first part. guest: i appreciate the question is a serious threat and there have been various studies conducted recently with respect to the gravity of this particular thread factor. there's a lot of attention put into this in terms of the department of homeland security, homeland security, and defense. as a private consultant, i am engaged in some of those activities. there are various means behind the word "protection." in some cases, it may mean physical or cyber security. in other cases, it may mean injuring our power grid has sufficient robustness to withstand a hurricane, electromagnetic pulse vector, and so on and so forth. it takes a look at the word and looks at it from a much broader perspective and making sure you have secondary and tertiary backups. host: another question from twitter is about effectiveness.

"in the case of a natural disaster or a terrorist attack, will this expensive "apparatus" actually be effective? how is it tested?" guest: it is tested every day in terms of threats coming in every day relative to terrorism organizations. >> you can see all of this segment this evening at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. we go live to the pentagon for the briefing with the secretary gates and admiral mullen. >> as part of that dosage reduction effort, he set a goal of holding the growth and based on national security spending below inflation for the next 12 years, which would save about $400 billion, the preponderance of which would come from the

department of defense. the president also made clear that before making any specific budget decisions, we must first conduct a fundamental review of america's military missions, capabilities, and security role around the world. today, announcing the framework for the comprehensive review that the department of defense is launching, to inform future decisions about spending on national security. first, some context. for more than two years, the leadership of this department has been working on reforming the way the pentagon does business to respond to the deval fiscal situation facing the nation and to ensure that the military has the capabilities needed to protect our interests in a dangerous and unstable world. this ever began two years ago with an overhaul of the department's approach to military acquisition, curtailing or canceling about 20 weapons programs. a continue bustier with a department-wide campaign to generate savings from excessive overhead that was reallocated

to the services for reinvestment. new expenses, as well as deficit-reduction bill the overarching goal of these efforts was to carve out enough budget to preserve and enhance key military capabilities in the face of declining rates of budget growth. the new comprehensive review will ensure that future spending decisions are focused on that strategy and risks and are not simply a mathematics and accounting exercise. the overarching goal be to preserve a u.s. military capable of meeting crucial national security priorities, even if fiscal pressure requires reductions in the forest's size. in my view, we must reject the traditional approach of applying across the board cuts, the simplest and most politically expedient approach, but inside this building and outside it. that kind of an approach preserves overhead and maintains force structure on paper, yet results in a hollowing out of the force from a lack of proper

training, maintenance, and the equipment. we have been there before, in the 1970's and 1990's. this review will be guided by a national security strategy, the national defense strategy, the national military strategy, the chairman's risk assessment, and of the quadrennial defense review to ensure appropriate focus on strategic policy choices first in the corresponding changes in the dod budget second. the qdr provides today's basis for sizing the force, shaping its capabilities. but there's not a strong analytical link between the qdr and the present makeup of our forces. this review will establish that a link, so we can see the impact of changing qdr strategy on force structure, missions, and capabilities. and the only ones computing strategy options are identified should there be begin to consider fiscal and locations and options. to do this, the review should

develop specific program options that can be categorized in four bands. the first one is additional efficiencies, continuing the efforts we launched last year. these changes would reduce dob costs with minimal impact on military capability. we must be even more aggressive in curtailing bureaucratic excess and overhead before considering over met -- changes in strategy or force capabilities. while i believe the department can identify additional significant efficiencies, they will not result in sufficient savings to meet the president's direction. therefore, a second bin involved a serious is declination of established policies, programs, processes, and mandates that drive the dramatic increase in defense operating costs, to include the way we deliver healthcare, compensate military personnel, provide retirement benefits, sustain our infrastructure, and acquire goods and services. the third bin will contain

options to reduce or eliminate marginal missions and marginal capabilities, specialized and costly programs that are useful in only a limited range of circumstances. they represent missions that the department carries out today, that while a value are not central to our core mission or our lower priority. the final bin of the hardest category strategically, and i would say also intellectually, will be specific alternative modifications to the qdr strategy that translate into options for reductions in force structure, or capability needed to execute the strategy. this latter bin will be informed by all the other activities in this framework. in the end, this process must be about identifying options for the president and the congress where the nation is willing to accept risk in exchange for reduced investment in the department of defense. the defense, and the review will be jointly led by the director

of cost analysis -- cost assessment and program evaluation, the undersecretary of defense for policy, and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. >> pakistan, obviously, has been a key topic for the last four years. we have been there almost two dozen times. over that time, you have dealt with them extensively. do you think you misjudged their willingness to cooperate? do you believe them when it they say that they did not know osama bin laden was there? and mr. secretary, what do you think of congress' suggestion or request that we start tightening funding to actual results in seeking out terrorists? >> i think the investment, certainly that our military has

made it and i personally have made, has been one that has been very important in terms of working a critical relationship. and obviously, we have been through a great deal over time, not just recently, and when you back away from this, the amount of training that we've provided, whether in fact has occurred inside pakistan with respect to their military forces in terms of getting at a growing terrorist threat, that is very much in execution and pakistani citizens are dying regularly. that relationship has been a very important part in terms of they're going after the terrorists in their own country. clearly, we have had challenges with respect to the long-term

strategic partnership. i have gone into this with my eyes wide open. we were not trusted, because we left for a significant time span, and that trust is not going to be reestablished overnight. i think the region continues to be critical and our relationship continues to be critical. there are still challenges associated with things that we think need to be done. yet, from my perspective, we cannot just mail that in and say, gee, would you do this? i take it would be a really significantly negative outcome of the relationship of broken. and so from my perspective, that investment brought us to this position, which i think we need to leverage, to assist in the relationship. not just at my level what the

military, but quite frankly, between the two countries. >> do you believe the when they say -- >> i have seen no evidence since the bin laden rated that indicates -- since the bin laden raid that indicates the top leadership knew bin laden was there. >> i can understand the frustration of congress, and i think senator kerry was pretty explicit in his meetings in pakistan that circumstances have led to a lot of skepticism on the hill. and the u.s. assistance to pakistan is now more controversial than it was before. that said, i think we have to proceed with some caution. we do have significant interests in pakistan.

view wouldhat my own be that we need to continue the assistance that we have provided, the benefits to the pakistani people. coalition support funds are actually a reimbursement for services rendered for things they have actually done. we have a very rigorous review process for those claims by the pakistanis. they are reviewed by icef and reviewed by our embassy. they are reviewed at centcom and then reviewed again up here. generally, we do not pay 100% based on their claims, but it is a serious process. i think we do need to be cognizant of the concerns on the hill, and frankly, i think the pakistanis need to be as well. but that said, we do have interests in common, and we do need to try and move forward.

>> senator kerry went to islamabad and claims that he pressed the pakistanis on pursuing the leadership of the taliban that has taken a safe haven in pakistan, and also, the hakani network. you, yourself, have done as much as you could to provide protection to american forces. but many of the attacks that were launched against americans are launched from those hsafe havens in afghanistan. can you understand the frustration not only of the military but the american people at the apparent reluctance of the pakistanis to go after the leadership that has had safe haven there for nearly 10 years? >> well, of course i share the frustration. i understand that frustration,

and i share it. i think we have an opportunity here. the pakistanis -- i invite the chairman to comment. the pakistanis, over the last couple of weeks, have expressed the view that they're willing to go after some of these people and that we should not repeat the bin laden operation, because they will undertake this themselves. i think this provides us an opportunity, and i think we should take them up on that. and it offers them an opportunity to address this frustration and the skepticism. >> the only thing i would add is this is certainly not the first time that this issue has been raised with the pakistani leadership. it has been something that has been raised over the course of certainly my engagement for the past couple of years, and i think they do understand it is a priority.

and it is, i would just reemphasize what the secretary said, it is their desire now to do this themselves. and i think they certainly understand the importance of it. all of that said, they have also had some internal priorities as this terrorist threat has grown internally to them. and in their capacity, in some regards, they have prioritized internally to go after the ttp and others, but they know this is a priority for us. and i think we, clearly, as senator kerry did, all need to make sure that they understand very clearly that this priority is not going to go away. the safe havens for these leaders have to be eliminated. >> you say understand, but have

they made a commitment to the u.s. to pursue these leadership members of the taliban? >> i will be specific about hakani because of my engagement with the general over the years. he has committed to that. i think one of the issues that is a challenge for us is our clock moves a lot faster than his clock. that has been the case so far. i think it will be the case in the future. not trying to give an excuse, but matching those clocks has been very difficult. >> speaking of haqqani, you were there last month in pakistan, and you talked about the strain in the relationship between the isi and haqqani and the u.s. relationship with pakistan. is the right to just turn them over to the united states? >> i think my comments from one month ago still stand from that

perspective. i was very clear about the priority for the leadership, in particular with respect to the haqqani network. i will not change that. >> u-turn over haqqani -- if you turn over haqqani, we will apply that to the to pakistan. >> the approach needs to be a very comprehensive approach, across the totality of government. thinking and individuals during the says this is how we're going to do. but it has to be a comprehensive approach. the secretary talked about the resources, which are considerable. it is certainly understandable that there would be those that would look at that. i understand and i think, quite frankly, the pakistani leadership, military leadership in particular, would understand that. >> you say you do nothing the top leadership by pakistan knew

that bin laden was there. do you presume that someone in the isi for army knew he was there and was supporting him? >> as i said, i have seen no evidence that the top leadership knows. i think, actually, i think there is -- with the evaluation of the sensitive site material and exploitation that is going on, it is just going to take this a little while to see if there's anything else. >> first, i would echo exactly what the chairman said. i have seen no evidence at all but the senior leadership new. in fact, i've seen some evidence to the contrary. and we have no evidence yet with respect to anybody else. my supposition is somebody new. >> can you give the public a sense of what one or two missions will definitely be reviewed?

what will be reviewed? can you give one or two examples? >> let me give you an example of the hardest bin, the third one, in terms of strategic alternatives. it has been our strategy for many years now to be able to fight two major regional conflicts simultaneously. if you were to tell yourself, the likelihood of having two such flights simultaneously is low and you could therefore plan to fight sequentially, that would have huge implications in terms of the size of forces need to maintain. but the other side of that is the risk involved if you are wrong. and the other guys always have a vote. so that is the kind of strategy

and risk that we want to surface for the president and for the congress. what i am really working against here is what we did in the 1970's and 1990's, which were across the board cuts that hollowed out the force. we have got to avoid that, no matter what happens in this process. but the consequence of avoiding that is everybody, from the services to the chairmen to the secretary of this department, making topped up to it -- tough decisions, and then the president and congress making tough decisions because they have to accept responsibility for risk. i want to force the kind of discussion. if we're going to cut military, if we're going to reduce the resources and the size of the u.s. military, people need to make conscious choices about what the implications of that are for the security of the country, as well as for the operations that we have our around the world. and that is why i want this

review in place, to provide the substance for making those kinds of conscientious decisions were the political leadership of the country, in essence, says we're prepared to accept this risk in return for reduced investment. >> one of the programs overlays many of these scenarios. to what extent will this -- the pentagon's largest program and about $11 billion a year and as much over the next decade, to what extent will the quantity be reviewed to see whether the program should be scaled back? >> first of all, the country needs the f-35. we need a fifth generation fighter. and in addition to the f-22. so we must have that. obviously, if you are going to change strategies or missions,

that has implications for the amount of equipment that you buy. and i would expect that to apply not -- apply across the board for everything in terms of looking at these strategic equation is, if you will, have to do with the amount of capability that you buy or that you invest in. i would just make the point, and here is where the rubber meets the road on this. we must buy a new tanker. we must buy if it generation fighter. we must replace the ballistic missile submarines toward the end of this decade. there are a number of things the army must reset after afghanistan and the marine corps as well. there are some significant new investments that must be made, so how do you pay for that in the context that we're talking about? those are the kinds of hard choices that i want to surface

and have people address. because, frankly, as i said in my opening statement, both within this building and outside it, the easiest thing is to say cut defense by x%. i think that would be the most dangerous approach of all. >> at camp lejeune, you got everyone's attention when you said you were concerned about operational security. this notion that you had a white house agreement, can you explain a little bit more -- with respect, did you get sold out by the white house? it is a very clear on camera that the white house was talking extensively about the mission. what was the agreement? why did it fall apart? did either of you gentlemen try and do anything to get it back in the box? but expressed your concern about pumping up security around this deal. i am assuming you can i give us

any specifics, but can you say, have you had to do anything to pump up security around the team and the family since they have expressed their concern? >> first of all, my comments at camp lejeune, i did not single anybody out. and in a way, every one of you probably knows the answer to this question better than i do. and my concern is that there were too many people in too many places talking too much about this operation. and we have reached agreement that we would not talk about the operational details. and as i say, camp lejeune, that lasted about 15 hours. so i just -- i am very concerned about this, because we want to retain the capability to carry

out these kinds of operations in the future. and when someone to detail is available, it makes that both more difficult and risky year. now with respect to the seals and my meeting with them the thursday after the operation, they did express concern, not so much for themselves but for their families. and all i will say is we have been taking a close look at that, and we will do whatever is necessary. >> we have, from my perspective, gotten to a point where we are close to jeopardize seen this precious capability that we have. and we cannot afford to do that. this fight is not over, first of all. secondly, when you now extend that to concern with individuals in a military and their

families, from my perspective, it is time to stop talking. and we have talked far too much about this. we need to move on. it is a story that if we do not stop talking, it will never end, and it needs to. >> what would you say to troops and families in special operations units who look at this, and they may say i am concern for my family? what do you say to them? >> the response inside the community is the same that we had inside the military, that they are taking proper steps based on their concerns, first of all. and secondly, the whole issue for us in terms of operational

security is an absolute requirement in some many of the things that we do. we have had, and it is not all just leaks from one part of the government. we have had far too many retired members who have spoken up, and we just need to get off the net. >> how do you assure the american public that no u.s. aid money for pakistan ended up helping them to broaden their nuclear program? and the war powers act is coming into play on friday because it is 60 days after the libyan operation began. does this bill plan to ignore that actor will be 60-day deadline affect what you're doing in libya? >> the war powers act question as above my pay grade, so i would refer you to the white house. >> [inaudible] >> their many lawyers advising

the white house, and i am not one of them. on the coalition's support funds, they have to document. it is money they have already spent that we are reimbursing and that they have to file a specific claim for. so, you know, how they spend money -- money is fungible. but when we reimburse them, it is for a specific thing they have done with respect to the war against terror in pakistan or in support of what we are trying to do. >> your post -- your supposition is someone in the pakistani government knew about bin laden's presence. should in pakistan pay some price for that fact, it is a fact?

