on c-span. tomorrow on c-span, mexican president felipe calderon and stephen harper from canada along with barack obama. they are concluding their summit on many issues, including immigration, border security, trade, and the h1n1 virus. that is monday on c-span. .

during his speech, the president praised the center for supporting the agenda. this is 45 minutes. >> you are beautiful. i just got a powerful deja vu feeling standing here. to some of you know the last time i stood here? i stood here with an awful lot of you in november. i had just been handed a note of the audience did not know yet and i can mouth and said that the ap had called virginia for barack obama. and then as i was sharing that with you, i got another noted said the ap as called the united states for president zero bombs. i am one to read this party and a little bit and rub my feet on the stage because i feel very good. thank you all for being here.

i got elected to state politics in 2001 with a great governor. give that up for mark warner. and we had been some wilderness years. the republican house and republican senate and republican governor did not agree with each other and became men and the state was heading in the wrong direction. since that race in 2001 under mark warner kiran undermine, did you know that virginia has been named in the best managed state in america? did you know that under democratic leadership, seven times, we have been named the best they to do business in america ended june known that we

have even been named by education week as the state were a child is most likely to have a successful life? [applause] that is what democratic leadership means. we find solutions to everyday issues that everyday people care about. the want to keep that going? [applause] i want to keep it going because i may not be governor in january but i will still be a virginian. what i know now is that we are in some tough times. this has been the most challenging economy that virginia or the nation has faced since the 1930's. i have had to make some painful decisions as governor but i made the decisions i needed to make to keep virginia moving in the right direction. when you're a governor in tough times, you come to appreciate character of people who can make tough decisions and do the right

things to put virginia first and i am here to tell you that i will not lose one second of sleep and in fact i will sleep with a big smile on my face. he has stood with us again and again and again. when gov. mark warner was faced with some challenging times and had to reform virginia's budget to invest more in education at the k-12 and higher level, he was right there pulling the or with them to make sure we did was right for the commonwealth. [applause] when i was fighting to expand education, he was there with me to make sure that it happened. when i worked to put together the biggest bond package in the history of virginia and, he was

right there with a working to make it happen. let me tell you something. i know his opponent as well and i will say that i honor his public service. he is a good guy, but he has a very different philosophy of government than what has worked in virginia for the last seven years. when mark warner was reforming the budget in 2004, he was fighting against it. when we were trying to advance educational spending or find solutions to transportation challenges in virginia during my term, bob macdonald and other house republicans were fighting against progress. just recently come bob macdonald let out a plan for education. he is talking about 3 k and higher education access and research to promote green jobs and bob mcdonald's plan is to take $500 million a year.

that is the solution. i will conclude by saying this. in a tough time, i have come to appreciate people who hold on to the right values and do what is needed in a tough time to keep virginia forward. the choice this november could not be clearer. we have a man of uncompromising moral integrity, a heart as big as the at doors and the vision to keep virginia moves and the right way, please welcome our next governor creigh deeds. [applause] >> wow.

thank you so much. i am still trying to use to the fact that the president of the united states flew marine one to virginia for me to the of the. thank you governor came. i have such respect. we all respect that. we respect his service to our party as well. he is a great leader and a great role model. also, there is someone in the room who needs no recognition. it is kind of like finding a needle in the haystack.

buddy scott. right back there, france, i appreciate all of you joining us here tonight as we continue the hard work of moving virginia forward, standing on the remarkable shoulders of the leaders like jim webb and mark warner and bobby scott. this effort, this campaign, it will require each and every one of you, working together to help was bring opportunity and prosperity and hope to every single corner of the commonwealth. that is what i am committed to doing. virginians deserve a governor that will wake up every day with a clear understanding of the

challenges we face and a governor who has a proven record of working to bring virginians together to solve problems that produce results. virginians also deserve a governor who has a detailed vision for maintaining our great public schools and our world- class colleges. we have got to prepare and do the best we can to prepare our children for the jobs and opportunities of tomorrow. we do it with public education. we need to build on what they have started there in virginia -- here in virginia. investing in quality education for every child. [applause] there is still plenty of room for reform and i strongly

support the president's initiatives to expand charter schools. there is no reason the va should lag behind the rest of the nation. we have to bring change and innovation and greater accountability to our schools. we have to make sure that our education dollars are being spent wisely and where most needed, in the classroom. [applause] we have a lot to do to ensure that every child in virginia gets the education they're entitled to. we also need to increase teacher pay. we need to increase teacher pay to lease the average. you cannot expect excellence a lawsuit that lease space for average. we cannot continue to fall behind the rest of the world in math and science.

we need a governor who will encourage our teachers and a governor that will pass a plan. [applause] hear me out on this. the teachers whose long as i want to forgive or those who will agree to teach in the toughest school districts and the toughest divisions because no child is going to be left behind. my grandmother, my mother's mom, she was a public teacher. she started in will divisions in virginia in the early 1920's and she retired in 1964. like most women of her generation, she did not have a college degree she learned by reading and by doing.

she taught generations of rural children the basics of education i still visit -- vividly recall when my own mother sent me off to college. she took 4 $20 bills and folded them up and i put them in my pocket. i know something about the power and potential that can be unleashed when a child had access to quality public education. frankly, that is what has motivated my own public service for the past 22 years. that is why i stood with leaders from the realm of education across the commonwealth and demanded no permanent cuts for education, even in tough times.

that is why i stood with them. and before mark warner took office in 2002, our nation was facing record prosperity, but here in virginia, we faced a record budget shortfall. our state government was crippled by illogical leadership that refused to work across party lines. the last seven years, we found a different way of doing things. that has resulted in virginia repeatedly been named the most business friendly stake in the nation. they said it is the best to do business in the country.

7 times out of the nine times that this man took office. it is the best way to move your business to. it is the best in which to raise a child. it is a tough time, but this is a good place to be. as i travel around this commonwealth, virginians to not want to go back. virginians want to move forward. that is why i stand here tonight and ask for your continued support. because, because we have come

too far and have accomplished too much together. let me say this. i believe my opponent in this race is a decent man and i respect his public service. but i must also tell you this when there was a serious choice to be made, when there was no opportunity for him to be about moving virginia forward, my opponent shows the illogical approach of working together. at every key moment, when events or issues call for bipartisan agreement and consensus for putting virginias interest and

future above partisan advantage, my opponent made the wrong choice. the talk about the support of public education and it is easy to talk about a good game during an election year. but he has a long record of opposing funding for public schools and opposing school construction and opposing pre k programs and just a few weeks ago my opponent put for the transportation plan that takes $5.4 billion out of public education in the next 10 years. those are his estimates. we cannot afford that. we cannot afford to take virginia back.

in this election, defeat is not an alternative. let me say this. i know i am not the main event. i am flattered. [applause] shortchanging education is not an option. i will oppose any effort to cut education. i am probably taking too much time. >> more. >> let me preach on at a little bit.

i appreciate your continued support for my campaign. together, we can make a difference. we need your enthusiasm, your energy and your love as we move into the fall campaign because it is the only way we are going to get it done. you will live this up and make this happen. i am smart enough to recognize that you are also here to show some law and demonstrate your strong support for another guest of honor that we have. if someone had said to you in january or in march or last month or even last week that within six months of taking office, we would see the stock market regained one-quarter of its value banks' lining up to

repay their tarp bailout funds for that it would show signs that our economy was starting to recover, the smart people would have said that your nike user. there is no way that a new president could navigate such rocky economic shoals so quickly. while we have huge economic challenges ahead of thus, we are not completely on the road, not for every family. we have come a long way to restore confidence and pride in america. we're not done yet. i encourage you to give a warm, northern virginia welcome to our

special guest of honor, the president of the united states barack obama. [applause] >> hello, virginia.

hello virginia. are you fired up? ghali will be ready to go -- are you ready to go? it is good to be in virginia. a place that has been good to me. >> we love you. first of all, it is just good to be next to a guy who spends every single day thinking about your future and thinking about your children's future and the future of this commonwealth. one of my best friends, somebody who is dedicated to the kind of

public service that i so deeply believe them, please give it up for your governor, tim kane. i think that some of you know that tim was the first statewide official outside of illinois to endorse may. i call them up just a few weeks after i had announced.

he said he would endorse the. he has every tough battle that he had. i am grateful for him. he was there when people cannot even pronounced my name. so i am grateful. >> obama, obama, obama, obama. >> part of the reason we like to be in virginia is there is a tradition, here. it has been developing, starting with your former governor and

now outstanding senator mark warner. [applause] a tradition that starts off with the basic idea that we're all in this together. mark warner came in at a time when the fashionable politics or the nasty politics, the slash and burn politics. the arguing without ever getting anything done kind of politics. mark warner said " but we could try something different. we're going to do is be pragmatic instead of ideological. we are going to try to bring people together rather than force them apart. we're going to make sure that we listen to other people's ideas.

