program. we give $20 billion to roads and bridges. a billion dollars to transit. all of the money was spent the congress said it should be spent. you have not read any bad stories about any of the $48 billion that we spend. we put 65,000 americans to work building roads bridges transit systems around in america. if you use that as a gauge -- >> how much money could you have spent effectively? >> a lot more. >> i argued strenuously for $200 billion. we have done a great deal of due diligence on how much money could be spent, and it would not have ended when it did. we would have actually spread it -- it should still be going right now. we believe we could have spent $200 billion more effectively than some of the money was

spent. we all know that package was put together as the president was coming into office. a lot of it was putting -- a lot of it was put together before he was ever in office. he was at a disadvantage. i remember that debate so clearly. the arguments be made it would take too much time. my argument was, if you tell the states there is this money, and right now and the economic downturn there was a lot of contractors available at very favorable rates. did you find you got very good -- >> we got bids below what we anticipated, which give us additional money. and also, jobs were done way ahead of schedule also because there was a phantom demand with contractors and availability of workers and the great partnerships that we had with the states. whether it is the governors or

the the ots or the commissioners were ready to go. -- whether it was the governors or the state dots. there was not one bad story. know your marks any of that. >> i want to join in and say i made several speeches. one of my prime concerns about the bill was it did not do enough for highways. our basic bill is about $40 billion a year. to have $200 billion could have bought -- could have been a transformation -- transformative act for our infrastructure. nobody would listen, they just move forward as they did. i. thank you, you did say that at the time. i thought you were right. >> i appreciate that. as i look back, it is one of the things i regret the most. i was not able to persuade

certain people who had this idea. i know the economist. i have hired -- i have heard it too many times. the second question i wanted to ask you about this, do you have any measures for how improved transportation strengthen america's competitive position? >> we know now that we are being held competed. your chart shows that by a lot of other countries. china is right now building roadways airports, runways high-speed rail, transit systems. 10 years ago that would not have been the case. today it is. we are being out competed by lots of other countries. you look what is going to be happening in brazil with rio -- what they will be doing there

with the infrastructure. we need to keep pace. we do not keep pace by extending the transportation bill. we keep pace by passing a 5-6- year bill for what is a blueprint for what we do to put americans to work. build roads. build bridges. build transit systems. that is what america has always done. >> i want to go back to my first question. you gave an answer. the thing that is in my head, i have been told many times that for every $1 billion of rhode expenditure, it creates 18,000- 20,000 jobs. is there some rule of thumb like that that you apply? >> i will get that for the record. i would rather do that and say a figure that may not be accurate. >> let me go to the next. on my list which is a high-speed rail. you have $47 billion for high-

speed rail. what is the status of high-speed drill? where is it being taken up? what are the prospects? what does it offer us in terms of enhanced competitive position jobs, economic activity? give us your view of this expenditure of $47 billion. >> will start from the premise that anybody who has ever gone to europe or asia and ridden the train and there comes back and says, why do we not have this kind of transportation in america? we have never had anybody with the vision or the willingness to put money into it. president obama stepped up really early in to his administration. he just started our opportunity to implement high-speed rail which, by the way many of the states were way ahead of the federal government of. california has been working on a high-speed drill 40 dead decades. we know along the northeast corridor, people have been using

passenger rail for decade. what we did, we took the a billion dollars and did what we do with all of our partners -- we've partnered with groups around the country that have been working on high-speed rail. we have invested $3.5 billion in california. i just that one week in california. i met with the governor. he is totally committed and is on board. i met with stakeholders. i met with small business people. they have a good plan. in the midwest, there is a good plan. the governor of michigan, governor snyder has accepted almost $1 billion for a connection to fix up the tracks between detroit and chicago. the governor of illinois and missouri have a very good plan. we have invested more than $2 billion in the midwest. we have just made significant investments in the northeast corridor. not just between washington and york but further north in other

states that want to get into the high-speed rail business. the president had a vision. he put the money into the economic recovery. you all gave us some additional money. so totally we have invested over $2 billion. the important point to make is, there are a number of companies that were building high-speed rail in europe and asia in california in illinois along the northeast corridor that want to make investments. i have said all along, there is not enough money in washington to do all we want to do with high-speed rail. we need private investment. the private investors are in america. they are in california. they are in illinois. there are along the northeast corridor making investments in partnering with states in order to make the kind of investments. this is the next generation of transportation. this is what we are doing for our next generation. the last generation left us a

state of the our interstate system. thank goodness they did. it took us 50 years to build it. what we are going to do for the next generation is leave them the next generation of transportation which is passenger rail. >> i personally believe we do need high-speed rail in this country. i have some other countries have done. i see what japan and china have done. i see what europe has done. we cannot fall behind in that area either. any boy it travels in the northeast corridor knows we are way behind. -- anybody that travels in the northeast corridor knows that we are way behind. you mention overseas operations. there is a fair amount of skepticism here with respect to that. let me try to capture why there is skepticism. there are many of us that believe while we understand the cbo says this is a savings we understand that. here is what troubles me.

it just strikes me that what we commit in terms of war funding has very little to deal -- it has very little to do with will write down on a budget tabled. we commit to more funding as a nation is guided by the national security interest of the united states. -- what we commit to war funding as a nation is guided by the national security interest of the united states. i understand that the cbo says if you cap overseas contingency operations because we are drawing down in iraq in afghanistan, the register's savings. i understand that. i have always been reluctant to use overseas contingency operations to pay for something. i always thought that was a bonus in terms of bringing down deficits and debt. i have always been very reluctant.

what is your position? >> my position is this. the last two years that i have appeared before congress, i have taken a heap of criticism for bringing proposals forward better not paid for. that is over. we were criticized roily for that. -- royally for that. the president said debate it, figure it out. no more excuses about not being paid for. we have one. we take the highway trust fund, which is $230 billion, and we take half of the money from the

iraq bank afghanistan fund and we pay for what we are talking about here. -- iraq, afghanistan fund and we pay for that year. -- that here. >> i have exceeded my time. >> you do not have it paid for in any realistic sense. we were basically told that there is no real money in the war. the way cbo scores matters, if you had $100 billion for the war last year, they assume it will continue for 10 years. if you reduce that trend, then you have saved money under their scoring. it is unrealistic in terms of the debt of the united states. it is totally unrealistic. there is no money there. there is no kind of money there. it is not paid for. this money you say is going to

be paid for from the war funding is going to be borrowed. it is money we no longer are borrowing for the war. instead of having to take a deep breath and relax, you propose to spend half of it on the roads. that is just not common sense. it is the reason the country is going broke. i remember asking mr. hellman door on the eve of the health care vote -- i remember asking him on the eve of the health care vote, what we counting $500 billion to justify the health care bill and make a look like it will make money for the government instead of cost money for the government? he said, yes, you are double counting. i asked them, will you put it in writing? he said, i will put it in writing. he put it out the next morning.