will they be encouraged to continue doing what they have been already doing? >> i would invite the chairman to comment, but i would say that if i were in pakistani shoes, i would say i have already paid a price. i have been humiliated. i have been shown that the americans can come in here and do this with impunity, and i think we have to recognize that they see across in that and it cries that has been paid. but if the leadership does not know -- i mean, look, i have done it as much about accountability here as perhaps anybody. but i never fired anybody because they did not know about a problem. i fired them because once they found out about a problem, they did not take it seriously. so if the senior leadership in

pakistan did not know, it is hard to hold them accountable for it. >> it there willing to tolerate even mid-level people knowing of the supposition is somebody. we do not know whether was, you know, a retired person, whether was low-level -- pure supposition on our part. it is hard to go to them with an accusation when we have no proof that anybody knew. so i just want to underscore, it is my supposition -- i think it is a supposition share in a brine this government that somebody had to know, but we have no idea who and have no proof or evidence. >> how important do you think this, your words, this humiliation was in sort of changing the pakistani mindset in going after high-value targets that in the past they have been hesitant to do for us in the region? >> i do not think we should underestimate the humbling

experience that this is. and in fact, the internal soul- searching that is going on in side right now. before we even talked about external effects, internally, and i know for a fact that is going on, and they are not through that. because they have been through a lot tied to this. and their image has been tarnished. and they care, as we all do, and they care a lot about that. they are a very proud military. can i relate that to any actions that have occurred since? i would not make a direct correlation. we talked earlier about senator kerry's visit and other things that we think are out there. actions need to be taken, so we will see specifically. but i think most of the focus right now is that internal focus to address the challenge of how this happened and what we should do about it. and then sort of next steps for

them internally. they're not ignoring the external requirements, but most of it is an internal. >> admiral, are you worried that the recent events in pakistan have undermined the position of our best friend there, the general and the president, because they're under pressure? they're humiliated, as has been used, and less able to help us. going back to the budget, last time you raise the nuclear try and modernization. would you look at eliminating one leg of the triad for cost savings are set off the table? >> from the standpoint of the relationship, and in my discussions since the raid with the general, and actually, another senior leader,

reaffirms the desire to have a relationship, but i think we both recognize it is going through a very difficult time right now. so the specific steps that we need to take are yet to be determined. i think we need to give them some time and space to work on some of the internal challenges that came out of this, while at the same time, there are some near-term things that we think actions need to be taken. he is not just a peer of mine, but he is a friend. he has been through a lot. as a leader, i can tell you, at the top of these organizations, it is a pretty lonely place. from that standpoint, is out with his military. he's working his way through that. i am certainly sympathetic to ms. need to do that and at the same time, move ahead. >> i would just repeat in essence what i said before on the budget issues.

if the political leadership of this country decides that it must reduce the investment in defense by hundreds of billions of dollars, then i do not think we can afford to have anything that is off the table. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

and more live coverage coming up this afternoon as the senate appropriations subcommittee looking at energy spending for 2012, the energy department budget request to the secretary chu will testify. that will be live in just about an hour from now. the u.s. senate today is debating a republican-backed energy bill, which would expand opportunities for domestic oil and gas production gop legislation is modeled on three house passed drilling goes, considering permits, lease sales, and opening up more offer territory for drilling. they have a procedural vote coming up at two o'clock 30 p.m. eastern. 60 votes required on thursday, the senate is expected to take up the nomination of california law school associate dean of california for the ninth circuit court of appeals. follow the senate live on our companion network, c-span2. >> history is, as you know, much

more than just politics and soldiers. social issues. it is also medicine and science and art and music and theater and poetry and ideas. and we should not love things in the categories. it is all part of the same thing. >> that is sunday night on "q&a," part one of two weeks with david mccullough on americans who made the greater journey to 19th century paris. at 8:00 p.m. on c-span. a hearing on the energy department's budget request coming up like it 2:30 p.m. eastern here on c-span. until then, part of this morning's "washington journal." keene, who now serves as the president of the national rifle association,

joins us. a familiar face to you. a member of the conservative union. we will talk about the role, but let's begin with the question we were just asking, does a politician's private life matter? should it impact the budget? guest: whether rich suitor should not is not the question, but that it does. one of the interesting thing that goes on about the selection in people's mind, back in the 1960's and from then on, we had people writing books about how politicians are mipulating the vote. at the presidential level, that decision is so complicated that no one has really been able to do that. people look at their candidate not just for what they have done, not just about what they have said, but about who they are and wt they are really doing, seeking somne who kate -- who they can trust to handle the problems that they cannot even imagine coming up.

it is much more complicated than electing a senator, who you want to vex for this or that, or the governor who manages and will not cost the country its future. the presidency is a different type of office and they apply different standards. all kinds of things going to agree by the time the campaigns are over, like better not, or whether we look at it objectively and said this should not be considered that should not be considered, all that goes into the mix. the result is the decision is made by the voter. i do not think it is whether they should is that -- but that all of this goes into it. i think candidates, and i have done a lot of campaign consulting, that what often like that none of these things came up. perhaps it would be better if they did not, but they do. host: given that, if you think the electorate, the primary

voters, republican primary voters can trust yet gingrich? guest: that is a question that only they can answer. he is a friend of mine and a friend of a lot of people. i work with him and know him, i know is why, and i trust him and a lot of ways. the same is true on some of these other potential candidates and actual candidates. that question is not whether i or you trust him, the question is whether during the course of the campaign all of these voters will not just trust with them but agree with him on another things and think that he has the vision necessary to win their vote. and that is what the campaign is about. you really cannot answer that question at the beginning because by the into the very different -- you remember that this happened during the course of our presidential campaign, or you talk about that this party has the seven boards are the six midgets. and i always say, when the

seventh before it gets rid of the other six, he is not a door anymore. -- dwarf any more. you bring those assets to the table, and you mix it up in a campaign and at the end of the campaign, you find out whether the vots thought your assets exceeded your false. host: so let's turn to your new role, president of the nra. guest: the nra is committed is always to maximizing the number people in congress and in the white house for that matter who support the second amendment. and we have already conuded, based on both his background and performance in office, the barack obama is probably not the person we would trust to protect america's second amendment rights. we will be looking and we are looking at the field for somebody who we think would do a better job and we will probably at the end ofhe day support whoever that is. it will take some time because

we like that average voter has to see who we trust on issues of great concern to us. host: when will the nra make an endorsement, and how you go about makg that decision? guest: it would usually be done fairly late. it depends. ordinarily in congressional and house races, we do not get involved in primaries unless there is a very clear record. we have an endorsement policy that has been described as pro- incumbent. it is really a policy that if you support us in second amendment issues, we will stand with you. let me give you an example of how important it is. early on in this administration, at 65 democratic members of the house gave a letter to the president and attorney general saying do not mess with the second amendment. if you do, we will not be with you. that took great courage on the part of those democrats. and they had to know and did no that if push came to shove, we

would not desert. what we do is look at the can that possibly record, and if his record is one of support for the sec -- the candidate's record, and if his record is one of support for the second amendment -- wealth, this is one ofy closest friends, haley barbour, and i think he is a good friend of everybody on the nra board and in politics general on the right of center site in washington. when he ran for governor, we had the support his democratic opponent because he had iraq. -- he had a record and haley did not. now his record is and always will be the great. we had to make the decision not based on who we like personally, but my personal preference, but it based on the question of which candidate has helped us, will stand with

us, and is likely to be with us in the future. host: nra members breezily heard from several potential gop candidates, including gingrich, rick santorum and, herman cain, and mike huckabee. but mitt romney and 10 pawlenty did not attend. was that a mistake? guest: not necessarily. mitt romney has been to the last two annual meetings. so if some of the others. you can i get everyone together every day. but the fact is that our members and particularly are politically active members know their records, and know them, and we of supporters of all those candidates within our membership host: you endorsed mitt romney in the last election when you are the president of the american conservative union.

does that help his chances? guest: it did not the last time. host: to get the nra endorsement. guest: actually acu did not make an endorsement. i did in 2008 because i thought he was the best candidate. i think on second amendment issues, he is fine. i think a number of others will be fine, and they e friends of mine and friends of the nra. we are not likely to make an endorsement for some time, and i have no idea at this point w that might be. our goal is to make certain that the person that is sworn in in january 2013 is someone who is friendly to nra, to the second amendment, and will make that judgment based on who we think has the best chance with those qualities of being sworn in on that day. host: can they expect an endorsement from you personally

outside of the nra? guest: very unlikely. does the president of the nra, i'll be on speaking. we have plenty of candidates we will be supporting as an organization. my role is to promote them. every member of the nra or any other organization wears a lot of different hats. i did this when i was with the american conservative union and throughout my life and so has you and everyone of your listeners. but when i put on my national rifle association hat, and that is the one the people now see, i have to act and always will act in the best interesof the association because that is my job, even though they do not pay me. host: you just began this in may. have a legislative priorities changed under your leadership? guest: no, our political and legislative priorities remain the same. some of it iproactive. we met a lot of progress at the state level and we have lot of oppounities for increasing the

number of states with concealing carry laws, making sure that gun owners are not harassed and hunters' rights are increased and the like. and we always do that. but the nra, when mosteople look at the nra, and when most of your viewers think about that, they think of only that advocacy role. we are much more than that. i do not know what the percentages, but was suspect that 80% of our budget goes to -- non-advocacy types of roles. we do honor education, do we an incredible amountraining, in schools all over the country, we train children on gun safety. but thousands of instructors to teach people how t handle firearms and the like. one thing i am interested in is getting new people into the shooting sports, young people, women, minorities, people -- our

biggest growth ismong women but we want more. host: about 4 million members of the nra, how many are women? guest: i haven't counted them and i cannot tell you the percentage but the greatest growth has been among women. both in the general issues, sports, and in self-defense and we are very involved in them. people get involved in shooting sports fay old different variety of reasons. hunting, because their fathers and grandfathers and uncles took them hunting when there were children. most people come in the way. gun collecting, because people collect and get enamored with the history of firearms. self-defense, a lot of women coming in because they are fearful on the streets and they are coming to the realization that owning a firearm might be very helpful to them. so you have all these different things coming in.

what i see as my job is as being to reaching out to bring more and more of these people in. to enlargeinterestingly, at 4 mn members, the nra was formed right after the civil war. it has been,rguably, may be, and arguably -- maybe unarguably, the most successful adcacy group in the united states. there are people who look to us for leadership and we try to provide it. host: about $7.4 million spent in the 2012 election by the nra. -- 2010 election by the nra. how much do you plan to spend in

2012? guest: iwill depend on how much we need to spend and how much we have to spend. political spending depends on how much you have got. we are out there right now trying to raise the money that we will need because it will be a very important election cycle. it is hard to measure the impact of a group based on the amount of money spent. when you read the numbers, you wonder why some liberal politicians claim that the nra is so dangerous. did not spend as much as labor unions and the like -- we do not spend as much as labor unions and the like. host: you having trouble raising money? guest: not at all. it is no accident that, after the 2000 race, bill clinton and knowledge that al gore lost the race -- acknowledged that all or lost the race because the nra cost him -- that al gore lost

the race because the nra cost him electoral college votes. host: go ahead. caller: i know whate will not vote for the president. it is because he will not bowed down to their every whim and want. if it is truthful or not about him cheating on his wife -- these are the same people who beat down president clinton. now, it is newt gingrich's turn. not everything seems to be -- now everything seems to be fine. he has repented. he is different now. it is st a bunch of crap. host: we will go on to follower lauderdale -- fort dale, florida. -- fort lauderdale, florida.

caller: you made a comment as 65% of democrats supported the nra. how much lobbyists give them money to support that? -- how much money did lobbyists give them to support that? guest: our lobbyists do not give out money. our political organization does. i do not think we spend very much money on those campaigns. the reason that people support the second amendment i varus, but very little of it relates to money. it relates to votes and to their own views. lot of people who are second amendment's supporters are democrats -- a lot of people who are second amendment supporters are democrats. many of them are members of the nra. our legislative policy

committee, part of our board -- i am chairman of that committee. a number of our board members are democrats. prior to the late-1960's, when guns bece a big ideological issue, the nra had never spent any money in politics. we did not have lobbyists. we were not a political advocacy organization. we came to that position to defend the rights of our members. in those days, it was not a partisan issue. john kennedy, hubert humphrey, frank and roosevelt, teddy roosevelt, dwight eisenhower -- all card-carrying members of the nra. today, it is different because of the ideological divide in the country. if we were completely successful, and i do not expect this to happen on my watch, the day we and we come to both parties, liberals and conservatives can agree that --

the day when we can come to both parties, liberals and conservatives agreeing, we will just move on. host: name two things that obama has done that demonstrate he does not support the second amendment. guest: since he has been in office, the president has not made an attempt in the course -- because it cannot win a direct assault on the second amendment in the congress, partly because of the 65 democrats in the house that are with us. after the 2010 election. one of the great threats to american gun owners comes from international activities, treaties and the like. that was the publicelegate apinted by president bush to the last u.n. small arms conference. that conference was stopped in its tracks because the state department took the position that an american administration would not support anything that impinge upon constitutionally- guaranteed rights in this

country to the next small arms conference, the current one is beginning to meet this summer. the obama administration has changed that position and said the united states would look favorably at jointly with other nations for what the president likes to see as a reasonable gun-control. this is an administration that, if it could, would take away every right -- the rights of american gun owners. in congress, it cannot. the reason that the president and the attorney general have not accomplished their goals in this area, a they have stated their goals early on, is that we are there, our friends are there, are 4 million members are there. the millions of members -- americans who support this amendment are not about to drop our guard. host: how much are the dues? guest: i believe it is $25 for membership, $750 or $1,000 for

a life membership. host: here is a tweet. i support the ban on high-cap mags. these mags are specifically for killing people. guest: no, they're not. most of the handguns owned for self-defense have a capacity for 10 rounds. criminals -- there have been studies of this. criminals very rarely fire more than one or two shots. you can always come up, anecdotally, with a case where somebody did more. most cases, those of other shots fired are not accurate. to say that is what those are for is not curate. secoly, a lot of the sport-

shooting competition that takes place with firearms that have -- competition that takes place uses bar arms that have more than a 10-schotte capacity -- firearms that have more than a 10-shot capacity. even the sponsors of this legislation say there would be no way to get those back. all you are doing is criminalizing something and putting out a press release which, y argue, is going to be an answer to a problem, and it is not going to be the answer. host: you are on the air with david keene. go ahead. caller: being alive member, i have a comment and question -- a life member, i have a comment and question.