we're going to bring labour and business together. we are gore to make sure that we don't have a southern virginia and a northern virginia but a commonwealth virginia. so, what he was able to do was to shape a kind of politics here in the commonwealth that has resulted in one of the best managed states and the country, a state that was able to make investments in education even as it was dealing with a fiscal crisis. a state that has now been able to navigate some of the toughest economic times that we have seen in the history of the country. because of that foundation of civility and practicality and hard work. tim came to embody that tradition and he has now

continued during his term in office. that is not just a stroke of good luck here in the state of virginia, it is because you stood up and shows that kind of politics. you decided to take the better way and now you have the chance to keep moving forward by electing somebody who is cut from the same cloth. somebody who has the same vision for the commonwealth, creigh deeeds. now, i admit that i am a little biased. i'm a little biased, first of all, creed beacreigh deeds and h

have wonderful daughters. we both served in the state senate i served for eight years and he served for eight years. he and by both have funny names. i'm still trying give a figure out the spelling figurecreigh. -- figure out the spelling of creigh. this is a man that's been his life working to do right by his family. and the last two decades to do right by the people of virginia.

as a prosecutor, as a delegate, as a state senator, he has worked tirelessly to advance this commonwealth he has loved his whole life. he wrote megan's law. advocated for the ever alert program to protect our children. he worked to preserve open space and protect the environment. when virginia faced the financial crisis a few years back, he was on mark warner's team to make sure that you reform the budget and control spending and even in the face of that crisis, record investments in education. laying a foundation for virginias growth. he will continue the progress that has been made in this great commonwealth. he will continue to make that progress.

especially when it comes to education. you heard the commitment to education that he made today. i know he will follow through because that has been the key to our lives, growing up, and neither one of us had much, but we had mothers who loved us. and pushed us and in still the belief that education was the best shot we were to have that life. we are living proof that education is the single best investment we can make in our future and our children's future and the people of virginia understand that. that is why he is going to invest in prekindergarten programs and support our teachers and expand access to higher education he knows that the small -- of the smartest work forces or to attract the best jobs.

i want to partner with creigh deeds. i have already made sure that we strengthen and improve our education system from cradle to graduation. from college to career so that by 2020, america will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates of the world and we will have the by here in virginia. [applause] smart decisions, sound investments, a civility to our politics, that is what virginia has become the nation's number one state to do business sense. that is what virginia is one to come out of the other side of this recession, stronger and better prepared than before. because of the forward thinking leadership of mark warner and tim kane and creigh deeds.

we have to be honest, even though virginia is whether in this recession better than most states, primarily because of this democratic leadership, i know that too many families in virginia are still hurting. unemployment is still over 7%. folks are still losing their homes and being crushed by health premiums that have doubled over the past nine years. but without the steps we would -- we have taken, our troubled economy would be a lot worse. i am always amused when i hear some critics start talking about looking at the mess the economy's them. they seem to have some selective

memory it didn't just happen somehow. when my administration took office about six months ago we faced the worst recession since the great depression. we were losing an average of 700,000 jobs a month. it was nearly impossible to take out a home loan or a car loan or a student loan or loans for small businesses to make payroll. they were saying that we might be tipping over into a great depression. at the time, there were some the

thought that doing nothing was an option. remember that? i disagreed. i thought that we had to act boldly and firmly and so we took steps to arrest our housing project -- a crisis. less than one month after taking office, we did that without the earmarks of torbor projects of the previous the ministration had loaded up with. there has been a lot of misinformation out there about the recovery plan. i hope you do not mind, va., i just want to set the record straight. this is very simple stuff here.

the recovery act is made up of three parts. the first part, about one-third of the recovery act is a middle- class tax cut for 95% of working americans. and by the way, that is exactly what i promised you when i was running for president of the united states. so when you hear the naysayers and the critics saying that this plan is not money well spent, just remember that one-third of it is going right into your pockets. that seems like will spend money to me. another third, sometimes i see

folks outside with signs saying not to raise your taxes. i haven't raised taxes, i lower your taxes. another third was relief for people and states who have fallen on hard times because of the economic crisis. we expanded unemployment benefits to help people who lost their jobs and were looking for work. that has made a difference for about 150,000 virginians. we made health insurance cheaper for families who rely on cobra after they lost their job. we made it 65% cheaper. that is you. i've got some testimony. i have an amen corner right here.

we helped states are facing a historic budget shortfalls, which prevented layoffs and protected essential services. in virginia, that meant 13,000 folks are still working in our schools, more than 300 deputy sheriffs are keeping community safe and state colleges and universities like cuvier and virginia tech. that is because of the recovery package. i just want to know, i'd just want to make sure if these critics are opposed to the tax cuts that are going into your pocket? opposed to making sure that we're not cutting back on vital services and giving states some relief? that is two-thirds of the recovery. the last third is making the

vital investments that are putting people back to work today. to create a stronger economy tomorrow. the largest new investment of the infrastructure in america since eisenhower build the interstate highway system back in the 1950's. around here, that means upgrading the dam and improving the fairfax county parkway. building new roads across north virginia to make your lives a little better. so, step by step, we are moving forward. the american people understand this. the recession was years in the making. it did not just start last month. the bank crisis did not happen on my watch.

let's get the history straight. and then we started getting into the whole issue of spending. let me tell you, virginia has a history of prudent fiscal policy. that is what tim kane has been about and that is a mark warner has been about and that is why creigh deeds is born to be about. you have folks pointing at the federal budget and somehow trying to put that at our feet. well let's look at the history. while walking in, we had a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit.

that was gift wrapped and waiting for me when i walked into the oval office. without my policies, we would have an even higher deficit going forward. the one exception is the recovery package that we had to do in order to get this economy moving again. so, you can go out there and charge of the credit card and golan all kinds of shopping sprees on things that did not grow the economy and hand over the bill to us and say why haven't you paid off yet. i got the bill for you. we got some work to do. i do not mind, by the way, being responsible. i expect to be held responsible for these issues because i'm the

president. but i don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. i wanted to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess. i don't mean -- i don't mind cleaning up after them, but don't do a lot of talking. am i wrong, virginia? i am convinced that the actions we have taken in the first six months helps stop our economic freefall. we are losing jobs at half the rate we were at the beginning of this year. our financial system is no longer on the verge of collapse. the market is up.

housing prices are for the first time in nearly three years. we may just be seeing the very beginnings of the end of this recession. but if we are to move from recovery to prosperity, we need to rebuild our economy stronger than before. because even before this crisis hit, we had an economy that was failing to create the kinds of good jobs with rising incomes for middle-class families that is the bedrock of america. there was a lot of money being made at the top, but it was not an economy that was built to compete in the 21st century. one where we spend more on health care than any nation but are not any healthier. that is not sensible. were we have been slow to invest in clean energy technologies that have created new jobs and other countries, where we watched our graduation rates lag to the rest of the world. that does not make sense.

even as we work to rescue our economy from this crisis, we are now laying the foundation for the country to thrive in the in 21st century. we're going to prepare every child in america to compete and win with a world-class education. we will invest in the clean energy jobs of the future and train our workers for those jobs. we will finally protect consumers and bring down health- care costs that are driving this nation into debt. we will pass reforms to insure that the health-care system doesn't just work for insurance companies, but for all the people of virginia and all the people of the united states. >> yes we can, yes we can, yes we can, yes we can. >> yes we can. >> there are those that want us to go down the same old path

where we just throw our hands and say we cannot do it than about education because it is too hard. we cannot do anything about health care because it is too tough. a path for our children fall behind and workers lose out and watch jobs being shipped overseas. our health care costs keep rising. all we do is just bigger and point fingers. that is not the future that i except for the united states of america. that is not the future that creigh deeds except for the future of virginia. that is not what you want for your children and our grandchildren. so we are setting a new course for this nation. it is the one that mark warner and tim kane and creigh deeds have been blazing.

been no more about that crisis. that is what he will do. that is why every single one of you is going to have to do the work to put him into office, to carry on the tradition of leadership, to bring about a brighter future for generations up of virginians. we did not come this far by scrolling back. it is not about looking backwards, is about looking for words. we did not became the greatest nation on earth because we just shrug our soldiers and said no we can't. we are americans. we are the forward-looking people. we stared down challenges. we have always faced the future and not with the year but with determination. not with doubt, but with hope.

last year, you helped me in a movement. a movement of americans that believed that their voices to make a difference. a movement of young and old, rich and poor, democrat and republican. native american, gay, straight, disabled, not disabled. everybody was involved. it did not come from washington, came from the bottom up. that is what we need to do in this race. that is what this election is all about. i need everyone of you to knock on doors and make phone calls and get fired up once again so that we can go towards the future, confident with creigh deed leading. thank you and god bless you. [applause]

>> tomorrow, on c-span, a live news conference with president barack obama and canadian prime minister steve harper. the will speak about world economy, immigration, border security and the h1n1 flu virus. tomorrow, on c-span2, a tribute

to phyllis schlafly. that will begin live on c-span2. monday, republican fcc commissioner robert mcdowell on his efforts to provide more transparency and the commission's role in expanding broadband. the communicators that a p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> this fall, entered the home of the nation's highest court. the supreme court, cumming the first sunday in october on c- span. a discussion now on israeli counterterrorism. you'll hear from the director of israel's counterterrorism europe. this is just about half an hour. >> good morning.