he said, you are double counting the money. i am quoting here -- even though the conventions of accounting would suggest otherwise. i will say to you, if you may say you have paid for this. it is not reality even though the conventions of accounting might suggest that it is. this is important. you indicate in your remarks that it represents a 34% increase over the previous authorization. that is a pretty substantial increase at a base level is it not? >> center, america is one big pot hole right now. we have not paid attention to the roads and bridges. we have not. >> i know that.

if we were not buying motors for yachts, we could fill a lot of pot holes. >> i agree with you. it is significant. it is billions of dollars. we are way behind. >> with regard to california, i see now the numbers are coming in that instead of the early estimates of $30 billion for this plan, it will be $100 billion more. this is a program that is being rejected by governors all over the country. we are not going to start out a massive nationwide high-speed rail program. it is a debt -- it is dead on a rival. we do not have the money. we are not seeing any numbers that would justify the traffic count -- we are not seeing that the traffic count would justify such a program. there may be some areas of the country that could certainly benefit from high-speed rail. they need to be justified item

by item. with regard to consolidating the 55 programs, i think it is a good step. it is mainly your headquarters. your administration as i understand it, it would be improved. it could save money. i think that is important. what i am hearing is, the real problem out there is the long arduous expensive regulatory federal planning process. it is driving up cost for the state, county, and local officials when they tried to execute a project that is now from planning to cutting the ribbon as much as 13 years. the chairman made a reference to some of that. how can we reduce that time? you have any plans that you believe could actually reduce the time and any statistics that would back it up? >> yes, sir. on the highway side, we have a

program called "every day counts." was implemented more than two years ago. it does speed up highway projects. we have had lots of compliments and kudos from our partners in that program. the transit administrator just announced a way to speed up new starts program. it is on our web site. we reduced the amount of time dramatically from which somebody submits a new starts to when it is approved and to when we cut the ribbon. both of those programs are certainly -- every day counts has been in place. new starts is just being implemented. i believe it will speed up dramatically. >> we have seen run programs take too long, i think. some of that may be unwise management by certain state and

local governments. i do hear a lot of complaints. i am glad you are focusing on that. i think it will be a great way to get more highway capability sooner and less cost. that is one of the things that would make the taxpayers happy instead of spending more money. on high-speed rail, wisconsin and ohio have given back their money. they have realized it is too costly for them to participate. florida, the tampa to orlando project was rejected by the governor. they calculated it could be cost overrun as much as $3 billion. gov. kay sick in ohio rejected a $385 billion passenger rail to connect cincinnati and cleveland. the governor of wisconsin rejected a hundred 10 million to connect madison and milwaukee.

-- the governor of wisconsin rejected $810 million to connect madison and milwaukee. $5 billion was awarded for the first segment to connect them to bakersfield basically in the california desert. estimated cost of grown from $33 million in 2007 to as much as $100 billion as estimated by the state review board. -- $100 million as estimated by the state review board. the writer should members according to the review board to justify the projects were overblown and costs were wildly exaggerated to make the line of

better. i know it sounds good to have a nationwide high-speed rail project. at this point in history, we do not have the money. we do not have the possibility of anything close to paying for that plan. i wish to say to you, i think that is the reality you will face in congress. we do understand there are traffic jams and cities. some cities could use mass transit. some cities could use improvement to the interstates. most of them could use high- speed interstate improvements throughout. i will give you a chance to respond to that. thank you for your commitment to the program. we should have a person in this office that is committed to transportation. i have to tell you, when you are talking about these kinds of increases and these kinds of

programs where we are running the largest deficits in history, you have to understand congress is not going to be able to agree to everything. >> having served in congress for 14 years, i know that. during the 14 years, five of those years we had balanced budgets. thank you to the work of senator conrad and others. we still had priorities. you have priorities. one of the priorities is pay down the debt. that is what we did during the five-year period. one of the priorities is implementing passenger rail. we had $10 billion worth of requests. some of that came from republican governors. one in michigan that we just give almost $1 billion to so he could fix up the tracks from detroit to chicago so people could get to higher speeds.

we have invested in the northeast corridor. a lot of people in this town use it from washington to new york to get to higher speeds, to fix up. we will continue to make these investments. this is what america wants. the one the next generation of transportation. >> use it to fix of the -- >> detroit to chicago? >> in the northeast corridor. >> we have invested about $1 billion just recently. >> will that do? >> it will buy new cars, and the tracks in a position where they can go higher speeds. >> catenary. >> that is the electrification. >> fixing up tracks, identifying systems that are cost-effective. i say do that and report to us

and we will see if it can be justified. what you are talking about is major rail system's rigid new ones across florida or some of these other areas. governors are running the cost totals. the costs are coming in much higher than projected. the writer ship and income is below of what is projected. it would be a massive colossal error to try to build a nationwide system right now when the cannot be possibly justified in my view. >> can i just one thing? >> yes. >> america has always been about vision. particularly when it comes to transportation. now, i am glad when president eisenhower signed the interstate bill, there were a few visionaries here in congress and in subsequent administrations. what they did was they built larger chunks of concrete that did not really connect for a while. there was a vision. there was a vision to connect

america. 50 years later we have a state of the art at interstate system because of visionaries like eisenhower, members of congress. that is the kind of vision that president obama, some governors some people in america have for getting to the next generation of transportation -- to protect -- to connect our kids and grandkids and they can get out of cars and congestion so they can ride in a train that does a decent speed. if we do not have that vision, we are going to short circuit our ability to get what other generations did for us. >> to have a vision, it is just not connected to reality in my opinion. thank you, mr. chairman. >> we are doing 7 minute rounds today. we have a few members here. we can do seven minutes around and still get done by noon, which we have promised to do.

