thanks very much. >> -- one-year anniversary of march 11th for japan? >> i don't have anything for you on that. in a few minutes, eric holder testifies on capitol hill about a 2013 budget request. and in more than an hour and a half, more about next year's budget from steven chu. then the editor of the weekly standard, fred barnes. >> fired j. edgar hoover? i do not think the president could have gotten away with it. >> timid wiener details the

history of the fbi. >> he is like the washington monument. . the most powerful men who ever served in washington. 11 presidents, 48 years. there is no one like him. >> eric holder was on capitol historhill today to the tell the budget request. an increase of about five%. this a little more than 1.5

hours.

>> good morning, everybody. the commerce justice appropriations subcommittee will come to order. this morning we welcome the attorney general of the united states. as is the usual and customary way, a senator hutchison and i will make opening statements. to be will go to you attorney general. you can summarize that all statements but in the record.

does this sound ok? >> we expect participation. we will strictly adhered to the five men and roll. having laid the groundwork, i want to say good morning. welcome to our first subcommittee hearing. we will hear his presentation on the department of justice budget. we have a very positive relationship. he has brought the career prosecutor experience. he has been dedicated to fighting violent crime and terrorism. he is now working with our team.

how do we protect our citizens and our civil liberties? people are we get into the numbers about the money, i've you and all think yothank the hard been in women that work at the department of justice. there are 119,000 employees. they have done some amazing accomplishments which i will talk about when i get to my question. we want to thank them.

they have either done prevention and intervention, to make sure they make traditional violent crime work to all over the world. as the chair of the subcommittee, i three priorities when examining the budget, communities, security, and the community safe. national security to keep america safe and oversight and accountability. i want to make sure the justice department has what it needs to do its mission. i saw there was only one new initiative. that is the expansion of mortgage in financial fraud. that was $111 million

.ppearanc we have seen such a rising number of scams and schemes and predatory lending practices. toknowant to know what you need do with the money. we cannot have a vibrant community unless it is safe. i want to know how the budget will keep america safe at home the requests for $2 billion for grants and local law- enforcement, i wonder if it is sufficient. it is $32 million below the 2012. the state and local one seems to bear the brunt of budget cuts.

grants have been cut by $1 billion in local funding. some of this is the acts of the congress itself. we need to hear your view on what we can do. they have recommended that you should conduct a review and eliminate unnecessary deportation. we also want to look into protecting our children. one area of bipartisan support is the money to catch predators. we understand you are requesting $328 million. we look forward to seeing how you will allocate that.

the southwest border, senator hutchison has worked in that area. this is not only a bipartisan support, we think it should be non-partisan. i will let her raise those questions. we need safe and resilience networks. we worry about the safety of our power groups in air-traffic control systems. yes today the congress held -- yesterday peacthe congress held its cyber exercise. this was chilling and terrifying to know what happened there.

we need to know about cyber. i want to know how the justice department is improving. we have very specific questions. the number of people here will speak. i will turn to senator hutchison and then to you. >> thank you. thank you very much not only for the deference on border security and where i live but also on the way you run this committee which is for us to do what is right for america. i do want to address some of the areas of border security.

the finding is something that continues to be short changed by your budgets. fors the reimbursement local counties that incarcerate illegal prisoners. along the borders they are very poor and not have this kind of resources. we did not get the money back in. i would hope that you would support increasing that as we go through this process. we must incarcerate these illegal criminals, are mostly in the drug cartel and operations. this cannot be borne by the counties.

language was included in last year's bill that would prohibit law enforcement agencies from selling operable weapons. this removes that language, saying it is unnecessary. we just want to make positively shore that what happened is that happen again. last year are, as justice provided to million dollars to expand the capacity at the overcrowded a passel intelligence center. this is critical for our southwest border and information sharing. it has the potential to become the borders social point.

it is imperative that this center take full advantage of the resources available from the department of justice agency. i hope that you can give us an update on the status. they are attempting to recruit college students to smuggle drugs. miners are more appealing because criminal penalties are leiter. one of the good parts of your budget request is 312 million for the prevention programs. i will be interested in hearing if you are aware.

we tried to make sure we help our youth. there is a request a cut of 1.5% of law enforcement grants which are very important. the local agencies have such a burden with the trafficking that is coming across the border. but i help you would help us restore that funding. the violence against law enforcement and officer resilience and survivability is one that i applaud your efforts to put in place. unfortunately, the number of officers to died in the line of duty in america last year increased from 153 to 173.

the feedback from the research being conducted is very positive including the alert center at texas state university which was credited by the two officers who came into fort hood when major nidal hassan started shooting unarmed military people. both of those officers survived even though the sergeant was shot several times. they both credited of their swift response to the alerts acted shooter training program that they had received. to that is something that is good that i applaud in your budget. and what to state a concern i have about the park service. they're pushing for construction

that is in service. this is not the department of justice decision. it is going to affect some of the personnel. the i am concerned this is an area where illegal immigrants can walk across. you walk across their river and into big bend and have been on manned border crossing. i think it is insufficient. we'll see if we can get the fbi, border patrol, somebody to get in a case like that. i am like to ask you some

questions about your public integrity unit. i am going to give you full credit for dismissing the case again senator stevens. atlanta as the questions. their report will be public within days. if there's anything you should take, it is that the public corruption unit is fair and evenhanded. clearly that is not the case and presentation for many of us. there are very badly abused. he did dismiss the case when he learned of the mass behavior.

and give the credit on the senate floor. i will ask you about the report when we had time to ask questions. >> thank you. >> i want to thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before you today and for your continued support. i afford to discussing the fiscal year 2013 budget. the president's proposal demonstrates the commitment to augment our important obligation, and that is protecting the american people. despite the fiscal constraints, the dedicated employees who serve in the office have made significant progress in safeguarding our citizens from

terrorism, cyber crime, and from a range of threats that often threaten the most vulnerable members of our society. we have proven our commitment to acting as stewards of precious taxpayer dollars. in the most recent request, proposed spending increases have been exceeded by proposed cuts. as a result of numerous steps taken to streamline operations, almost $700 million worth of savings have been developed, and we invested in critical mission areas. i believe the department is more efficient than ever before. recent achievements, especially when you consider our national security efforts -- by continuing to work alongside u.s. and international partners, we have identified and disrupted numerous alleged terrorist plots, including one by two iranian nationals to assassinate the saudi ambassador, and we have secured convictions against a number of dangerous terrorists. in october, the department obtained a guilty plea from abdul mutallib.

in november we secured the conviction of a notorious arms seller. the list goes on and on. with the sustained investments included in the budget for the comprehensive national cyber security initiative, the joint terrorism task force, and other key national efforts, the department will be able to strengthen our surveillance and intelligence gathering capabilities. it will allow us to bring our fight against financial fraud to a new level.

on monday, the president issued a proclamation to mark the beginning of this year's consumer fraud protection week, and i know the justice department branch has established a record of success in defending the interests of american consumers. in 2011 alone, our consumer protection branch obtained a 95% conviction rate, and obtained sentences totaling more than 125 years in prison against more than 30 individuals. this represents a remarkable progress, but is only the beginning. since the start of the administration, the justice

apartment has signaled an unwavering commitment to combating and preventing a wide range of financial and health- care fraud crimes, and we have taken steps. charges have been brought against numerous ceo's, board members, and other executives of wall street firms, hedge funds, and banks who have engaged in fraudulent activities. we have attained prison terms of up to 60 years. just this week we secure a conviction against a former board of directors. the task force has established

new working groups, the consumer protection group, which will enhance civil enforcement of consumer fraud and the residential mortgage bankers group, which will help investigate and prosecute abuses in the housing market. both will foster cooperation and collaboration in the department's response to problems. a similar approach that the departments of justice and housing and urban development and 49 states attorneys general to achieve a settlement. this agreement builds on the record of fair lending obtained last year and will sustain relief to homeowners. it provides a blueprint for future collaboration across government and party lines.

there is no better illustration of our progress than the work to combat health care fraud. in cooperation with the department of health and human services and others, by utilizing authorities provided under the false claims act and other statutes, we were able to recover nearly $4.1 billion in funds that were stolen from federal health-care burdens, and that is the highest amount record in a single year. we also opened more than 1100 new criminal health care fraud investigations, secured over 700 convictions, and initiated more than 1000 investigations, and for every dollar we have spent, we have returned $7 to united states treasury.

these numbers are stunning, but my colleagues recognize we cannot be satisfied, and this is no time to become complacent. that is why in addition to helping us build on this record of success, the budget request will bolster our fight against drug trafficking, gangs, and cyber criminals, and increase efforts to protect the law enforcement officers who keep us safe and expand on the work being done by our civil rights division to guarantee the rights of all americans are protected in border areas and work places and voting booths. i am committed to build on these and the other many achievements, and you understand in this time of uncommon threats and complex challenges we simply

cannot afford to cut back on the amount and quality of justice that we are obligated to deliver. the department must remain diligent in protecting and enforcing the law, and these efforts must be funded. i look forward to continued to work with the members of this committee to accomplish this, and i will be happy to answer any questions you might have. >> thank you, mr. attorney general. we will now turn to senator shelby. he has a banking committee that he must attend, and then i will pick up with senator hutchinson. we will recognize members in order of arrival and follow the five-minute rule. >> thank you, madam chairman. good morning. two key justice department facilities will soon be operating -- the fbi's terrorist explosive device or analytical center, and the national center for explosives training and research.

these assets will help officials deal with a growing threat posed by terrorists and criminal use of powerful explosives. you and i have discussed these previously, and you agreed then that the missions of these groups are distinct but complementary, and that makes sense to collate them at redstone. can you describe how the department of justice will utilize these agencies?

>> it deals with the examination of the ied's that we see coming out of afghanistan, and the agency run by atf deals with the other, the more prevalent explosive devices we see, and you're right. they have fundamentally different responsibilities, but they complement one another, and the location of them in that place makes a great deal of sense. >> could you describe locating these in the same arsenal? >> there may be breakthroughs they can exchange with people relatively close by. having the agencies responsible for explosives determination and prevention having been close by, although distinct roles, have been pretty well delineated. it is clearly having them there and talking to one another. [unintelligible] >> highest per-capita ph.d. communities in science and engineering. >> there are a lot of smart people there.

we use smart people when ever we can find them. there are a lot there. that is fair. [unintelligible] >> and pay for it. attorney general holder, the justice department is seeking funds to activate a new women's prison in alabama. this present was designated as a female-only facility based on input from your department, and it cost nearly $250 million. [unintelligible]

>> we want to activate it. it was specially designed to deal with the unique needs that female prisoners have. we have a need to expand our capacity to handle female prisoners in the federal system. given the fact the facility was specially configured, it would be our hope to activate it as quickly as we can. >> it is finished, and i would hope he would do that soon, because activation cost hardly anything compared to build. >> the need is clearly there for the expanding female population that we see in federal prison system.

