does, it always has a legal document to justify his actions. no matter how, you know, meaningmean ingless the ordeal is. the same is true when it comes to the media control in russia. usually, every wers cushipersec the media is perceived by -- later, used selectively against media in the red zone.

the corporate dimension of it is that very often, the kremlin tries, rather than completely destroying a certain media outlet or maybe even journalists, killing them, which fortunately doesn't happen often, they try to replace the leadership or ownership, change the ownership structure in a more or less peaceful way. we're talking about certain media in the -- in danger, in question, is bought by loyal owners, of course, the previous owner is forced to sell it to more loyal person, or a drirectr of media is replaced by another one, which is happening now, as i mentioned before. or there is a rule that forces the media to change the

ownership structure. it happened with the foreign ownership law, again, that asked all the russian media to decrease the share for ownership. so there is an important corporate aspect of the censorship that is important here. in this sense, it is more peaceful rather than violent attack against the media. the outcome we are at right now is very few independent media outlets remain in russia. definitely none of them has large enough audience. even those independent media that survive are forced to go to compromi compromises. for example, one that published anti-kremlin material also publishes occasionally some kremlin leaks. notorious publication had to do with the investigation of mh-17 flight, for example.

ultimately, the question, how does the russian audience react to this? they believe in the content they receive from the state media. the answer is yes and no. the only foreign, independent media in russia, there is content against the state media news. it is important. the majority of russians, 90% of russians, receive most of the news from the russian, state-owned tv channels. the decline in trust was there. we did also see the kremlin media open up broadcasts, trying to invite a little more people. i myself got invited by ntv broadcast. i didn't go, of course, because

it is not good for your reputation, to participate in this broadcast. fundamentally, however, this year, the trust is back to the previous levels. whether last year was just mistakes, we don't know. the important part is that this approach to the media, this particular state/media relationship in russia, has an influential take on russian's public opinion. the viewpoints and purposeful distortion of the narrative, of the news, creates some kind of deep distrust with the media content among the russians. unfortunately, this mistrust not only influences the state media but also the independent media. as a result, you have russians that are passive. also, there is mistrust of any

news, including the state and the independent media news. and just the fact there is no truth in the world. everybody is trying to lie. everybody is trying to take advantage of you. hence, no matter what a certain person is telling to you, the best response would be not to do anything because it is likely some kind of attempt to manipulate you. so these approaches to the media, quite successful, achieve the tragedy of disenfranchising, demotivating the majority of the russian population. >> thank you very much, maria. now, i'll turn over the floor. >> yes. the elections this september showed we really have the public

who doesn't go to the elections. they preferred to stay at home on this sunday. this is how the -- actually, the media has influenced the public. because we had so many fake stories in the state tv. there have been much fake tv stories in the so-called opposition media, so-called independent, maybe. >> i'm going to move that. >> okay. people preferred not to go and not to vote. for example, reading something in the internet. internet is a very, very interesting factor and a focus. nowadays, the russian media system seems to be a little --

because the tv stations and we see how they can influence the public. we have the internet segment, which is growing very, very, very fast. russia is now one of the leaders, if you judge by the numbers. russia is, i guess, the fifth place in the world by the number of broadband connection users. and some independent media, they prefer to focus on this audience and this public. for example, we have the case -- actually, the state media, i can say -- >> what is that? >> it is what was created two or three years ago in latvia. the audience is russian, so they are written in russia. they have all kinds of news.

first, they wanted to focus on putin and russia's state policy, but then they understood that they can develop just soft news. the so-called soft news, like discussing the -- in moscow. they've succeeded. plus, they succeeded because of the good level of russian language. there is a situation in russia, we have the lack of journalists who are really able to speak nice russian. and actually to put the information free and just in few words. because if you open the state newspapers, if you'll see even in my channel, we have some situations when i hear the voice

of the host and i cannot understand how he is connected to the real life of the people. there's always some strange russian accents so people go back to the internet. this is an important factor. still, the structure is segmenting more and more. even in my holding, our holding, probably these brands, we have several channels. we have actually 11 channels. sports and a culture channel and to the news channels, of course. i am from the channel focusing on the 24-hour news. and you have our first federal

channel. actually, we are all federal, calling the main channel federal, because all the people are actually preferring to watch it. even we have the difference between the first channel and us. because when we -- news for the 24 broadcasting, 24 news hours of broadcasting, we understand that our viewer is -- sometimes it is people from the government. sometimes these are the businessmen who really want to receive some quality information, maybe numbers, maybe statistics. they need the analysis. they don't need any politics in there. that's why shows with