>> thank you for being here. i join the chairman and the ranking member sending our best wishes to your family. we hope becomes home safe and sound and soon. -- we hope he comes home safe and sound and sen. we were one of the states that were able to rapidly to use some of the $2.3 billion that florida declined. that will expedite the speed of trains coming through rhode island and serving our boston and new york markets. the northeast corridor does go north of new york, and i appreciate your recognize that. i think the boston to washington corridor is an area heavily used, and it should be a national priority to bring it up to speed. there are still many areas where the orioles need improvement. i want to appreciate my pre -- i

want to express my appreciation for that. i know you are coming up to a rhode island to speak at brown university. we will probably be stuck here so i will not be able to welcome you in person. if you have a free moment, i would love for you to have a lot just down the hill from brown university. it is a quarter mile long the bridge that goes through the middle of providence right by the big providence place mall where people come to shop and enjoy the wonderful new shopping mall that we have. it was built in 1964. when you go underneath it, you look up and you will see there are planks across the beams. the plants are there to keep the road which is falling in from landing on the car's driving underneath it to go into the mall. if you go to where amtrak shoots down underneath the highway same thing.

they have the plans under the highway to keep the road that is falling in from landing on the tracker from landing on trains. this is a really important project to get rebuilt. it is way overdue. rhode island is a small state with significant budget issues. there are zero -- there is a zero shot the state will be able to pay for it. in the bill a kid out of the public works committee is a provision of projects of national and regional said significance. -- regional significance. i have no doubt it will be able to compete successfully for the funding in the authorization. we do not presently have funding for it. i would urge your assistance, if you could i would request your assistance to locate funding for that project of regional and national significance. >> first of all, i will be happy to visit the bridge.

we will work with your office on that. i will also be happy to work with you and your staff on may be some opportunities to jump- start this project. we will pay attention to it when we go there. >> i appreciate that. let me also just say i think the budget committee reflects a variety of different economic views. my economic view is that when home corporate municipal and state economies are shrinking and collapsing, that is a good time for the federal government to spend to avoid adding to the negative economic cycle and worsening the situation. i have seen reports that say if we had a balanced budget act of the time being proposed now and

had been in place in the recent meltdown, we would have lost 17% of gdp. we would have been in a serious cataclysmic depression rather than just a recession. i do not think it is so easy to throw keynesian economics over the side and pretend there is no truth to it. austerity is the way to help people when in the economy is in recession. in particular, it seems to me it makes sense to invest at infrastructure at that point. unlike spending that goes out the window, you are left with something. you are left with a hard, tangible assets. if you have been smart about it, america is actually richer for having an asset -- some assets are more valuable when they were built and the money that went into it. that is how people make money investing into tangible assets. i think the notion that if it is spending, that is the only thing

we can look at. we can never look at the positive side of the balance sheet where you end up with a highway system so that everybody can get to visit their grandmother, to get their goods to the market, to travel safely and smoothly, to have a train system that can be equal to what is developed in asia and europe. i think it is a misguided economic theory both with respect to the countercyclical value of spending and with the national value that solid infrastructure creates. we have not talked about it but one other place to look at as water and wastewater. we have $600 billion worth of water and waste water infrastructure needs in this country. that is clean drinking water for people. proper disposal of sewage. that is reaching to meet the growth in our population. we are simply behind the ball on that. i agree with the chairman about this, i think we have $6 billion

and waste water out of the need that we have. thank you for agreeing to make that stop in rhode island. my barry that -- best wishes to your family. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator white house. >> we are praying for your son and appreciate what he had done for democracy. we hope he comes home soon >> i wanted to ask if you would follow up on the question of high-speed rail funding. in other areas of the world where there is a high-speed rail, including where we have rail in the united states, has it been able to sustain itself?

>> certainly the northeast corridor has. last year they made money. ridership is up on amtrak this year. >> between boston and washington, does it make money? >> i will put this in the record -- amtrak on the northeast corridor ridership was up and they made money last year. quite just to be clear, that will sustain itself without any federal subsidies? >> if it is subsidized by the federal government about 43%. >> that is my question. where can you tell me we can sustain rail by what people pay to use the rail so we do not have to continually federally subsidized it? >> we subsidize transit. we subsidized highways. >> my simple question to you is

can you tell me where we have a trail where we do not have to continually provide federal subsidies to sustain it? >> no, it has not. >> there are only two lines in the world where that happens -- tokyo and paris -- where the result can pay for itself. >> you are right about that. just to be cleared we are going to have to continuously subsidize -- >> just like we do transit and highways. >> i just want people to understand. you cited california as an example of productive -- example of where we should build high- speed rail, yet the estimated cost for the program, which would be the line that connects medeira to bakersfield has

grown to at least $100 million estimated in 2012. therefore, the cost of building it has a triple top -- tripled pre times what it was estimated when this issue was put to the voters in california. there are serious questions that have been raised by california by independent individuals who of look at it, including the state auditor, who has said that the california bullet train project has become increasingly risky because of fiscal issues. with respect to california, the california high-speed rail peer review group, and export -- expert body mandated by state law, and expressed serious

doubts and concluded that it cannot at this time recommend that the california legislature approved appropriations for the bonds because the project represents an immense financial risk. why would we designate additional federal dollars for something that in california, is designated as an immense financial risk? >> because the governor supports it. the elected leaders support it. i just met with the president which is called the protests of the senate, and also the speaker of the house. i just met with the two u.s. senators from california. this is what the elected officials in california would like to do for the next generation. they would like to have passenger rail in california because california is one big traffic jam. they want to get people out of cars and into passenger trains.

>> you are asking the rest of the country to put up billions of dollars or something that has been described as an "immense financial risk?" we have to look at the entire hall and i do not think we should provide taxpayer dollars to something we will have to continuously provide federal subsidies for, number-one. second, we are taking immense financial risk. that is the issue with high- speed rail. if you look at those that are up right now, one in the house, one in the senate, neither body included money or this purpose. congress is concerned about, i think, this issue as well in terms of what is the financial measurement, what are the outcomes we are going to get from the investment? i think the fact that it is in neither bill speaks volumes in

terms of where we are on this issue. that is my concern with it. i do have a question for you -- but the president believe we are going to be fighting the wars -- we have taken ourselves out of iraq. does he believe we are going to be fighting in afghanistan for the next 10 years? >> that is not in my portfolio. i never talk to the president about this. wethe criticism for the last two years from this committee and committees on the other side of this capital was where is the pay for? we provided one. >> you assume we are going to be fighting wars or the next 10 years. in the absence of some indication that is really going

to happen, -- >> we are not in iraq. >> we were not planning on being in iraq. how is that? the notion that we were going to be somehow having a full contingency in iraq for the next 10 years, i do not think anyone would come to that conclusion brigid but particularly in afghanistan, the notion you you vote -- you will use savings from something we were not going to spend in the first place -- groups that have looked at this called it to take credit for a policy that is already funded at -- i understand that you do not have a pay for but the pay for in this budget is a budget gimmick. it does not solve the problem. to take credit for savings that were never going to happen, i

cannot go home and tell my constituents with a straight face that this is paid for. i hope that we will be working on a real way to pay for the funding. i know that you said we are certainly facing a situation where you are concerned about the infrastructure in this country. i respect that. i think that is very important. we also have great physical challenges here as well. we have to look at these things in a serious fashion. >> senator begich. >> thank you are coming to alaska as you did. we had a conversation. i wish your son the best. my brother did work over there also to try to create stability. he has been there maybe five times. as we think about your son, we

hope it all works out. >> thank you, senator. >> absolutely. >> i came in a little late. i apologize. >> the pay for as the highway trust fund. in addition to the iraq money. >> this body has a habit -- if you do not like cbo -- i have a lot of problems with cbo, but when they score something, they score something. it brings value to it. i am at all for the pay for. we have no intentions of being in afghanistan for 10 years. that is a poor policy. if we get out by 2013, great on that. again, i want to make the point that cbo has scored the project.