my name is [unintelligible] i am the director of the university center terrorism studies which is an consortium of universities and think tanks and almost 40 countries around the world. this is the national security council. professor william orson from the south asia center of strategic studies.

my colleague, professor edgar brenner will introduce our speakers and i would like to also welcome the audience the represents a academics as well as government officials and members of embassies and the media. in particular, i would like to think c-span for broadcasting this event. it is a public service to provide discussions for consideration to a wider audience in the united states and abroad. just 2 foot -- just to footnotes before prof. brunner introduces our speakers. a little like to first mentioned

that since we do have an israeli general speaking today, that the evolution of the academic work between the united states and israel goes all the back for decades. the reason that imus this boss mentioned this is because costa and there was a six day war. perhaps the war would trickle -- would trigger that. we developed academic programs in israel and cooperation with american universities such as the university of new york the

reason why i mention this is because that particular bridge that was built going all the lead back still exists and we do have a great deal of programs with students and professors and conferences and publications and so on and so forth. i would like to mention one incident in particular cut back in 1979. it was initiated by benjamin netanyahu. this was the first major international conference so we participated in that particular event and subsequently, in the

1980's and 90's, where developed various structures -- we develop the various structures. first was a challenge to israel itself. then the globalization of that worldwide. in particular, i like to mention one of the reports that i am sure we are going to discuss. today, it is how to prevent super terrorism. at that time, we had a professor that was our chairman. he was a former physicist in israel. tragically, we were there to deal with the nuclear challenge

and some of our academic work as i mentioned before, was published in various books. one of them, benjamin netanyahu also participated in continued their relationships for many years. now, on the substantive aspects , it seems to me that we do have to put the challenge in some sort of this week marks the 64th anniversary of the nuclear issue. one of the major challenges that were left to deal with in our discussion today and in the

coming weeks and months is the question of the nuclear program of the run. in light of the fact that we were marking the 64th anniversary of hiroshima and nagasaki. to put it differently, it seems to me that in terms of the context of our discussion the question is,. it will continue for the next

100 years. this -- depends on that. for example, if you think of peace being the dream of a wise and were being the history of man, can we subscribe to that i am going to call on my colleague. we have worked together for the past 25 years. he is or to introduce our speakers. >> as the professor mentioned, brigadier general is currently

part of the counterterrorism bureau. during his time of military service, he had important responsibilities on israel's west bank and gaza strip. for a time, it was a military attache at this really embassy and he had responsibilities coordinating with the united states army, the united states navy, the united states marine corps and several government departments. we welcome him here today. >> thank you, very much. i prefer to stand. first of all, good morning in the key for having me here. i am very excited. i will try in the next two minutes to explain who we are,

what we are doing and then for about another 25 minutes, to share with you the challenges as we see them in israel and not only in israel but all over the world and then let you ask any questions -- as many questions as you want and hopefully i will be able to address them. actually, i double have the counterterrorism bureau. actually, we gave our power from government resolution. it is subject which we are dealing with and there are many, we have a cabinet resolution that ordered us to take care of this issue and to make sure that we're combined with all the agency is and take

responsibility that this kind of threat is taking care of by someone. we do have something like eight or nine national direct responsibility is. later wrong, i will look to get a better understanding of what this is all about. . .

been thrown around with that republicans of not willing to do anything. i want to point out that the republicans are yes when it comes to wanting clean affordable energy. we support harnessing nuclear power, the single greatest source of zero carbon, zero air pollution, base load energy is nuclear power. nuclear power will create tens of thousands of productive jobs, and that's in contrast to the so-called green jobs of wind and energy, which can only be bought with up to $100,000 of taxpayer

subsidy that we as taxpayers get the privilege of subsidizing at the time it blows, of course. republicans support clean hybrid, and electric plug in vehicle technology. last week we celebrated a a new assembly plant in kansas city missouri. we had on the mal, totally electric plug-in vans with the private sector partners, including at&t at that coca-cola, frito lay, madam chair, your pacific gas and electric, and my kansas city power and light will be rung these totally electric power zero emission vans. i'm also working in missouri

with our universities to develop economical ways of producing bio mass to generate electricity with less emissions. we are using algae combined with carbon dioxide to reduce transportation fuel. i also support as my fellow republicans do harnessing the oil and gas lying under our shores and lands. environmentally friendly drilling technology allows for oil drilling in an ocean that was safe enough to with stand hurricane ca cat arena. we are going to continue to need it for the at least the next 20 years. estimates are that we have 144 billion-barrels of oil if we tap it.

the american west grand corporation estimates america has over 1 trillion-barrels of recoverable oil, more than 2,000 years worth of imports from saudi arabia. government estimates, 200 years supply of american coal, and a 95 year supply of natural gas. allowing ourselves to use america's abundant supplies of energy will promote affordable energy. abundant supplies of american energy will help keep prices down, help families stretch budgets and keep good-paying jobs. we will oppose proposals from the other side that will hurt america while helping our competitors in china. we oppose with put ago price on carbon as environmentalists like to say. instead, democratic proposals to impose pain on american people to force them to use less

energy, which will not do anything for the climate, we support allowing america to harness it's own clean, affordable energy. finally, the reports of cap and trade legislation, that the chair intends to introduce will omit key details vital to determining impact on family and workers. that troubles me a great deal. if families are going to pay higher utility bills and farmers higher production costs, drivers face pain at the pump, and workers face job loss depending on how the cap and tradal locates. we ought to consider that over the august recess. i think the american people deserve to know how legislation affects their energy bills and jobs. we can't leave that he is allocation provisions blank with place holders if we're going to give americans a fair, honest open and to answer parent view of the legislation. i wonder how we can hold legislative hearings without reviewing its key provision.

i urge the chair not to try to force the committee to do so. i thank you very much madam chair. >> i totally agree with you that when we mark up, we'll know exactly. >> will we know before the recess? >> before today? no, we won't see that until after. but we're going to have many, many more hearings before we mark up. >> will we know those provisions when they're developed. >> of course. >> ok. that's what we -- ok. >> senator alexander. >> thanks, madam chairman. i look forward to the witnesses. they know a lot about the subject matter we're discussing. i like that the title, clean energy revolution, senator bonn's actually described a republican proposal that we believe is consistent with a lot of democratic senators, as well with that 100 nuclear power plants, clean plug in vehicles,

i believe we can electrify half hour cars and trucks. i learned that from one our witnesses here today, over the next 120 years. exploration for gas that's low carbon, and mini manhattan projects on things that we need to learn about, like capturing coal from existing -- carbon from existing coal ambulance. if all that were implemented, we would reach the goals by 2030 without a cap and trade, and do it in a low cast way. my questions today are going to have to do with a separate part of the bill that is coming fromle house of representatives. there's a renewable electricity standard that requires states to create 20% of their electricity by 2020 from a narrowly defined group of renewable energies, wind, solar, geo thermal and new

hydro, a continuation of a national wind mill policy that we've had since 1992 when we began to subsidize the building of wind turbines as a way of powering our country. so, if the title of our hearing is clean energy revolution, my question then for the witnesses and to others, why don't we have a clean energy standard? why do we leave out, for example nuclear power, wimp produces 70% of hour carbon-free electricity today? i congratulate mr. sandoval for mentions nuclear power, which is rare for this administration. we had a very good meeting earlier this week about nuclear power, that it's safe and we have ways to deal with the waste. if this is so important that we need so encourage wind, why

don't we encourage nuclear power? ford, i would like to include this chart of comparisons, two different options to make another 20% of the united states carbon free. the administration said that it wants and it's mentioned in the testimony today, let's make 20% of our electricity from wind. why not at the same time try to make 20% of our electricity from nuclear? both are pollution free and carbon free, and hear the comparisons. with nuclear, you'd need about 100 new reactors about the number we have today. to do it with wind, you'd need turbines covering the area the size of west virginia. nuclear produces 20% of our electricity today. wind is a base load power. maybe what we need is a base load clean energy standard, and a renewable clean energy

standard. wind is intermittent, only available when the wind blows. nuclear is available about 90% of the time on average, that's why we call it base load, wind is available about a third of the time. in our part of the country, tennessee, it's only available about 19% of the time and the only wind farm in the southeast, so the net effect of the renewable electricity standard is to force us to pay more to buy wind from south dakota when we'd rather be using it for nuclear or conservation or buying scrubbers for our coal plants. the 100 nuclear reactors would be built object existing siting. wind would require thousands of miles of new transmission lines. the subsidy cost would be about $17.5 billion over 10 years, including the nuclear production tax credit. for wind, it would be 10 times that $170 billion over 10 years,