discussions, they always go to the first channel. sometimes these discussions, they really seem not so professional, because of the first factor, lack of time. the second is that we have the problem where not only -- with the journnot just journalists b experts as well. people believe they go to the state television and believe to discredit or talk on one problem. they can say anything and go without preparation. no numbers, nothing. if you are a russian with high education and you're working, for example, in a business, turn on the tv and understand you don't any desire to watch this anymore. it's just the opinions and you need the information. so the second factor, which is

very important now, and it really influences the russian media, to my mind, the russian media structure, is the economic constraints. t it affects the russian media. most of the independent media, because of the economic factors, look and see it could be a persecution from the government. we cannot deny that many newspapers and many tv channels didn't have enough money. now, we'll see this week, one more development, not only the -- of the news. so one of our best channels, life news, it was dissolved because they don't have enough money. even though they tried to work,

they were rely on hot news topics. they really sometimes -- it was positions that could be in the opposition to the government. still, it was focusing on the north korean news, for example. the social ethics. because it needs to be covered in russian media. sometimes we have the lack of the economic news, social news, news about, for example, the hospitals and the quality of service there. the news about the education and so on. they were not actually connected to the foreign affairs or the high politics.

that's a problem in the economic constraint. i want to talk about the connection between the government and the state media. i have to tell one thing. every week, we from the state media and not only it shall we also have the echo of moscow, the liberal radio station, which goes -- so every week, we have the meeting at the government. so the chiefs of the tv channels and the radio stations and the big newspapers, they go there, only there because it authorizes people. could be some speculation or leaks. this is important because it is actually the security. so they go and they have discussion about how to tolerate

the news. the only direct ban, somehow, the news connected to the -- to work topics. actually, i believe that this is very understandable because this is the problem of national security. that's why sometimes, they, for example, people from the ministry, they call us and ask to not share this or that part of our reports. because, for example, you can see a plane there and it shouldn't be. this jet shouldn't be showed yet to the public or to the broad public. so we try to monitor this. plus, from this experience, working very close -- every day, actually, i work with the associated press, and now we have the normal exchange of

information. it looks like i can ask them for footage, for example, from kiev, where we don't have anything. we really have the constraints. we're working with kiev. our reporters cannot be present at no governments meeting. we exchange information. sometimes, i give them the whole footage, talking, for example, and this is normal. we actually don't have any problems with them, with the foreign media. but asthma rh maria pointed out government has limited the foreign presence. actually, we can say that -- i can say, actually, there is a reason in it.

because sometimes, there is no foreign capital in this -- in this newspapers and tv channels. sometimes, it was russia's tycoons who are, for example, to london. they are saying that they're international companies wanting to work in russia. actually, it was the same, old opposition, trying to use this method to influence the russian public. they were not popular. '15, '16, they showed we don't have so much in common with them because there are still people from the beginning of this century. we are trying to get developed. i wanted to end my presentation

by saying one point about the word propaganda. me, myself, i receive lots of negative things from my international critics about, for example, working for the state media. but anyway, propaganda used to be in news, actually. propagara means to write, to explore, to go and to explain to people. there is nothing bad in it. in the word itself. but it actually has the problems of how it is perceived in the nation and how it is in the reality. for example, in my channel, as well, and in many state channels, you have the problem

when people have their self-limitation. they really believe that government will call them and ask to stop showing this or that report. but it doesn't happen actually. it never happens. so even though we have the examples when the government are calling us and asking why are we not showing this or that topic. it could be a very funny story. and the government in russia is really segmented now. we should understand that people working for putin, his inr sner circle, so called, people as ministers, are all different. this or that ministry could be in good relation with another ministry. we, as a state channel, can receive lots of phone calls from

them and, for example, minister of culture trying to do this and minister of transportation trying to do that. that's why the person of the chief of the channel, he is -- we need toage lose and need to make the decision. it will be our decision, not the government's decision. >> thank you very much. i'd like to perhaps ask each of you a question before we open up for questions from the audience. i'll try to be very brief. i want to get to press each of you on a particular point. anna, in your case, on one hand, you talked about the -- it

sounded like a weekly meeting between government officials and heads of major channels and newspapers, where government officials are explaining how they would like russian media to cover the news. at the same time, you said a minute ago that the government is not, you know, calling and trying to block a particular story or something like that. so what i'm trying to understand, i guess, is this meeting happens. >> mm-hmm. >> the heads of these organizations get this input from the government. is there an expectation that they will act on that and that there is an enforcement mechanism if they don't? is it an instruction? is it advice? is it a suggestion? how would you characterize that? >> there is no contradiction in all of this. this is the advice.