i missed it. the paraphrase the country as one big pot hole. i agree with you. there is no greater investment than the infrastructure of this country. we built more roads in 20 years when i was mayor. also, the work we did on the recovery money -- i was on the body here that did not do anything. i can show you where we put that money to work building roads. roads that cleaned up ingestion, which in turn made people more productive. they get to work or school on time. they are saving fuel. it is a win-win. cbo never scores that, but that is the value from my

perspective. i am a builder. i'd love to build everything. rhodes verticals, whatever it takes to improve and economy. i think it is important. let me ask you specifically, you noted the integration of unmanned aircraft at in airspace. the defense authorization bill, an element we offered, was making sure there is language in their designating these areas. the faa had the role to designate. i assume the two are coordinating. >> absolutely. >> there is no better airspace in the country than open air space, especially for unmanned aircraft. what is your timetable? -- timetable faa is looking at at?

-- looking at that will be analyzed? >> i will get it for the record but -- >> just a schedule. the university of alaska fairbanks is doing some incredible research. we have an enormous amount of air space that no one competes against and no neighbors to complain. i will be looking for that schedule. the senate bill did not have the $100 fee. we've had this discussion on general aviation. general aviation -- i want to differentiate between leer jets, big jets, and small general aviation. most general aviation folks i talk to understand they have to

participate. but creating more permits does not seem logical. they have all volunteered in the past to adjust. they need a better mechanism to deal with revenues than a another system. i wonder% agree with them. i tried this when i was mayor. i got my head kicked in i worked with the general aviation to come up with a better sex -- at a better solution. do you have any comment on that? not the fee, but the method? $100 versus the tax on the gas? >> in terms of the $100 fee, that was never proposed to be

applied to general aviation. that was for commercial aviation. we never proposed that for the lower end. >> your budget that you propose -- can you give for the record -- will probably have some issues but we can have that conversation another time. >>in the transportation bill that we are now starting, in theory, as you know i was one of a few who voted against moving it forward. there is a reason. we need road components. it takes alaskan roads and cuts them in half. it is hitting the most impoverished area of this country, which has the least ability to for the development and an infrastructure. we are working now with the chairwoman of the committee and others to try to get something

rational. we recognize budgets are tight but ap% reduction is severe for our system -- but a 50% reduction is severe for our system. i am sure your folks will be asked a lot of questions about the distance and the variety of things. senator boxer's bill. we are working with them at. the tribes in minnesota are now concerned. we know there is some reform that needs to be there, but we need to do it on the right kind of path. >> we will get in touch with the committee to provide some technical assistance on that. >> excellent. let me close and say mr. chairman, just to make sure -- i have some views on high-speed

rail and the efficiency of it -- but i want to emphasize your point. i know all the bombs i passedthe objective was to create a system a network that moves people from commerce to individual people. i understand the senator's concern about high-speed rail, but the point is -- we subsidize all of it. raged -- trains, roads, ferries -- you name it, we subsidize it. when we get goods delivered, we can pay for some of those with federal dollars. >> senator johnson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good morning. i also want to express my

concern for your son. it sounds like you has some pretty capable individuals going over there to resolve the situation. >> congratulations on your bridge by the way. >> thank you for that. thank you for your help in breaking the logjam. >> absolutely. >> that is a prime example of how important infrastructure is. i would just start out with that. government is the only entity that really can provide certain types of infrastructure. in the case of still water, we had to break through a log jam. the question really is who should pay for the infrastructure? should it be the federal government state, or local government? stillwater is funded by the state of minnesota and the state of wisconsin. when we talk about subsidizing what senator begich just said is

if we do it right. that is the main question -- who is making the choice of subsidizing things when we are running a $1.30 trillion deficit? i think these are legitimate questions. i want to throw that over to you. in terms of a highway spending what is the percent the federal government provides in funding for basic infrastructure versus state or local government? >> i am not sure of the current percentage, but i believe generally off the interstate, the majority of funding comes from state and local governments. most of the federal money goes to interstates and federal highways. >> part of the concern isn't when we -- is when we make these decisions, we really are subsidizing one state at the expense of others.

how effective do you think that has been going on over the years? >> it has helped, i think, build an interstate system. it did not start in all 50 states. you know that. was one state disadvantaged over another when they started in new york and not my home state of illinois it? maybe temporarily, but over 50 years, we ended up with a state of the art interstate system. when you look at transit systems in america every community has some sort of transit -- buses, light rail, or street cars. a lot of that was subsidized by the federal taxpayer. when one committee got one and another did not have one, does that mean one was disadvantaged? over time, i think it has pretty much even it out. -- evened out.

eventually, i think the country has benefited from a national transportation of view which almost every president has had and it really congress has had. we passed two transportation bills. 400 votes in the house and 80 votes in the senate. it was bipartisan. >> a lot of that is bipartisan pork going into different areas. in terms of wisconsin -- >> if it did help the development of transportation systems for america. >> i am supportive of infrastructure. >> i know you are. >> the question came for governor walker in terms of a high-speed rail. the annual operating costs were about $15.50 million. the estimates were you would

cover about 9 million of that by fees and fares leaving money to be subsidized by the wisconsin taxpayer and they rejected it. the articles i have read on the california a high-speed rail, we have airlines. we've already invested in that infrastructure. air travel can take care of some of that. how long can government subsidize operations is something -- in something that will never be economically viable? there are real questions as to whether or not this will ever be economically viable. >> governor walker decided he did not want high-speed rail, probably for the reasons you just stated. but other governors have said they want it. they wanted it in michigan. >> elected officials do like bringing bacon home to the state.

they are not going to be around to be paying the bills in four a, or 12 years. there term is over. that is a basic fact. >> my point is this senator we did not show of high-speed rail down anybody's throat. we did not. when governor scott, governor walker, a governor case it made their decision, we said, fine, you are the ones who got elected. there is a pent-up demand in america from the governors. "i would say for bringing home the bacon and respected of how economically viable this project will be long term. we would have liked to have seen that money in wisconsin go to deficit reduction. let's talk about, in general the transportation bill we are arguing over right now.