which is the production tax credit. the chairman mentioned green jobs. there would be more underbuilding nuclear power plants, a lot more, than there would be under building wind turbines. nuclear plants last 80 years, win turbines 20. we have 47,000 abandoned mines in california. the cost of believe both is about the same according to the national academies, and the visual impact is 25,000 square miles pore wind. my question will be why not have a clean energy standard or base load standard that includes nuclear? madam chairman, i'd like to ask permission to include this chart following my remarks. >> it will be done, sir. >> thank you very much. >> senator. >> thanks, very much, madam@@@@

land scarceity in the next 15 years, setting the stage for

conflict and breeding the conditions for terrorism, according to the c.i.a.'s national intelligence council. during today's hearing, we're going to hear more about science-based options. we have to reduce emissions, create jobs and grow our economy. last month, the house passed a landmark bill that would fundamentally shift how america uses energy, and compares the challenges that we have. all eyes are on this committee to see if we are going to do our part. we've got to award innovative companies and workers that are building the clean energy economy, and make producers pay for the damage they're doing to our planet. we must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020 to get on the track that we need to ultimately ever by 2050. that is the science-based achievable goal, and a major new

report by mckinsy and company found the united states can reduce energy use by 23% by 2020 by becoming more energy efficient. we need to invest in research and development to create jobs in the short term, and give our country the tools to compete in the long term. right now, the house bill only devotes one and a half percent of the allowances to research and development. a fortune 500 company like johnson and johnson spends about 12 percent of its revenue's on its research on r&d. we need to improve the house bill to provide the investments necessary to match our technology with our goals. if we accomplish these objectives, factories that are now dark and empty can find new life building wind turbines, solar panels, or any of the thousands of components that

generate renewable energy. i hear our colleague from tennessee, senator alexander continue to ask why not more nuclear, and i think the question's a fair one. i remember when nuclear was a dirty word around here. now we've seen applications come in from people who want to make the investment. i think certainly we have to look at that more seriously. just look at what's happened in new jersey. more than 2,000 clean energy companies employ 25,000 people. when we return to washington in september, we need to take what we've learned from these hearings, get to work building our clean energy future, and i will hope that we will have added sufficient debate and

volume of air pass so that we can turn that air into renewable energy. >> thank you very much, senator. >> senator. >> madam chairman, unemployment has now hit nine and a half percent in america, and it will continue to rise, despite promises that the president's $787 billion stimulus bill would prevent unemployment from reaching 8% and create jobs. vice president biden has said the administration misread the economy. he is correct. misreading the economy is a serious mistake, given the billions we borrowed from china to pay for that stimulus bill. the people paid the price. now, some in the majority want to pass a 1500 page cap and trade scheme.

with the failure of an economic stimulus package to create the jobs, should the american people believe the cap and trade bill will work? supporters advocate the largest energy tax in the history of america with the burden of the bill falling on the backs of working marries at a high time of unemployment. they are rushing to do it. in an article in investors business daily, they ask why the urgency, why not more time for thorough cost benefit analysis? why hurriedly push a bad bill just to get something passed? why no acknowledgment that the countries that take the best care of their environment are the richest? why not tap more of our nations abundant natural fuels in ways that are more environmentally friendly than other nations? advocates ever tried to sell the american people on the idea that we can be energy secure by

having less energy, but making it more expensive. >> claiming the approach will create jobs all across america, leaving no worker behind, claiming that this cap and trade strategy will wean america off foreign sources of energy. they claim it is critical for our national security and will make us competitive in the world. i ask the question, why are saudi arabia and our middle eastern countries so vital to our energy mix? they have vast amounts of oil. if america had the same reserves, would we be in a better position to win the energy race with china and india? the answer is yes. we well, we have that in america, oil reserves throughout the west that rival saudi arabia's deposits, also ail in alaska, and other states. do the authors of cap and trade

want to tap into that? no, we have coal reserves that have been referred to as the saudi arabia of coal. these are in kentucky, ohio, west virginia, montana and wyoming. do the authors of cap and trade want to tap into that? no america has that and more. we have the uranium, wind, solar, bio mass and hydropower. we have it all and can develop it in a responsible way. the authors of cap and trade don't want to develop all american energy resources. they want to start the energy race with china and india two laps behind as opposed to three laps ahead. the more energy america can produce, the stronger the american economy will be. energy development creates jobs, not just green jobs, but real red, white, and blue jobs. we need to keep all the american jobs we can. we need them all, and the

solution rests on our shores. thank you, madam chairman. >> thank you, senator. senator. >> as i was looking over your testimony, it's clear there's a central message that we have here in the united states right now, the technology, row sources, know how to build a clean energy economy that will create jobs and cut our dependence on foreign oil, reducing pollution. this sounds like a triple win. i look forward to hearing the details from all of you. thank you. >> thank you, senator. senator. >> first of all, i'd like to see thank you for this hearing, and echo the words of my friend from tennessee that if you look at where we get our energy in this country, we are only getting about 1.4 percent from wind. we need to look at nuclear, we need to look at coal.

seems to me if we really wanted to reduce our emissions in this country, we would move very quickly on the nuclear, and move very quickly to find a technology that would capture carbon so we could continue using coal. we know those people overseas are going to use it. i think the senator made a good point where he said that we need in terms of oil, we need more, we need to find more, and use less. the public interest in private sector communities agree that the crucial factor that will determine whether we have an effective climate policy is the extent to which the policy incurs the development and employment of needed technology. yet regulation without sufficient available technology will result in high cost for american consumers while offering little hope that developing nations will answer the call to reduce their emissions. tackling the climate change problem is not something we can do alone. i agree that the u.s. should be

a leader, but while carbon caps are difficult to sell to the developing world, access to new technology is not. i have introduced a bill to create a new committee in the asian pacific partnership for cooperation on clean energy technology and commercialization to help speed the wide acceptance of these policies. that technology development is needed in the areas of carbon capture and see quest reaction. recognizing the disconnect between what technology delivers and the bill's objectives, the authors include provisions that

mask the strength this compliance burden will have on the economy. if all these provisions don't work out at planned, and government programs rarely do work out at planned, the costs could be northerly must. e.i.a.s recent analysis offers a devastating critique of a proposal who's ethic kaz hinges on a range of impacts that may accompany the bills limitation under a variety of technology and offset available assumptions. even in areas where low energy technologies are employed, there are significant costs. if offsets are more limited, the legislation could devastate the economy to increases in electricity prices of up to 77%, gasoline prices up with 33 percent, and natural gas of up to 75% resulting in a

cumulative hit of 6.2 trillion by 2030. senator said let's face it, the bill we now consider is a tax bill. i agree. it's not possible to look at putting a price on carbon any other way. the government's imposing a mandate with the intention of increasing prices to achieve a certain outcome. accordingly, the costs associated with the bill should be considered with a seriousness that any tax measure is given. against this backdrop i'd say that i do support efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emission but our policy approach musting reasonable, north korea economic stability by not causing fuel switching, rapid rate increases or economic dislocation. this is contingent upon requirements that are consistent with the development and deployment of source ever have low carbon energy during a time when the national unemployment rate is at nine and a half and

the national debt. my goals are to keep this nation's economy, and that of ohio under sure footing while decreasing emissions. climate change requires a long term solution whose strategy is fully cable of accomplishing the time necessary in a manner that is consistent with low carbon deployment. >> thank you. senator. >> thank you. let me thank our witnesses today. i would ask unanimous consent that my entire statement can be placed in the record. let me summarize by saying clean energy's important for this country for many reasons. it's important for national security, as we become energy

self sufficient here in america. it's important for our environment. we know the impacts of global climate that change and carbon emissions. it's important for our economy. this is where the growth in jobs will be in america. g.e. understands that, honey well, understands that motorola understands that, do upon the understands that. they are prepared to move forward with new technologies and energy, creating jobs here in america, saving jobs here. the difficulty is we have a level playing field. we don't have one today, because for dirty energy, we don't calculate the true costs. we don't put into the cost equations the health dangers created by the pollution, we don't put into the equations the environmental . . . . subsidies today for dirty energy

that new technologies, clean energy, does not enjoy. that came home to me@@@@@@@@@ @ % witness transmission lines that are going to need to be developed, it's an opportunity for us to save and expand manufacturing jobs in america by

expanding clean energy technologies. i'm bullish on clean technology for clean energy. i think that that is where we'll be having the job growth in america. i was proud to be a supporter of president obama's american recovery and reinvestment act. this committee worked very hard on that act. madam chairman, you were critically responsible for many provisions in that act that dealt with moving forward with our infrastructure, including our infrastructure to improve clean energy technology. yesterday, the department of energy announced $2.4 billion of grants from the recovery fund supporting the developing and manufacturing of batteries and electric vehicles. now, part of those funds are going to go to general motors facility in maryland, a facility that has a future, but now a