>> is that a priority for you? >> we want to bring online as many of these facilities that we can, and this is one that is extremely close -- we're just about ready to open it. >> thank you very much for taking me out of the order, and i appreciate it very much. >> mr. attorney general, i have two questions -- i have many, but i will submit them for that record. federal prisons. as i look at the department's budget, almost 1/3 of the justice department money is going into federal prisons. that amount is now at $6 billion, and is rapidly approaching almost what the fbi budget is coming $8 billion. my question is, what is going on with federal prisons? people are incarcerated -- we want the bad guys and gals off the street.

we want you to prosecute and incarcerate, particularly where there are people who constitute a danger to our country or our communities. i do not know if we can sustain this growth, and i am concerned about once we put them in, it is a revolving door and keep expanding their presence with the same people. they keep coming back. could you elaborate on the department's needs? is there any recommendation you would have to contain the prison population? are we federalizing too many crimes? is recidivism the problem? this is an ever increasing part of our operations. >> there are a variety of reasons why we see the prison

population in expanding. we have about 215,000 people in the federal system. that number goes up every year. for that reason we come back to this committee asking for additional funds. there are a variety of reasons why you see people coming into the system. we are good partners with our counterparts, help them to the extent we can, so some cases that violate federal and state law and if we have serious criminals, we bring into the federal system. the point you hit on, something we need to focus on, how can we rehabilitate people so we cut down on recidivism? one of the things we talked about is the second chance act, coming up with ways we make available to people reentry possibilities so they have the chance of not being recidivist, coming up with educational, vocational, drug treatment programs while they have been in prison.

we have seen good success being done with state systems that has been shared by the pew research foundation. we have learned from them in that regard. >> i want to go forward to specific recommendations, where our federal and law enforcement to prosecute and get bad people off the street, whether terrorists or terrorizing a neighborhood, like some of the drug dealers in some of my own communities in maryland. at the same time, we do not want our federal prisons to be an incubator for more crime, where the lessons they learned when they could is not commit crimes again, but how to be better crooks. we want our presence to teach them how to be better citizens. and then to come back to the community support system where they do not fall back into the

situation that got them there. i am concerned that our federal prisons are such that we need to look and evaluate and learn these lessons. we want to work with you. you are very experienced in street crime. it takes me to the other area while you have done this fantastic job of fighting terrorism, keeping america safe. it has been stunning what our national security services have accomplished, the military, and some believe -- i will come back to streets and neighborhoods. we have communities that face crime every single day, and we talk our local law enforcement, our local prosecutors' offices and so on, and they feel they are under the gun. they need grants, cops on the beat, and so on. do you feel that this is sufficient funding, because in the last couple of years, in 2010, we had $3.7 billion that went into state and local grants due to acts of congress and so on.

now we are down to $2 billion, and yet everywhere i go in maryland, from our local police commissioners to local district attorneys, state's attorneys, as they're called in my state, people say we need those justice department grants. they give us better technology, tools to deal with violence against women. they need you. they love having you as a partner. do we have enough money in the right places to do the job to protect our communities? >> we have in the request, $2.04 billion for state and local assistance programs, $290 million for cops, $412 million for the office of violence against women. this is a level equal to the

level we requested last year. it is lower than numbers you had said. given the budget realities we face, the amount we have requested is strong on law enforcement, science, victims. would i like to have more money? yes, but the budget realities we confront and the need to stay within a budget in the executive branch have gone to this point. through the provision of this money, through the assistance we can also provide to our partners, we can i think do the job. i met with the association of attorneys general, and the partnerships we have is an unprecedented one, and the combination of the partnership and the money we're seeking here will allow us to be a good

partner. >> i will turn to senator hutchison. what i would find it helpful is two things -- if you look at your grants, cops on the beat, what was the amount of money requested by state and local people to apply for those grants, and what could you find. my time is up. i would like that for the record. the second thing is the gao report raises issues related to duplication of services, and i would like to have your reaction to the gao report on how we can streamline, get more efficiencies. i think you are already on that road. >> we will have questions for the record, but i wanted to pursue this public integrity unit's conduct against senator stevens.

the court appointed counsel after you moved to dismiss the case. the court appointed counsel to investigate the prosecution of senator stevens and found the prosecutors engaged in systematic concealment of evidence, but they were not guilty of criminal contempt. according to the summary that was put out, the full report coming later, it said -- the court said despite findings of widespread and the intentional misconduct, the special counsel recommended against contempt charges because prosecutors did not dissipate a clear and equivocal order by the judge as required under law. the judge set upon review of the dock and proceedings in the stevens case, he concludes no order existed in this case. the court accepted to repeat its representations of the subject, that they were familiar

with their obligations, they worked complying, and proceeded in good faith. does it concern you that the only reason these prosecutors escaped charges is that judge in the stevens case did not file an order specifically telling the prosecutor to follow the law? >> you have to take into account a variety of things. when i was made aware of issues that led to the inquiry that judge sullivan ordered, i made sure the case was dismissed. i ordered the office report be done as an internal report, which has now been completed. it is in its final stages of being worked on. >> will it be made public? >> i hope we can. there are privacy interests, but i hope to get as much of the

report made public as we can. it is an exhaustive study, and the people have done a good job and have made recommendations with regard to sanctions that ought to be made. i hope we will make that available. >> i am going to request that you do. >> i am not at liberty to discuss the report. we have gotten a limited number of those reports, and we are under orders by the judge not to discuss those. i have had a chance to review the summary and portions of it and some of the findings made there are disturbing. they were disturbing when i made the decision to dismiss the case.

we have done a lot since that time to come up with ways to prevent this kind of mistake from happening again. we have a training program. we have hired somebody responsible as a coordinator to make sure discovery in criminal cases and civil cases so we do not fall back into this same kinds of errors. we have talked to members of the judiciary, all to make sure that what happened in the case does not replicated. i would urge everybody to understand that this justice department, when we make that determination that mistakes occur, took the extraordinary case -- stepped up dismissing the case. >> i give you full credit for that. four of the six prosecutors who were investigated opposed releasing the report, and their names have been redacted. i want to ask you if any of these prosecutors are still in the justice department system.

>> i have to check that to make sure, but i believe all prosecutors who were involved in that case are still in the department. i believe that is true, but am not totally sure. >> does that trouble you that there would be a finding of misconduct in such a sensitive area that they would still -- that you would not let them go outside of our justice system? >> it depends on the nature of the misconduct it is that they did, the mistakes that were made. one has to look at the report that is about to be released, combined with the opr report and recommendations for sanctions contained in that report, to look at what exactly should happen to these people. was the incident isolated?

>> are you going to do that? are you going to make a decision regarding people who have clearly exhibited that they do not have the integrity to prosecute in the sensitive area? will you tell the committee what your actions are when you have made that determination? >> the actions we take -- there is no privacy act that prevents us sharing with the public what we have shared with this committee. >> i ask that you report that the committee. thank you, madam chairman. >> thank you, madam chair, and thank you, attorney general, for your service.

you established a new working group. thank you for that. i want to talk about that, but last week the former chair of the financial crisis inquiry commission observed the number of lawyers and other staff of the working group -- i want to mention that is fewer than the 100 professionals dedicated to the bank fraud task force during the savings and loan era. he suggested congress should extend the statute of limitations for financial institutions fraud up to 10 years as congress did in 1989 when it passed the federal institutions reform and recovery enforcement act. you are aware of the public sentiment of anxiety, frustration and outrage toward the fact that so few people have been prosecuted. talk to me about the working group, the dollars you are dedicating, the increase you are asking for. is it going to be going into the working group, and comment on

the recommendation that the statute of limitations, when it was lengthened to 10 years by congress then, it that is something we should do. >> first off, i will say this whole mortgage fraud problem -- scandal -- that we're dealing with is something we have taken seriously. we have brought charges against 2100 people last year in connection with the mortgage problem. the number of people, 55 federal personnel to go to this task force, that is the federal component, but one unique thing is we're working with partners and states attorneys general, so the number of people who will be devoted to that task force will be substantially greater than that, and i suspect we will be adding people from various

offices around the country. we're looking at up to five that will be intimately involved, so that number will ultimately go up. we will have adequate resources to do the job we need to do with regard to the residential mortgage-backed securities working group. with regard to the extension of the statute of limitations, that is something that i will be glad to discuss with members of this committee after i have had a chance to speak with the prosecutors on the ground to see if that is something that we need. we want to use all the tools we have and consider any possibilities we might want to acquire so we can hold accountable the people and institutions have had a devastating impact on the economy and continues to have a lingering impact, particularly on the housing market. >> thank you for that, and we

will be following up with her office. the people and institutions who let me talk about gas prices. oil prices are now over $100 a barrel. the cftc have told us inventories of oil are sufficient, domestic production is up. consumption is down, all reasons the gas prices should not be going up, understanding the turmoil in the middle east and the discussion of iran. it is my understanding that some analysts have estimated speculation may be adding 50 cents to the price per gallon of gas. it is my understanding doj organize the price broad working group to pick determine the role speculation prep review potential price

manipulation are having on the price of gasoline. what are your neck steps and what can we expect? >> networking group continues in effect. they are discussing the situation that we find yourself with these rising gas prices and the working group itself will be meeting before the end of this week. the work of that group has been ongoing and looking to see if there are inappropriate manipulations of the market. the ftc is also working in this area. i understand that are working on a report of some sort that we should be seeing relatively soon. within the department, that working group has been active and has a meeting today -- a meeting that will happen by tomorrow. >> i would like to request that after that meeting that the

task force read me and other members of the subcommittee who have expressed interest. >> we will certainly do that. >> we really would like to see that. this is very, very important. i will turn to senator mikulski. >> mr. attorney general, welcome this morning. i want to follow on senator hutchinson's questions regarding the prosecution of senator ted stevens. i think so many of us were radically shocked. i was horrified as a friend and an alaskan to read judge sullivan's comments that this ill-gotten verdict not only resulted in him losing his seat, but in his words, tipped the balance of power in the united states senate. pretty powerful in terms of what the department of justice did to a great man. i appreciate and i recognize and i thank you for your actions

in dismissing the case and in your decision to not attempt to retry and i join senator hutchinson in that. there are questions that still remain. you know that. i have a long series of them. what i would like to do is submit them to you today and ask that you respond to them prior to the release of the report which is due to come out next wednesday the 15th of march. i would appreciate your attention to that. i have a question regarding what is happening now with the release of this report. "usa today" reported the part of justice has spent $1.8 million in defending prosecutor from allegations that they broke the law in the stevens prosecution. senator grassley was one who mentioned that it things like this is an unseemly high amount of money being spent by the taxpayers to defend what

appears to be egregious misconduct again, center hutcheson has noticed -- noted the word that judge sullivan used in his report saying it demonstrated significant widespread an intentional misconduct by prosecutors. i understand that the $1.80 million went to attorney fees to defend the actions of the justice department prosecutors who were under investigation for content by the council appointed by judge sullivan. the report of that council is due to be released on the 15th. in addition to spending taxpayer money to defend your attorney, did the taxpayers also pay for the attorneys to argue that the contents of this report should not be publicly released?