it is one of the strongest antigun messages put out by any president. my question is, right now, what are your views on michele bachmann a hern cain? i wouldote for those two right now and it would not matter what order they were in. guest: they are both good friends of mine, personal friends as well as political. i will not choose among them. like a number of other candidates, on second amendment issues, in a position of authority, they would both it and a rating -- get an a rating from the nra. host: do you think michele bachmann should get in the race? guest: i wl not comment on that. it is the most agonizing -- it is mitch daniels, who is thinking about it, but he knows this is at least a 10-year

commitment and maybe mor it changes your whole life. it affects your family. you are really want to do that? he is looking at it from -- and do i really want to do that? he is looking at it from that perspective. if somebody is going to be president -- back in 1975, i think it was, somebody asked jimmy carter why he thought he could be president. carter looked at the reporter and said, have you met those other guys? that is what politicians think. i will not get into whether they should or should not. that is up to them. host: cathedral city, california. burt, a democrat. caller: regarding what president obama has done about guns -- i am a political junkie.

i watched just about every news show that there is on cable -- watch just about every news show that there is on cable, even fox news, and i would not mind having a gun so i could shoot my television. guest: it would give you time to do more things. caller: i would never allow a gun in my house. number one, background checks. a lon cannot vote, but felons can buy guns in certain states. guest: no, he cannot. there is a federal law against a felon purchasing a firearm. the instant check checks all of ose records to see if the potential purchaser is a felon or is disqualified for other reasons. there are all whole list of things that can disqualify you from purchasing a firearm -- if

you are not a citizen, unless you have been in residence for 90 days. there are a whole series of things. those things show up on those checks. those checks are supported by the nra -- the instant-check system. over the years, we have suggested ways to improve it. the idea that a felon can walk into a gun store and buy a gun is just not true. host: rocky mountain, n.c., richard, an independent caller. caller: i heard you mention a number of the candidates for the upcoming race, but not ron paul. he is probably the only -- the truest conservative -- constitutional candidate in the race. guest: ron paul is a second amendment supporter, as are the others. i did not mention him because no one asked about him. ron paul has declared, as has, i

think, tim pawlenty and newt gingrich and some of the others. we look at these candidates solely on two questions. the first and most important is, what is their position on second amendment issues? secondly, down the road -- and we do not know the answer yet -- which one of them has the best chance of actually becoming the president and therefore being in the position to defend the rights of the american people? host: do you own aun? how many? guest: i do. some people say i do not have all the guns i need, but i sure do not have all the guns that i want. host: are you a recreational hunter? guest: i hunt. i will sometimes go to the range. i cannot claim to be a great shot, but i have a lot of fun. i am from wisconsin. i grewp hunting. we lived in a different world, you know. when i was in high school, i

would take my shock and to school and we would go out and shoot pheasants -- my shotgun to school and we would go out and shoot pheasants after school. it was a much different culture that we have today. i have been called in the shooting sports, particularly hunting, since i was 12, 13- years-old. host: what kd of guns, primarily? guest: i have a lot of shotguns. i am a black-powder enthusiast. i have a deer rifle and a squirrel rifle. you remember the supreme court case, at 1 point, justice scalia was asked about how many guns you should have. he said, you need more than one. this was during the oral arguments. it was clear that he was going through the guns in his closet. you need your turkey gun, you need this and that. justice thomas, who rarely spks at these things, started to laugh because it was clear

what he was doing. i will not go through my closet. let me tell you, i have the guns i need to engage in most of the sports i engage in. do you host: ever carry a gun on your person -- host: do you ever carry aun on your person? guest: i do not. host: lumberton, texas. go ahead. caller: this question is for mr. keene. i do not think you are a constitutional lawyer. what about the secondmendment -- even though they try to categorize it as being a gun owner for hunting, sportsmanship, or whatever -- what does the second amendment put in there to thave the citizen -- to have the citizen

be able to have arms to protect themselves should the government become a tyranny? guest: it is therefore all those reasons, primarily because the foders recognized the need for an armed citizenry. you're exactly right. they had gone through a revolution where they had risen up to throw off the british power that had dominated this continent for so long. our first president, george washington, said that a free citizenry should always be armed. that has always been the position of the constitution. it was the position of the founders. it is the position of the nra. people who purchase guns or use guns or are involved in collecting or whatever do it for a whole varietof reasons. that amendment is there for all those reasons. it was primarily put into the constitution because a free people has to -- in the final

analysis -- be in the position to defend that freedom. host: roy, a republican. good morning. caller: shortly after the obama esidency began, you saw, probably, the biggest escalation of gun and aunition sales in the history of the world. it is because, never in the history of america, as long as i have been alive -- i am 49- years-old -- have so many people feared their president. in the real world, the way america is supposed to work, the government is supposed to fear the people. this president seems to want to take over everything and take away everything and give it to somebody else. my public is that -- point is that people are going to stop asking if someone is black enough or wide enough and, are the american enough pasta mark thank you and god bless america -- enough.

thank you. god bless america. host: is president obama american enough? guest: i would not say that is the question. while the president has not been able to accomplish the objectives that he talked about, everything from his comment about amerins clinging to their guns and their religion because they were fearful of the world that he wanted to create or that we were in to the early -- there were early attempts by the administration to go after ammunition and the like. people were afraid that these things were going to beat banned. that is what stimulated these purchases. he has been stymied. i would like to think that is largely because of gun owners and the activities of the nra. most american gun owners believe that, if the president had his way, we would be in real trouble. we continue to believe that. the evidence suggests that we

are right about that, both from his past history, his comments during the campaign, and the various attempts that have been made since then to try and get around the fact that he cannot get around congress. host: should be characterized as "freire," as that caller said -- "fear," as that caller said? guest: this is a nation that was founded on the concept of a powerful people and limiting government. throughout our history, americans have been properly fearful of a government that would infringe upon their rights in many areas. one of the reasons that this government has not gone down the roads that many have is that fear. that year was widely shared by the founders. if you read the constitution, the constitution is not about giving your government more power. it is about restricting

government and restricting the power -- people in power, not because they are bad people, but because they are human. that was really the inside of the founders. it is an insight thais deeply- ingrained in the american people. we do not fear our government, but we fear that any government, whether it is headed by republicans, democrats, barack obama, somebody else, the bureaucracy that is built by the governme is going to constantly seek more and more power, more and more iluence, at the expense, in many areas, of individual citizens. in the area of the second amendment, we are fearful that government, if it had its way, would wish to it are rights -- would restrict our rights, because that is a natural inclination of government. host: darren, go ahead. caller: good morning. i live in a city where gun

violence is very high. it is very bad. i am actually a gun owner. i have a couple of shotguns. my main poi is -- our government does need to do something about the flow of illegal guns. these criminals are not walking up the gun stores like me and purchasing guns. they are buying them off the streets. they are readily available. host: what should be done about that? guest: our position all along -- and we have had this fight with prosecutors at the state and federal level for years -- is it is not the gun, it is the criminal. where there has been cooperation between state and federal officials to prosecute criminals who use or possess firearms illegally, it has made a difference. criminals are not completely irrational.

if there going to face a stiffer sentence if they u firearms -- it will not stop them from being a criminal -- but it will stop them from using firearms. it has been very successful in richmond and other areas. our view is that you don't ban cars. you do something about the guy who is drinking too much and driving recklessly. you worry about the person who is going to illegally used a firearm, not the firearm and self. -- itself. caller: the worst and that is -- thing that is happening, oh, do you have guns? why do you need it? guest: and then a guy who cannot count his. caller: i have the right to carry a gun.

i lived in new york city. i remember when there were roving gangs, running the streets, breaking into people's homes. police were taking legal guns from legal far owners. the bottom line is the second amendment is my right. when you have all of these pinheads saying, oh, we should ban the big clip, that is the problem -- if you come into my home, you are going to sk losing your life. in onef the southern towns, i think in georgia, they made it mandatory that every homeowner and owned a gun and crime violence went down to zero. the only thing you're going to do is give up your rights and all of these gangs and criminals are going to run the streets. when you, god forbid, need somebody, by the time the police come, they will find you dead. host: he has a gun for self- defense.

guest: he has that right. that w the supreme court's decision based on that question of whether a citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of defending himself, his family, and his own. the decision was very clear. yes, he does. he pointed out what happened after katrina. the nra went to court to stop that. we should not have had to go to court. one recent success we have had is lobbying the states for the so-called concealed-carry right. if you get a permit and pass a test, you can carry a gun for defensive purposes. when those laws have been considered in each state, there is this product of publicity that -- barrage of publicity. statistically, aer such laws have been adopted, violent crime has fallen.

not because everybody has a gun like that town in georgia. if you are a criminal, you d not know who does and who does not pick it protect everybody. you may recall someears ago, and yo -- who does not. it protects everybody. you may recall some years ago, and your viewers might, the robberies that were happening at rental cars at airports. eventually, what happened was that are the car companies had to take the stickers off of cars so that criminals would not know that these were sitting ducks, if you will. the caller is right. that right does exist. it has been guaranteed by the constituti, rafied by the senate -- supreme court. it works. host: you say you do not carry a gun under person for self-

defense. i am just wondering if you have a different take. guest: i do not. i probably should. caller: i was touching on the idea of arms citizenship -- armed citizenship. my idea is that sport shooters -- and even where someone will bring an army to our country -- in any event where someone will bring an army to our country, they will be our first line of defense. the military will be busy doing military movement. it comes down to the guys who have the guns if there w a situation. i think that iwhere the second amendment is really there. host: david keene? guest: that is very much what was going through the minds of the founders. two of the early presidents of the nra were ulysses grant and philip sheridan.

it was formed by these folks to enhance civilian marksmanship, as they put it in those days. th was a problem more in the north and south during the civil war. the north was reporting -- recruiting people from the city's. many of whom had no knowledge of rearms and the like. there were brought into the army and could not hit the side of a barn -- they we brought into the army and could not hit the side of the barn. they decided it would be a good idea if all citizens knew how to use firearms, in case we faced a kind of problem that your caller talked about. when world war room one came along, world war ii -- world war i came along, world war ii --

we provide a means for our police to enhance their marksmanship, for whatever needs in the future. caller: good morning. my name is valdez. i am an army veteran and retired police officer, also a defensive tactics instructor when i was working. one of the biggest problems is not mentioning is that most people do not practice. we think people will go up being gunslingers, whipping weapons around -- mostple have never been in a fistfight orven seen one. they think it will be able to pull a gun and start shooting people? if we're going to allow people to conceal carry -- and i do -- they need to practice and be aware of what is involvein a stress situation.

if you are not prepared for that, you are better off not carrying a gun. host: thank you. guest: the nra as thousands of instructors. we provide training in concealed carry states. we want to enhance the ability of citizens to use guns responsibly and to be able to use them accurately. i do not have any disagreement with what your caller says. he is right. host: "usa today" as this piece -- has this piece. doctors are saying that they ask because of safety concerns. prohibiting them from asking about guns likely violates the immersed amendment -- first amendment, at least one constitutional law expert said. guest: gun ownership is a constitutional right. there are those within the

establishment elite whouggest, for example, you would be a bad parent if you had a gun. therefore, if you are applying to be a foster parent or to adopt, that should be used against you. in other words, your constitutional right to own a firearm should be used against you if you want to have children. the fact of the matter is that, if you go back to the doctors' thing -- the federal government compiles figures on what is dangerous and what is not. there a fewer gun accidents involving children today -- the federal statistics on children include gangbangers and that sort of thing -- but accidents in the home and elsewhere, at any time in our history. if you look at the statistics, your job was more likely to drown in a bucket of water -- child was more likely to drown in a bucket of water.

that is an absurd position. one of the outposts of this cultural war that is going on among people who find firearms and their owners to be reprehensible in some way and want to get them any way they can. they would suggest that i would necessarily be bad because i own firearms. that is not the case. it is the right to own, to keep, to bear arms -- it is constitutionally guaranteed. we're very concerned about these sort of back door ways to get at it. in the early stages of obama care -- the legislation that has now passed -- there was a provision that would allow insurance companies to charge higher rates if there were guns in the household then if there were not. there was no statistical evidence at all that this would have an impact on the family's health.

that was put in by anti-gun people in the congress and we had it taken out by pro-gun people. it is an example of people who >> and about 10 minutes who will take you to the subcommittee hearing on budget request for fiscal year 2012. energy secretary steven chu will testify. the president's request would boost the budget up 12% from the 2010 budget. scheduled for 2:30 p.m. and will take it to you live when it starts. until then, viewers talk politics on this morning's "washington journal." bumpy start raises doubts during

a torrid in iowa. in the middle of it all, over the dustup up for his comments about medicare, gingrich has a new problem to contend with, -- that is from the "washington" this morning. in other stores, from the "christian post" posted yesterday. new cambridge there is a marital

indiscretions for evangelicals to discuss.

a democrat is up first on this discussion. has it in the past impacted your road? caller: it is actually lewis. that is ok. for me, and for the electorate i believe, private peccadilloes and personal affairs it should have no part in how we vote and how we view these public officials. what matters is their views on issues and of substance, the loss become the etiology. it is very simple. i do not care if some candidate did drugs. i really do not care much what their religious preferences are. i do, however, care in their

policy viewpoints, and if they want to impose their religion on the rest of america. and that is what i have to say. host: what about the issue of trust? does it make you think that you might trust these people s? caller: well, no, because i think it is a part of human psychology and human nature. what went on behind closed doors is their private life. and that is not necessarily congruent and the same as how they are at work, as public officials. i 19 use that as a tool against them in terms of my own trustor lack thereof. i do not feel that it would affect my level of trust. host: here is the "national

journal" website with recent and past political sex scandals. at the top is gov. arnold schwarzenegger, and below that is president bill clinton. he was being asked about monica lewinsky. and then there is the national journal featuring eliot spitzer, a democrat from new york, former attorney general. a low that, the senate ethics committee announced an inquiry into john ensign's extramarital affair. the report came out last week. below that, mark sanford, and also larry craig featured in this rundown of recent political sex scandals. we will go to massachusetts, bob, a democrat as well. does this impact your vote in should it? caller: it will lend it should,

especially when the person who has transgressed in any way has made a career of talking against these particular transgressions. the defense of marriage and what marriage are they talking about? the first, the second, the third, the fourth? someone who is anti-gay and makes a big to do of it, and number one campaign issue, and it turns out they have a boyfriend on the side. it goes on and on. it seems that in a lasting years these people that are caught morally transgressing are the ones who are making a career and causing a lot of pain to whatever it is that they are campaigning against. i also feel that -- and this is just a hair -- with regard to all of these budget cuts.