in terms of the level the gas tax is not funding it, what is that amount that is being covered by the lco? >> about half. $230 billion. >> part of the reason our gas tax revenue is down is because of fuel efficiency is up. it is politically poisonous to consider increasing the gas tax to refund -- increasing the gas tax. why not look at utilizing energy resources as a funding mechanism? >> when the president puts out a pay for, i assume that is what the debate is going to be about. that is what they are debating over in the house. they had to split the bill into three. one is transportation and one is energy. they are trying to figure out a

pay for. >> to you think that is a good idea? >> i like the idea the president put out. i like half highway trust fund and half iraq money. i think it is a pretty good formula. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> i thank all senators who ever participated. i think the secretary very much for being here. you ought to give seminars in how to justify. i have been here 25 years. i do not think i have ever seen a more able witness than secretary lahood. we have another hearing tomorrow. i hope my colleagues will participate. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> the president's budget sets out $72 billion, a 2% increase

from the $72.6 billion. it also includes a six-year four hundred $76 billion proposal that is paid for in part by savings the white house says comes from the drawdown of troops in iraq and afghanistan. coming up, more testimony on the president's budget with stephen -- steven chiu. and at 6:00 q&a with charles evans, jr. on their documentary about the tobacco industry, addiction inc.. this morning on washington journal, our guests include robert shapiro on the impact of the eurozone crisis on the economy, trade, and banks. then, tony perkins on the

issue's importance to social conservatives in the 2012 alexian. and mickey mcartor -- mccarter will talk about the cuts for the federal air marshal service and how the program has evolved since 9/11. "washington journal" is at 7:00 a.m. on c-span. >> tonight eliot spitzer joins the debate about whether to prosecute banks for mortgage fraud. >> i almost hate to bring up occupy wall street but they had a sign that was very accurate. they said we will no corporations are people when the texas execute once. [laughter] the problem is that we have given corporations of the upside with none of the downside. we have given them rights and

privileges we extent to individuals and yet when it comes to holding them accountable, becomes of the ways offers are built in, 00-- buffers are built-in we said you keep the upside and we will guarantee you are too big to fail. we say you do bad things, we do not have a way of holding you responsible. >> see his remarks as part of our presidents day lineup. it also includes a former navy seal on the mission that resulted in the cape -- killing of a osama bin laden. it all starts tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span. >> and joined american history tv for 24 hours of america's

first ladies including an interview with eleanor roosevelt. >> i think, like everything else, we started out expecting the united nations would solve every difficulty just by being the united nations. >> toward private quarters with our bush at 5:00. nancy reagan reminisces about her husband and at 11:30, the only first lady to run for president, hillary clinton at her final campaign rally in 2008. on this president's day weekend head to foot -- say spoke -- head to c-span's facebook page and tell us who you think was the nation's most influential first lady. steven chu testified on thursday

on the 3.8 trillion dollar request for 2013. the package includes $27 billion for the energy department, at a 3% increase from 2012 with funding for clean energy and a national security. this is just under three hours.

.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captions performed by the national captioning institute]

if we are serious about energy efficiency, and using electricity as efficiently as we can, if a nation can learn from what vermont will be doing. we want to share that with the rest of the country. mr. secretary, it seems to me that one of the sad moments in terms of what is happening in our country today is the degree to which as a nation, as a congress, we are not dealing with global warming. i say this not to be terribly partisan, but it is very sad that we have a major political party were many of its leading members project what the scientific community is saying about the reality of global warming. it is caused by man-made activities. if we are aggressive, we can lead the world in reversing that greenhouse gas emissions.

it is sad to me that we have so many people are rejecting scientific evidence. in terms of cutting greenhouse gas emissions, i think energy efficiency is a huge step forward. there's not much disagreement on that. weatherization is a very important part of that. i come from a cold weather states. we are making some progress in retrofitting homes. working families are saying, i am saving money as a consumer. we are creating jobs because we are working on those homes. being aggressive weatherization is win-win.

yet in this budget, you guys have cut weather zation -- weatherization. >> if you look at our request, i believe it is up from what was given to us for fy12. >> here is the story. the budget before us invest only half as much for 2013 as we did in 2008. that was the last year of the bush administration. in 2012, congress approved, drop in funding to $68 million down from $227 million in 2008. you went up from last year, but we are below where we were in 2008. would you agree with me that investing in weatherization is a win-win? >> i agree.

so we have asked for an increase. i think we are also trying to promote programs that would -- with not only federal dollars but also programs -- i really think if done right, it can save money and the money one needs to borrow, if paid back in modest loans, it can decrease your bill. >> right. i do not know if there is any partisan disagreement on that. let me ask you this question. i am working on a concept. one of the problems we have in terms of weatherization, if he wants to reduce his fuel bill in his home, and knows that

retrofitting will do that, but he does not have the upfront money. if we can get him the $15,000 in eight to cut its fuel bill by 30% and paperback by the reduced -- and pay it back by the reduced amount of money he is spending on fuel, what ideas do you have about how we can get to middle-class working families that upfront money so they can lower their fuel bills and save money?

>> usually, when they are buying a house. in the toolbox, energy mortgages. one way to stimulate that is to encourage lenders, lenders asked for a person's income. they asked for their property taxes. they ask for a lot of things. they asked for a structural engineer. it would not be too much to say, why not get an energy audits from the engineer? to make a wiser homeowner -- >> i agree. but it is not just people purchasing a home. will you work with us on this? coming up with loans that will be rotated? it is a win-win situation. >> absolutely. utility companies can play a role. >> yes, they can. >> they have access to capital. >> that is correct. thank you.

>> i know that some of us have additional questions. i had one additional question, mr. secretary, that i wanted to ask. i will see if others do as well. i've wanted to ask about the department plans now that the chemistry and nuclear facility has been put on hold. for many years, we have been told that the replacement nuclear facility was necessary. now we are told there may be alternatives that the department wants to pursue. can you describe what changes in operations and staffing you anticipate now that the cmrr has been delayed?

>> much of the staffing -- what we plan to do is go ahead and complete the design of the building. what we have been putting -- it was mostly engineering design. we will get to 90% of the engineering design part of it, that is very prudent for a number of reasons. before you start construction it is best to have most of it designed. you are correct, we are now putting that on hold because of the budget constraints. we have to look at all the other projects and we could not simply start cmrr, and we felt there

were more compelling reasons to begin that. we are looking at the plans -- the footprint is there. there are other parts of this we are looking at and working with the defense department as to what the requirements will be. is that gets worked out, that will be folded into it. we will try to figure out how we can repositioned. what is different, as you all know, is that we have severe budget constraints and we do have a deficit. >> you are not clear as to what additional options the administration would expect to take to meet its needs it was

expecting to meet the construction of this cmrr. >> we are looking at some of the things -- some of the things they would have done, we are looking to offload some of that to other -- i forget the name of it. they have a new name for that. also, we are looking very closely at how we can best fulfill our obligations and it needs for our nuclear security. we believe -- our overall plutonium strategy.

there will be some, we feel, but we do not know whether there are other options. >> let me ask senator holden, are you ready for your questions? >> i am, mr. chairman. i appreciated. mr. secretary, good to see you again. i would like to ask you about gasoline prices. i am sure you are aware that the average price for gasoline in the country is over $3.50. that is up 90% since the current administration took office. my question relates to why aren't we advancing projects like the keystone pipeline to provide more supply and to help bring gasoline prices down? you were asked to review that project.

the department of energy was asked to review that project by the state department. you're an expert -- your expert was asked to review the pipeline project and comment on it. as to whether it would help reduce gas preeses in the united states. i will quote from this report. "gasoline prices in all markets would decrease." that was by your experts. department of energy, june 22, 2011. my question to you is your we have rising gas prices, putting a strain on our consumers, businesses, on the economy, and the administration turns down a project that would help us reduce gasoline prices. why is that?