much brighter future in keeping jobs. we've lost manufacturing jobs in my state. that recovery bill will create jobs in my state, and a good future for the people of maryland. we're going to develop the type of battery power and electric power so that we can have the next generation of vehicles in america that can compete anywhere in the world, and help us with an energy policy that makes sense for our country. it's good for our environment, and good for our economy. thank you, madam chairman. >> thank you, senator. senator whitehouse. >> thank you, madam chair. you ever assembled distinguished witnesses. i think i may be the last person between us and them. i don't want to go on, but i do want to emphasize briefly the points that were made. it's important that we reset our

economy towards a clean energy future. the consequence of failing to do that are manifold, national security consequences, economic consequences, jobs consequences, quality of life consequences,en environmental consequences that will become very real if we fail to act. the second point that i want to leave us with is i don't believe that our present status quo is some ideal state of nature from which any variation is anomaly, or interference. the status quo right now is riddled with government hand on the levers of our economy. it just happens to put those hands in places that benefit dirty, polluting industries. to move government's hand in a way that supports a better clean

energy future is not a disturbance in the state of nature that some of thigh colleagues appear to presumesthe status quo represents. it's actually just making better decisions with the same government power we use right now. right now, government's hand provides incentives to pollute. right now, government's hand creates a failure in this country to meet the international market that exists for clean energy incentives and investment. right now, government's hand lays subsidies all over dirty fuel. really, all we're doing is resetting something that we've just set in the wrong place, rather than taking an ideal market, and adding government interference. i think that that's kind of a basic fact we nd to acknowledge in this debate. i appreciate the hearing, and would be delayed to get to the witnesses. >> thank you, senator, very much. so, now we turn to our panel. the title of today's hearing, in

case we forgot, climate change and nortand insuring that ameris the clean energy revolution. we'll hear from federal energy commission, otherwise known at frc. >> if i could have my full written remarks placed in the record. >> yes. >> and i will summarize from them. >> thank you for the opportunity to speak here today. the federal energy regulatory commission and many states are using existing authorities to remove barriers to the development of low carbon renewable resources to encourage greater efficiency in the electric system. these efforts are helping to reduce the emissions produced by the generation of electricity. our nation, however, has a much greater ability to reduce emissions in the usage of electricity. studies indicate we could add

gigawats. >> on an economy wide basis, energy efficiency alone could reduce our usage by 25%. a major reason why energy efficiency are not used more extensively are that greenhouse gases are an extern turnality. certain types which coal production currently cause significant emissions of greenhouse gases. resources such as win turbines and energy efficiency do not. climate change legislation can change this. this legislation is a way to recognize the energy marketplace the effect of greenhouse gases. doing so will encourage more energy efficiency and use of low carbon renewable resources allowing us to reduce gas

emissions while maintaining our quality of life. let me describe commissions efforts to reduce barriers to new energy development. the commission has limited the charges proposed on win generators for deviating from the amount of energy they schedule to deliver energy to the grid. they have often limited ability to control output. we have also approved rates to fund the development of transmission facilities needed to deliver resources such as hydroelectric power from canada and wind power from the upper midwest and montana and wyoming. i would note it is highly unlikely that all of the transmission facilities needed to deliver theout put of renewable recourses will be constructed without additional cost allocation authority. the commission is supporting the development of emerging hydrocan i nettic technologies using the

ocean ties and river currents to generate electricity. in april of 2009 an agreement was signed clarifying jurisdictional respondenting for leasing renewable projects on the inner continental shelves. similarly, we have signed agreements with the state of washington, and the state of oregon to coordinate the review of projects in the waters off those states. in addition, the incorporation of consumer energy use management also called the mann response into the operation of the electric grid will reduce consumers costs and carbon foot print are our electric supply. the commission is required the countries transmission organizations and independent system operators to make filings that will ultimately reduce barriers to demand response. the commission recently issued a

national assessments of demand response potential after the year 2019. that assessment found the potential for peak electricity demand reductions across the country in as much as 181 gig watts. these savings if realized can reduce carbon emissions by over 1 billion-tons annually. congress recently tasked the commission to adopt smart grid standards. the commission identified several priorities for the development of standards for smart grit technologies. the department of energy and national institute of standards and technology have major roles in the development of smart grid. we are working closely with those agencies and states and fostering our deployment of smart grid technology. in conclusion, the commission is using its statutory authorities aggressively to eliminate barriers to renewable resources and consumer energy use

management to produce efficiency in the system. with those efforts and the efforts of other agency while helpful are not enough to prevent the growing accumulation of greenhouse gases. climate change legislation is the key he to altering this trend, and will set an example for the leadership of other countries and help our nation change from an importer of energy to an exporter of energy technology. congress should enact this legislation now. thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you so much. our next speaker will be the honorable david sandoval from the u.s. democratic of energy. >> thank you for the chance to testify today. i've traveled to china twice in the past two months. during those trips, i've seen

the impressive investments that country is making in clean energy. they are investing in advanced clean toll technologies, developing windfalls and building high voltage long distance transmission lines and launching electric vehicle programs in 13 major cities. in europe, sustained investments in clean energy has created widespread economic opportunity. denmark with a land area less than west virginia and a population smaller can chicago is the world's leading producer of wind turbines. the industry employs more than 20,000 people and earns more than $4 billion each ear. germany and spain are the top installers of solar panels, accounting for three quarters of the global market worth $37 billion last year. in brazil, more than half of the gasoline supply has been replaced with ethanol made from sugar cane. cars sold last year were flex

fuel. the world is on the custom of a clean energy revolution. whether the united states is a leader or lagger in that revolution depends on the decisions we make in the months and years ahead. the obama administration has started to lay a strong foundation. the american recovery and reinvestment act provides more than $80 billion in investment, creating jobs, and money to make our electric grid more efficient, and $3.4 billion to accelerate deployment of capture and storage technologies. the largest improvement ever was announced in the vehicle fleet. president obama announced $2.4 billion of investments in american battery and electric vehicle industry resulting in thousands of jobs while reducing our dependence on oil. these steps will not be enough.

transforming our energy economy requires work over a period of decades. we must get in the game and play to win. we should start with energy efficiency. today, american families and businesses are burdened with energy waste. a study co sponsored and released last week identifies potential opportunities available to could reduce fossil fuel emissions by the year 2020 by more than 10% while saving the economy $700 billion. let me repeat that, while saving the economy $700 billion. as we work to improve efficiency, we should work to enhance our renewable resources. a recent report concluded wind could provide 20% of electricity by 2030. our solar resources are also extraordinary. the challenges we face to grow

our economy in the 21s 21st century, as we accelerate this new industrial revolution, coal remains an important part of our energy mix. yes. >>.

in the past several years,@@@@@s >> next, we will hear from the honorable thomas stricklands. he is from the u.s. department of the interior.

he is speaking on behalf of the secretary of the interior, ken salazar. >> on behalf of secretary ken salazar, you saw it pleased to be here. -- i am please to be here. i thank you, and the secretary does, for your leadership on this important issue. we are entering a new day for energy production in the united states, a time for more efficient use of energy from all sources. together, this is the foundation of a clean energy era. as a president obama has said, there is a choice before us. we can remain the world's leading importer of oil and -- or become the leading exporter of clean energy. the department of the interior manages 20% of america. these lands that only include some of our treasured landscapes, but also some of the

most productive energy areas. until recently, energy production of focus has been on conventional resources including oil, gas, and coal. insuring these resources is essential to our energy security, but we also have undeveloped potential on our public lands and under the leadership of president obama and secretary salazar, we are pursuing these opportunities. the bureau of land management has identified over 20 million acres of public land with energy potential and over 29 million acres with solar energy potential. there are also 140 million acres of public land in alaska with a geothermal resource potential as well as significant biomass potential. these public lands have the potential to produce a total of

2.9 megawatts of solar. 206 megawatts of wind. 39,000 megawatts of geothermal energy. there is also significant potential in our offshore waters. the department of energy, the national laboratory has identified more than 1000 gigawatts of potential of the atlantic coast and more than 900 gigawatts of the pacific coast. the american business community is responding. on june 23, 2009, the department of the interior announced plans to construct new meteorological towers of the coast of new jersey and delaware, the first of their kind ever offered by the federal government. companies are also investing in similar facilities in the southwest and geothermal production -- projects throughout the west. at the same time, we are also maintaining our production of

oil and gas. currently, the intercontinental shelf produces 27% of our oil. in sum, we have abundant, clean, renewable energy sources in our land and off our coast which, taken together, will provide a substantial portion of our energy in 2020 and beyond. we can store carbon both in the ground and in plants, in the department is actively pursuing the work necessary to make that technology a reality, biological carbon sequestration. the department is developing methodologies and standards to accompany efforts on a commercial scale. we are working with the department of energy. the carbon demonstration project, we are promoting these efforts on public lands. we are currently active in five demonstration projects.