i think people had better start thinking. one of the things that should be considered for budget cutting is congress itself, the bloated congressional staff. they are costing us billions of dollars. congressmen are using the office as a flophouse, living there. we're paying for all of that. all of these junkets all over the world. host: we will live it there. mona, and independence in baltimore, what do you think? are you with us? mona, are you there? go ahead. we can hear you. you are on the air. caller: i think that all we have to go by as voters is character. the successful politicians today get elected on campaign contributions. they do favors for the people that paid for them to get reelected. until we wake up and realize that the successful politicians today continue to divert from

their character on to their dreams and speeches, unless we want to research the voting records of all the people we are voting for, the only thing we can rely on is their character. host: gabrielle is an independent as well. caller: i think i quite agree with the last caller from baltimore. character is the best thing that anybody can have. [unintelligible] you are going to change, you're going to do something else, your point to come up with previous thoughts. soap character is very apparent. we need to see what they are doing. will he be a liar? those of the problems you are having now. you cannot trust them because when they get into the office they fail to do that. thank you. c-span.org pendleton, indiana, wanda, a democrat. we want to hear from republicans as well. we want to hear your perspective

as well. want to come and go ahead. caller: i believe that is the person and what they say when they are running for office is not what they do when they get into office. and i think what they do behind closed doors is their business. it is not the public's business on how they run the country. they were selling some of the president's that headmistresses and stuff like that. even the candidates had mistresses. nobody said nothing about that. it has been proven back to george washington who had a mistress. whatever goes on behind closed doors is their business. i think it is up to who you think is best. and i do not just vote democrat, i'd vote for the person. host: the "washington times" this morning. after an impressive comeback in 2010, republicans are unsure of

their chances next year, despite their relative unpopularity of mr. obama. that is the "washington times" about talks of the 2012 draft. the front page of the "new york

times" about gov. arnold schwarzenegger. he acknowledged on tuesday he fathered a child with a member of his household staff a few years before running for office. and then a senior adviser to mr. davis, who mr. schwarzenegger challenge, said at the time that they're all sorts of rumors flying around like this at the time of the campaign. mrs. shriver has always benefited from an image management. one of the last public events that they attended together was

the funeral of her father. alexandria, va., a republican, what you think about this? does this affect your vote? caller: yes, absolutely, and thank you for c-span. people need to perform good conscious as by making good decisions in their public and private life. they will have a huge impact on how they're going to be a in office. and i think we are seen that in people when they get into office and they feel they are better than they are and make some bad decisions. and unfortunately they pay for them. host: jeremy, what you think about new gingrich's past, that situation? you are republican. would you vote for him?

he has converted to catholicism and that his wife will be out on the trail with him as a witness to his family values. what do you make of all that? caller: it is quite challenge. you have to think -- just how onerous is see? this is the third time, is that the charm? but as my father frequently has said, we cannot this about miracles. i myself am a catholic. i probably have had sent more than newton gingrich has, but i did before i was married. i do want to take him for face value that he has changed and he is going to be faithful in his marriage. i certainly would like to believe that because i think he is a strong candidate. but i cannot tell you he is my choice.

host: let me ask you this -- can his wife serve as a character witness for you on this issue? caller: absolutely. to ignore the spouse would be not a good idea. host: so you think spouses have a role in this as well. caller: yes, look at maria shriver, which i am making the assumption that she was so offended by what her husband did that she had to leave the marriage. and yet hillary clinton, bless her heart, who was standing by her man after i think being dragged through the mud. marriage is supposed to be for better or for worse. and we should not forget that the sense of the flesh are not as bad as the sense of the mind. it is my pop -- completely beyond the pale that men make these mistakes against the women that they should love so

fully. host: what do you mean by that last point? caller: the sins of the flesh verses the sins of the mine, the mind is where you are fundamentally twisted in your thought, but when you get involved with sex or drugs or things of that nature, those are more of a pull on your -- the person, i cannot, with a better term that is a flash, your animal instincts, let's say. and one last thing i will say is that if anyone should listen -- want to cheer their addictions, they should listen to c-span because it is so awesome. host: another story about the

situation with the imf chief. dominique strauss-kahn, considered the leading party for president of france -- yes, i like women, he said. so what? he had great intellect and restless energy being attacked because of his accomplishments. let's go to hawaii, a democrat. what do you think? caller: i am an independent but i call the democrat line. i think that your previous caller is correct. i agree with him on almost every point. elected officials have a relationship with the public, the voting public, and they should take an oath to stay within the boundaries of conscience. however they are human.

i think it does matter of -- this question does matter. it is a matter of intellectual honesty, and as far as sexual infidelity and things that have to do with a more personal nature, i really think the press exploits that and create a sensation in a way that is against public interest. what i thought many years ago with bill clinton, and i cannot say that i have sympathy for bill clinton, but it really was the press that exploits the public mind. what can i say? i blame both officials and the press. host: did you vote for bill clinton both times? caller: quite honestly, i did both times. and the second time, there were a lot of -- there was a lot of joy and trusts in some of the

policies that he had created. his lack of discretion and his inability to fully acknowledge that he needed to take some personal responsibility for the public, he created such a catastrophic loss for those working under his policies that i cannot say that i would be able to forgive him as a voting member of the public. i am not his wife so i cannot speak for her. host: you said you were an independent. has a politician's private life ever swayed your vote? caller: not really. it does make a difference and they need to be accountable to the losses to the public. but before office, we all knew bill clinton was someone who practiced infidelity. it was obvious to everyone. it was the strength of his intellectual and political

capabilities. but i cannot say that i would support someone with his self- destructive tendencies again. i think that he should have been held accountable in a way that did not damage the public. so i'd bring >> "washington journal" live every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. we will head to the senate appropriations subcommittee and we will be hearing from energy secretary steven chu, and chairman of the subcommittee dianne feinstein there. on capitol hill to talk about the department's 2012 budget request that would boost the budget to $29.5 billion, up 12% from the 2010 budget. energy at the heart of the president's effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, energy efficiency and reduce dependency on fossil fuels. calls for increased funding for communities to invest in electric vehicle infrastructure,

promoting renewable power and power projects and solar energy. it should get underway shortly. secretary steven chu on the screen. as the senate is conducting a procedural vote on a republican drilling bill that is under way. needs 60 votes to advance. you can follow that on c-span2. it can follow this on c-span. >> the ranking member has been detained for a couple of minutes. i just saw him. if you do not 9 we will wait a few minutes and then begin. -- if you don't mind.

>> there we go. [gavel] good afternoon, ladies and gentleman, and welcome to the energy and water subcommittee but -- committee hearing on department of energy fiscal year 12 budget request. doe requested $30.5 billion for fiscal year 2012. that is an increase of $4.8 billion or 19% from fiscal year 2011. about $1.1 billion of the $4.8 billion increase or 25% is for the national nuclear security administration's nuclear weapons for nonproliferation and naval reactor programs. this subcommittee has already request nmsa's budget

with the administrator two weeks ago. the rest of the increases for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects, loan guarantees, and the basic energy research. it is my understanding that doe submit this budget request before congress passed the 2011 continuing resolution. so it doesn't reflect the new spending reality. so, it is clear that doe and congress will have to make some joint painful decisions and focus the limited resources that we have on the highest priorities. so, but because i think knowing your highest priority is a substantial and portents to a set, secretary, i hope that he will highlight those. do not feel shy. i would like to of hope -- highlight the three largest increases in this budget. the largest single increase would be for the office of

energy efficiency and renewable energy, which would see an increase of $1.4 billion or 76%. the only programs in this account that see a decrease our hydrogen and water power. i know we want to ask you about that, too. given the across-the-board budget increases for all other programs, it is hard to determine which of these r&d programs would have the biggest impact on energy use and the clean energy economy. secondly, the office of science would see an increase of $5.52 million or 11%. those are the two -- office of energy efficiency and office of science. innovation clearly drives economic prosperity and the office of science has been one of the leaders in new scientific and technologies the libris. for example, argon national lab in illinois spent 10 years researching -- materials for a

lithium ion battery that was small, energy-efficient, and lower in weight. general motors use this technology to develop the battery it now uses in the chevy volt, the first mass-produced plug in hybrid electric vehicle. that is significant. but despite these types of successes, the office of science must do a better job explaining how basic research can lead to new clean energy technologies and how it can better leverage large scientific facilities to help american industry remain competitive. i hazard a guess that that would be a substantial priority for all of us. third, do you would see an increase of $370 million or 206 %. arpa e hold a promise for high risk and high reward technology.

even though it is a new agency, i would like to ask you apply it there program management to other doe offices such as the rigorous peer reprocess and contractor grand negotiations completed in just a few months. streamlining contract in process and assembling high-quality program management teams, i think, would benefit many doe and a jeep programs. my last observation is that outside nmsa, the department of the '90s budget does not provide a five-year spending plan. without this plan it makes it difficult to buy off on committing to programs that create large out your obligations. joining us today is of course dr. steven chu, the secretary of energy. i have the greatest respect and fondness for secretary chu.

in full disclosure, i want to say that. i happened to meet him when he was head of lawrence berkeley lab, and his achievements are many, marked, and quite astounding. we all grant that you are a most brilliant secretary, secretary chu, and we are delighted to have you here. but as turn to senator alexander for his remarks, if i might. >> thank you, madam chairman. when i was the education secretary and in your shoes i did not get that kind of compliment from the chairman of the committee, so i am a little jealous. i agree. i think, dr. chu, you are one of the president's best appointees. you have been a terrific leader and i am glad you are spending is part of your life in this form of public service. i want to -- in my remarks and in the questions when my time comes -- i want to focus on some

of the things that senator feinstein talked about. for me, i would say it would be putting a priority on energy research for our country. something i know, dr. chu, you have long advocated. in 2008, i went to the oak ridge national laboratory and a talk called the new manhattan project for clean energy independence and suggested we apply the same rigor and ambitious goals to energy research that we did for the manhattan project in world war ii. and listed several objectives of such a new manhattan project. most of them taken from the 14 grand challenges of engineering in the 21st century that shot best at the national academy of engineering suggest. plug and electric cars, carbon kantor, soling -- solar power,

advance biofuels, green building. now, and you were a part, dr. chu, of the national academies effort to say to congress what we should do to help our country be more competitive. we called it america competes -- based on your report. you have moved to form hubs in several areas and in your request the one-two for more. i want to indicate my broad agreement with that sort of strategy and work with you to find ways even in this tight budget situation to prioritize spending and find more money for clean energy research. for example, my colleagues have wanted to talk this week about subsidies for energy for big oil. if we are going to do that i think we should talk about all subsidies. i suggested on the floor this morning we might talk about big wind, taxpayers are on the hook for $27 billion over the next 10

years to subsidize when mills, which is more money than we would save if week's cut out the tax breaks for the five big oil companies. that is just an example. that was based on date -- tax credit put into place temporarily in 1992. my staff's research indicates we only spend about $6 billion on energy research in our federal government every year and i would wonder whether some of these long-term subsidies for energy for either big oil or win might be better spent for energy research. there are other parts of the budget -- even this budget -- where i wonder whether the energy efficiency section -- i wonder if energy efficiency money should go up at a level that is mentioned here or should we increase the research budget. there is $4 billion in unspent recovery act funding in whether the nation and state energy grants. seeking 300 and the -- seeking

300 million more. it might be better to have the research but -- budget up to $7 billion, $8 billion, or $9 billion a year. i do like that area. we were only able to find $180 million this year. although it is authorized at 300 and now fully authorized. so, i would like to weigh in the in favor of energy research. i think many of my republican colleagues see energy research as an appropriate role for the federal government. long-term subsidies -- some of my republican colleagues have problems with. short term i report jim starting electric cars, maybe natural-gas trucks, jump-start in the nuclear plant through loan guarantees and all of the things that you suggested. so, i will be looking to work with you on seeing if we can prioritize money from the

current request, maybe look at these long-term subsidies, and apply more of our dollars over the next 10 years to what you call hubs and what i call a new manhattan project for clean energy independence. >> thank you, madam chairman. >> i thank you, son under alexander. we will proceed in 5 minute rounds and use the early bird rule. as people come in to attend. . chu, -- secretary, why don't you proceed with the remarks and then we will go to questions. >> thank you, chairman feinstein and ranking member of the -- alexander and other members of the subcommittee, first, for your kind remarks, but also for giving me the opportunity to present and discuss the president's fiscal year 2012 budget request for the department of an edgy. president obama has a plan for the united states to win the feature by out innovating, out- educating, and out-building the

rest of the world while at the same time addressing the deficit. many countries are moving aggressively to clean energy. we must rev up the great american innovation machine to create jobs and when the clean energy race. to that end, president obama called for increased investment in a clean energy research, development, and deployment. in addition he proposed a bold but capable goal, generating 80% of america's electricity from clean sources by 2035. the department of energy's fyi 12 request of $29.5 billion supports the goals. we recognize that families are feeling the effects of high gas prices right now. and while there are no silver bullets, president obama is committed to breaking our dependence on foreign oil and easing the burdens on families. this budget helps reduce our reliance on oil by developing the next generation of home

generationbiofuels and excel rating of a trivial research. and through energy efficiency programs, we will save money for consumers by saving energy. in addition the budget supports research, development, and deployment of renewable energy. the modernization of the electric grid, advancement of carbon capture sequestration technology. the budget also supports loan guarantees for renewable and energy efficiency technologies. nuclear energy has and in ports and role to play in our energy portfolio. and that is why the budget request additional loan guaranty authorities and invest in the research and development of the dance nuclear technologies. to unleash innovation the president's budget support ground-breaking research through the department's office of science. for example, we are investing in basic energy sciences -- sciences, scientific computing, biological environment sciences.

in addition, the office of science support widely used facilities that provide unique analysis tools for materials, chemistry, and biology research. the budget invest $515 million and advanced research projects agency. this will allow it to continue to support research projects that aim to deliver in changing clean energy technologies. rpe's projects are generating excitement in the private sector. for example, through a combined total of $24 million, six companies have already been able to advance research efforts and show potential liability of cutting edge technologies. these -- this early support enabled those companies to achieve milestones that in turn attracted more than $100 million and private sector funds to the projects. this is precisely the innovation leverage needed to win the feature. another piece of the research effort is energy innovation

hubs. through the hub is we are bringing together top scientists and engineers to achieve similar game changing energy goals, but where a concentrated effort over a long time horizon is needed to establish a leadership. the budget requests $146 million to request the existing hubs and established 3 new hubs in battery, and in storage, smart card technology and systems, and materials. finally the budget supports energy research center is working to solve specific scientific problems that are blocking clean energy development. to better integrate and maximize research efforts of the department is organizing a long lines of business. this will create the sum that is worth more than the parts. in any specific technological area we are examining current business projections and looking apart -- across rpe, office of science, applied technology, to determine where we at the doe

can add the most value to accelerate the pace of innovation. we launched a sunshine initiative with participation from rpe, office of science, energy, efficiency, and renewable energy. to make solar energy costs competitive with any other form of energy by the end of this decade. this would position the u.s. to lead in this growing industry. at a time when industry, congress, and the american people are making critical energy decisions, we made sure to adequately fund the energy information ministration, the nation's premier source of independent statistical information about managing production and use. even a modest increase to support the eia would go a long way providing congress and others with an unbiased data and analysis needed to make informed decisions. in addition to strengthening our economy, the budget also strengthens our security by providing a $11.8 billion for the department's national nuclear security administration. the request of $7.6 billion for

weapons activities provide a strong basis for transitioning to a smaller, yet still safe, secure, an effective nuclear stockpile without additional nuclear testing. it also provides a much-needed resources to strengthen the science, technology, and engineering capabilities and to modernize infrastructure of nuclear security enterprise. to support the president's goals of -- old nuclear material in four years -- it invest in defense nuclear non perfect -- nonproliferation program. through our investments in the administration and lange the groundwork for the nation's future prosperity -- prosperity and security. at the same time we are mindful of our responsibility to the taxpayer. we are streamlining operations and cutting back in multiple areas, including eliminating unnecessary fossil fuel subsidies. the united states faces a choice -- will we lead in innovation or will we fall behind?