>> first, i am not aware of this report. i can get back to you on that. it is my understanding the gasoline prices in the united states are affected by refining capacity is an access to those refiners. the biggest bottleneck was the bottleneck from oklahoma to houston. there was a very large price differential of crude in houston. that is being taken care of by a by the people who invest in pipelines.

that is being taken care of as speak. there are numerous pipeline plans. one is being reversed so that refined products from houston and louisiana can be imported to the midwest. in other pipeline from chicago is also being built. much of the pipelines in the united states that would bring oil from wyoming, north dakota, and to get the oil to the refineries that have the capacity are being done in the private sector. this is on a path that is creating jobs. it is going to be helping. in the end, the gasoline prices, we are very concerned about, and the administration has taken -- this pipeline activity occurs because once you see big price differentials, the industry's

steps in to say we can fix that. in addition to that, we're doing a lot. twice, we have changed the mileage standards of automobiles. this directly affects american public. by 2025, the average savings would be $8,000. >> mr. secretary, what you'll have been part of this administration, gasoline prices have gone up 90%. we are looking at $4 gasoline by memorial day.

you're willing to build all types of pipelines, but your honor willing to build the pipeline that would bring 830,000 barrels a day from canada and will help alleviate a bottleneck in my state of north dakota. our oil is discounted $27 a barrel of west texas because we do not have the pipeline capacity to bring it down to the refineries. we will put more than 100,000 barrels a day in that pipeline. instead, we have to run trucks. you want to build all of these pipelines, and why not the keys down? >> pipeline from wyoming and north dakota can be built. the administration has -- there

is not a decision in the administration need to make on that. the only part of the pipeline the administration was asked to weigh in on was the pipeline the one from canada to the united states. the pipelines are helping bring the oil from your state down to those refineries. those things are things where -- >> that is not the case. i just explained to you. >> my understanding is if you look at the pipelines that exist today and you look at the major bottlenecks to the pipelines, those pipelines, the part of the pipeline that goes from canada into the united states, that is -- my people tell me that to for the next decade or so, with the increase in production of canadian oil, that will not be the bottleneck. where we have the bottleneck is to houston, from chicago. those things are being built.

those are taken care of. >> i am over my time, mr. chairman. i will defer for a second round. >> why don't we go ahead with the second round? >> thank you. thank you for your patience, secretary. several weeks ago, we had a presentation the global picture. i had an opportunity to ask his opinion on where alaska natural gas to fit into the bigger picture as we talk about domestic natural gas. the center has on many occasions asked questions -- the center has asked many questions about the export of domestic product here. you have the authority to sign off on whether or not export is in the national interest.

the question is whether or not alaska was viewed separately from the rest of the lower 48 market. different type of gas, different processes, a different market. alaska is much closer to the asian market and we are most of the lower 48. it was good to get his opinion on it, but you're the guy that ultimately signed off on export licenses. how do you view alaska's natural gas and whether or not this is something that would be viewed differently than the domestic production. >> given the charge of the

decisions we would have to make, it would have to be folded into what would be in the best interest of the united states. alaska is in a different location. we would have to fold all that in. before we license anybody, as we deal with these applications, we have to be very conscious of the fact that we do not want to have a significant impact on the gas prices. considering the benefits of the united states and its totality. i cannot comment on what --

having said that, alaska does have natural-gas. >> a lot of it. we are still trying to figure out how we access that. that is our challenge in the state right now. one of the things we are looking at is the prospect of rather than sending it through an extraordinary transportation system to move it to the state, liquefy it, to move towards export. not a decision that has been made. we have a long way to go, but it is an issue. it is a very different markets, it is a very different gas. i look forward to the opportunity speak with you about that.

we have also had the chance to talk about arctic methane hydrates and the great potential that we have. methane hydrates are going to continue to be part of the natural gas technology research and development budget. that is good. we are not the only country working on this. we have a good partnership with japan. right now, there is a a major test scheduled in alaska in partnership with japan. i know you hope to follow up on this test. i am wondering if you can tell me what level of commitment is from the department of energy to continue this public-private -- with the progress that has been made to advance the research in an area that i think we recognize holds great potential. it may be further out in the distance than some of the

technology and front of us, but exciting. can you give me any updates? >> we are going ahead with this test. japan is very interested because they have reserves off the coast. as you noted, if one can figure out how to extract it, it could be as significant or far more significant than the technology that was developed for shale gas. we are looking forward to the test. the test is one part of a program going forward before industry would want to begin to invest in it on their own. again, it is a balance. industry views methane hydrates as something that plugs up their lines.

right now, the program being done in alaska is being directed by a department of energy scientist. it is a research project, but it is one part of that research project. after this stage, we see it continuing. >> i think it is important because we recognize it -- there are 12 million in this budget for all methane hydrates research next year. my understanding is this test is going to be more expensive. the commitment to continue is going to be important. we will follow up on this conversation. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. you have been a patient sold. -- soul. you have sat in that seat for .5 hours.

you've sat in that seat for 2.5 hours. up on this side of the desk there are pretty diverse views with respect to energy. folks who care about solar and folks who care about nuclear. there is a wide variety of opinion. i want to ask you about an area i think would be unifying. something that i think you, in particular, to champion. that is energy storage. when you look at energy storage, this is something that makes wind and solar more economic. it also is hugely beneficial to coal and nuclear. it helps the transmissions systems operate more efficiently. you have something that is crosscutting in terms of technology, literally benefits every corner of the country. i cannot find a corner of the country that would not benefit from it. yes, we have not been able to

get in place a clear strategy to tap the potential of energy storage. a couple of years ago, your science adviser, a distinguished individual, i asked him about energy storage. he said, we will wait and see what happens. we have gone to a variety of debates. i am concerned -- it looks like energy storage is cut. what would it take to did you and the department to lay out significant strategies to tap the potential of energy storage? the real potential for production and distribution is not consumption. it is the other side of the coin of energy efficiency. it could be something that would be backed by democrats and republicans. it would be crosscutting in terms of technology. so little has been done to lay out opportunity for a real strategy. can we persuade you to do that? >> you do not have to persuade

me. we're doing that. this is one of the reasons why one of our hub is an energy storage hub. not only for automobiles, but for utilities. it is not only batteries, but for compressed air. you can use nighttime energy to process heat. sometimes when the wind is blowing, you can put that into a lot of kind of storage. hydrous storage is something i have been pushing very hard. no environmental impact, but it is a form of storage. we know that energy storage at the megawatt power scale would have been credible applications -- would have incredible applications to the distribution system. it would make it much more efficient. if you had little batteries, it would have a profound difference. the energy storage is about 350 kilowatt hours.