there is an enhanced coal bed methane project in new mexico. saving america's treasure of landscapes through landscape- scale conservation efforts will be one of the major contributors -- contributions we will make to carbon reduction. the carbon produced by this will -- produced by the sequestration of carbon size, including but not limited to forests and grasslands, has not been fully quantified but could be virtually in less. we have a number of projects throughout the country focused on these particular efforts. the experience of our land managers in pursuing these projects as part of our broader responsibilities, and that should be useful to the committee as you develop verifiable carbon reductions that are associated with environmentally-sound uses of a private lands. in conclusion, a problem as

complex as climate change takes the coordinated effort of all the branches of the federal government, collaboration with leaders around the world, state and local governments. i would like permission to have my written remarks handed into the record. >> without objection. thank you, all of you. when we went through what happened since we changed the gavel to myself, he left out a couple of things i wanted to make sure we looked at. one was the supreme court ruling that carbon is a pollutant covered by the clean air act. the subsequent action by the epa, a very important action that build on the work of the bush administration that we knew had been there, which is to take the first steps toward an endangerment finding. under the clean air act, we have

got to protect our families from pollution. here we are. we are in a circumstance where the supreme court ruled tha carbon is in fact covered by the clean air act. the first steps to be endangerment man have been made. it seems to me -- and the other thing that happened -- we did change presidents. now you have a circumstance where you have a court, the highest court in the land -- once there is an endangerment find, we have to clearly act. we have a president who believes this is an economic opportunity. my question for all three of you is this -- one way or another, we are going to have to lessen the carbon amounts. it is either through the clean air act, or through some flexible legislation that we are all looking at, the house has passed of version of it, which

gives us tremendous flexibility. my colleagues on the other side -- i think i wrote it down. one of them said "it is a tax and tax scheme." i do not know of any taxes in it whatsoever. as far as i know, there will be lots of tax credits to help consumers. my question is, one way or another, we have to address carbon pollution. do you feel the flexibility you can put together in a well crafted bill would make it better for businesses and consumers and create more jobs. >> without question, madam chairman. i would start by focusing on the energy opportunities this country faces. businesses are burdened with energy waste. it is like trying to run a race with an iron ball change your feet. there is some much we can do as a nation to improve our competitiveness by using energy more efficiently. the study i referred to says we

can save $7 billion a year in the next decade. that is not a small amount money. -- we can save $700 billion a year in the next decade. i was talking to a glass manufacturer who said they can make glass. he cannot sell this class, which cost a little bit more, because contractors have put in low bids. that is the type of problem we need to overcome with things like coats -- codes to solve the energy problems in our country. >> anyone else? >> i think one of the most important things is that this is on market mechanisms. we need to move to market mechanisms to solve our problems. we need to ensure those markets are structured correctly. that is what we are attempting to do -- correctly structure the markets in a way that will ensure the market will make the rights elections. >> i would just add that, as

part of the whole calculus to make this work, we need to have adequate sources of renewable energy, and we believe we have that now in a variety of areas, and again in public lands. we have a huge backlog of applications for solar projects. accelerating the process of these solar publications. secretary salazar put forward rates for development on the outer continental shelf, which is a huge potential resource. >> i also want to point out that under the house bill, it is projected that the nuclear power plants would result from that bill, as a result of putting a price on carbon there through the market. senator alexander urges the building of 100 new nuclear power plants. he, and we believe that would cost ratepayers $70 billion a

year. i believe that anyone who is very fervently for nuclear power should be for this type of global warming legislation, because it would spur more nuclear power, and ratepayers would be assisted through tax credits. i am confused by some of the proponents of nuclear power are missing the point. i guess like to ask mr. we llinghoff if you have seen that analysis? most of the nuclear power plants i know are supporting this legislation. >> yes. i have not seen the specific analysis, although i think i have seen some reports of it. i think it comes back to market mechanisms to the extent that you make of fossil fuel generation more expensive and

nuclear power less-expensive. it is ultimately going to drive those technologies and the markets. >> thank you. >> thank you. before i start, i have some requests to make. last week, concerned with the statement repudiating the statement on the green jobs study -- i would like to insert into the record that study and the response to your statements. >> and we will put hours back in there as well so they can be side-by-side. yes. [laughter] >> and since you made the statement -- i would like to insert the statement by a member of the finance committee and this committee, senator baucus who says this is a tax bill. the house bill will refer to the

committee, it will automatically be referred to by the finance committee as a tax bill. >> there are tax credits in it. we are going to start this regardless of who puts what in the record. that is ok. >> let me ask the three of you -- one of the consistent things we keep coming up with -- and it was always back to win vice president gore had -- when vice president gore had tom woodland, and he said if we were to pass the key of the treaty, and these are essentially cap in -- cap and trade bills. he came up with the response that all the developed nations would live by the emission requirements of kyoto. he said it would raise the temperature by now more than

0.07 of 1 degrees celsius. the chair of the environmental services cannot the same thing. he said it would reduce it by 0.1 of one degree. lee said jackson said it would not reduce it at all. let me ask the panel. if you think we passed the bill as it is today, it will have the effect of reducing the co2 worldwide? real quickly? >> i do, and the analyses you are citing assume that america will not leave or innovate. what i hear is the rest of the world is waiting for the united states to take strong steps and eager to follow american leadership. i also believe in the american entrepreneurial spirit. once on to burn norse get strong signals, it will move forward. -- once entrepreneurs get strong

signals, they will move forward. b4 to prove reserve, you have to drill. if you cannot drill, you cannot prove reserves. 83% of federal onshore lands are

inaccessible or restricted due to our policies here. 85% of offshore continental in the united states is off-limits. more assessment, honest assessment combines 21 billion proven reserves -- that is combined with the usgas estimates of technically- unrecoverable oil resources. that shows american oil resources equal to 149 billion barrels of oil, or seven times the number cited by the democrats. and those who are conservative -- those are conservative government estimates. methane hydrates, oil shale, corp. estimates 1.1 trillion recoverable in utah, wyoming.

to put that in perspective -- that equals more than two dozen years worth of imports from saudi arabia. i think it is clear that we have the resources. i would say this in a statement. you said there were two alternatives. this is your statement, secretary strickland. either we can remain the world's leading importer of oil, or we can become the world's leading exporter of oil. i think there should be a third one. develop our own resources. you're the only country in the world that does not develop our own resources. the question i have is to do you agree with these analyses? should we develop our own resources? the start with you, secretary strickland. >> is the position of the administration that we should actively and aggressively developed our conventional energy resources.

since this new administration came into office in january 21, we have offered just under 2000 parcels for least. 2.3 million acres. there were bids on 145,000 acres. i accompanied secretary salazar to new orleans. we have a bit coming up in august with respect to additional offshore lands. we are looking at the oc in its entirety. we think there is substantial opportunity to continue to develop oil and gas. we think it has been undervalued and under develop -- under developed. we are moving quickly to bring balance. that is not at the expense of our conventional committed. we agree there are additional opportunities. >> secretary strickland, i

appreciate that response. it is and all of the above response. thank you. >> thank you. >> i want to ask a question in response to the quest for further development of our own resources. if we develop more of our will -- oil and energy resources as they are defined today, do we help global warming get to be reduced? >> the most important steps we can take or to improve energy efficiency, to innovate with renewable energy sources, to bring a low carbon sources. developing our own fossil

resources in environmentally- responsible manner and comprehensive way is important for it achieving a number of objectives. the most important thing we can do in the short term is energy efficiency -- >> energy efficiency. therefore, as the contemplate touching the abundance of oil and gas in our country, we therefore do not automatically control the growth of global warming? i think we need to stop going through this charade and step up to the plate and say, look. yes, perhaps we cannot find some more oil. we want to reduce our cost for living, etc., etc. leading scientists say that the united states must cap emissions by at least 20% by 2005, and the

study that i talked about before said be can reduce our energy use by 23% i-2020. at little or no cost to energy efficiency. how crucial is it to our long- term objective of reducing carbon emissions in our world that we are again reducing by at least 20% by the year 2020. >> in my view, senator, it is important to get started. is important to take the steps needed to assemble the right incentives for families around the station. there are such huge opportunities where we just need a consistent and clear policy structure. >> mr. wellinghoff?