will we lead the world -- to lead the world and clean energy, we must act now and we can't afford not to. thank you, and i am pleased to answer your questions. >> thank you so much, secretary. i'm going to try to give three quick questions in my first round. one is on hydrogen and one is on the son shot and visited and the third on the loan guarantee program. you propose to cut the hydrogen $100 million in fy 12, a cut of $70 million from the 2010 level. you zeroed out all funding for fuel cell -- fuel cells and fossil energy program. we gather your advisory committee was dismayed by that. i think it is important you tell us what your current view is on hydrogen technology and whether it can be successful or not. >> sure. in terms of fuel cells, we do have a research program for stationery fuel cells. there has been very good

progress made in fuel cells. bringing down the cost. the idea of hydrogen economy is something that is very hopeful but the fundamental issue is that we need a source of hydrogen that will make good economic sense. right now our hydrogen comes from reforming natural gas. when you reform natural gas you create a hydrogen and carbon dioxide so in terms of the carbon deficit -- not less sequestered the carbon dioxide. in order for that to happen we have to develop more sources of natural gas that can allow you to do those things. so, the first priority is to develop sources of hydrogen that will make economic sense. as a question access current -- and sequestered the excess carbon tax said. there is a storage issue in automobiles. despite best efforts -- and we will continue the research -- it

is still hydrogen tanks. there is the storage part, there is the source of hydrogen -- the most fundamental issue. the stationary cells, because of the higher efficiency, is something that can be deployed quickly in the next couple of years. there are a lot of companies doing this. we continued research cells forbetter fuel settle stationery sources. >> how realistic is all that? >> and think the fundamental thing is the source of hydrogen

which, right now, is natural gas. but natural gas will have to be significantly more abundant and less costly. we will have to have significantly more abundance or gasification of coal. but that is a technology issue to make it cost-effective. turning in hydrocarbon into hydrogen. >> seeking to reduce the cost of solar power roughly to $1 per at that price, the power generation becomes cost- effective without subsidies. i am very pleased to see that the son shot initiative will take the affordable manufacturing initiative. you told me before that fluttered tape was not cost- effective, but that it would

take four years to five years to become effective. i would like to know what progress has been made there as well. do we need to focus resources on the son shot -- sun shot initiative? >> the first photo take power emergency got down to 55% over the past six years. it has come down by that much in this decade. we have talked to businesses, not only in the united states, but abroad. every manufacturer says that, in their business plan, if the cost does not come down by another factor, we will probably go out

of business. they are banking on this. we started to engage in these companies and in ways to say can we accelerate this? can we do something with these companies and with research that can actually accelerate this progress? our ambitious goal is to say can you reduce the costs by 75% by the end of this decade? that is the magic price. in many parts of the united states, with that subsidy, it will not be a form of energy. there is a big deal. when you drop by 50%, there are certain areas of peak demand. our goal, for most of our energy endeavors, it is to divide the plan so we can get there without subsidies. i, too, share the belief it you may have to subsidize for a

little while, but you do not want to subsidize for 100 years. is there a technology path with a can develop these things without subsidies? the son shot -- the sun shot initiative shows that this is within reach. in terms of your question about manufacturing, manufacturing innovation is another key part of what we will need to do in order to be competitive with the rest of the world. it is that manufacturing innovation that began with henry ford. it took four years of his company to treat the assembly line. but they transformed the automobile industry. -- to create the assembly line. but they transformed the automobile industry.

we are hoping companies, research and development and manufacturing. >> thank you very much. my time is up. >> senator? >> i would be glad to refer to the republican leader. >> i was looking the wrong side for you, mitch. sorry. >> thank you very much, senator alexander. mr. secretary, welcome. i'm here to focus your attention on the diffusion plant. it has been enriching uranium for 60 years. it happens to be economic engine of far western kentucky. many people think of kentucky as a coal state, which we are. but we're also a nuclear state. the plant has 1200 employees.

it is in the process of closing down. there are, however, 40,000 cylinders of depleted uranium, which are typically referred to in the business as details. if they were real enriched -- reenriched, it would be profitable. these are government resources that could be stored to make revenue for the government. in the meantime, happily enough for zero western kentuckians, keep 1200 people from collecting unemployment. so it could raise revenue for the government and avoid unemployment for 1200 people.

are you familiar with the tales issue at the uranium enrichment plant? >> yes, i am. >> it is my and steny that the department does not have the current plan for -- it is my understanding that the department does not have a current plan for reenriching those tales. >> that is correct. if there is a potential for doe to save these jobs, do you not think that would be worth pursuing. >> we're suddenly very concerned about any job impact. but there are other issues that i would be happy to talk to you about, and having to do with -- there is another commitment for uranium in another uranium enrichment place. we are bound. we cannot release more than 10%

of the uranium market because -- for example, the uranium industry in the united states would be affected. we have commitments in 2011 and 2012 for another enrichment process going on. we have made that commitment, so have to figure out how, beyond that, what to do about the duca plant. but we are sympathetic to its plight. >> let's assume we do not do that. do we have the funds in the 2012 budget to securely idle the plant after it closes and returns to the control of the government? >> we need to work with you on trying to figure out a path forward for these jobs.

i have to be candid. the gas diffusion technology is one which is very energy intensive. i would rather us invest in more forward-leaning technologies, and improve it.rifuges, as an example i do think the and of the states would like to have an in-house technology. >> that is not the issue that the duca. the issue is will we reenrich the details and make money for the government or, if we will not do that, will the government pay for the cleanup? we have been getting the queen of funding on our annual basis. but -- we have been getting the cleaning funding on in

annual basis. we're risking 1200 jobs and you will not find the cleanup which reenriching the tales would benefit the government. >> that depleted uranium will be there. again, to go forward in the most cost-effective way, if there's technology that can more effectively enrich those tales, we would be more inclined to do that. but, if this is finalized, we would have an obligation to clean up that plant. >> when will we see the plan?

>> we can get back to you and your staff on that. >> we have 1200 employees wondering if they will be without a job. i am understand it is a tough time. but you have and did -- an opportunity to continue have 1200 people working, richard inouye for the government by reenriching these tales and what i hear you saying is that you have no plan for the contingencies. >> we do not expect congress to give us our proposed budget. >> how many of your tough decisions give you an opportunity to raise revenue? >> we are raising revenue, as you mentioned, on the use sex side, for the same reason. it is raising revenue in the most cost-effective way.

we always like to raise revenue. remember, we are at this limit of 10%. >> that is not a very satisfying answer if you are an employee in western kentucky. i think i have correctly heard you. you have no plan to reenrich the tale said you have not planned to budget the and no cleanup on an annual basis at the plant and have no current plans for addressing the shortfall. >> we can look at the cleanup issue, but, again, the tales are still there. it is not as though we will move on the next year or the year after. >> i understand that. >> but if you start reenriching

them now and you raise the government money. i am curious as to why you think this makes sense. >> because if we do this enrichment with this old and -- if it is very energy-consuming technology developed in world war ii. there are better technologies we would like to use and develop in house in the united states. again, it is a decision with a limited budget. >> you would rather make the money later rather than make the money now. >> we can enrich it now, but we cannot make the money because we cannot release it on the market. that is because of what has already been in place. thank you very much, madame. >> i am trying to be as liberal as possible.

>> thank you very much. >> senator lautenberg, early bird, you are next. >> thank you. thank you, secretary, too, for the wonderful words. and for helping us to try to solve the problems that will directly affect how our economy recovers and how we protect ourselves from a lack of energy to fuel our needs. in 2009, china surpassed the united states in private-sector clean energy investments for the first time. in 2010, china began to pull away, attracting $54 billion in private investment.

they recently announced that its government would begin investing the equivalent of $75 billion in clean energy annually. your agencies -- is your agencies roughly $30 billion budget is enough for us to regain the lead? >> you are quite right to be concerned with china's investments. but it is also korea, the european union, and other countries are looking at clean energy development, both on the efficiency side and on the generation side as the big business opportunity in the world market going forward this coming decade. what we need to do is position united states so that we can be a leader in this. we have been a leader in other technologies.

we still have the best research institutions. we still have the in national access. and we need to develop the mechanisms to allow the american industry to make the inventions and manufacture in the u.s.. in terms of what you are specifically asking for and the chinese are doing, they're helping companies with loan guarantees. we have an over-subscribed loan program. it is something that we feel is a highly leveraged way of supporting industry investment. would we see these companies beginning to build manufacturing facilities abroad, this is one of the factors that come through loud and clear. they're getting loan guarantees from countries like china.

i would love to work with congress. part of our loan guarantee is -- it is part of the leverage. those programs would be an important part going forward. >> does that suggest that we will fall further behind these other countries with the kind of budget we're talking about at this moment? >> that is why the president has chosen buto put to the energy budget -- the president said that, in order to preserve the future and to win the future, to and in this --vestment

investments in the science and research is very important. that is where the energy budgets of the increase that it did. >> earlier this month, you appointed a panel to study and make recommendations on the practice of crafting. the cornell university recently released a study that said that natural gas extracted using franking as a technique to produce -- can produce much more clothing problem solutions than coal. -- can produce much more global warming problems than coal. >> this committee will be meeting for the first time today

and tomorrow. i am aware of the cornell study. there is another paper published just last week in "the national academy of sciences is" that i read very thoroughly. it does raise some questions that will need to be answered regarding this. we also see if we can do this safely, extract the gas safety, and not have the emissions for water tables that is a transition to a clean energy future. so the administration wants to do this in an environmentally responsible way. we need to do that. there's no question about that. but there are these studies that we are well aware of.

i personally have given the charge of this committee and spent the couple begins reading about the stuff and learning about this. there are concerns. we want to get all of the perspective and find out what is going on. we will be anxious to get the panel's report and hope that we can establish the fact that this does not present other environmental problems that worsen the situation rather than improve it. thank you very much, mr. secretary. >> we met at oakridge focusing on the dangers of mercury their and factoring the large population in the area. i would be remiss in failing to thank you for that meeting.

my questions are all long soap -- along the lines of my questions and my opening statement about research. is it right that the department has $6 billion or less for research? >> yes. >> what should it be? >> if i were not bound by the office of budget -- >> let me put it another way. i talk about the manhattan project. are we not both talking about accelerating energy research in a focused way? >> yes. i am here to defend the president's budget, but i would love to see increases. as i said before, the research we do with the goal of getting the private-sector to pick this up and running with it.

we are using a light source facility that gave a leading edge of a series of patents that allow us to make better batteries. >> we are talking about 500-mile batteries and $1-what solar power and trying to lead the country and that. republicans often agree that research is an appropriate role of the federal government, why we might worry about some other things. given the importance of that, as we are given the budget problems we have, with 40 cents of every dollar being borrowed, we all know that we will have a rough three years or for use to make the budget. should we not be looking hard ?ut long-term subsidies my colleagues want to talk about big oil all week. i wanna talk about big wind. we're committing $26 billion of

the next 10 years on wind subsidies and production tax credits that was passed as a tax measure in 1992. you have in your money -- in your budget money for research on offshore wind. it seems to me that is appropriate. it seems to me that, to continue to subsidize of the long term a mature technology is not appropriate. jump-start the electric cars, a jump starting natural gas, research for offshore wind -- if we look at long-term energy subsidies, whether they are big oil or big win, it looks to me like we could find money to take a fairly modest energy research budget of $6 billion and make it $7 billion or $8 billion or $9 billion or $10 billion. and we could move as much more rapidly to a low-cost clean

energy future. we have $1-solar power. that is cheaper. if we have 500-mile batteries, that is cheaper. why should we not be developing a policy that takes from his long-term subsidies and putting them into energy research? >> i agree with you, absolutely, that what we have to do with any research program -- we are responsible for the entire innovation change. we have to design things and have a program going for we do not want to start businesses that cannot survive indefinitely without a subsidy. we are in total agreement with that. offshore with has great possibilities. we need to develop that, to get it going. the sun shot, that will be an

international rate. the batteries will have an international rate. but it will be the research. >> but the amounts of money to do the research is relatively modest. if offshore windows 27 for a small nuclear reactor $60 million -- these big subsidies, whether it is big wind or big oil, it seems like the money could be better spent and that one of the things we might be able to do is reduce the long- term subsidies and focus it more on energy research where think there is a consensus about the appropriateness of federal spending. thank you, madam chair. >> thank you, senator. senator cochran. >> madam chairman, thank you for sharing this hearing. welcome, mr. secretary.

we appreciate you being here to understand the administration's budget for the next fiscal year. it is recommended that nuclear energy continue to have a place in the national strategy for energy independence and provide supplies for our country. an increase for the office of nuclear energy, we notice of the budget request. what do you think the priorities of that office should be in terms of reaching our goals and helping maintain our energy security as a nation? corks sure. i with the to mention that question. -- >> sure. i would love to answer that question. what can we do to add value to this?