energy storage for renewables are all part of that. we're not only looking at batteries, we're looking at compressed air. >> if you could send me the document that reflects this strategy, that is what i am asking for. all i can see in terms of documents is the proposed cut in storage at the office of electricity. i was not interested in debating that. what i wanted to see was something that would lay out a strategy. we have not seen such a thing. if you could get that to me, it would stop this back and forth. what i really want to see is an

actual strategy so that everybody would understand what the potential is. thank you. >> 10 seconds. the office of electricity was cut because what we decided was that it was much more appropriate -- we were trying to consolidate where we think it would do the most good in terms of the level of program management. overall, if we gather up all the pieces, it is going up. >> thank you, mr. chairman. energy storage is part of efficiency, yes. earlier we talked about your commitment to a new enrichment technology that would give the united states the ability to get back on the cutting edge in terms of our technology and be able to supply our energy needs from the national security point of view. that comes from domestic sources, is that correct?

>> thank you, mr. chairman. energy storage is part of efficiency, yes. earlier we talked about your commitment to a new enrichment technology that would give the united states the ability to get back on the cutting edge in terms of our technology and be able to supply our energy needs from the national security point of view. that comes from domestic sources, is that correct? >> correct. >> is that the policy that we should have a u.s. source? >> it is not a policy. we are obligated to have u.s.

sources. >> this is a requirement that we have a domestic source? with regard to other activities i extend an invitation to you to come out and see what is going on there. there is also a cleanup of the existing technology. the contamination is going on. there are 1950 workers involved with that. i notice in the budget, there is a 33% cut. will this reduction in funding allow the department to maintain the commitment the department has made to accelerate a

cleanup? >> it was made back in 2009. >> we are looking at all of our options. whether we can do some bartering, things of that nature. we have to be careful whether it will affect the markets. we are trying to figure out how we can move that forward. >> in the past, you have both board and sold some of your own stockpile of uranium to provide the additional funding. it seems to me that that would be the right way for record you say you need to analyze it more,

what do you need to do? >> we are already catalyzed that -- we have already analyzed if we introduce into the market something that is 10% or below, we feel safe it would not have a material impact on the market. we have -- we do not know what will happen beyond that. >> it sounds like you have done the analysis. you did it in 2011 and went to the third quarter of calendar year 2013. you found no adverse impact for the level you are talking about. i would hope that having done that analysis, we could move forward to give the folks at the plant some certainty.

in the end, we accomplished something great. it was initially opposed by some people. in the end, it saved the taxpayers $3.40 dollars -- three and $4 billion. for the taxpayer, it is going to cost the taxpayer more if we get away from the accelerated cleanup. i urge you to look to the analysis again and provide the funding through the border or sales to keep your commitment. i think it is the right commitment. >> we did did the analysis at the 10% level. right now, we see us bumping up hard against that. if you want to ask us to do an analysis higher than 10%, we would be receptive, but i think the senator might represent an

alternate point of view. >> at the analysis done last year was conclusive as to not having a market impact. our obligations, we are bumping up against that. we would have to do in other analysis to go higher. >> are you committed to the cleanup? >> we are committed with whatever the means we have and the constraints we have to the best we can. if you want to ask us to do in other analysis, we would be

delighted. >> if that is what it takes to keep the commitment. i think it is the right thing to do. it is the right thing to do to keep on site a lot of highly skilled people who are otherwise going to be found without a job or moving nine. more difficult to bring them back to continue the good work they are doing. we're very interested in being able to take some of the material at of the decontamination and cleanup efforts and be able to recycle those materials. there is a concern with some of the other agencies looking at the safety of that. we think that is an enormous benefit to the taxpayer. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. secretary, for your patience. i want to follow up on what senator sanders was talking about. i have started a retrofitting initiative in my state called back to work minnesota. i really believe that this is

low hanging fruit. innovative financing mechanisms to get the upfront money to retrofit commercial buildings, municipal university's, schools and hospitals, etc. it pays for itself. it puts people back to work. it puts people in the building trades to work and to our in a depression or a recession. it helps our manufacturers in minnesota. it would do this all around the country. it is part of the president's

better building initiatives as well. i would like to bring up a few little areas. you talk about utilities companies can provide the financing. in minnesota, we have a mandate for utility companies that they have to increase the efficiency of their users by 1.5% a year. this is a mandate that encourages the utilities to find retrofits so that our energy efficient projects that they can help finance. i was wondering if you -- if we legislated that as a national part of the clean energy standards, that would be helpful? >> i am not sure. i do not know whether they did let me just say -- i do not know. here is another thing that would be helpful. this happens in new york and massachusetts and

california. if the regulatory agencies say that if the utility company gets an equal return on investment, if they have a customer business, a homeowner and loaned the money, to retrofit, that is seen as an investment in the utility company. they are entitled to a return on their investment. they became a bank for the business for the homeowner. you are entitled to recover for your investment in energy efficiency. instead of building and other power plant -- >> exactly. i have limited time. property assessed clean energy financing.

this is basically done for commercial buildings. a state or a county can lend money to a commercial building to do a retrofit, but some part of the financing put the property tax on -- even at the building gets sold, the property tax continues. it is a great model. on residential pace, the fhfa would not give mortgages to residential -- home -- because pace would get paid back before the mortgage. do you think that is a wise policy? i have written that a letter. would you do in my letter?

>> i have been talking a lot about this. the issue is that even the lenders do not want to even be -- let's say you have loaned $200,000 to buy a home. the homeowner wants another $10,000 for home energy improvements. to have equal footing in the payback period -- payback. lenders are setting, we do not want to do that. pace is viewed as a mortgage. even to get it even would be a great help. we're trying to work this thing through, but the lenders really

feel that nothing should stand in the wake of them and the first mortgage. >> very often, the lender would be the city or the county. this is not when someone is buying the house, but they have been in the house for a while. it is about making.com more efficient -- making that home is more efficient. putting people to work. making that house more energy efficient and bringing down the cost of energy in that community. >> i would love to talk to you and the time is up. there are a couple of other ideas that are worth thinking about. on the commercial sector, the real estate investment

trust. all we need is qualification from the treasury to say if a commercial building wants to invest in a new system or an energy-efficient windows, would you allow that to be written off as a capital expenditure cost? just the clarification of that would spur a lot of investment. they paid the energy belt because occupancy, and go. -- come and go. it goes into the rent. it will not cause the government any money, and that would be good. there are a couple of other things.

sometimes, retrofits, if there is a community block that wants to get together, i am saving a lot of money. now you can capitalize on that. talk about it. make a groupon type thing. you demand a 30% discount on the installation and everything else. to the contractor, it is great. that can greatly reduce the price of retrofiting. it can get some social awareness as well. it is all about saving money by saving energy. if you lower the price by 30% companies that have access to low-cost financing, a moderate interest-rate is a no-brainer.

it is not an out-of-pocket expense and you are saving more and paying back the debt. it is less than the money for your energy bill. these are jobs that could be for decades. we have 140 million homes. there are many things that we are trying to get programs and we have a number of programs -- those are some of the ideas we are talking about. to stimulate state and local governments to think of better ideas. a lot of this can be driven by the private sector. energy efficiency does save money. >> absolutely. can my office work with your office? block parties. thank you.