you have stated that this is a matter that has risen to a level of public attention. if you can answer that question for me, and also whether the justice department supports the merits of the appeal that has been raised by mr. edward sullivan, who is one of the prosecutors at the u.s. court of appeals for emergency stay to prevent the release of this report next week. the question is whether you support the merits of that appeal, and again, whether or not the taxpayers are on the hook to pay for his attorneys to argue that this report should be kept from the public. >> i don't think we take any position with regard to what he has said about his desire to keep the report sealed, but the justice department has indicated that we do not object to the release of the report. i think that given the issues we found there, the magnitude of

the case, and the magnitude of the errors that led me to dismiss the case, that there is a legitimate public interest in knowing as much as we can about what happened, why it happened, what steps the justice department has taken in connection with these findings of misconduct. glaxo is the justice department paying for his attorneys' fees in this matter to keep this from being made public? >> i don't know about him specifically. i know that as a result of the charges that were brought against him, i think the determination was made that there would be a conflict of interest for the justice department to defend them, which would be typically how we would do it, and they were allowed to get outside counsel and under the regulations, the justice department then pays for those legal representation, which has happened in a variety of circumstances.

former attorney generals have had lawyers that have been reimbursed by but the government. i am hoping i will have to do that, but other attorneys general have very grex even now that the independent counsel that judge sullivan had appointed, even though that counsel has found that members of the stephens prosecution had engaged in significant, widespread and at times, intentional misconduct -- does the government have any recourse to recover the funds that have been paid for their attorneys these? when they have engaged intentional misconduct? you mentioned in your comments to senator hutcheson that after the office of public responsibility report that there may be sanctions that we will see, but is their recourse? are you pursuing any recourse? it seems to me that in an instance like this where it has been made clear that peak conduct was intentional, that it was substantial, and it was widespread, that we should not be defending and paying for the attorney's fees to again allow

these individuals to conduct such acts, and then to learn that they are still within the part of justice does not give me much confidence. >> certainly one of the things that happens is that because the justice department cannot represent these people and they have their own views of what happened, they want to be able to explain with counsel -- defend themselves. cut that is why the expenditure of money actually occurred and why they were allowed to get outside counsel. as i said, that has happened not frequently, but it hasn't happened in the past, and we acted with regard to them as we have done in the past with regard to the retention and outside counsel. >> i would think that $1.80 million to go to defend these attorneys who had engaged in

intentional misconduct is just stunning to me. i would like to think that there could be some recourse. >> it is important that you had the opportunity to pursue your line of questioning. the situation that has been presented by you and senator hutchinson reminding the committee is deeply troubling. we must have public integrity and an independent judiciary. regardless of which party is in the white house, we must have a justice department that we believe in and that the american people believe in. i know the attorney general will be responsive and we will take it from there. >> i just want to thank you for those comments and agree wholeheartedly. i do think the attorney general took a major for step when he dismissed the case. that was huge.

but now we must follow up so that there is no question that the people who did this, and the report will show what average shows, that they are not able to prosecute ever again, ever. >> thank you, madam chair. general, welcome to the committee. thank you for being over here. i just want to add my voice to something that was said earlier about prison overcrowding. i could go through the facts and figures on that but you know those better than any of us do. it is just a real concern. one of the presence on the short list is actually in arkansas, and in fy 2010 it was scheduled to be funded in 2014. now keeps getting pushed back and now it is in 2018. just an example of not being

able to get to some of the real needs we have. i know i am not alone in that, so i just want to voice my concern there. let me ask about sequestration. i am curious about what in the justice department view -- what will happen to doj funding and what steps you will take. >> in node justice component would be exempt from those cuts. from an operational perspective, we would have to cut funding and non personnel funding. we are estimating that we would have to kick furlough all position types including the federal agents and attorneys who try and investigate cases. we would have to lose a substantial number of jobs. this across-the-board cut would have a devastating impact on the justice permits ability to protect the american people, to do investigations. it would be something that would

just simply be devastating. my hope would be that congress will find a way to avoid this sequestration, which from my own own parochial interests, which are the nations as well, to really avoid the very negative consequences that could have a permanent impact on our well- being. >> you mention these furloughs, but i assume you'd have to suspend the funding of many of your programs that help local and state law-enforcement agencies. >> that is an excellent point. the consequences are not restricted to just the justice department in washington and our field offices.

they would also be impacted by the reduced amounts of money we would be able to share with our state and local partners in terms of grants and local cops on the beat. it would be a devastating thing for this to happen. >> let me ask about personnel, there are about 1600 prosecutors and 1200 public defenders in the last fiscal year the received assistance under that program to help pay off their student loans etc. but this budget that has been submitted does not have funding for that program this year. my concern there would be that we want the best and brightest out there trying cases on both sides. this is public defenders and prosecutors, and it is critical we have good representation on both sides. i am afraid we are going to lose a lot of talent if we don't have a program like this.

i was wondering if you share that concern and what steps you think we can do to try to keep the best and brightest coming on board. >> i do share that concern. we want the best and brightest to come and take what are low- paying jobs on the prosecution and defense side. these younger people coming out of law school with the enormous amounts of debt, and i don't want them to make career choices based on how they are going to repay those loans as opposed to following their passions, and take their great skills to become members of the justice department, state and local prosecutors' offices, or on the other side, to be good defense attorneys. that is one of the things i am concerned about. we have a tough budget and the money is not there to the extent that it was in the past.

to the extent that we can work on ways to come up with creative things to do to make sure those career decisions -- especially those first job career decisions by people coming out of law school, is not a function of their financial concerns, but really a function of how they want to help build a better society. >> i don't really have time to ask another question but i would like to make an observation. the chair of the subcommittee hearing yesterday took a leadership role in a cybersecurity exercise in a classified setting, and we appreciate her leadership on that. it was very informative and interesting. i know the department of justice has been very involved in what is going on with federal government, cybersecurity issues

and everything you are working on. i also hope that you will not neglect the private sector as well as state and local governments, because they have a role to play in this as well. >> this is not something the federal government can handle by itself. this is a national security issue and also an infrastructure issue that involves our state and local partners. one looks at just the amount of intellectual property theft that occurs, so that the private sector has to be involved as well. we have to come up with a means by which all of those various components talk to one another if we ultimately want to be successful in what i think is the most pressing thing we will be facing in the coming years. >> thank you. >> i want to go back to the question senator pryor raised about the impact of sequestered. can we have that answer in more detail in writing so everyone will have a chance to study it and go over it in programs, so we can really grasp the full

consequences. >> i would like to add my voice to what you just echoed and senator pryor, that sequestration would be devastating to the bar of justice and our ability to defend ourselves, and destroy the military. surely we can find a better way to do it than that. i think you are dead on, this is just an ill-conceived idea of cutting money blindly, in my view. you were in self carolina a couple of days ago, is that right? >> yesterday. >> we were glad to have given hope to spend money while you are there. the national advocacy center in columbia you visited, what would you tell the committee about it in terms of being a value to the nation? >> it is an invaluable resource. >> did you all hear that? >> it is an invaluable resource for the training that goes on in the justice department.

i think it could actually be expanded. i am concerned we are not interacting with our state and local partners to the extent that we once did in doing training with them. we are trying to bring into the advocacy center people from the defense side as well. it is where people learn to be good trial lawyers, learn the ethical obligations. >> we appreciate your visit. it is a place where cybersecurity is the issue of the 21st century. it depends on who is involved, but a lot of local law enforcement folks probably have no idea how to handle this, and it would be a good way to educate the country as a whole. the collaboration with the university of south carolina i appreciate. we took 200 or 300 departed justice jobs out of washington

because after 9/11 we were worried about having every part of our government in one city. we moved those folks down to south carolina and columbia can and lease the building from the university, saving about $35 million. i want to applaud you for trying to be creative, to decentralize the permit justice we are ever attacked here, we don't lose all of our national assets. >> we have that relationship with the university about the rule of law component as well. quinn has been a good synergy. >> we are trying to develop a rule of law program without some -- without some basic rule of law, no country can develop. all of the lessons we have learned the hard way from making mistakes and finally getting right. and those who have been overseas can share their thoughts about what worked and what did not. you could train before you went.

the part of justice, agriculture, defense, this is a team. this war requires a team concept and we are trying to reach out to the islamic world and create partnerships with lawyers and attorneys general and judges in the islamic world so we can understand each other better. i am excited about it and i appreciate your support. justice scalia came out talking about he thought it would be wise if we looked at our federal criminal code, particularly in the drug area, and see if we could reform it. i think he is right. i think we federalize way too many crimes, creating work that could be better handled at the state level. what do you think about the idea of revamping the federal criminal code and undoing some of the over federalization? >> when i came into office, i'd put in place a number of working groups to look at that issue. are we bringing the right people into the federal system?

are the sentences for the federal crimes appropriate? >> like crack cocaine. that was sort of an indefensible sentencing disparity. >> the bipartisan effort that resulted in the lowering of that ratio was something that was long overdue and i think it was a great example of republicans and democrats getting together and doing the right thing. it was something that was morally right as well. >> the recess appointments made by president obama a while back to the nlrb, is there a situation similar to that in history of the senate of appointing someone to a federal agency under those circumstances, that you are aware of? >> if you look at the 23-page

report by the office of legal counsel, they go through a variety of precedence. they look at a loss -- look at tradition and the conclusions they reach was that given the links of the recess, 20 days or so, that the appointments were, in fact, appropriate. it is obviously something the courts will ultimately defense predict ultimately decide, but i think the opinion was accurately cry. >> i think center alexander will have a discussion about that. i think maybe it was last week we had a plea bargain could the military commission detainee who is one of the ksm close confidence. i do support the article for terrorism trials when appropriate.

one should not lecture support for military commissions inappropriate circumstances, and with your help, i think we have these things up and running. i look forward to more action coming out of guantanamo bay to get some of these people through the legal system. to all those at guantanamo bay doing your job, you are doing the country of great service, particularly the defense counsels. >> people should understand that when i send people down for military commission treatment, the result -- as i said in a speech at northwestern, many of the elements of due process that we consider vital to the american system, we have great defense lawyers down there. the military system does not get the credit it deserves for the fair way in which it deals with people and under the direction of mark martinson, i think we will be proud of the work they do.