but it also depends on what is told. because, for example, if they go back to the war news and military, it could be -- they could call and call again and ask to do something. still, it is not -- we don't have any enforcement mechanisms. it used to be, yeah, but it was five, four, maybe six years ago. now, we try to put it in the way of consultations. maybe, maybe the multi-presence consultation, when all of these people, the head of channels and newspapers, they have their word to the government. they may also ask the government to provide some information. because if they need the

details, the government actually should provide the information and the details. because we are to explain this to the public. >> thank you. maria, i'd like to ask you a different question. about media in russia that are independent from the government. i'm trying to use my language very precisely because you mentioned ntv, for example, which was a channel that president putin shut down about 15 years ago, after confrontation with its owner. on one hand, a channel like ntv was clearly very independent from the government. but on another hand, it was not so independent from the owner and his political objectives. and many of the media in russia that are independent from the government are nevertheless very dependent on particular individuals and their financial

resources and their own political objectives. do you feel that media like that, certainly they contribute to a variety of different perspectives in russia, and having different perspectives is usually a good thing, but at the same time, do you feel that they can realistically serve the public interest? >> well, i guess -- thank you for an interesting question, paul. i guess it depends on how you define the concept of media freedom. to me, media freedom is the plurality of the owners and plurality of different opinions. the truth is always subjective a little bit. what we need here in the united states as we do need in russia, we need different owners of different media with different interests that would provide an audience -- the audience with alternative viewpoints, right? the problem in today's russian coverage, the absolute majority

of russians don't have any alternative viewpoints. the only one they get is the one by the administration, suggests to the state tv channel meetings. or otherwise communcommunicated. the majority of russians are left without any alternative positi positions. of course, you can see they have internet. first of all, russia's internet freedom actually declines as the internet coverage increases. that's an interesting correlation. russia is one of the largest internet coverage in the world but the more people have access to the internet, the less free internet becomes. i already mentioned certain websites are banned. some of them are still available but unaccessible for russian -- from russia without special mirrors. other websites are changing

their content. the problem is also that russians themselves are not looking for, you know, alternative viewpoints. it's very -- you probably are particular with the concept about the righteous mind. we are prone to select the ideas that are closer to our world view. we observe that with the way the russians use the internet. whatever message they get, 90% of them get from the tv channels, it is the message. they don't want a contradiction. they don't want to know that russia is a great power. they want to know about victories of the country. they look on the internet for cat pictures or -- yeah. >> some things are truly universal. >> yeah. it's really pleasant to know. they definitely look for content that confirms their opinions.

i don't know if you can define "new york times" being completely independent of certain political interests. in my opinion, they're partisan. in my opinion, it is great. it's great you have access to both is and can compare and come up with your own ideas. it's exactly what i'd like to see in retuussia. in the 1999/2000 election, unfortunately, since then, we don't see that anymore. >> thank you very much. let's open it up for questions. keith? if you could please identify yourselves, as you ask your question. >> hi. keith, american university. i wanted to pick up on the issue of prop jihad propaganda. propagating a set of ideas, the factual bases of what is being propagated. several of us on the u.s. side

have the sense that there are deliberate falsehoods being put out in russian state media that are known by the state media to be false. i'm wondering if you could comment on that. for example, maria brought up the mh-17. some information about that, particularly, and also the crucifixion stories in ukraine, right? some of these things were objectively not true. that's different from putting out a different version of events. >> if i may say like this, some of these things were objectively shameful for us. the reports of the crucifixion in ukraine of a boy, it was shameful. >> it was untrue, right? >> it was untrue. after that, the government called the first channel and said -- and they asked to remove this report, actually. it was shameful.