using high-performance computing is a very sweet spot. >> said again. >> high performance computing. there is -- to you high- performance computing to design next generation reactors and had to deal with these things so you can skip engineering steps and engineering design, you can simulate in a much wider space. we can do things of that nature. senator alexander spoke about how to develop fuel recycling that makes economical sense, that makes anti-perforation

cents, so the amount of energy that you generate can be 10 times to 20 times more than today. i think that is something that is very much a part of what we want to do. so new recycling technologies, that is a long road, but we have continued new-advanced reactor technologies. >> 1 decision made by the department relates to the strategic petroleum reserves. in our state of mississippi, that program is dead in the water, as i understand it. there is a decision that i am a biased cancel the decision of the strategic petroleum reserve in our state. we submitted requests for information, an explanation, what plans do you have for that program? we have not received a response

from the department of energy. i wish you could go back and see if you do have a response to that question. we would like to know what your plans for the future are with respect to the strategic petroleum reserve. you can answer that now if you'd like. >> we will get back to you on the details. but right now, the strategic oil reserves were required to have a nine-day supply in case of a .isruption of supply right now, we are returning one of their caves. but we are very close to full capacity. we can get back to you on the details of what we have planned going forward. the point is we are very close to maximum capacity. we have a cabinet or to that needs repair. i do not quite remember whether

this was in mississippi or not. but we do have to tend to that. >> i know we're trying to get answers to questions about that for two years now. we have not gotten a satisfactory response. i do not know that there is a response. a thick we are entitled to hear what your plans are. last year after the president recommended canceling that program, congress voted to rescind all the funds that we had worked for to provide the department about $70 million for the expansion of the strategic petroleum reserve. so there's a breakdown in communication about whether you need the money and if you're not going to use the money we may help you think up other ways to do it than what you are

planning to do with the money. well, there was a commission chartered last year by president obama to study nuclear waste disposal options. i wonder if you could give us any information about this program, whether or not you have a specifically plan. we understand the recently canceled yucca mountain program is in limbo, unclear about whether funds are going to be used for that program or not. it gives me the impression that we're having a hard time finding out what the department is up to in some of these areas. could you tell us about what your plans are for storage at yucca mountain? >> first, i believe there is a first draft, an outline of some of the recommendations from the blue ribbon commission. we're -- i think rather than

comment on the draft -- things that have been put out, i would rather them give an official report, but it's -- we need to -- but i -- well, let me comment on one or two of them. what they have said is that first that their -- one of the things they said, goes to senator alexander's point that while there's no immediate technology that we can use for reprocessing, you know, we still should continue to develop that technology. there is -- they have looked at other countries that have found siding for one in finland that where there's -- there was a process that seemed to have more acceptance of the local people in those regions of the

country and so they -- i think, at least in this draft recommendation, are saying we should look at those processees. we have examples of low-level wastes where things have gone very successfully and there has not been opposition. and so there are a number of other things. so we need to go forward. this is the responsibility of the department of energy. as you know, we are positive on nuclear power in the future, and whatever occurs it is the department of energy's responsibility to do -- deal with the waste. >> madam chairman, my time has expired. >> i thank you very much, senator cochran. senator johnson. >> secretary chu, welcome. i'm pleased to see d.o.e. is continuing its support for the deep onground science and engineering laboratory in south

dakota. i appreciate your -- that your agency included $15 million for the project in your f.y. 2012 budget request. i understand d.o.e. is nearing conclusion of an internal review of the project and am interested in its results. specifically, could you talk about how d.o.e. is prepared to work with the project team to ensure that your recommendations are known and included in future financial and construction planning? >> well, first, i know we're undergoing this review and have not specifically spoken with bill about this. we are working, though, as you well know, national science foundation is having second thoughts. very discouraging to us about that. especially since they started it.

but in any case i think we are trying to figure out a path forward on the investments that have been made by south dakota and the department of energy and the national science foundation. so in the interim we are continuing to get funds to pump the water, continue doing this, but if we lose in the long term the support what was supposed to be a 50/50 partner, we're trying to understand how we can go forward, you know, what our options are, especially in whatever funding we will be getting in f.y. 2012 and going forward. and so these, begin, are going to be very difficult -- and so these, again, are going to be very difficult choices. there are -- there are a few things we'd like to have done. we're in committee. we want to get some of those

experiments done. as i said, i have not seen the report or -- and so i'll be waiting for that. >> on a related note, as you know a great deal of activity is already under way at home stake and we had previously hoped that n.s.f. would be providing more support for these activities. in lieu of significant hindrance of construction funding and in order to preserve the great progress and investment we have already made, what is d.o.e. prepared to do to ensure that no jobs are lost while you evaluate your long-term plans for the project and/or for high energy physics in general? >> we are very aware of that and try our best to keep the -- there is a very dedicated

scientific team that's been assembled on this. while we try to put this path forward, again, for 2011-2012 there will be continued funding. we don't want to dissipate the scientific team that has been developed and just as we don't want the water to come back into the mine and we've, you know, and so we're again -- i don't know exactly the timing of when the -- how often the science will bring forward recommendation to me. you know, that's -- i'm sorry it's disappointing but that's all i can say about it. you know, if -- in a completely unbiased point of view, i have to say my own laboratory was the lead laboratory in this. i know personally how it's affecting a lot of people, but,

you know, not that i'm going to play favorites but it's a -- i know personally -- and i know personally, as you know, i visited the mine in south dakota and i know personally all the investments that south dakota has made. >> you referenced high priority experiments. could you list a few? >> sure. for high-energy physics, we are investing in what we call a high intensity frontier. we are also investing in the highest energy machine, the highest energy machine there, so right now because of what happened decades ago, the superconnecting could he leader, the highest frontier energy machine is training on -- treading on concern. they had a hiccup but they've

recovered well from that hiccup. so what we've done is we still want to be, you know, we still view as high-energy physics as a significant part of our program. we still want to go forward. so the good news is americans scientists are actively participating in that machine and for the first time american science is now the lead in one of the major detectors. but we also want to make investments here in the united states. and so we have going forward and with the director, he made and we collectively made a decision that since the could he leader we need to invest in the future which is the new sources for beams at the lab so we have every intention of continuing to invest in the lab in those and, you know, one of

the experiments in the investments for the nutrinos to use the can he tector in south dakota. so that's why we're especially disappointed in the events that have unfolded in the last year. >> thank you, secretary chu. >> thank you, senator johnson. senator landrieu. >> thank you, madam chair. if the committee would just give me one minute of latitude before we get into energy, madam chair. i just want to call everyone's attention to the fact that the mississippi river, as we meet here today, is flowing at an extraordinary historic level. and this committee has jurisdiction over water and energy. and i just wanted to put into the record, madam chair, these statistics that are startling. the river is flowing at 172 billion cubic feet per week, 7.2 billion cubic feet every hour. and as one article today

described it, it says it's a snarling powerful beast barging its way south. this committee has jurisdiction, as you know, and as i might say, madam chair, a remarkable job in the course of the last decade to build this mississippi river system. but it's going to be up to us to watch to see how it works in the coming days and weeks and be prepared to do what we need to do to make sure that people are protected should this ever happen again. so i'd like to submit that to the record. >> without objection, so ordered. i thank you for the comments and i think every member of this committee -- i come from earthquake country -- knows what you've gone through constantly. >> it's not just louisiana. it's tennessee and mississippi and senator cochran knows full well what the people in north mississippi are experiencing right now and the senator from tennessee. but this committee has jurisdiction over that system. but three questions, really quickly. one, mr. secretary, you and i have spoken at several times

about this, a project that's pending before your department now. the department loan program has supported more than $30 billion in loans, loan guarantees for about 28 clean energy and enhabsed automotive efficiency projects. one of those projects is pending in louisiana right now. the reason i'm bringing this to your attention is that it's very timely. our legislature is meeting as we speak. they have reserved basically $60 million to support this project. the application has been pending before you and your department for two years. do you have any update for us at all on next auto works, what the timeline looks like, when they might know, yes or no? because this application, we think, is quite strong and quite competitive. it could create over 1,000 jobs in this part of the country,

but as important he as that, it can produce vehicles that can achieve 40 miles per gallon, which i know the chair, who has been a leader on cafe standards, would appreciate. this is new technology for the combustible engine but a new technology that seems to us to meet the goals of what the president and what you are touting. can you give us any update at all about where we would be with this application? >> well, i don't think it would be appropriate in a standard hearing. as you know we really -- the details on loan applications, we have to honor the relationship we have with the applicant. >> i realize that. generally -- i realize you can't give the details. i'm not asking. generally, does this fit with your goals of creating new

automobile companies that are pressing forward with new technologies to produce automobile that can almost double our efficiency? does that generally meet with the goals of your department? >> well, if you're asking -- i think what you're asking is, are we in favor of the advanced technology automobile program? we have. and it's -- and its loan. and the answer is yes. we think it played a very important part in helping not only innovative companies but also established companies in developing a new line of automobiles with advanced technology to get better mileage, higher efficiencies. that means we can again take back a leadership role in automobiles. i mean, to be candid, we had this for 3/4 of a century, but it's something, you know,

europeans and japanese and the koreans are now wrestling with. and so we are in favor of supporting innovative technologies. >> i don't want to lose my time but if you could please give to my office sometime by the end of the week just an update on this because i have to tell our legislature something. they've been holding $70 million to support this in a public-private partnership, federal-state partnership. we have budget constraints like everyone. my second question is, and senator lautenberg alluded to this -- we've had a break through in this country in finding almost 200 years, i understand, of natural gas reserves. this is terrific. people want to go around saying we have no reserves to boil which isn't true. we haven't looked for the oil. i think we have a lot more. but we know how much natural gas we have. the industry is surprised itself about what it's finding. so my question is on this fracking issue, what is the

department doing and are you being aggressive to find some conclusions? we think, as we've done this for a while in louisiana, that fracking's safe under serp circumstances. what are you doing to come to some final determination on this so we can take advantage of 200 years of supply of natural gas which can reduce our greenhouse gases i understand by 40% to 50%? >> well -- >> 30 seconds or less. >> 30 seconds or less, first, we're going to -- we have to establish what's really going on and it could be different in different regions of the country. and so one of the things -- and that's why the president asked the department of energy to form this subcommittee. and so we need to find out what's -- >> when do you expect some results or some conclusions from that sm >> we're tasked at o90 days starting today. 90 days from now we'll have a

preliminary set of recommendations and that committee -- that subcommittee then goes in that 90 days go before the full committee. >> madam chair, i think it's a very important component of this work in the next year because natural gas is 40% reduction in greenhouse gases. we have a 200-year supply. the technology, i believe, is there. i think we're going to find there is a safe path forward. so if we could take a focus on that. my time has run out but i'm going to submit a question in writing about exporting natural gas and the pending application you have for southwest louisiana. >> all right. thank you. >> thank you very much, senator. senator collins. >> thank you. madam chairman, senator graham had to leave and asked that he be afforded the opportunity to submit questions for the record. >> absolutely. >> thank you. secretary chu, it's great to see you again. let me begin by thanking you for visiting the university of

maine last june to see the very exciting research and development technology that's under way in the area of deep-water offshore wind. i would say to my friend and colleague from tennessee that deep-water wind does not face the same challenges as land-based wind because it can be located out of sight and the winds are much stronger and more persistent offshore so you have more energy produced. but there is the need for investment into the technology, so that the challenges of sighting wind turbines in deep-water offshore can be met. and i'm very excited about the work that is going on at the university of maine to bring

the secretary up to date. a key milestone was reached this month in which three scale models with floating turbines were successfully tested, and that is providing key data to advance the technology. but one of my concerns is that our country should not lose the global race in developing deep-water offshore wind technology. and if you look at this chart, and i believe the secretary had said this as well, we are losing the race right now. consented means permitted for those not into the lingo here, but as you can see europe is making considerable investments in deep-water offshore wind. asia is as well while the united states really lags.

and yet this offers the potential of providing clean domestic energy to large population centers in close proximity to wind resources. i'm pleased to see the investment that the department of energy is making, and just for the record to make sure that i understand the department that you've submitted, it's my understanding that you've just delivered the operating plan for the remaineder of 2011 to the appropriations committee this week and it includes funding under the category of advanced technology demonstration projects-wind energy. and just to clarify, is the intention of the department to do a competitive solicitation for deep-water wind energy

using some portion or all of that funding? >> if it's deep water, the answer is yes. >> and that is the yes i was hoping to hear, so i'm pleased that is the case. senator alexander made a very important point that we have these technologies that are not going to be able to move forward unless we have a partnership with the federal government, with state government, and with the private sector, and i pleeb that investment of $26.3 million will help jump-start the investment. i would note that the state of maine has passed a bond issue and is providing millions of dollars for this as well. and we've also put together a consortium of private companies

in maine that are investing, and we're working with a company that is partially owned by the netherlands that also is investing in this technology but it really is very exciting. can you give me some idea of what the timetable for putting out the solicitation for that $26 million is? >> i would need to get back to you on the details, but we hope it's soon. again -- see, this is really good. you're on a roll. in a couple weeks. >> that is also great news because i think it is important that we move forward. >> i think the best news is that senator alexander actually said a kind word for wind. [laughter] >> believe me, that made my day. i sent him a little note. >> because i read his book.

>> i mentioned that there is a consortium in maine that's called the deep sea wind consortium that is led by the university of maine, but it's a broad-based collaborative effort that involves 35 partners including the state of maine, academic institutions, nonprofits, utilities, industry leaders, and what we found is that kind of collaborative, interdisciplinary approach is absolutely essential when you're trying to spur innovation further. when there are a lot of federal agencies that are involved in the effort to jump-start offshore wind, and i'm hoping we can see a similar collaboration among the federal agencies and departments that are involved so that we can avoid duplication and maximize

efficiency and stretch those resources. could you share with us how the department of energy is working, particularly with the department of interior which has some permitting responsibilities, but there are other federal partners as well like the national science foundation, fish and wildlife services. >> yes. i think because these are largely going to be in federal waters that it is the department of interior's jurisdiction that they are very supportive of this but, of course, you have to go through the necessary requirements because it's exactly what you said. there could be environments of concern and you have to make sure you examine them and are thoughtful about them. i think there's a general acknowledgment. if you can get the technologies

-- the opportunity for offshore wind and deep-water wind, it's steadier and the problems are -- not as great as long as environmentally we make sure that that's ok. so the opportunities are great but it's one of reliability and technology and, again -- and, so, that's why we chose to shift the research, we think onshore wind is a mature technology. and so to focus on the more innovative aspects and that's why we repositioned the program. >> thank you. thank you for your efforts and thank you, madam chair. >> thank you very much, senator collins. >> thank you, senator alexander. >> senator few could you say key. >> thank you -- mukowski. >> thank you, madam chairman. mr. secretary, i have a whole laundry list of questions and many of them are questions that were asked of you at hearing

before the energy committee back in february, february 16, and i didn't have an opportunity to ask all of the questions and so we submitted them for the record to be received in writing. we have not yet -- >> really? >> received sews responses so i wanted to alert you to that because some of the questions i'm going to ask you now are hopefully ones you have already asked and they are in the mail. >> i apowell the gentleman is recognized for that. -- i apologize for that. we wanted to be more quicker. i'll look forward to -- look into that. >> i want to ask you about the budget increase for geothermal. your budget calls for an increase in funding -- it's actually a tripling in funding from $101 million -- to $101

million from existing $43 million. kind of pleasantly surprised me because i'm a big advocate of geothermal and what we can do with that resource. but the question to you this morning -- this afternoon is whether or not the department will be able to spend this out in a timely way. we have -- and you have been updated on this, but we have been dealing with a project in alaska in enhanced geothermal project that has great prospect, great hope and we are encouraged about it. it's exactly what the department has supported in the past, but the sponsors have had just a nightmare of issues in dealing with your golden field office. some of the issues had come about because of things that the sponsor was involved with. but if you are able to secure more money in the budget for the geothermal component, what assurances can you give us if

the department is able to get these dollars out into the field in a timely manner so we can move these technologies? >> i think it was remarked already before on we use -- we have an existing rule that you can create a funding organization that is nimble, that is thorough, that has the high standards of review processees, and we are now focusing very quietly on getting that way of doing business out to the rest of the department of energy. there are pockets that are very good and there are pockets where it's less good, and so we are very committed in order to get these processes moving in a much more efficient way. and quite frankly, you know, it would improve the way we do

things. and so i will look into this and because what we're finding is sometimes we have a field office that is almost in competition with central headquarters and all of a sudden they start to debate what's going on. >> well, i'm glad you recognize that because that seems to be the sense that we have as we're working with constituents on this. so if you could look into that. but, again, from the bigger perspective, we want to make sure if these dollars are directed this way that actually they are being translated out into the field. let me ask you about nuclear and section 302 of the nuclear waste policy act that requires the establishment of a nuclear waste fund, collecting fees from the utilities and contained within the act it expressly identifies the yucca mountain as the sole permanent

repository, and it further directs u.s. secretary to propose an adjustment to the fee that's collected from the utilities if the amount collected is insufficient or in excess of the amount that's needed to meet the cost of construction. so given where we are with the attempted withdrawal of the yucca mountain will application, do you believe -- license application, do you believe that the fees that are collected and deposited within the fund are in excess of the amount that is needed? do you think that an adjustment of the fee is in order? where do we go with these collection of fees given the >> you are right. the status is yet to be determined. regarding the see, we still have a responsibility to deal with the spent fuel.