>> thank you very much, mr. attorney general. i thank you and others for mentioning this cyber exercise yesterday. next week we will hear from the fbi can do an open hearing and then a classified hearing. this will be an opportunity to ask many of your cyber questions and go into the level of detail of the committee would like. >> thanks very much, madam chairman, and welcome, general. i want to associate myself withy comments of senator hutcheson and senator murkowski. to meet the tragedy is that ted stevens died before he knew this was a faulty prosecution. that elevates this to a new height. i think this investigation is really important, and i think that actions have to be taken.

i just wanted to express that. i wanted to follow-up on senator brown's comment. it is my understanding that there is more oil available in the united states than demand calls for, and as a matter of fact, surplusage being sold outside. i think this would bring to special attention the issue of speculation, and i hope the study you are doing is going to take a good look at the financial marketplace with regard to its ability to impact price in this way. >> as i said, the oil and gas working group we formed last year as part of the president's financial fraud enforcement task force has been meeting. it just happens that they are having a call today at a meeting either tomorrow or on monday. the full committee will be getting together to look at the issues you have raised. >> thank you.

as you know, title 7 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act expires at the end of the year. this allows for electronic surveillance of targets outside the united states. senator mikulski and i both serve on the senate intelligence committee and we have done extensive oversight of the government use of the surveillance authorities. i live for to working with you to make sure congress can reauthorize title 7 well before the end of 2012. we need to maintain collection of critical of foreign intelligence and provide certainty to intelligence professionals in that regard. for members of this committee that don't follow this issue closely, could you explain need to reauthorize title 7 and the efforts taken to protect the civil liberties and privacy of americans at this title is

carried out? >> their surveillance authorities in the fisa a minute are critical to our national security. on a daily basis, it is a critical tool that we have in keeping the american people safe. the administration strongly supports the reauthorization and hope it occurs well before the end of the year so the certainty that is needed by the men and women in our intelligence community will have some degree of assuredness that those schools will remain there and that our fight against those who do harm to the united states can continue. >> i also want to thank you for your enormous help and the help of the fbi with respect to national security. the fbi now has some 15,000 people located around the united states, essentially

doing intelligence work. that transition has been effectively made. corrector moeller at a worldwide threat hearing indicated to us that in the past year there have been 20 arrests in the united states of people in this country planning or participating in attempted terrorist attack. as you mentioned in your recent testimony, amar farooque abdul mutallab was recently sentenced to life in prison. i also want to say that even though specific activities are classified, in your written testimony you mentioned the high value detainee interrogation group. i can say that we have seen me excellent intelligence it is producing. earlier this week, the more

principled members of hacking groups were charged with computer hacking and a fifth member pled guilty. now to my questions. i think we have to begin to look for redundancy and duplication of effort. we now have a counter-terrorism center, homeland security intelligence, and we also now have the fbi. so i hope you will take a look it that, because the dollars are precious, and we are already experiencing cuts in the intelligence budget. copper so here is my question. what are your budget reductions in the national security and area? what will that mean for counter-terrorism and are there any gaps in our efforts?

>> i think we have adequate amounts of money contained in the budget that we have requested. if you look at the amount of money or -- since 2001 we have had a 300% increase for the justice department. it might have been 400% for the fbi. even with the black budget we essentially have for the justice department and its components including the fbi, i think we have adequate amounts of money to keep the american people safe. to the extent i feel that is not the case, my voice will be heard. >> thank you, madam chairman.

>> i was thinking about a conversation we had during your confirmation. i was a law clerk, or when he was judge, and one of the things he used to say is that the attorney general is the lawyer for the united states, not just for the president. in following up on the comment on the so-called recess appointment, i want to ask a question as the lawyer for the united states, if the president calls you up and says general holder, i noticed the senate has gone into recess for lunch. i have a supreme court nominee i want to appoint. can we put him on the court without their advice and consent. what would your answer be? >> that would not be a sufficient recess, going to lunch. >> levy said they would not be back until tomorrow. would that be a sufficient recess?

>> i am asking your opinion, mr. attorney general. >> do you agree with it? >> yes. >> that means the president, not the senate, can decide when it is in session for purpose of advice and consent? >> one has to look at the totality of the circumstances in determining whether or not the senate is actually in session as that term has historically been used and the determination that was made. >> was your deputy solicitor wrong when he told the supreme court in a letter that two years ago, the senate act by declining to recess for more than two or three days at a time. was senator reid wrong in 2007 when he really devised the plan for pro forma three days'

sessions because he said he heard that president bush was about to make recess appointments? they want to make several recess appointment. as a result, i am keeping the senate in pro-forma to prevent recess appointments until we get back on track. president bush did not like it, but he respected it. are you saying that the president, not the senate, can decide when it is in session for purposes of a recess appointment? >> what we have to do and what we have done is look at history, look at president, look at the law. you some common sense when it comes to the approach of whether or not the senate is actually in session. >> was senator reid wrong? >> with regard to that 20 days when those cause the senate had

decided it was in a three-day session. was he wrong about that? >> i would have to look at exactly what occurred during that three day period, but in this instance, the determination they made was correct. >> i don't see why the president's could not look at the senate and say i am going to send up a supreme court justice and skip advice and consent. i am astonished by this and i would think democratic as well as republican senators would honor the reid formula that president bush honored. the president made four appointments during at a time when constitutionally he should not have. >> the determination was not made by the president. it was made by the office of legal counsel and they shared that opinion with the president, and he made the

decision as to what he wanted to do. >> he made the decision not to respect the senate's decision about when it is in session or when it is not, which is a blatant disregard for the constitutional system of checks and balances, and something we ought to avoid. last year the department found money to support the work against methamphetamine, and i complement the department for that. i noticed a getting increasingly harder. we have the highest number of meth lab seizures in the nation in our state. will the department again be able to try to help states that are working on this, as you were able to do last year? >> we will try to do as best we can. what we have seen with regard to the cleanup of the meth sites, there have been a number of container activities.

>> instead -- comes down to $20 or $30. the experience we have seen there is something we have to extrapolation and use in other parts of the country as well. >> thank you, general holder. thank you, madam chairman. >> the chair of the judiciary committee. >> good to have you here. if i could follow up a little bit on what my good friend from tennessee said on the recess appointment, there is an easy way out of all of this, you require the cooperation of both sides. a suggested this in the

judiciary committee, that the president resubmit the nominations and the republicans agree to have an up or down vote in another week or two weeks. even though there's more than 50 votes, my friends on the other side of the aisle were blocking having a vote. i understand the president's frustration, but the easy way out of this is simply the republican leadership would agree to an up or down vote within a week or two weeks. whatever amount time needed, resubmit them and have an up or down vote. that takes care of all the problems. i just suggest that as an easy way out. it is not as much fun on the

talk shows. mr. attorney-general, your department administers many crucial grant programs that help victims of law enforcement. the ones i have been involved in include the violence against women act. we have a reauthorization bill on the partnership program. the government accounting office has said there are duplications and inefficiencies and some of the grant programs. will your department work to make sure that if there are any duplications, that they be removed and that we go forward, because these are good programs, but there is only so much money to go around. >> that is exactly the problem we have. we have to make sure there are

not duplications. managers regularly meet to coordinate the programs their and their activities. people should not assume because you see the word victim in a number of the things that we do in the department that necessarily means the money -- at we are duplicating efforts. they have very distinct responsibilities, but we are working to make sure that the money to have is being used in an efficient and appropriate way. >> one of the things i am very proud of is a bill that i wrote on bulletproof vests. by a walk down the street in denver colorado and a police officer came up and ask to of was, and he tapped his chest and said thank you.

we have been told by the gao that there are some funds that have not been obligated on the bulletproof vest partnership grant program. law enforcement, especially in the smaller communities where they do not have the budget to buy the bulletproof vests, which are about $600. can you check to make sure these funds are obligated as quickly as possible? >> to the extent that funds were not drawn down, we are taking steps to allow jurisdictions to use that unused funding and have the time expended so we can get these bulletproof vest out to these officers. >> of would reiterate what i told you when we chatted earlier this week when i was in

vermont about your speech earlier this week about groans and targeting u.s. citizens. i still want to see the office of legal counsel item. i would urge you to keep working on that. i realize it is a matter of some debate within the administration. >> that would be true. >> keep my staff and the updated on the progress in the review of nypd surveillance of muslim americans. lastly, i wrote to you and the secretary of homeland security janet napolitano to encourage you to hold marriage based immigration project in light of the decision to no longer defend the constitutionality of the defense against marriage act

if the defense of marriage act, that it would be granted individual cases. i hope you will reconsider the administration's position. i have written to you about francis herbert who is married and legally in vermont, or states where same-sex marriage is legal but then they run up against the immigration problem. >> i will look at that case and get back with you. >> thank you very much. >> welcome, attorney general holder. the job does not seem to be getting easier. i am not blaming you, i am just

sympathizing. not so much that i won't ask for more, because we are dealing with less. we see it in my state of new jersey. 246 and gun murders in 2010, 12% more than the previous year. we have had layoffs galore, from cities that cannot afford to maintain their police force structure. when i look at things we are doing, i worry about what it is that we can do from your department and from others. what can we do to help these communities? state budget cuts in new jersey to cut their police force at alarming rates, a third of the police force in camden, over 100 and terminations of police

officers in newark. i wrote asking if you could provide a federal resources to assist our ailing cities. i as to see an increase in the budget for cops. are there other steps we can use to help protect new jersey from violent crime? >> we are certainly making sure that in terms of cost grants that we do the best we can there. we have a substantial amount money in the budget. i just spoke to the mayor of camden at a reception. in 2011 we made available moneys to higher 14 officers, $3.9 million. we will be looking at that unique situation again this year.

we are putting in task forces to help to the extent that we can as well. there are a variety of ways in which the federal government can help, given the economic situation that many cities around the country are facing. we want to be good partners in that way. camden is a place that deserve special attention, given the unique problem that we see there. >> can i ask your view on whether or not you think we are doing enough between your department, the fbi, overstate and local police people? are we doing enough, based on what we see with the statistics? are we doing enough to say honestly that we are protecting our people appropriately?