but this is the thing with us and ukraine, the views are so quickly absorbed by the population. we have this myth and this report being told -- often told again, after two years, actually now, and this happens actually -- that was the point i pointed out. we don't have enough experts and enough good reporters. this is the problem. the reporters who are able to do some fact checking and to provide the arguments and provide the proofs. this is an important thing. when we judge by the internet, the first hot topics are cats, yeah, but the second, we have a very, very, very big search for investigative journalism in russia. we actually do not have qualified reporters to do this,

or they try to do it and they really try to do an investigation in two or three days, which cannot be done. especially with the image problem. or the investigations we had in russia. first, they didn't want to try to ask the government to provide some information. they were afraid. and then really, i can say that personally, i covered mh-17, as well, government really -- they were really too restrictive on this topic. they themselves had to perform an investigation first, to understand for themselves what actually happened. because the first day it happened, nobody had any idea what it was actually. so this is the thing. we had a very, very huge

recommendation over mh-17 on our state news channel. for about, i guess, half of a year. we touched this topic only if we had, for example, mr. putin talking on this. then we are showing him talking about mh-17. this is the thing, some topics are really -- i can feel that they don't have their own position, the government, on some topics. thank you. >> we're going to leave this recorded program now. watch this and any cspan program online at cspan.org. live now to capitol hill for a hearing on the future of nuclear energy in the u.s. this is just getting underway.

>> subcommittee on energy and water, come to order. this afternoon, we'll have the second of two oversight hearings to discuss the future of nuclear power in the united states. in our previous hearing in september, we discussed what actions should be taken to maintain today's nuclear power plants and to ensure our country continues to invest in nuclear power. today, we'll discuss the recent task force report on the future of nuclear power from the secretary of energy's advisory board. we'll also discuss basic energy research and development to support nuclear power, work that's being done to safely extend reactor licenses from 60 to 80 years where appropriate, and the development of new nuclear technologies, including advanced reactors, small modular reactors and accident-tolerant tools. senator feinstein and i will have an opening statement and

then each senator with an opening statement. we'll go from there. we'll then turn to the witnesses for their testimony. first panel will be dr. john, institute professor at mit. a former director of cia, deputy director of defense, director of energy research in the department of energy. second panel includes dr. eisenhower and dr. mckenzie. dr. eisenhower, associate lab director for nuclear science. dr. mckenzie, director of the nuclear program at the national resources defense council. after that, we'll have some questions. i'd like to make a brief opening statements. today's hearing, as i said, is our second oversight hearing. we discuss steps to take to ensure that carbon free nuclear power has a strong future in our country. our first hearing, we heard from

the secretary about the challenges. we heard about research, a lot of which is being done at our national laboratories, including oak ridge. we heard senator whitehouse, who is concerned about climate change, tell us that in his view, it made no sense to close carbon and free reactors at the same time we're trying to deal with climate change. we also heard from senator greg and ceo of the clear path foundation, who gave us much of the same message and talked about the amount of innovation, 40 to 50 companies working on reactor concepts that would lower cost, increase safety, make better use of fuel management than today's reactors. i believe our future nuclear power can be bright but we need to prepare now by building more reactors, by ending the stalemate on what to do about nuclear waste.

senator sign fifeinstein and i united on that. stopping washington from picking winners and losers in the marketplace which sometimes disincentivizes the nuclear power. pushing back on accessive regulation. fueling innovation with government-sponsored research. the witnesses today will discuss the task force report i mentioned. r&d and steps to maintain the fleet. we received the report in october from the -- of the secretary's energy advisory board. examined the challenges the nuclear industry is facing, as well as steps necessary to develop new technologies. it emphasized, and i'm sure the doctor will talk about this, five factors limiting investment in nuclear power in our country. first is nuclear power doesn't get enough credit for being carbon free. second, new nuclear technologies are complex, expensive and

heavily regulated. third, we haven't solved the nuclear waste stalemate, which has been going on now more than 25 years. the stalemate. market conditions and unanticipated events, such as an accident. at a time when leading science academies of 20 developed countries and many americans say climate change is a threat, and humans are significant cause of the threat, nuclear power produces 60% of our country's carbon free electricity and power plants produce nearly 40% of the carbon produced in our country. now, speaking for myself, in my hometown of maryville, tennessee, i had 20 fire marshals of repute come around and tell me my house might burn down, i might buy some fire insurance. my recommendation is that we should get insurance in this country against climate change. i think the best insurance in the near term is nuclear power. makes no sense to close reactors at a time when people believe

climate change is a problem. we need to invest in the next generation of reactors. we need to continue to work with the regulatory commission and move forward with modular reactors. our bill, the appropriations bill of this committee, includes $95 million for that work. task force recommends we undertake an advanced nuclear reactor program, support the designed, development, demonstration, licensing and construction of a first of a kind commercial scale reactor. i'm looking forward to hearing more about that. dr. eisenhower, who is here today on behalf of the oak ridge laboratory, leads a consortium for advanced simulation of light water reactors. we're looking forward to hearing his discussion of that. secretary said by the end of the year, the department that would begin to process moving forward with interim storage facilities for nuclear waste.