again, a draft recommendation from the commission is we do see a need -- they have suggested just as a draft, but they have suggested interim sites but also, as is going to be dependent on technology going forward, there will be an eventual time if we develop the technology and after that, there would need to be a permanent waste disposal site. most likely underground. >> in so far as what's happening with the collection of the fees, are you as the secretary looking at whether or not an adjustment might be appropriate, given the fact you might have this withdrawal that is pending? >> we have looked at it.

i would rephrase it as right now it is in limbo, but that does not mean in the future we have this responsibility. we do have a responsibility and because of that, it would be unwise to say for the next five or 10 years, no see -- no feet going forward. -- no fee going forward. >> i think the frustration has been that if there is a plan in place, i could understand why should be depositing fees. but if there is no plan, you are just asking for a collection of fees that seemingly is not going to go anywhere. i think you and i both agreed we have to deal with the repository issue, but you can also understand some of the frustration the utilities have out there. i am over my time. thank you. >> thank you very much.

senator murray? >> thank you very much. welcome to the committee and i am sure you and everyone else in this room knows what i'm going to ask about -- the nuclear reservation in my home state of washington. hanford is the largest federal nuclear cleanup site in the country and it is part of the larger complex from by the environmental management program. when you go back through the lineage, the department was created to manage nuclear activities and the federal government has a fundamental and legal responsibility to clean up the contamination that has been left behind by our nuclear- weapons production activities. i am concerned that this administration does not seem to take these legal obligations seriously. i look at the budgets and i see you continue to increase programs that do not have any

legal obligations associated with them. i don't think i'm the only one of my colleagues on the subcommittee who is concerned about it. so i wanted to ask you today what is your plan to increase the budget to meet our legal commitments on cleanup? >> because of the recovery act, as you well know, with your help and others and the administration, an additional $6 billion in 2011 and 2012, we feel we can meet our legal, but not only in our state but tennessee, south carolina and other states. going to forward past that, this is going to be something -- we want to do this for sure and it's going to be a matter of what happens with our 12 budget.

we feel comfortable through 12, but beyond that, what's going to happen to our 2012 budget, which is what this hearing is about, is the real question. we have put in a request in 2011 and we did not get the full amount of that request. we have to make adjustments. i think all the states have nuclear waste concerns and are very concerned about this as well. when senator alexander said that tennessee has nuclear concerns, they have a higher density of population, there's not only nuclear concerns, there is also mercury waste concerns as well. what we need to do is try to make the best technical assessment of the things that

have the highest risk and get them off in the most efficient way possible. that is where we are. as you know, in order to bring the waste treatment plant on, there's a risk it would go over budget, because in other parts of the portfolio, the em has done a good job in projects ahead of time and had a budget that we have diverted traditional funds to the waste treatment plant -- >> let me get into that for just a minute. overall, the only legal obligations your department has is on nuclear cleanup and waste storage. it's disappointing we have to fight the administration year after year to meet those legal obligations. i'm sorry i missed your testimony.

i did read it and it highlights significant increases in all lot of program offices, including those without any legal obligations. it is troubling to see the legal obligation continue to struggle and the department is asking for funds for other programs. so i will ask you about some specifics. i appreciate the work the department has done on the waste treatment plant and its work on the construction reduced. however, i have to tell you i am concerned about the singular focus on the waste treatment plant. i have been clear with you and everyone in the department and the administration that if the administration intends to move forward with the proposed modified funding profile, the only successful way to achieve that is through the administration's increased funding for the entire program to make sure we meet the legal obligations across the complex.

to be frank, i don't see that happening and the waste treatment plant is a priority, but we cannot increase funding for that and decrease funding for other legal obligations to meet the increased funding level. that is my question to you -- how are we going to meet all of those legal obligations? the only way to do is to increase the entire em budget. >> because of the recovery act investments, we will be meeting our obligations and a couple of years. after that, there is a concern, but there is also -- the president put in a large increase in that an energy budget in part because of the nuclear security issues, but also in large part because we think the investments in their

research and development and some deployment activities will -- we do not have legal obligations there, but we have to make these calls as to what -- with what ever funds the congress gives us -- >> i don't see how you can say we cannot meet our legal obligations, but we're going to increase our funding in the department of energy. >> -- i think in fiscal year 12, we will be our legal obligations and after that, it depends on what the budgets are going to be. i shall also say we are trying -- the legal obligations of our waste legacy, the cold war legacy, is something which is

quite frankly the third largest government liability. this could be hundreds of billions of dollars and we need to develop a plan going forward, not just for me, but my successors on how you can meet these liabilities in a way and again, it goes back to how to best spend that money. in order to meet these obligations and a limited budget scenario, are there ways we can do our business better in the way we do e.m.? >> but it has to start with a request from the department of energy stating this is a priority and we have to meet our legal obligations. that's what i expect your department to do and that is why i am disappointed. but it is a legal obligation, it's a moral obligation, it is a real obligation. we have waste at our nuclear

facilities leaking toward the columbia river and we expect your department to let congress know what the obligation is and how we need it in the budget. that is what i am requesting. >> thank you very much. i'm going to get a second round. you might want to stay for this first question. i have become very interested in the nuclear fuel cycle, particularly following fukushima daiichi. we have 104 nuclear power plants in this country -- california has two of them. we have around two dozen plants of the same model as the boiling model reactors as in japan. some have said we have something better and they come back and say we upgraded hours to meet that as well. but, in looking at the two nuclear power plants in california and, particularly the

spent fuel part of it which is what senator murray is referring to, the fact that these spent fuel pools are to some extent fallible, they are race stacked, they can have large numbers of rods in them. in our state, they are kept there for as much as 24 years. i had, with that ranking member, the head of the energy commission said this is good for 100 years. i don't know how anybody knows that it's the stuff is good for 100 years. but what i also saw were the dry casks and the transference of the rods into the casks. when i asked questions, i was told these were specially built for transfer to some form of

repository. i have come to my own conclusion that the way we best protect americans is having some regional facilities where the storage of nuclear waste can be done over hundreds of years, supervised by government. otherwise, who knows what mother nature will bring down? i never remembered funnel clouds in the pacific. i never remember the level of hurricanes we have had. last night, the television set a tornado may be on the ground in a part of virginia. so who knows what might happen? i'm very concerned that we need to pay attention to spent fuel and what happens to it. do you have any comments -- have caught you unawares, i'm sure, but if you have any comments on

this subject, i would certainly appreciate hearing them. >> regarding the spent fuel, certainly accident at fukushima is something we are paying a lot of attention to. i'm guessing what would happen -- it is certainly true that when you have a pool of spent fuel with water, it is a higher risk than a dry cask storage where you have natural air circulation and you did not have to worry about something that could breach the pool and things of that nature. it is very passive and more robust. certainly, transitioning to dry

cask storage is something i anticipate will be happening. that is one of the preliminary draft recommendations of the blue ribbon commission. i do not want to second-guess what the nrc is going to be doing about this, but it is something they are saying yes, there will be a number of these dry cast facilities in the united states and i believe that is one of their recommendations. >> i was very impressed with the testimony of one of the doctors from mit on the subject. one of my favorite issues, the renewable loan guarantee program. i believe you have just $200 million in the budget for that that you have sent letters to

renewable energy developers who applied for loan guarantees, saying their applications were on hold because the department of environment would have a hard time making these of timber 30 as construction starts requirement. i do not know how we developed wind and solar power without a very aggressive loan guarantee program. i thought we had. -- that thought we had it. putting these projects on hold really concerns me because i don't know anybody that can go without a loan guarantee. >> we looked at -- this has to do with the fact that if you did not have at a certain time, a

conditional loan that goes through the approval process, you have conditions that would have to be mad and you have to start on the project before september 30th. we looked at the portfolio of our projects. with these conditional loans, we could see we could use the remaining funds, but we did not think it would be fair to those companies to continue investing in this knowing that as we approach this deadline, they would still have to do other things, secure a 20% funding, each loan was different. we felt it would not be fair to say that it's put on hold until -- we have asked for continued funding, i know that there are some senators looking at other

mechanisms for financing these things and i am supportive of a type of loan program and want to work with congress on that. >> thank you very much. we will see what we might be able to do and we will certainly consult you. i have to excuse myself. i'm going to speak on the floor for the nominee the vote is pending on at 4:30. may i turn it over to you and you can go full bore? thank you. >> i just have a couple of questions. i was going to follow up about the loan guarantees. since nuclear power produces 70% of our coverage of free electricity and renewal and others produce a few percent, why should nuclear power have to pay for its loan guarantee subsidy and wind and solar not

pay? >> someone before my time -- the reasoning was nuclear-powered is a more mature technology. also possible fuel -- the nuclear loans should get lower credit subsidies course. the one we did do with southern and others had a modest grade a subsidy. but it was felt that because it was a more mature technology. things have changed pans so -- >> it didn't you just testified that when is a mature technology? >> yes, it is a mature technology and a free are going

to fund -- it is a mature technology in the sense that if we are going to fund research and development, we would rather fund research and development -- >> i am all for offshore wind research and development, but i'm wondering when does a mature technology that produces a puny amount of internet and power, why do you give it, and addition to paying for its loan guarantees, how do you pay for it and not pay for nuclear power's loan guarantees? >> >> it's not as if we are building a lot of nuclear plants right now. >> we are putting in a request for research in nuclear energy and so i'm being hopeful. regarding the loans, for example, if you looked at the

companies that have been putting forward loan applications, they have the things where they could actually say there is not as much of a structure for the deployment of wind and as that goes forward, i think -- there is a subsidy for all of the wind power produced in that company -- in the country that is costing taxpayers $26 billion of the next 10 years and you don't have anything like that for nuclear power. >> yes and no. i think there is no production tax credit, for example. people who are against nuclear feel there are other things the u.s. government does for nuclear. so i thought you were pro wind.

>> i am pro research. let me ask one last question and we will conclude. you have a request in your budget for research for the small modular reactor, which i know pick is a priority of yours. and it is of mine and many people. it looks like it could be an opportunity for the united states, given our experience with small reactors with the navy that these could be reactors we could build here and sell here, lead a world in building and they would be cheaper. there is a nice scenario for small, modular reactors, so my question is, is the amount of money, what will that permit you to do? and are you organized to learn any thing from the united states

navy and its experience in the 1950's with small reactors? >> we have put in a request and a large fraction would be to help firms complete their engineering designs for nrc approval so they can go forward. there's another fraction that would be for research and development that could complement what is being done. if there are things -- if industry can invest in the research and do it, we would like them to do it. but if there are other things -- >> part of your money goes to pay for things the nuclear regulatory commission would normally pay for. you are helping them pay for some of their work, is that right? >> it is tax to help the companies complete engineering designs that the nrc would

require of them. it is really to help the company's, just as we help with the 81,000 engineering design. -- the ap 1000 engineering design. the companies that have participated in the nuclear navy, there -- they're one of the companies that want to go forward and get licensing from the nrc. it is a very different type of reactor. the navy reactors are highly enriched uranium reactors and the newest generation will be designed so they last 148 years. a very high performance reactor. when i was first on board at energy, i asked can we use your experience with nuclear reactors in the navy, particularly submarine fleet because it is a small reactor in the civilian fleet. he looked at me and said you

cannot afford my reactors. they are very high performance reactors. but there are things that leak over and some of the companies that build the navy reactors want to go forward with the licensing. the most critical thing again as we are looking at what can we add value to to help industry move along on a path we think is important. but i think we both agree that small, modular reactors are a totally different model for how to drive up safety, drive up effectiveness, drive down costs, and recapture the nuclear lead. that is why i have been out front, pushing small, modular reactors. i think is an opportunity which is very different because the economy of scale, building a very large, a 1,500 megawatt

reactor because of the fixed costs of siding, now you build an assembly line planned you can ship anywhere in the world. you can write size the generation to their transmission infrastructure at that site. it is a very different model, but it means you have to essentially mass-produced these reactors with that number. it is not proven that we can do this, but we think there is an opportunity there and we are trying to engage with industry and right economic models to do it. the utility companies -- it is bite size. if he have to spend $8 billion, they think very hard about that because you're betting a large fraction of the company assets on this project of the or the lady year or two there would have financial consequences. when it is a factory-generated

thing, a lot of those things go away because you can stamp them out. the uncertainty and delay of schedule -- it takes away a lot of uncertainty people might have. >> senator feinstein mentioned that the chairman of the nuclear regulatory commission has said in their judgment, used nuclear fuel rods could be stored safely for up to 100 years. do you have any reason to disagree? >> i think the fuel rods in dry cask storage is a determination that are see -- as far as i know, that appears to be different from spent fuel in what storage because of the things we saw at fukushima. i do not think spent fuel pools -- you ought to go to dry cask storage. >> i think he did. there is -- as long as you have electricity and water, your

spent fuel pools should be perfectly safe. >> i do not want to contradict the chairman. >> i don't want to misrepresent them either. maybe i heard him wrong. but in the first place, you cannot put these rods into dry cask storage immediately before they are cool enough to put into dry cask storage? during that time, you have no reason to think they're in a dangerous condition when stored under the nuclear regulatory commission regulations on site. >> i would agree with the chairman on that. you are absolutely right that the first five or six years, they are too hot to the air cooled. as i understand, the way these spent fuels we have backup systems in case the main water supply is interrupted or there is secondary piping and things of that nature --