>> we have crime rates that are at historic lows, and yet i am still troubled by the number of police officers, for instance, who have been killed in the line of duty in the last two years. that is something we have to work on. i am concerned about the fact that although the numbers of murders are down, 67% of them occur by people who are using firearms. that is an issue we have to deal with. to many of the wrong people have access to guns and use them in inappropriate ways. the targets of many of those people are law enforcement officers who are sworn to protect us. we have to do everything we can to try to protect them. >> the wrong people or the wrong blogs. the man who shot congresswoman giffords last year used a gun with a high-capacity ammunition clip. it was only when he fired all 31 rounds in his clip that

people were able to subdue him. these high-capacity magazines were banned by congress until 2004. last year you said you thought reinstating this ban should be examined. what is the result of that examination? >> we are still in the process of working our way through that. we need to be reasonable, understanding there is a second amendment right with regard to firearms. reason or restrictions can be placed on the use of weapons, and i think what this administration has tried to do is come up with ways in which we are respecting the second amendment, yet come up with reasonable, appropriate firearms laws cut that will ultimately protect the american people. >> over the past several years,

the new york police department has been engaged in surveillance of new jersey's communities and universities. searching for those who might be accused of terror. governor christie, mayor cory booker, each apparently unaware of this large-scale investigation. how can that the law enforcement agency spun another state resident without notifying the authorities, without the governor or mayor even knowing about it? >> i don't know, we are in the process of reviewing the letters that come in expressing concerns about those matters. there are various components within the justice department that are actively looking at these matters. i talked to governor christie a couple of days ago and he expressed to me the concerns that he had. he has now publicly expressed his concerns as only he can.

what i read publicly is disturbing, and these things are under review at the justice department. >> thank you, madam chairman. i assume the record will be kept open. >> it will be kept open for questions. we then asked the department to respond within 30 days. centers may submit additional questions and we asked the department to respond within 30 days. before i recessed the committee, i want to conclude the hearing the way i began. if i have listened to the questions and answers, we looked at the budget in the short time we had to review, i want to engineering the way i began, which is to thank the men and women who work at the justice department. i have been on the subcommittee along time. it has been a great blessing and honor.

the scope and complexity of what our citizens and our country face and what are justice department faces, it is an amazing job, from community safety to national safety, in the last decade the expansion in the national security portfolio, and the transformation of agencies, the fbi is not j. edgar hoover's fbi anymore. everybody is out on the street, everybody who is tracking sexual predators, everybody who's doing their job, the prison guards, and all the wonderful support staff, we just want to say thank you. our country is safer because of your work, and we have to look out for our civil service. we need an independent judiciary, we needed justice department that functions with

absolute integrity. we need to know that if you have a crackerjack civil service, we also have to support that crackerjack civil service. so thank you, god bless you, and god bless america. the subcommittee stands in recess until march 15, next thursday at 10:00. the committee is in recess. >> thank you, madam chair. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> they are not fighting and dying because they are al qaeda, because they are muslim extremists, they are dying because they want the same universal rights and freedom that we guarantee in our constitution. >> if we do not get the international community together in a coalition of the willing, we are going to look back and see that we not only did not do the right thing, we missed an extraordinary strategic opportunity. >> i want to make the point that the concerns that senator mccain, you, and others have expressed are exactly the concerns of the administration. we are not divided here. we are not holding back.

this administration has led in iraq. we have led in afghanistan. we have led in libya. we are leading in syria. we are working to try to bring the elements together. if the agreement is that we ought not to go in unilaterally, we have to build a multilateral coalition. we have to be able to work at that. it is not that easy to deal with the concerns that are out there. >> watch this week's hearings and news conferences on line at this c-span video library. certain events from this year and earlier, with over a quarter of its -- a quarter- century of public affairs on your computer. >> in a few moments, more about next year's budget from steven chu. in two hours, fred barnes of the

2012 campaign. and then we will hear eric holder's testimony on capitol hill about the budget -- justice department's budget request. several live events to tell you about. the endowment for international peace will host the libyan prime minister. that is on c-span 3. hear, the justice department looks at consumer protection, focusing on fraud against seniors. that is at 2:15 p.m. eastern. >> i believe it is yet possible that we will come to admire this country, not simply because we were born here, but because of the kind of great and good land that you and i wanted to be and that together we have made it. that is my home. that is my reason for seeking

the presidency of the united states. >> as candidates campaign, we look back at 14 men who ran for the office and lost. good to our website, c- span.org/thecontenders, to see video. >> the leadership of this nation has a clear and immediate challenge to go to work effectively and immediately to restore proper respect for law and order in this land. >> c-span.org/thecontenders. testimonysteven chu's on the budget request, he was asked about high gasoline prices. he said using the strategic petroleum reserves is being considered. the administration's long-term strategy is to reduce u.s. dependence on oil. this is a little more than two hours.

>> i will call this hearing to order. the subject of today's hearing is the fy 2013 doe budget. we only have one witness. that is secretary chu. we appreciate you being here with us this morning, mr. secretary. we have a lot of questions. we look forward to your comments as well. at this time, i will recognize myself for an opening statement. i would start off by simply saying that i think just about everyone agrees that america's air quality is among the best in the world. there is no question that the obama administration is focused

on transforming the energy delivery system in america. the reasons given for that are, to make the air quality even cleaner, and number two, others talk about regulation that create more jobs. i might also say that i never, ever have seen an administration go after one industry the way this administration is going after the coal industry. president obama, when he was in san francisco, he said they can build coal plants, but they will go bankrupt. even you have made comments about how that coal is. many of the people in the administration, that is fine.

that is your view. many of us disagree with that. from looking at the budget that you have proposed, you are asking for an increase of $856 million. in the scheme of things, that is not that much money. we have a $16 trillion federal debt. any kind of increases are a significant in today's atmosphere. when i look at that budget, when i read that budget, it appears to me that america is moving as fast as it can to adopt the european model for energy production. i recently have read a number of articles about the things that are going on in europe. when know that in spain they placed a great emphasis on wind

energy. they have an unemployment rate of 22%. there was a study from juan carlos university that talked about, for every green jobs created there was a loss of two jobs in the traditional industry. it looks like the epa is setting the energy policy for america. the most comprehensive regulations relate to utilities. mrs. jackson has never been able to give us a total cost. no one has been able to give us a total cost. outside experts have testified it would be up to $90 billion. the epa says he could expect to close 14 gigawatts of coal plants. some are saying it would be more

like 36 or 59 gigawatts. there was a november report that indicated there are liabilities, there are serious issues. yet, whether it is in transportation or it electricity production, this administration is moving to provide all sorts of grants and loan guarantees to technology, many of which have not proven to be able to deliver. we have a company that is not going to open up a delaware plant. we have better systems that are reducing their employment. my time is running out. i was just reading some of the headlines in europe. eu faces 20 years of rising

energy bills. when turbine's do nothing for emission reduction goals. -- wind turbines do nothing for emission reduction goals. my whole point is, this administration is moving so fast, so determined to transform the energy sector in america that i do not think they are giving adequate consideration to the consequences of that. i am one individual representing 700,000 people. that is what i am most concerned about. my time has expired. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here. it is always a pleasure to have

it before this subcommittee. i want to take a moment to commend you for your knowledge, your expertise, and your leadership in directing this important agency at a critical time in our nation's history. as you know, high gasoline prices are on the minds of every american. my constituents and others are concerned about these high gas prices. although we all understand that fuel prices are influenced by a variety of political factors, to hear my republican colleagues -- it is the president and his energy policy that are contributed enormously to the

sky-high prices. of course, you and i will agree that it does not explain why gas prices skyrocketed from just over $1.50 a gallon in 2001 to just under four dollars a gallon . that is an argument for another time. mr. secretary, as the person who heads the energy department, i would like to hear your thoughts on how the obama administration's policies have helped the american consumers through fuel efficiency

measures to promote renewable sources of energy and other forward thinking policies that are necessary to move america forward and to wean us off of imported oil. i would like also to get your comments on the record regarding fuel consumption, at importation of foreign oil, and oil and gas production during the obama administration. the research i have seen shows that under president obama, we are importing less oil than in any other time in the last 13 years. research also shows that we are producing more oil mel domestically then we were at any time in the last eight years. in fact, president obama opened

up millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration. the u.s. now has more working oil and gas rigs than the rest of the world combined. additionally, your agency recently reported that the average fuel demand has actually dropped 6.7% compared to the same time last year. yet, despite all of these, gas prices have continued to climb much faster, far earlier than in previous years. our friends on the other side, those who want to blame the president had a sharp eye towards the november 2012 elections, they are using this as a way to make political hay

against the administration's policies. as you will hear repeated time and time again, the constant refrain of those on the other side, pointing a finger at the president and solely at the president. i want to welcome you. i look forward to your testimony. i look for it to use setting the record straight -- forward to yu said in the record straight. -- you setting the record straight. your comments in the past, as they have been, will be distorted and used for political mileage. used for political gain. please inform the american

people of the true benefits of having an energy policy that is forward-looking, that will help us plan ahead for the future, so that the congress will not have the same finger pointing debate 10, 20, or 30 years down the road. thank you mr. secretary. >> thank you. i recognize mr. upton of michigan. >> thank you. welcome. today's hearing on the department of energy because of budget comes at a critical time for energy policy. gasoline prices continued their march towards and probably past $4 a gallon. we remain dependent on unstable foreign sources of oil.