solving -- that's something senator feinstein and i congratulated him for and have encouraged. i'm pleased to report after our hearing, the department took the initial step of seeking information on private interim nuclear waste storage sites. we need to move on all tracks at the same time to solve the nuclear waste stalemate. i appreciate the secretary's attention to this. the secretary took that important step. new congress should take the next steps and pass the bipartisan nuclear waste administration act introduced last year by senator feinstein and i. congress should pass the pilot program that would allow the secretary to take title to use nuclear fuel. both the pilot program and funding for private interim storage were included. this year's senate energy and water appropriations bill. we recommended it will approved. we need to maintain our existing

nuclear fleet. we need to extend reactor licenses from 60 to 80 years where appropriate and safe to do so. we need to relieve the burdens of unnecessary regulation, use our super computing resources. since since our hearing, another nuclear plant shut down on october 24th. k which means we lost another 484 megawatts of carbon free electricity. in conclusion, i would say this, imagine a day when the united states is without nuclear power. that's the day i don't want to see in our country's future. seems distant and unlikely but it is a real threat. by 2038, 20 years from now, 50 reactors will have reached 60 years of operation, representing 42% of the nuclear generating capacity in the united states. so our country could lose about half our reactors if existing licenses can't be extended from 60 to 80 years and those

reactors close. while there are four new reactors being built in the southeast, there are eight reactors, three in the northeast at seven plants scheduled to shut down by 2025. the energy information administration estimates shutting down these eight reactors plus the recent closing of fort calhoun will result in a 3% increase in total carbon emissions from the u.s. electricity sector. we need to take steps today to ensure nuclear power has a future in this country. i want to recognize senator feinstein for her opening statement. >> well, thank you very much, mr. chairman. i think you know that there really is no one i respect more in the senate from either party than you. and one of my great pleasures has been to work with you. on most things, we have agreed. we do not agree on nuclear power, as you know.

and so because i'm a history major, i thought that i might in my opening remarks, cite facts of history about the nuclear experience. i think examining the potential risks and opportunities of advanced reactors is important. they're in competition with federal research funding, with other clean energy sources. and the 4,400 megawatts of california's nuclear power, which is in the process of being shut down, will be replaced with clean energy. and california is going to aim to make 50% of its power all clean power before too long. now, some may claim the future is bright for this technology. i suggest otherwise. advanced nuclear reactors are those that achieve higher

efficiencies in electricity production through the use of graphite, salt and metals as coolants and moderators instead of water. in 1956, united states navy admiral, the father of our nuclear navy, set up advanced reactors. i quote, they are expensive to build, complex to operate, susceptible to prolonged shut down, as a result of even minor malfunctions, and difficult and time consuming to repair. end quote. strangely enough, his words have been prophetic. in 1965, the sodium cooled fast reactor went online in southeast michigan. ten months later, it suffered a partial meltdown when a coolant inlet became blocked and the core overheated. it operated briefly again from 1970 to late 1972.

when it was shut down due to cost issues. the plant took nine years to build and operated for only three years. then in the 1970s, the united states spent over $1 billion on the clinch reeve river breeder reactor project in eastern tennessee. costs were initiallie lly estim at $400 million. by 1983, the gao said the project would cost $8 billion, something we go through with our are -- uranium now. congress abandoned the project. president carter, a nuclear engineer, said of the project, and i quote, the clinch river breeder reactor is a technological dinosaur. it is an assault on our attempts to control the spread of dangerous nuclear materials.