>> i agree. it is absolutely essential we start the energy efficiency as early -- early is the key. that is why it is important to allow by market mechanisms, cap and trade, to have efficiency rise to the stock -- to the top of our energy resources? . >> the international energy agency says that achieving reductions will require an annual global investment. annual global. of $400 billion a year on research and develop a. the gao estimates the u.s. government spends one or $4 billion a year on energy research and development. -- spends $1.4 billion a year on energy research and development. how much should our government spending? >> in the past, our government

has under-invested in energy research and under-invested dramatically. at this is a focused to increase our investment in this area, in bringing the best lines and to clean energy research. if we do that, we can solve these problems. >> mr. wellinghoff? >> in addition to research, we need to do development deployment. that is what we are doing to get these things in place. both are important. research and development and d & d is important as well. >> are we far short of what we have to do? >> absolutely. >> madam chairman, at least we are discussing global warming

like it is real and not just somebody's fictional view of what is happening in our world. thank you. >> thank you. senator alexander is next. >> thank you, madam chairman. the chairman mention the relative cost of nuclear and wind. we have an interesting report this week on our energy future. the relative cost of developing the comparable amount of nuclear and when would be about the same, according to this report. 100 new reactors -- that would not include the cost of transmission, which must be hundreds of new transmission towers, or maybe thousands for the wind turbines. and it does not speak to backup power. you still have to have new clear, cool, something else for when the wind does not blow. -- you still have to have nuclear, coal, something else

for when the wind does not blow. in terms of "dirty energy," that is not true. the subsidies go to wind. 19 times per kilowatt hour. 19 times the subsidy for nuclear. much more than coal. 30 * all other renewable. mr. strickland, your department is the custodian of our national landscape. we are celebrating 100 years of protecting it. what are you going to do about 180,000 new wind turbine sadr 50 stories tall, many of them in the west and thousands of miles of transmission lines? and the solar thermal plants that are being built -- to equal one nuclear plant, it would take a solar plant that is 30 square miles. they tell us in the southeast to

use biomass. i figured out that we would have to continuously for is an area the size of the great smoky mountains to equal one nuclear reactor, and we would have hundreds of trucks roaring in and out every day carrying the stuff. some conservationists are talking about a renewable energy sprawl. are you developing policies to deal with that? >> senator, we are. right now, the blm is looking at solar and of programmatic ils. rather than letting this developed haphazardly with individual projects, let's look at where they are best located, that takes into account some of these environmental issues as well as transportation issues. we are looking at transportation corridors in the same way. we are working closely with the western governors association. the idea is to take into account the very points to make.

the environmental considerations. these are real issues which will process and work through. >> we would not want to destroy the environment in the name of saving the environment. did i remember right -- you wrote for told me one time that you thought with a concerted effort over 20 years, we might be able to electrify half hour cars and trucks? " that is correct, senator. -- >> that is correct, senator. i just want to add -- congratulating you for all your work on this topic. you got the first plug in vehicle in washington, d.c. area. congratulations for that. >> thank you. did you ever do a study on how much this would reduce our reliance on foreign o? >> it could dramatically reduce our reliance. it is quite significant. >> you are dealing with policy

over there, and i congratulated secretary chu for his interest in nuclear power. my question is for white -- why don't we have a clean energy standard? this is about teen energy. why are we picking and choosing and subsidizing. why don't we have a mandate? we do not have a mandate to build. we have mandates that basically require people in the southeast to buy wind from south dakota, which makes no sense -- or to force us to put wind turbines on our bridge talks which are our most treasured places. it does not make any sense. why do we not have a clean energy standard or why do we not have a baseline clean energy standard and renewable clean energy standard? would not produce a lot more

pollution-free energy more rapidly? >> the bill that came out of the house contains a powerful mechanism for doing roughly what you're describing -- >> excludes nuclear power. >> it includes a cap and trade mechanism. >> i am asking you about a mandate. we have a mandate for wind and solar, really mainly wind. why not do the same. -- why not do the same? >> the bill as a whole accomplishes the objectives you were talking about -- >> so we do not need the renewable mandate then? >> i think that is helpful part of the overall mix. i think there's going to be discussion in this chamber. >> thank you, madame chair. >> thank you. let me see my list here. >> thank you, very much, madame chair. thank you for your testimony.

as i hear about what we can achieve through increased energy efficiency in the amount of renewable energy that can be created in the timeline of 2030, i guess some of the statistics that were mentioned -- mr. wellinghoff you said we could produce a certain number of gigawatts by 23. 20% of energy by 2013. is it not important to read these into a coherent strategy to reduce our appeal -- our reliance on foreign oil? >> yes, i believe it is. parted it is the dialogue between senator alexander and secretary sandoval. this is the key if we want to move off foreign oil. we have to electrify the transportation system and ensure that we have cleaned the

electric energy to provide a that for the transportation systems. i think it is very doable, yes. >> that was strongly agree with chairman wellinghoff. within $2.4 billion of grants under the recovery act have been devoted to exactly these purposes. this is the future. >> mr. strickland, do you want to add to that? >> i totally agree with that. i think heretofore, just within the department of the interior, there had not been enough efforts to look at our public lands, inventory them, put our regulatory framework in place to accelerate permitting so you could access is renewable resources that are there, as well as the transmission peace. we need to get these pieces in place. we need to develop our renewable resources. >> i think i heard 3 yeses to

the question. i think it would be helpful to have the administration layout just such a more detailed strategy. it is a huge challenge to this country to be dependent on a few nations for foreign oil. it is a huge cost to be spending $2 billion a day on foreign oil. we would create a lot of jobs by spending money in the united states. the money have a vision that we could lay out to the american people of a triple when. triple win on national security, creating jobs here, and the third being reducing the carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. leadership and skittish stewardship of -- leadership and stewardship of our planet. 2030 is a while into the future, but maybe we see the numbers crunched and what can be produced, it can be done in a

shorter time. i wanted to specifically pursue the comments about the electrification of see passage for transportation. i applaud senator alexander for his work in this area. statistics are along the lines that if we were to have all of our cars produced in the near future, they would get 30 miles on simple electricity and of braking systems, regenerative braking systems to be captured -- to recapture energy lost. we could reduce by 80% the carbon dioxide generated by car transportation. are these numbers in the right area, or do we have the right numbers? would it be feasible to have an aggressive strategy in which we basically say that some day in the future, every new car produced in america will have to go 3 miles on electricity and --

30 miles on electricity? >> there is no question the savings could be substantial. that is for two reasons. first, electric motors are much more efficient and combustion engines and the allow us to tap into low carbon energy sources. the carbon emissions from a fleet that is electrified is going to be much -- he mentioned 23. maybe by that time, i will be a grandfather. by that time, my grandkids will look at my kids and say, what you mean? you did not plugged in cars back then? i think they will think that is as odd as not having so phones -- cellular phones today. >> any comments? >> the think your numbers are correct. there are two very good statements -- studies done on this issue.

one was done by the nrdc. they looked at what carbon emissions would be for automobiles and what all carbon emissions would be if we move to electric transportation. definitely, there would be reductions in carbon it is feasible -- reductions in carbon. it is feasible. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you. i defer to my colleague. >> thank you. i introduced the bill -- the national security -- the national energy security act. one of the reasons i did that was because i have been

concerned for a long time about our environment and national security. it's the public knew all vulnerable we were today in terms of oil, they would be shaking in their boots. it seems to main that today -- it seems to me that we are sending 60% of our oil coming from overseas, and 60% coming from opec nations. we send to ledger $40 billion overseas to countries that that produced this oil. we have no idea of the environmental impact that is having. i thought to myself on many occasions, we should be doing from a public policy, security, so forth -- we should take advantage of all the natural resources that we have. mr. strickland, i talked with

former senator salazar about this. at the same time, we should be as aggressive as any place in the world to find a way to use less oil. perhaps in a dozen years, we would be out there as the country that is least reliant on foreign sources of oil and the country that uses oil police, and then we would be, i think, in terms of competitiveness right where we should be. i am glad to know that you are moving for. i wish the president would talk about the fact that not only will we use less oil, but we are going to go after those areas where we can responsibly find oil. i would like you to look to that bill. it was put together and sponsored by many generals, admirals or concern. it talks about finding more, using less. it talks about 85% of our

vehicles would be electrified. talks about the fact that we need the grid. it says that we will need $165 billion to the grid. we need the grid not only for wind and solar, but we need that for the rest of the energy we produce for the country. the other thing i want comment on is the issue of -- in your testimony you talk about a major reason why energy efficiency is not used more extensively, the cost of greenhouse gas emissions is not reflected in the price of energy. if tax energy would cost more, people would use less and switch to less reliable sources. >> that is something that i have a hard time understanding. i think he once said that we did not have to build. if we did solar and wind, we would not have to have nuclear

or we would not have to have cold, or we might not have to have gas. -- we would not have to have coal, and we might not have to have gas. it defies logic. 50% cold -- coal, 50% gas. 20% to clear. 0.8 solar. i have talked to the best experts in the world. they have said you have to do all that. if you think some day down the road we're going to take care of our energy needs through solar and wind, it is just plain not needs. -- niave. what is your reaction to that? how can you say something like that when the facts are different? >> senator voinovich, that is not exactly what i said. looking at a number of scenarios

in respect to the market, it may be possible to bridge to carve an energy future utilizing a combination of renewable resources, which would include solar, wind, geothermal, hydro kinetics, biomass, and energy efficiency, and the man responds, i and natural gas. if you look that combination, every expert i have talked to would agree that it is feasible, depending on how we structure our markets. >> 50 years from now? 100 years from now? >> certainly there is a transition, no doubt about it. we need to look at natural gas. in this country, we have probably over 100 years worth of natural gas. the secretary indicated that we have revised our coal figures. if we look at the two comparatively, natural gas, when you burn it, puts out half the car and the -- carbon that