this administration has blocked supplies from coming into the u.s. electricity prices have been increasing every year over the last decade. you raised some eyebrows with the comments on best prices early on and what the administration -- comments on gas prices early on and about the administration's over all policy. many of us were stunned we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in europe. last week u.s. with a year overall goal was to lower gasoline prices. -- whether you were over all goal was to lower gasoline prices. you said your goal was to decrease dependency on oil. you are not as focused on reducing prices for families and small businesses. energy households are spending a greater percentage of income on energy costs, leaving less money for food, health care,

education, and other necessities. what has the president done to help us? he twice rejected the keystone pipeline project. his solution to higher gas prices appears to threaten our emergency will supply is -- oil supplies. instead of eliminating red tape, he has imposed costly new regs on our power sector that is going to drive up electricity prices. he began to read that he supports and all of the above energy policy. oil production opportunities remain blocked, layers of new regs, costly rules designed to squeeze out cold. -- coal.

raising questions about our long-term nuclear project. budgetsident's proposed is not all of the above. it seeks to transform energy portfolio based on unproven and more expensive alternatives. the budget proposes to slash funding for current energy resources well increase in funding for high-cost, high-risk energy alternatives. well we support alternative energy sources, -- while we support alternative energy sources, there are questions as to whether or not they produce a healthy overall economy. we welcome your testimony today. i yield the balance of my time. >> thank you. secretary, it is always good to see you. we love to have you come before

us. today, we are going to talk about the budget. we saw that the total budget request was a little over $27 billion. quote incidentally, i saw that over all the administration spent over $24 billion on alternative energy projects. some of that money has not been too well spent. i continue to be concerned about celebre -- solyndra. i believe the project has been mismanaged. i'm going to ask you some questions about what changes have been made in the loan guarantee program. it is obvious that mistakes have been made. some laws have been violated in regards to the subordination situation. i would hope you would be able to tell me that things are being corrected and those practices of the past will not happen again.

we are always glad to see you. we look forward to your answers. i will yield to whoever i am supposed to. if>> i recognize the gentleman from california, mr. waxman. >> there are a lot of energy challenges and you will be asked about them by members of our committee. the american people are concerned about high gasoline prices. i think because of our dependence on oil, oil itself is leading us to that higher-priced for gasoline. oil is priced by the world market. even if we produce more oil in the united states, that is not going to lower the price of gasoline here because we have pulpit priced at what the world

-- we have oil priced at what the world price is. in canada they produce more oil than they consume, yet their prices are just as high as ours. they are complaining about the high price of gasoline as well. when you hear the public say produce more oil, they are doing what the oil companies want, but it will not reduce the price of gasoline. energy economists tell us the republican plan is not even remotely possible to reduce the price of gasoline. it will have zero effect on gasoline prices. we need to face reality. reality is oil prices are determined on a global market and no matter how much we drill here, our gasoline prices are going to rise if there is a fear about disruption from iran because of the labor unrest in nigeria.

they decide to reduce the supply. the demand is increased in china and india. there is only one way we can protect ourselves from the impact of rising oil prices and that is if we reduce our demand for oil. that brings us to another energy challenge that we face. we have to invest in clean energy to diversify and reduce our energy use. we are locked in competition with china and other countries. if a claim energy is our future and we mark -- we are not investing in that -- house republicans are calling for us to strike those investments -- we are going to lose out on jobs and the future. we need to discuss the enormous challenge of climate change that threatens our economic strength, our national security,

and the health of our citizens. rather than confront this challenge, the republicans deny the science of climate change. democrats and republicans in congress need to have -- seem to have different visions of our future. the president said we need to look at the science and energy experts and become the world leaders in clean energy in the economy of the future. house republicans deny the science and want to obstruct the president every step of the way. in spite of these constant obstructions and attacks on common-sense policy, the administration has made significant advances. the president has acted to cut the emission of cars and trucks, doubling the fuel efficiency as -- of our fleet. as a result, our energy dependence on oil has declined. the department of energy has made significant investments in

renewable energy -- renewable energy. we've seen the results. the solar industry doubled the number of american solar jobs from 46,000 to more than 100,000. the industry has added more than 35% of generating capacity, second only to natural gas. wind components manufactured in the u.s. have more than doubled. the department of energy is looking at our weather is asian program. eatherization program. you not hear much about these accomplished from the republicans. they want to talk about solyndra and keystone. the president of the budget did

not include enough money for fossil fuels and nuclear power. we will not hear about real solutions from the republicans. they are playing politics. we need to get on with the job of making sure america is less dependent on oil and wheat have a future and the clean energy sector -- and we have a future in between energy sector. i yield back my time. >> thank you, mr. waxman. that concludes the opening statements. as i said earlier, we only have one witness today -- the honorable steven chu, secretary of energy. you are recognized for five minutes for an opening statement. >> thank you, chairman whitfield, ranking member rush, chairman upton, ranking member waxman, and members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to discuss the department of energy's fiscal year 2013 budget

request. to promote economic growth and strengthen security, president obama has called for a strategy part of american energy. the president wants to fuel our economy with domestic energy resources while increasing our ability to compete in the clean energy res. the 2013 budget request was guided by the president's -- >> excuse me for interrupting you. mr. rust says that he cannot hear you. -- mr. rush says that he cannot hear you. >> i am having difficulty hearing you as well. if the person in charge of audio visual could crank up the game a little bit. -- gain a little bit. that seems to be better. thank you. to promote economic growth and strengthen security, president obama has posted a strategy that

the most -- promotes every source of american energy. the present ones to fuel our economy with domestic energy resources while increasing our ability to compete in the clean energy res. the 2013 budget request is guided by the president's vision. it supports leadership in clean energy technologies, science and animation, and nuclear security and environmental cleanup. decades ago, the energy department's support helped to develop technologies that allow us to tap into america's shale gas and oil resources. today, our investments can help invest in -- can help technology. the budget requests is approximately $4 billion. it advances projects in areas

like solar, wind, utilization, and storage. it helps develop next-generation biofuels, advanced batteries, and fuel efficient vehicle technology to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, which places a crushing burden on families and on our economy. as the president and i have said, there is no silver bullet. we can and must pursue a serious long-term -- diversify our transportation sector, harvest american resources, and create jobs here at home. that is exactly what this budget does. $770 million for a nuclear energy program to help develop next-generation nuclear power technologies, including small market reactors. improved funding for continued nuclear waste which aligns with the recommendations of the blue-

ribbon commission on america's nuclear future. as we move toward a sustainable energy future, our fossil fuel resources will continue to play an important role the budget includes $12 million as part of a $45 million initiative by the department of energy, interior, and epa to understand and minimize potential in our mental health and safety impacts. the budget also promotes energy efficiency to help americans save money by saving energy. r&d on materials and processes to help manufacturers with cost. to maximize our technology and the efforts, batteries, -- we are coordinating research and development and applying research programs. to curb the -- the president has called for extending tax incentives, including the tax credit, the 16l3 program.

competing in the new energy economy, we must harness all our resources, including american ingenuity. the budget request includes $5 million for the office of science to support basic research that could lead to new discoveries and help solve the energy challenges. we continue to support energy- frontier resource centers in terrific problems on clean energy development. it also supports existing energy elevation pubs and supports a new hub. we are bringing together our nation's top scientists and engineers to achieve game changing energy goals. additionally, the budget request includes three under $50 million for a future project beckon fundamentally transform the way we use and produce energy. taken together, our research initiative will rev up

america's great innovation machine. in addition to strengthening our economy, the budget requests strengthens our security by providing $11.50 million for the national nuclear security administration. finally, the budget request includes $5.70 billion for the office of the bar middle management to protect public health and the environment by cleaning up radioactive waste from the manhattan project and the cold war. this budget builds on progress that is meant made by the program. by the end of 2011, the program has reduced its geographic footprint by 56%. the budget request makes huge investments to allow our prosperity and security. at the same time, we recognize the country's fiscal challenges and will cut back where we can. we are committed to perform our work efficiently and effectively. countries around the world

recognized the clean energy opportunity and are moving aggressively to lead. this is a race we can win, but we have to act with urgency. thank you. i will answer your questions. >> thank you, secretary to. i recognize myself for five minutes of questions. i had mentioned in my opening statement about the utility max, which is one of the big regulations coming out of epa. the thing that bothers me the most about it is that it was basically explained that the reason we add to do this was primarily for mercury reduction and some acid gas production. i remember lisa jackson talked about it. they talked about this is the reason we are going to save x- thousands of people from premature death.

yet in their own documentation, it was very clear that mercury reduction has no significant benefit from utility max. any benefit came from double counting production in particulate matter. i would just like to know, were you involved at all in formulating utility max or discussing the implications are benefits of utility max? >> we were involved to the extent that when we passed technical information -- for example, potential impact having to do with reliability and distribution of energy. we provided that information to the epa. that was some of the concerns of the epa -- what power generating stations were -- was there any

threat to the delivery system for the continued reliability. >> are you concerned that epa had estimated there would be a 14 gigawatt reduction in co- production electricity -- coal production electricity and someone else said it would be 38 gigawatts reduction? it also raises issues about reliability. the secretary of energy is responsible for the reliability of a lot of these issues. does that concern you? >> we are in discussions with the epa. we look at the mechanism and felt that there were procedures and mechanisms in place so that shouldrican public' -- something occur -- it is not taken as an aggregate for each particular sector that uses electricity -- would the

companies be able to supply electricity in a reliable manner? we certainly work with those agencies to say that there were mechanisms in place should something quite -- should something occur. of course we have concerns about the reliability. that is one of the very important duties of the department of energy. >> what about -- i am disturbed. i think the epa must lead the american people on utility max. all they ever talked about -- even many of our friends on this side of the aisle, any time there is a public statement, they wonder what the reduction in mercury emissions as. to be. all of the data indicates there

are insufficient benefits from mercury reduction. if epa is selling it based on that benefit and that benefit is not there, then why would you be moving forward with such an expensive regulation that will potentially affect reliability as well at the increased electricity prices? >> mr. chairman, i cannot speak directly to the mercury center that the epa is talking about. it is mostly and mainly because that is not the purview of the epa to protect the air. our role is in determining power distribution reliability, developing technologies to make coal so we can make in this -- we can help industry. >> i just have a philosophical

difference, i guess, with you, also. we have a $60 trillion debt. you are asking up to 27% on that. that is used for their respective technology. you have asked for 30% increase on energy efficiency and renewable energy. i was reading a biography of henry ford. he started ford motor co. with private investment. just like on fester, he had kleiner perkins putting up a venture capital there. why should the federal government be putting up these millions of dollars when we are in the financial situation we are in? it is very speculative. what is your view? >> i am very supportive upper rpe. there is a summit at the end of february. there was great enthusiasm.