it marches our nuclear policy in directly the wrong direction. end quote. those are fundamentally the same reactor designs we're still discussing today. more recently, the monju fast breeder reactor in japan operated for only a few months in 1994 and 1995 before a coolant leak caused a fire. then it operated again for three months in 2010 before another accident during a refueling. after spending $12 billion building, briefly operating and repairing the facility, the japanese government decided last month to abandon the project once and for all. the recent history in the united states is not much better. the energy policy act of 2005 authorized doe to work with industry to develop a next

generation nuclear plant. the plant was intended to process heat and hydrogen for use in industrial applications. the program included cost-shared research and development activities with industry that would eventually lead to a demonstration facility. by 2012, this committee had invested $550 million in the next generation nuclear plan and was ready to move into phase two by inviting industry participation. but not a single company could be found to put up the meager $40 million cost share that was needed. d.o.e. ended the program in 2013 because the government could not justify spending millions to develop advanced reactor designs that have no real support from the industry. even if advanced reactors

overcome their history of disappointment, this congress has not yet grappled with the need to find a workable solution to nuclear waste. despite the best efforts of this committee. a bottom line fact is that the existing fleet of reactors has generated 77,000 metric tons of highly radioactive spent fuel. that staggering amount is growing by an average of 22 tons per year. even if some advanced reactor designs someday run more efficient efficiently, or even consume more spent fuel, a future built on nuclear power is impossible if we don't have a solution for dealing with existing waste. mr. chairman, the nation faces real challenges in addressing

climate change, grid reliability, increased energy efficiency, a proper mix of generation sources. in each of these areas, this committee funds complex and necessary programs for research. i don't see how we can afford to divert several billion more dollars from these programs in order to explore speculative technologies that the industry itself has shied away from. i think nuclear power must overcome its own significant shortcomings. one astronomical up front costs and, two, waste that is toxic for thousands of years, if nuclear is to be a significant solution to our climate challenges. before this committee decides to devote significant, new resources to the development of

advanced nuclear reactors, i believe we need to see three things. one, a solution to nuclear waste. long-term and viable. two, an indication that these reactor designs can overcome their history of technical shortcomings. and three, an industry willing to make a financial commitment on its own. and i know that's a tall order. so i very much look forward to our witnesses today. i've known john for a long time. i have great respect for him. i look forward to along to his testimony and the others. >> thank you, senator feinstein. senator tester? >> yeah, i'll be brief. first of all, thank you, mr. chairman and ranking member feinstein for having this hearing. it is a good discussion to have and talk about the challenges. i appreciate you, mr. chairman, bringing up climate change. it is occurring whether we want to deny it or not.

it is happening. i've been on the farm now since 1978 and things are happening that never, ever happened before. some of them are good. a lot of them aren't so good. and just for full disclosure, and i've been farming my whole life, i lost more money on an investment in electrical energy company that had a nuclear power plant than i ever lost doing anything else in life. with that aside, i certainly don't have issues with the power. i think there is positive things about the environment from a co2 standpoint. i think senator feinstein brought up some points on reactor design. the waste is the problem. we've got to figure out how you can repurpose it and get it done if we're going to do this. we may be changing co2 for nuclear waste. i don't think we want to do that. i think we want to make sure if we're going to have something that our kids and grandkids and generations and generations from now can deal with, it's got to

work. and so i appreciate the hearing. i think it is a good discussion. and i think -- i don't think anybody on this committee, and i certainly have the utmost respect for you, mr. chairman, respect for you, mr. chairman, wants to do something our kids are going to have to pay for forever. thank you very much. >> thanks, senator tester. senator udall. >> mr. chairman, ready to proceed to the witness. thank you. >> thanks, senator udall. dr. deutsch, usually we ask witnesses to take about five minutes because that gives more time for questions, but you are the only witness on the first panel and you've worked long and hard on a task force report plus you've got a lot of experience so if you need more time than that why don't you take it. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you, senator feinstein, senator udall. i'm very pleased to be here. i was chair of the secretary of energy task force --

>> could you speak directly into the mic, john? >> yes. is that better? >> better. >> if it's not poke me again and i will do better. so i'm here to report to you on this task force that i chaired and i want to make clear what our task was. secretary asked the task force to describe an initiative that had the potential of giving the country the option, the ability, to have between 5,000 and 10,000 gigawatts of electricity built annually in the time period 2030 to 2050. that was our task. many other questions about nuclear power were not part of our task. what would the country have to do to restore the level that, for example, was here when i joined the department of energy in 1976. that was the task.