coal dust. it makes sense to emphasize a bridge with natural gas, more than it would a bridge with carbon-intensive coal. >> i am out of time. i want to make one point. we encouraged electricity to go to natural gas. our gas prices went through the top. we lost millions of jobs in this country because of the high natural gas costs. i had people in my office -- a move it jobs from the u.s. because of our natural gas costs. we did not pay attention to the impact on our economy. these are all these things relate to each other. you cannot do these things in a kaboom. >> and i am not suggesting that

we do. we have found vast amount of new natural gas that we never knew existed before. we need to look at that, consider that, as hollywood fit into the bridge of being a low carbon society. >> thank you. >> thank you, madame chair. i want to thank the witnesses for their testimony. the think we all agree with senator voinovich that there is not one source that will solve our energy problems. i think it is niave not to look at renewable and doing a better job with grenoble's. -- renewable. we need to leave on global climate change, reducing our carbon footprint. several of you have mentioned

what is happening in other countries. he specifically mentioned that, secretary. i guess my concern is, whether america will find the innovations we came up with that were developed here in america, perhaps with government support, all the sudden being used in other countries and literally purchased by other countries, making us dependent on energy developed in other parts of the world for our own energy needs. i will give you one example. we are developing in baltimore allergy-based ethanol. it has promised. if it works, it could be a tremendous source of energy. the carbon footprint is negative. that is a new technology. there is going to be companies

that move ahead on this. whether they are in america or another country. i worry we may not be doing enough. enough to keep this technology here in america, based in america rather than another country. a lot of this will be very fungible. i do not want to import energy. i do applaud, again, the american recovery and reenlistment -- reinvestment act. we wanted us to have a major impact on this issue. this is a major step forward on an electric cars and batteries. i do worry that we may be missing the opportunity for allowing our markets to --

>> your concern is very well founded and were now by recent history. the technology behind the photovoltaic cell was developed here, and now other countries have the lead in developing that technology. the technology behind the prius battery was developed in the u.s., and now it is commercialized elsewhere. we need to keep the technology is here. programs like the one announced yesterday, programs like the bill in the house, are essential to make sure the united states leads to clean energy revolution. quickset think americans would be surprised to learn that that technology -- >> i think americans would be surprised to learn that that technology was developed in america. we helped develop the. now we're getting back to it. i think you're taking the right steps right now.

i hope we have the staying power in order to accomplish the goal that all of us want to see, america being energy independent in an environmentally-friendly way. secretary strickland, i want to get back to you on the public lands. public lands are critically important for energy production in america. >> they juflt tell us where he were as far as the use of public lands for renewable energies and where you see us as far as i hope changing that equation and public land for renewables. s of using public lands in the potential for renewable energy. just this spring, regulation was put in place to provide for the development for offshore wind and the intercontinental shelf. the was one project that went forward. at least the application for the

project had gone forward. we are very much in our infancy. we are very much for in the project in place with respect to solar. much the same, we have limited proposals for solar, up until recently. now we have a huge backlog of private-sector interest in developing solar on our public lands. as i mentioned, recovery act dollars are putting four offices to deal with that backlog so we can deal with these projects through the permitting system and those that meet the standards for environmental review and otherwise makes sense will come on line. it early on in this effort, but there is a huge potential. >> i think it would be good for our committee to have the information as to the amount of public lands that are being devoted to renewable compared to traditional extraction's. >> senator, and will be glad to

organize a committee. whoever would like to sign, we will make it official. >> thank you. mr. wellinghoff, he said in april. there is no need to build new nuclear power plants or coal plants in the united states. you said that base load capacity would become an anachronism. 10 senators spent a lot -- sent a letter to the president. we were troubled that the top power industry regulator would make, what i believe was reckless and unrealistic commons. i will ask that that letter be submitted as part of the record. thank you. secretary salazar recently testified before the energy committee. you talked about my colleagues questions about public land being used for renewable. secretary salazar testified that 138,000 acres of land would

be needed to build a wind farm with the capacity to replace one cold-fired power plant. that is roughly 3 1/2 times the size of washington, d.c. i guess the question comes down to -- are we willing to set aside an area that is 3.5 times in the area of the district of columbia to replace each of these cold-fired -- coal-fired power plants. how do you plan on doing that? >> first of all, i did respond to a question by senator voinovich. i like to clarify. what i did say is -- appropriate market scenarios, i believe is

possible to construct a combination of renewable resources, which would include not just wind, but also geothermal, and we're finding more geothermal than we ever knew existed. there are literally hundreds of gigawatts of geothermal and ngo -- geo pressure wells in texas. we are finding hundreds of gigawatts of hydro kinetic resources in our rivers and streams. we also of biomass and other renewable. add to that, 20% energy efficiency that mckinsey talks about in their study. add to that the 188 gigawatts we found in our study. combine that with our 100 years of natural gas that we have in this country. the recent scenario, the market

constructs where we could in fact move to a lower carmen transition, utilizing just those -- lower carbon transition, utilizing just those resources. that is where the transition as. the land that it takes to put that wind up, i think that secretary salazar said there are estimates of 100,000 gigawatts of the atlantic coast. we have that. we can take care the area we need to ultimately develop the wind. i think we do have the resources. we to have the land area potentially to develop if we look at all the resources and how they can be combined together. >> as a question of how much land is being used for nobles on shore, you may want to include some of those offshore issues as well.

mr. strickland, the president of the american farm bureau testified before this committee. he said there would be winners and losers in the agricultural community based on waksman markey -- waxman-markey. they have a very little of such opportunities in this bill. they are constrained. the federal lands to not qualify for of such opportunities. the majority of federal lands, half of wyoming, great portions of colorado -- i am concerned about how the agricultural community could possibly survive under waxman-markey given what the president of the american farm bureau has to say. do you have any solutions from your department?

>> in terms of the issues that we deal with relative to access, we see that as a continued important volume and critical to the economy of the west. we do not believe that is at risk here. we also believe that there are outstanding opportunities for carbon sequestration, and that involves collaboration and cooperation with the agricultural community. in fact, senator inhofe has been a leader in this. i met with a rancher this weekend. he has an easement he has helped facilitate important wildlife values in montana. very clear examples of how we can partner between the public and private sector to advance

environmental values. i think there are opportunities along the lines. we can work with the agricultural community to make sure that those lands are part of the solution. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. secretary strickland, first of all, thank you for your service as the united states attorney. weak u.s. attorneys need to stick together. also, please pass our regards to our friend and colleague secretary salazar. you just mentioned wildlife. i am understand what life adaptation amendments that accompanied previous senate legislation in the climate change area are gathering broad bipartisan and multi-regional support. is that your observation? >> it is, senator. that is an important role, frankly, we believe for department of the interior.

obviously, the apartment of agricultural -- agriculture as well. this is one of our responsibilities that we have with the public lands, and more broadly, to protect wildlife and to deal with the real world impacts of climate change impacts on land and the species. it is extremely important. i know you have shown great interest and leadership on this. we would like to work with you on this. >> very good. years ago, i practiced in an area -- in an era where electric utilities were far more vertically integrated. since then, we have seen the breakout into transmission companies, generation companies, and i would like your thoughts on whether we should be trying to incense -- incent the electric utility industry to move towards conservation as

well? where there conservation can offset the diminished sales that are associated with conservation? >> i think we absolutely should. we are incenting distribution utilities and private third- party to become more involved in energy efficiency and demand response by incorporating into the whole organized market in this country tariffs that allow all demand response and energy efficiency, to get up into those wholesale markets. we can have those markets open and allow for the demand side, as well as the supply side, to participate. it will encourage distribution utilities and other parties -- third-party site will abrogate customers and reduce the overall

cost. >> that is a good price signal into the market under the existing market structure. my question whitmore to whether we should try to -- there have been efficiencies captured by the desegregation into transmission issues. should we be pursuing a similar desegregation so that the conservation portion of the utility's portfolio has to be separate and therefore more distinct and competitive and go beyond just all market signal into the existing market? >> i am sorry. i did not understand apartment. i believe we should. the more we can desegregate and bundled services and make them more competitive all family, i think the more players we will get in, the more ideas we will get how to do it. yes, i would agree. >> thank you. my last question -- this relates

to nuclear power. over time, a lot of objection has manifested itself to nuclear power, primarily around safety. but the u.s. navy and the european power agencies have demonstrated that nuclear power can be managed safely. around cost -- because ratepayers, and i can think of chairman wellinghoff's it is he trying to defend. as we move to a modular systems, we can manage the cost aspects better. the third piece is disposal, that we create the most hazardous waste mankind is capable of creating. we cannot have a means of getting rid of it. there is a technology, called traveling wave of nuclear technology, that appears, at

least, to create nuclear power of our existing nuclear waste stocks without adding and becomes a net gain in terms of our nuclear waste threat exposure. are you following that? if you would like to take it as a question for the record, because i am just of the time, please feel free to do so. i would like to get the answer on that. >> i would look into that, senator. >> thank you very much and to all my colleagues. i found this to be extremely important. . . for the issue of how much land is