leaders in the american injury -- industry, including fred smith from fed ex. he said pound for pound, dollar for dollar, he felt that rpe was the most effective use of government resources he had seen in a long time. there has been strong support. many people thought that it was very important to help america get a leg up in competitiveness and help our prosperity. >> mr. rush, you are recognized for five minutes. >> i am here for you to set the record straight in regard to the levels of oil and gas production, importation, and consumption during the time provided obama has been in office. while my republican colleagues

may engage in a scorched earth strategy and in that this incessant blame game and point to the administration's's policy to the single cause of rising gas prices -- does your agencies support policies that will help america move past our dependency on foreign oil and fossil fuels in general? we continue to have this debate every year. gas prices inevitably rise. mr. secretary, can you talk about the levels of oil production under president obama's administration? as production increased or decreased? have new lands been opened up

for drilling in this administration? >> as you pointed out, during the obama administration, the production of petroleum liquids in the united states has increased. now i believe it is the highest it has been in over eight years. also, as you pointed out, the fraction of the oil we import has declined 60%. now it is below 50%. 48%. they are showing signs of further decline. fewer dollars abroad. as we produce more oil here domestically, that leads to job creation in america. the administration is very supportive of this increase in gas and oil >> as it relates to the importation of oil, can you

discuss the amount of oil being imported today as compared to before president obama took office? are we importing more or less oil from foreign countries under this in administration? >> we are importing less. again, lest in the last 16 years, if my memory serves me correctly. >> for the record, as american consumption of gas increased or decreased over the past year? if it has changed, what led to that change? can you discuss some of the policies under president obama that have enacted -- impacted u.s. consumption? >> speaking of gas as in gasoline or natural gas?

>> gasoline. >> our consumption of gasoline has decreased in part due to two reasons. first, there was a dramatic decrease through the very severe recession we are slowly coming out of. there is another very important part. if we want to climb out of this recession as quickly as we can, there is another important part. the efficiency. the use of gasoline is improving. this goes directly to help every american family in reducing the amount they spend on gasoline every week. again, the obama administration has been very supportive and helped in leading the way in improving the efficiency. >> part of your responsibility and part of your concern, i am sure, is the winning of the

american consumer off of fossil -- weaning the american consumer of a -- off of fossil fuels. what policies do you have in place? >> the policy the president has taken in terms of increasing our production of oil and natural gas includes making available for lease to an increase in the federal lands made available for lease for oil and natural gas. that is continuing to increase so that the american oil and gas companies have more access to federal lands.

>> my time has expired. >> at this time, we recognize the gentleman from michigan, mr. upton, for five minutes. >> mr. secretary, again, welcome greeted i learned literally in the last few minutes that president obama is personally weighing in on members of the senate to vote no on the keystone pipeline amendment, which will be part of the highway bill today. i am not happy about that at all. for the record, we passed that bill out of this committee a couple of times with bipartisan support are you weighing in at all with any senators on this amendment today? >> no, i am not. >> i know it has been reported that oil production on federal lands has dropped 14% since 2010. in reading from the green wire last week -- let me just read a couple of things -- domestic oil

production may be at an all-time high nationwide, but the increase is primarily occurring on state and private lands rather than on federal land and waters where production appear to of dropped significantly in 2011. production of natural gas on public lands and waters in fiscal 2011 dropped 11% from the previous year, according to the interior department. oil production dipped nearly 14%. reduction in oil production was most significant in the gulf of mexico where a deep decline of nearly 17% to 514 million barrels to 618 million barrels from the previous year. in a chart on oil and gas production in federal land and waters, it appears there was a decline in oil by 100 million barrels from 2010 through 2011.

we agree that sadly because of the decline in our economy, that the main reason consumption has gone down. we did not get the growth, we did not get the jobs. in my state, we had double digit unemployment. but as i look at your own eia, if you look at the next couple of decades, your department says we will be using the same amount of gasoline in 2030 as we are now. i presume we will have more energy efficient vehicles and a whole number of things that are there that we want, but demand cannot be the only answer. my question is will this -- with this oil production decline on federal lands, people understanding supply and demand, a report you all put out two- three weeks ago predicted that oil prices would hit $4.25 by

memorial day. we are one penny away from $4 gas, at least by this weekend. some predict we will hit $5 gas as early as perhaps the fourth of july. in large part, it is because of declining production primarily on federal land, we do not disagree? >> chairman upton, i first want to say that i and the president wants very much to do what we can to lower the prices of gasoline because it has a severe effect on americans. it affects american businesses. in terms of the federal land production, we lease land to oil companies and it is up to them to produce the oil. currently -- >> let me interrupt for a second.

supposing a five-year leasing plan that would delay sales in the atlantic or pacific through at least 2017. looking at another moratorium for five more years. how does that help us? >> it is not my understanding. this is a plan -- for example, in the gulf of mexico, the federal jurisdiction being made available -- 75% of the area in the gulf of mexico is under federal jurisdiction. it is a plan to increase. >> i was in the gulf last summer. i went out on a rig that was 120 miles off the coast of louisiana. that date. that day they pumped 110,000 barrels.

there was a chevron ship sitting there. in essence, trying to tap the same vein the rig was drilling that particular day. the frustration from so many folks that permits are not being approved -- more than a third of all our oil comes from that region. you have keystone -- literally could be 1 million barrels a day. otherwise it would go to china. it just seems we are turning our back on independence from the rest of the world that would clearly help our consumers as it relates to their own pocketbook. i know my time has expired. i yield back. >> at this time i recognize the gentleman from michigan, mr.

dingell for five minutes of questions. >> mr. chairman, i thank you for your courtesy. welcome, mr. secretary. delighted to see you here. i have a number of questions for you to respond to buy yes or no. it has been a year since your loan program office approved a loan from the advanced technology vehicles manufacturing program. that program was created to provide for the auto industry with incentives to build or expand manufacturing facilities here in the united states instead of taking those jobs overseas. all recipients such as ford and nissan has successfully built and expanded facilities in michigan, tennessee, illinois, kentucky, and other states. is the loan program office looking to streamline the approval process so applicants can be assured they will not be waiting for years to find out if their application will be approved? yes or no? >> the loan program is working

to improve their processing in all aspects. >> mr. secretary, i will ask that you submit something for the record on this. has the loan program office -- any of the reputation -- recommendations of the allison report to protect u.s. dollars at provide far applications? yes or no? >> we have begun to change over the past year and a half many of the things the allison report discusses. we are continuing to do that. we are doing all the things -- we will continue to improve our programs. >> mr. secretary, i am barre

much concerned about this. the lack of funding for frib within the nuclear physics program. i am told the funds allocated for the program in fiscal year 2013 budget are not enough for them to start construction this year. as of now, the program and the project is on time and under budget. furthermore, the facility will generate 5000 construction jobs, 400 permanent scientific positions, and have a $1 billion economic impact. i noticed that in other programs within the office of science, the president is proposing to increase funding for scientific projects overseas. i believe that we should first ensure that we are meeting our project obligations here at home before sending our money and scientists abroad. do you agree with that?

>> we are very supportive of the project. we hope that congress gives inappropriate amount. we want this project to continue going forward. with regard to this other project you spoke about, it is a different part, but the thing i do want to point out is it is an international collaboration, but 80% of the funds will be spent in the united states both in laboratories and universities. >> mr. secretary, your department has invested $50 million in frib. i am concerned about the progress at frib. what is the commitment the department makes with regard to frib? are we going to let it strangle

on the vine or see to it it remains funded even though we've not given it enough to commence construction this year? >> we think that frib is a wonderful project. we have asked for continued funding. we hope that congress allows us to have that funding so we can keep the project going forward. >> mr. secretary, you know i have respect for you, but you cannot late this off on congress. i am talking to you about what the budget does, not what the congress might do. mr. secretary, frib will have a national security implications and applications such as studying the detection of a nuclear weapon or dirty bomb. i do not think we could pursue these types of national security opportunities and applications at facilities

overseas. does that not tell us we should put our money here locally rather than giving it to other countries to do this kind of critical research and programs that will have such a significant impact upon our national security? >> the funds, as we said -- a lion's share of the funds for the international fusion project -- the department of energy agrees that this is a very important experiment that could perhaps a lot fusion energy for the future. >> again, mr. secretary, with great affection and respect, we are going to spend money in the united states or build a facility abroad, and the benefits that will be achieved from this will be spent abroad and will strengthen foreign scientific applications as opposed to americans.