the summary report -- the report and summary charts are in the public domain, they've been supplied to committee staff so i'm just going to focus on the main views of the committee, what was the message of our task force, what the message is and then say a few words about five or six main findings. so here are the main take a ways. if the country is going to have a nuclear option in 2030, it must undertake an initiative of the scope and size that this committee described. it doesn't have to be exactly the same, but if you do not undertake a major initiative now it is inevitable that in 2030 the country will not have a nuclear option. secondly, any such initiative is going to require time, considerable federal resources, redesign of electricity markets and sustained and skilled management. third, there is no shortcut to

doing this. there is not going to be a magic technology provided that at low cost, quickly can get you safe and reliable nuclear power. those are the take away messages. so i want to now speak to the five or six central findings and recommendations of the task force report. first, as you know, the nuclear fleet is aging and there have been a number of early retirements. the early retirements are due in many respects to the rules governing electricity rates and dispatch that differ in different parts of the country which makes it challenging to have value-based nuclear power. examples include the structure of regs in wholesale capacity markets, preferential dispatch rules for renewable generation, exclusion of nuclear power from renewable portfolio standards

and rates that are inadequate to assure recovery of investment. task force report makes several suggestions for redesign of market rate structure, but for existing plants this has to be done on a state by state basis and different states are approaching it in different ways. new york came to some agreement which seems to be suitable for that state. i believe that illinois is under detailed discussions at the present time, but fundamentally for existing reactors that disparate in market structure has to be addressed at a state level and it's not going to be changed easily. the outlook for the construction of nuclear plants in the united states and other oecd countries is bleak, primarily because of the high overnight capital cost of nuclear power, roughly $5,000, compared to natural gas, $1,000 or less. which makes a levelized cost of

nuclear power for the foreseeable future higher than the closest competitor which is at least for the time being with low natural gas prices the levelized cost of electricity from natural gas. the cost disparate would be greatly diminished if the carbon free nature of nuclear power were recognized. it could be recognized in two ways, by the assessment of a carbon emission charge based on the social cost of carbon on fossil fuel generating electricity plants or at tift on a production payment to new nuclear plants for their carbon free -- recognize their car bonn free character. that is on the order of 2.7 cents per kilowatt hour. that is their carbon free equivalent value. let me know that wind and solar

generation have that same carbon free character and indeed do have an ongoing through the production -- through the investment tax credit a contribution from the taxpayers of this country roughly comparable to the 2.7 cents i mentioned before. so that would be a rule that i would apply to all new carbon free electricity generation. the task force actually recommends a two-part program. it is not only about advanced nuclear reactors. first part is are there light order reactor technologies which will lead to new constructions of lower cost which have other advantages such as the small modular reactor. so the first aspect of the recommendations is pursue promising light water reactor technologies which no longer have an unproven technology, but which have the practical questions of cost, licensing,

siting, waste management. our first -- but all new plants need to have a 2.7 cent production payment or its equivalent in order to prove itself competitive with natural gas generation which is the generating of course carbon. for advanced reactors based on new technology the task force recommends a four-part program to bring an advanced program from the research level to the construction of a first of a kind plant -- first of a kind commercial plant. the task force based its estimate of the time and cost of that as being $11.6 billion with huge uncertainty around that number and taking about 25 years. an important aspect of that

judgment was based on carefully looking at a stage by stage development program from concept all the way to construction of a first commercial scale plant. there are many people who believe that could be shorter and indeed was mentioned, mr. chairman, there are 20 or 30 venture capital based firms which are exploring all different sorts of technology. that would see optimistically a much smaller time and cost for going through this development process for an advanced reactor. we don't believe that's so and we believe one important way of deciding is to compare the template for development that the task force has proposed with the template for development that the private sector firms are suggesting. in any event what i want to leave with the committee is that our judgment roughly speaking this is a $6.5 billion program

for the period from selecting a plant all the way to the point where you start spending money on your first commercial plant. we talked about financing of that. we believe that it should be at a well run program half -- roughly half provided by the federal government mostly in the early stages where there are great technology efforts to reduce technology risks and the latter that are more by private sector investors who see the practicality of these new reactor types. let me next turn to fuel cycle and waste management. i should say to you that when i was in the department of energy in the mid '70s the department confirmed president ford's decision not to do commercial reprocessing of spent fuel and

the department continually proposed no additional funding for clinch river breeder reactor, but there was a great effort to maintain light water reactor technology and the base nuclear technology or next generation plants. there is no question about it that advanced reactors will have a different fuel cycle and, therefore, require different approaches for both licensing and for waste management. that is a part of the challenge of moving to a new generation of reactors. now, we recommend for the management of this program that we propose, 25 year, $11.9 billion -- $11.6 billion program, the creation of a quasi public corporation created by