>> second, third, fourth, fifth redundancies' -- at wintu watch with a one of the commissioners recently and be back up electricity system, if it goes down, there's another and then there's another there's finally a way to get water in even if all goes down. so there is enough water -- there is enough available water, the fuel rods to be safe, is that right? >> yes. can i be 100% guaranteed that -- i cannot. but there are enough backup systems that i feel safe about and so, without trying to contradict the chairman, i think dry cask storage, if you do not have water, it would be more robust, but that doesn't mean the current storage system

is endangering americans. >> thank you, dr. chu for coming today. the hearing is concluded. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> taking a look at our prime- time schedule, starting at 8:00 eastern, defense secretary robert gates told a briefing on what senior leaders in pakistan knew about a saw bin laden's whereabouts before he was killed. then a debate between the candidates running in new york's 26 congressional districts. then, hearing on the future of human spaceflight and nasa funding. then it dimitry medvedev told a conference on nato missile defense and whether he will run for president of russia next year. >> this weekend on a "book t the" -- the gators bug book festival. -- the gaithersburg book festival.

a former ambassador to yemen on the u.s. counter-terrorism efforts in that country. then, one of the most significant standoffs on the cold war era, the berlin wall. look for the complete schedule online at or get your schedule e-mail to you by signing up for our book tv alert. >> this weekend on "american history tv" -- from lectures in history, a cleveland state professor on the music of duke ellington. on "american artifacts" a look at preserving the jefferson bible. and live from jackson, mississippi, the 50th anniversary celebration of the freedom rides, when 13 men and women, black and white, boarded two buses bound for new orleans with the goal to end great southern bus stops. get the complete schedule c- span.org. >> history, as you know, is much

more than politics and soldiers, social issues. it is also medicine and science and art and music and theater and poetry and ideas. we should not love things into categories. it's all part of the same thing. >> semel morse, james that mark cooper, john singer sargent, thomas jones -- thomas edison, we have part one with david mccullough on americans to make a greater journey to 19th century paris. that's at 8:00 on c-span. >> treasury secretary tim geithner called on lawmakers just a to work with the administration on a credible deficit-cutting plan which could be accepted by republicans and democrats. his remarks came during a speech at the harvard club ad -- in new

york city. the comments focus on the state of the u.s. economy, the federal budget and how to reduce the national debt. harvard university on the press, politics and public policy has to the discussion. this is one hour. >> good afternoon. i am the director of the johns center on the press, politics, and public paucity. -- a public policy. i welcome you to this special event. it is special not only because we have the secretary with us, but it is a memorial.

walter assurance been endowed the center as a memorial to his daughter, a superb journalist who died of cancer before time. walter wanted her life to be honored by something as meaningful and dynamic as the life she had lived. i am proud to say that the center will celebrate its 21st anniversary this year. but walter was also a great citizen in every sense of the word. he cared deeply about his country and it was his lifelong custom to look over the horizon and seek solutions to the nation's serious problems. he was especially attuned to financial affairs and had strong views about how to safeguard the nation economically. the nation economically. were you with us today, the crisis of would have been at the top of this list of his

concerns. the family joined with us inviting secretary of the treasury to address those concerns today. please join me in recognizing him and the members of the families who are present. [applause] i would be remiss if i did not publicly thank the staff of the center. the superb work in putting this together on very short notice. [applause] for two years, three months, and 22 days, tim geithner has been at the center of a fiscal

maelstrom. if he did not have a thick skin when he started, and he now resembles a crocodile by now. before becoming secretary of the treasury, he was chief executive officer of the federal reserve bank of new york. as a journalist, he believed in correcting journalistic errors -- as a journalist, i would like to stress that we have never -- he is a graduate of dartmouth college and johns hopkins school of the dance international studies. he has studied japanese and chinese and lived both places. something that grows ever more important in navigating the world economy. how has he done his job so far? two years and five months ago, he was being lambasted by both the right and left for his fiscal rescue plan. yesterday, the headline said tim

geithner emerges as obama's indispensable man. it is not to say? -- it is my pleasure and honor to welcome the secretary of the united states treasury, tim geithner. [applause] >> thank you. that was gracious. nice to see you. i admire so much what walter did. when my uncle was the director, i was studying at dartmouth college. my parents were still living overseas than. i remember sitting on the floor of this office for many hours, sometimes standing, waiting for him to give me a ride down.

what a great cause you are engaged in, which is trying to increase -- improved deep debate on policy questions of our time. i want to talk about the question of how we deal with our fiscal challenges to explain why this is so important. what should be done? the politics and economics and a credible solution. i choose this subject because -- not because it is the only challenge that we face. with unemployment still around 9%, millions of americans still uncertain about their economic future, we face very a formidable economic challenges, but our ability to deal with those challenges will be determined by our ability to restore fiscal stability. we spent the last decade piling on debt to pay for expensive tax

cuts, a large prescription drug benefit, and the two wars. on top of that legacy, we had to clean up the worst financial crisis since the great depression. we face unsustainable a future deficits caused by the dramatic rise in the number of american civil turn 65 in the next decade. combined with the fact that we now live longer and the cost of medical treatment is so much more expensive. today, we have to find a way to return to living within our means. our fiscal problems are so pressing that they threaten to undermine the foundations of our future economic strength, our ability to protect our national security interest, and our capacity to sustain the commitments made by 13 president over 75 years to provide economic security to support -- economic security to the core and the elderly.

our total federal debt burden will be almost as large as the entire output of the american economy within the next decade. we do not have the option of leaving this problem to another day, another congress, or another president. it is true that we were able to fund these deficits at very low interest rates. these rates are a reflection of confidence that we will act, not a justification for inaction. they are unusually low today because of the relative lack of all other investment alternatives in a world still recovering from crisis. there is no way of knowing how long the financial markets will give the american political system to get ahead of this problem.

it makes no sense for us to wait until the force action upon us. as we salt in the 20081 confidence turns, it can turn with the brutal force and with a momentum that is very difficult to arrest. this is a threats we should preempt. if we do not, the economic damage will be much greater. confidence is much more expensive to restore that is to keep. it's really are dead problems unaddressed, those that lend us the resources will eventually demand higher interest rates. higher borrowing costs for american household and businesses will discourage future private investment.

a dollar we cannot spend on more productive investments, like education. for all these reasons, the choice we face is not whether to get our fiscal house in order, but how we do it. to provide some context, consider the following facts. in the united states of america today, 40% of children born each year are covered by medicaid. if you were born today in hard- pressed communities, like detroit, st. louis, or baltimore, you are more likely to die before your first birthday than if you were born in the tree line up for belarus. in education, we're losing ground. only about half the kids graduate from high school. over the next 25 years, the

number of americans eligible for medicare will double. the number of working age americans will increase only by about 10%, putting new burdens on working americans. we still live in a dangerous world with a young men and women fighting and dying to protect our freedom. we spent $700 billion a year on national security and this is only about two-thirds of what we spent during the cold war. the effect of income tax rates for the wealthiest americans is at its lowest level in 60 years. the effect of tax rates before the bidder rich has declined much further. now it is around about 21%. we have some say -- we have some tough choices to make. to put us on a path, we have to bring these deficits down,

gradually and dramatically. we need to cut our annual deficit to the point where the overall debt burden begins to fall as a share of the economy. this requires that we achieve and maintain what economists call primary surplus, which means that we cut what we spend on everything except interest payments to less than we raise in revenues. for the united states, this means a deficit below 3% of gdp. achieving this goal is the essential test of fiscal sustainability. we cannot do this too quickly, though. it has to be a multi-year process. it does not put at risk and economy coming out of crisis. with interest rates now very low, we cannot count on the federal reserve to be able to offset the contraction their

effect on economic growth. if we put our deficit on a path to get them down below 3% of gdp, and we hold them there, which performs that politicians, but to sustain to leave in place, the federal debt held by the public will peak in the range of about 70 or 80% of gdp and then start to fall. the economic and political question is not whether, but how to achieve. the debate we now confronted is how to cut these deficits while strengthening our ability to grow and compete in the future, protecting our national security interests, and preserving health care and retirement security for the elderly and those with disabilities. but we describe how the president proposes to do this. the president proposes to reduce

spending across the government. the president has proposed cutting spending on government functions outside the national security, the social security, by more than one trillion dollars over the next 12 years. these cuts would bring non security discretionary spending to its lowest levels since eisenhower. this will require savings in mandatory programs that have a lot of political support, like agricultural subsidies. on top of this, the president proposes to cut $400 billion in securities while making sure we preserve the essential capacity to meet our national security responsibilities. the president is putting cut on government spending at the same time preserving the same -- to finance productive investments in things like education, infrastructure, clean energy,

things that are critical. these investments in those areas, education, research and innovation, infrastructure, clean energy, they meet to keep tests. they have very high returns in terms of future economic growth and the private markets will not finance these investments at an adequate level without a catalyst of government. the president proposes to remake the corporate tax system so that it does a better job of promoting business investment in the united states. together, this list of reforms perplex the fundamental realities that the composition of spending cuts is consequential to whether deficit reduction hurts or helps beecher economic growth. -- helps future economic growth the president proposes substantial savings from medicare and medicaid.

together, these programs are responsible for about one-fifth of our budget and because of the aging of the population, at the increase in life expectancy, they are the main source, the main drivers of our long-term deficit. for medicaid, the president proposes at least $100 billion in savings over the next decade. he proposes for medicare, an additional $200 billion in savings over the next decade by harnessing the purchasing power of medicare to control spending. he would build on the fundamental reforms in the affordable care act. requiring the independent payment advisory board to target cost growth and medicare to dp. a very tough standard for controlling cost growth.

while social security is not the cause of our current deficit, the president said that republicans and democrats should come together to make changes to the program now that will put it on a solid footing into the future. the president proposes changes to the individual tax cut that will reduce the deficit while moving toward a more fair and simple system. by restoring the tax rates on individuals earning more than to under $50,000 a year, to the level that prevailed during the clinton administration, returning the estate tax to 2009 rates and by scaling back tax expenditures, the plan would generate additional revenue without putting at risk future incentives for economic growth. the reforms in must adopt have to be grounded in realistic assumptions about the path of future policies, the impact of legislation, and economic changes.

neither congress or the administration should be able to use on realistic assumptions about future growth or political corrector other forms of magical thinking to minimize the magnitude of the reforms that are necessary. these changes will be difficult, but in a balanced remarks like this, with the burden of adjustment shared broadly, and phased in over an appropriate period of time, the overall economic impact would manageable. to make this spring were credible, we need a mechanism that forces reform. the president has proposed that congress imposed on itself a debt cap that would lock in the necessary reductions and deficits over the next several years. as a fail-safe, it would require all the cuts in spending if the targets are not met. this is very important. it is the fiscal policy

equivalent of trying to take politics out of monetary policy. by making central banks independent with a mandate to keep inflation low. we need a debt cap so that politicians cannot choose to live with unsustainable deficits. it reduces the legitimate area for political debate to how to achieve a sustainable fiscal position, not whether to achieve a sustainable fiscal position. you can tell from the debate in washington that there are big differences among republicans and democrats. the divisions are very substantial, most pronounced in three areas, how best to promote economic growth, how to reform the tax code, and how to protect health care. given these differences, we believe the most realistic approach is to design a framework that force is

necessary political agreements on reforms. to do this, we are trying to negotiate a multi-year plan mark of dead cats and targets with a substantial down payment -- cut of a dent caps and targets but substantial down payment. this down payment has to be substantial relative to the total amount of deficit reduction we need over the next decade. all of the fiscal plans on the table shows that there is broad agreement on the ultimate goal and timeframe. the components of the down payment have to touch all parts of the federal budget. from defense to medicare and medicaid and they should be balanced by changes in revenue. it should include a mix of specific savings for mandatary programs and commitment to lower

future discretionary spending. the more specific the reforms, the more believable and credible will be the framework. these savings would be complemented by an overall cap on future debt and deficits. a strong enforcement mechanism to force action that would deliver the remaining savings. at the beginning of 2013, and every year after that, we will assess the magnitude of additional deficit reduction requiring necessary to bring down the debts over the following five years. congress would have roughly nine months to enact legislation that would meet that target. if congress cannot agree, automatic cuts in spending would go into effect for the following year. but put us on a path to a meeting that fiscal target.

the size would depend significantly on the future of the bush tax cuts. but they will expire at the end of 2012. the president has proposed to extend the tax cuts to benefit the middle class. aladdin is tax cuts to expire -- allowed in that tax cut to expire would reduce the deficit by $1 trillion. taken together, our view is that this is a reasonable plan. it is a balance of short-term savings and long-term reforms that we do not just pushed all the tough decisions into the future. it is an achievable plant and it needs -- and it meets the critical test. it is better than the alternatives. a few points on the alternative strategies. some have suggested that we set a global cap in spending as a

share of the economy at a level that prevailed in the decade before the crisis. the dominant suggestion suggest the target of spending at either 20.6% of gdp or something like 18%. these targets have obvious appeal, but they have no practical value. we cannot talk or reverse the aging of the population. as the baby boom generation retires, the number of americans turning 65 will increase dramatically as a result, it to cap spending at historical levels, he would be forced to make exceptionally deep cuts in benefits to seniors and the poor. spending caps did not provide the government with a

flexibility you need to respond to future national security threats or future recessions. spending caps would not be sufficient to achieve this goal sustainability. spending measures alone would enable future congresses and presidents to try to live with higher deficits by cutting tax rates. we spend as much in special tax preferences in the tax code as they collect in federal income tax revenue. the house republicans have proposed a plan that has deep spending devotion -- reductions, it devotes savings to keep tax rates low at exceptionally low levels for the wealthy, not just for the middle class. this approach will not pass the congress now or in the future.

this alternative proposal would require deep cuts and benefits for the elderly and the poor. it will reduce government spending to what it was before the modern era. more typical of a developing nation. the fundamental reality of our fiscal situation is that we will need to generate more revenue and we will need to reduce the rate of growth in spending on health care and retirement security. both are necessary, and either alone can carry the full burden. the essential value in the house budget is to show that if you try to deliver fiscal stability, with no contribution from tax reform, you have to make dramatic drastic cuts to these critical government functions. according to the congressional budget office, these cuts would

by 2020 to raise costs for an average medicare beneficiary by $6,500 a year. it would eventually reduce the total amount the government spends interest in social security. americans can do better. at one to make it clear that it is the president's plan on this country as a condition for raising the debt limit. they will own the responsibility for the first default in american history. yes today we reached the debt limit. we were forced to deploy a series of extraordinary measures. they will give us until august 2 before we can no longer be able to meet our obligations securely. as i have said