>> senator holden, you have the final questions. us in and nobody else wonders then -- assuming nobody else wanders in here. >> i would like a third round for block parties. >> we will schedule that for the week after christmas. >> thank you for being here. i am rather looking for help on this issue of energy infrastructure. in our last question and answer periods, and we went through pipelines. you said we're trying to build all these pipelines. you talk about all these pipelines.

trying to build around the united states. there are thousands of pipelines. what are we unwilling to build a pipeline that will bring crude in from canada and will help us move our crudes in the country? why is that? >> first, we are not unwilling. it is the president's pgs and the state department's position that we are not in the position of making a loop. they wanted an evaluation of the environmental impact. the pipeline is being built in the country are investments of the private sector. i see a lot of healthy movement in the pipeline construction with and the united states. in large part because of the ability to get oil from shale.

you have to get that oil to the refineries. this is decreased oil dependency. the private sector is the one that is investing in the pipelines. the only time the government steps in -- there are certain issues, but in terms of what you are concerned about, is the one that goes across the border. >> you brought up to a great points. your technical advice, the department of energy, the report is cited said the keystone of pipeline will lower gas prices. in addition, the report also says the gulf coast refineries will likely consume additional canadian of oil in excess of what will be provided by the keystone pipeline.

your experts have said that it will be used tear and we will need more, not less. it will not be exported. on your technical advice, you have said, the department of energy said it will reduce prices and it will be used here. your experts. i appreciate your technical advice and i think it is very good. private sector investment, this is a $7 billion private sector investment. not one penny of government spending. given that it would bring us more crude, which we otherwise have to get from the middle east and venezuela, and it helps us with the bottlenecks.

we have a $27 a barrel crude in my state. unbelievable traffic. not only do we have discounts, and infrastructure problems, we have the consumer and business is paying $3.50 a day, the highest it has ever been this time of the year in our country. it hurts our economy. what would be allowed this? i do not understand. you said we were willing to build pipelines. >> i do not know the particulars. trucks are short-term solutions. they are very expensive, as you well know. >> i agree. >> if we are talking about the trucks in north dakota and

wyoming, the private sector, i do not know the particulars about this. once you see a lot of traffic, that is the last resort. >> mr. secretary, i am looking for help. thank you. your experts have been helpful and they have been right on the money. in our state, we talk about all the above energy development, we just don't talk about it, we do it. if you go to our state, you will see wind, biofuels, biodiesel, shale gas, oil, hydro, all of these. we are really doing it.

the reality is to get to that all the above, we have to develop all of them, not pick winners and losers. i am looking for help in this endeavor. mr. chairman, i may go over my time. i hope you will indulge me. 80% of the new development -- instead of excavating, you drill. your greenhouse gas emissions is the same as for conventional drilling. right? talk to me in terms of what canada, united states, and some help from mexico, what we produce about 70% of our crude. if we had keystone, we go to 75%. we do not have to rely on the middle east and venezuela. 80% of new development is the

same footprint as conventional, why wouldn't we be trying to do all that that we can do? from an energy standpoint, from the concept of north american energy independence, it is in this a plan that gives us the opportunity to get to all the above? how can you help us get this done? >> it is environmentally much preferred. >> 80% of new development. >> i understand. it is a little bit more carbon intensive. you are using fossil fuel to heat up the steam. having said that it is much preferred. again it is not a question of why don't we.

this is where the industry is going. they're finding out they have to go deeper and does not make sense. there is also the environmental cleanup issues they have to face when you have that open pit mining. the recovery is much more desirable. >> you address that problem, too. >> because you are using natural gas, that is going to cause more carbon, but the refining issues are much easier. all sorts of issues are easier. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> you have been a very generous with your time. we appreciate you being here. that will conclude our hearing. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

>> again a look at the numbers shows the president's request for the budget is $27.2 billion. that's a 3% increase from 2012. it includes increases in clean energy investment nuclear stockpile disposal, and waste disposal and it eliminates incentives for oil and gas companies. >> this morning on "washington journal" our guests include robert shapiro on the impact of the euro-zone prices on trade. then tony perkins on the issues important to social conservatives in the run-up to the 2012 election. and mickey mccarter will talk about the president's proposed

$46 billion in cuts for the federal air marshall service and how the program has evolved since 9/11. "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> tonight on c-span hear from wael ghonim on social media and the egyptian revolution. >> i know this does not make sense to a lot of people, but that's just how i see things. working for google, working for a company that does mass scale projects online, i remember in the interview the typical why do you want to work for google? it wasn't the food. [laughter] what i like about google, the

democracy of offering people information. the people living here do not understand the value that we all have equal access to information. in the egyptian regime, most of the people would only get streams of propaganda going into their brain. this is how the regimes are sustained, besides making everyone scared. >> see his remarks in our prime timeline-up. they will -- there will be a discussion on navy seals and the killing of bin laden. it all begins tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span. >> i think that what we're probably going to see is committees of various jurisdictions coming up with bills that deal with slices of

of the issue. >> tonight anna eshoo at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> l.c.v. stands for local content vehicle. we have three of them. the purpose of these vehicles to collect programming from outside of washington, d.c. how do we do it? we staff each one of these vehicles with one person, a small laptop computer so they are able to produce and roll and edit things from the road. why i want to do this is to get outside of washington, d.c. and collect program -- programming for all of our networks. we are doing what we call an l.e.c. tour. one will collect history and historic sites.

one will do book-tv and catching up with authors, and the other does community relation events. the last thing that's important to know is all this not only goes on the air, but it gets arkifed at our video -- archived at our video library. we are also doing extensive social media. you will see us on facebook. you will see four square, really location based, tell you where we are going. you will see us on twitter as well. it is a chance to get our message not only on air but online through social media as well. that's why it is important to get outside of washington, d.c., get in the place where we do not normally do programming and make a commitment to produce for all of our networks. >> and watch our next stop in louisiana.