thank you for being here. i will follow this up with a letter. thank you for your present. >> at this time, i recognize the gentleman from texas, mr. barton. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. secretary, for being here. in my opening statement i referenced the alternative energy budget and specifically expressed concerns about the loan guarantee program. as you know, we continue to have an ongoing investigation with regards to solyndra. the last hearing that you attended, i believe, the focus was on solyndra. you're very supportive of the way the loan guarantee program had been managed, but i think you did indicate there might be some changes forthcoming. have not been changes in the way you and your department have managed the loan guarantee program for alternative energy

and, if so, can you tell us what those are? >> there were changes. limited to a few examples. -- let me give you a few examples. we know the economics of a particular industry, for example in the case of solyndra, can change very rapidly. 40% decline in the price of solar modules, essentially a commodity in one year -- 75%-80% decline in three years. one of the things we now do on a weekly basis is look very closely at changing market conditions. we established a risk committee that includes people both within the loan program and outside the loan program, such as experts in the department of energy. i also have a special adviser on financial matters. it is an independent set of eyes

to make sure we monitored closely before future disbursements. all of the things that could affect the loans, including things outside the control of the individual company. >> concerning this independent adviser you just referenced -- as he prepared and, if so, could you present to the committee for our review the list of the additional loan guarantees and the status of those? what if any of those might be in danger of following solyndra in defaulting and going into bankruptcy? >there has been one other at least since solyndra and go -- i have been told there are others on the problem list. >> there are companies which we watch very closely because a

wide range of issues. we also have to respect the confidentiality of any of the people we have made loans to. >> how many loans are on the "watch list?" >> i do not have the exact number >> is it a double digit number? is it between 1-10? at 10-20? >> i do not, again, recall the exact number. obviously i will advise my adviser on this matter. again, any company that we think has a chance of being subject to changing market conditions or

other issues within the country we do watch very closely. >> do you think the american taxpayers should have a reasonable expectation that all of these loans should be repaid as opposed to any loan that is made is just money down the tubes and is not going to be repaid? the history so far of the initial projects has not been good. >> first, i do say that the american taxpayer has every right to expect there is a reasonable chance of repayment for the loans we give out. i would also say many of the loans we have given out have been very good successes. loans, for example, to ford motor company. >> that was not an alternative energy loan. >> we have other loans -- eli >>

i do not think they came to your department, mr. secretary. >> actually, they do. but with regard to alternative energy, there are a number of loans we feel are low risk and have a very high probability of being paid back. >> my time has expired. we will follow up in writing and we will ask that these problem loans on the watch list be provided to the committee so that our people can review them and, hopefully, work with your administration, your agency to take steps to protect taxpayer money. >> a recognize the gentleman from massachusetts or five minutes. >> mr. secretary, there are only two tools back to bring down gas prices right now. deploying the strategic petroleum reserves, and get other countries in the world to

use their strategic reserves to put pressure on the marketplace -- and excess speculation in oil futures market through commodities futures trading commission's. this has proven effective in helping to bring down prices. we have plenty of oil right now -- 700 million barrels. it is on the table as an option. secretary got salazar and has said the same thing. -- secretary salazar has said the same thing -- you have it on the table. oil companies and republicans oppose it. none of this oil is coming on like this year. people looking for -- are looking for relief at the pump right now. some senators have introduced legislation that would prevent the president from deploying any oil from the strategic petroleum

reserve until he approves the keystone xl pipeline permit. do you believe that the authority of the president to deploy the strategic petroleum reserves should depend on the permiting of the keystone pipeline even if iran cuts off the strait of hormuz? >> no, i do not. >> to you think it makes any sense -- in order to keep the price of oil low and not allow iran to threaten us unnecessarily? >> as you noted, the administration has said repeatedly that the strategic petroleum reserve is on the table, but it is a very complex issue. >> it would be a bad idea, would it not, to strip the president

of his authority to use it unless he approved the keystone pipeline? >> i think so. >> thank you. a bill has come out of the agricultural committee and out of the financial services committee that would stop all world-making on speculation, on margins, on limits, on gouging, on protecting the public eye in the futures oil market where so much of this is speculation being driven up, driving up the price of oil. do you think it is a bad idea to strip the -- stripped them of their authority to protect against gouging and the marketplace? >> no one would be in favorite -- favor of gouging -- >> the republicans believe you do not need the rule. are they right or wrong, mr. secretary? >> everyone is very concerned --

>> no, everyone is not concerned. the republicans want to strip out the authority to go against manipulation, to go against margins -- to deal with the margin issues. is that a bad idea? "as i said, if you please let me finish, everyone is concerned about speculation unnecessarily driving the price of oil up. this is why the administration and one of the things that can counter speculation is more transparent information. is why the administration is very focused on that. >> we need the administration to have the authority to be able to crack down on the speculation, make sure there is the transparency and no game playing. i will also say that there is a proposal out there to create an international national gas market. there is no international national gas market. the price of natural -- natural

gas in china is six times higher. it is three times in europe. it is leading to all new planning on natural gas vehicles because the price is so low and many utilities art -- there is an application for eight new licenses are exporting natural gas, which your own agency says could raise the price up by 54%. i urge you to call a timeout to make sure we get this right. your assistance secretary made a statement last week that really disturbed me. i encourage you not to approve these licenses until we put together a plan on liquefied natural gas -- natural gas exported from our country. >> the gentleman's time is expired. at this time, i recognize the

testament from texas for five minutes. >> i. the chairman for the recognition. -- i thank the chairman for the recognition. mr. barton was asking questions about the loan guarantee at solyndra. when you came to us in november of last year, it seemed to be news to you that there were postponement of laos that occurred at the company. those postponements -- postponements -- you seemed to be surprised that had occurred. you said you would look into that. can you share with us the results of your investigation? what information you have uncovered as to why those layoffs were postponed past the election date? >> we turned the matter over to the department of energy. they are looking into the manner. -- matter. when they tell us what they find, we can share that with

you. quite i pray that you do, but so far have you identified any of your staff that was involved in making that decision. >> as i said, we turned this matter over to the ig for an independent look at what happened. "have you been interviewed by the inspector general on this issue? >> no, i have not. >> have you been informed that is likely to happen? >> no, i have not. >> are you willing to speak to the inspector general? >> i will cooperate with the ig. >> congress -- congressman barton was asking about the allison report. i respect the fact you are concerned about proprietary issues, but would you provide to the committee this watch list, provide a copy of the left to the committee? >> i misread it. it appears as though the committee staff will be getting

a briefing from a special adviser next week. -- on the loan program. >> is that the full committee staff or just the democratic staff? >> i believe it is the committee -- full committee staff. >> may i ask as a member of the committee that you would have that list for the briefing? >> we will do what we can, -- >> we need your commitment that we will be able to see that list. it is important as far as congressional oversight going forward. we have all been criticized about the way things have been handled so far. i would like to be able to stop the bleeding at some point. i am asking for your commitment to make that list available to the staff. >> we have to look at -- again, we do not want to violate the company's confidentiality. the dynamic of what happens with

these companies changes very rapidly. again, -- >> and if i may, the taxpayer has taken a pretty bad hit on this. while i want the companies to do well, at some point we may have to put the taxpayers needs and wants ahead of those of the company. again, i cannot see a reason why you cannot bring that live. i, for one, am going to be expecting you to bring that list. you had the chief financial officer of your department produced a report on balances in 2010. in the purpose and the background notes at the beginning of this report, it said your approach was developed in 1996. the department did not have a standard effective approach for identifying carry over balances that might be available to reduce future budget request.

where are we with that? are you prepared to produce far this committee those numbers on that threshold that might be available to offset the numbers you are requesting in your budget? >> yes. we have been working very aggressively at reducing these balances and the last several years. >> the gao estimated that is in it -- it is in excess of $350 million from carry over programs. what is your justification for asking for funding increases for programs with significant carry over balances? >> i believe the lion's share of that amount has to do with sequestration, which means that we need a significant investment of over half. some of that has not materialized.

we have the balance because the private sector does not want to call it that. there is not much we can do about that. quite the gentleman of the time has expired. i recognize the gentleman from california, mr. waxman, for five minutes. >> people are complaining about the high price of gasoline. understandably so. they want help. do you see any short-term way to lower gasoline prices? >> as you said, everybody is concerned about the high price of gasoline and diesel fuel. we do want to help in any way we can. as the president said, there is no single magic bullet that can instantaneously do this. we have worked very hard with all the tools at our disposal. the most effective tool is that we want to improve the efficiency and to diversify the

energy we use in transportation. the boom in natural-gas is wonderful. and we are very supportive in helping some of the demand for petroleum onto a national -- natural gas. >> the republicans have said over and over again that we need more oil. if we have more oil, we would not have this problem. then of course they go on to say it did the president of the fall we do not have more oil. the reality is there is more oil in the united states than ever before. we are using less because of increased efficiency in automobiles. if we have more oil and the oil is priced at the world's price, would that lowered the world's price? >> the price of oil is very complex. it is certainly driven by supply and demand.

it is also affected by uncertainty in the middle east. >> if we produce more oil, that will not help us. that will hurt us. if we produce more oil and more oil is being demanded by china and india, the world is going to divert oil there as well. i mentioned earlier that canada produces more oil than they used, yet they are paying the same price for gas that we are paying. it seems to me you made this point, but we have to look at just producing more oil. we have to start using less and less. the way to use less oil would be to invest in clean energy to reduce our energy use. it is a tough challenge. congress should be helping you accomplish that goal. instead, republicans in congress attack every proposal you and

the president make. every idea. for example, that your project battery manufacturing is an industry dominated by southeast asia. the administration changed all that. you changed it by the use of recovery act to incentivize the developments are vehicle batteries. here in the united states, we have a domestic production of the chevy volt. the republicans seem to be rooting for failure. they are attacking gm. does it make sense for us to be written against american manufacturing? >> no, of course not. we should all be bruiting far very innovative products worldwide.

>> it is common sense. this is the only example -- this is not the only example. the proposed clean energy standards to increase the amount of energy we get from renewable sources. similar to what mr. barton proposed in the last congress. it is really and all of the above a strategy. republicans do not want to discuss this idea. the president proposes to -- last year the top five oil companies made $137 billion in profits. the price of oil rose $100 per barrel. with oil at such a high price, do we need to be giving out $400 billion in tax breaks for oil companies each year to give them incentive to drill for more oil? could you explain that to me? >> i do not believe the oil industry is doing very well financially. they have a lot of incentive.

>> we would be better off dealing those subsidies and using that money to develop sources of clean energy the reduced our dependence on oil, yet the republicans were -- oppose that as well. i think the president is on the right track. i appreciate what he has been doing. i applaud his statement about how we need to move forward. >> i recognize the gentleman from illinois for five minutes. >> process, mr. chairman. -- thank you, mr. chairman. for us to move in a clean energy world, we have to pay for that. is it not true -- european gas prices for the united states? have you been quoted saying it would be good for us to have european gas prices? >> at no time since i have been secretary of energy --

>> prior to? we all know the answer is yes. obviously that is the move towards a clean energy future based upon americans paying more at the proper i did not want to go in that direction, but my friend from california empowered me to go. reclaiming my time. i would like to reclaim my time. mr. secretary, if the d.c. circuit ruled against the yucca mountain litigation, with the department per -- abide by that ruling? if the federal court -- do you have the staff to pursue it? >> if the federal court wanted to pursue, we will do so. >> described funds that could be made available from the prior year's through the application?

this will include any carryover funds made available on any i'm obligated balances from prior years bonds that may have not been spent, therefore subject to read direction. >> i would have to get back to you. we did >> would you do that for me, please? this past tuesday, the board of commissioners unanimously sent you a letter notifying you of their intent on yucca mountain's and ask you to initiate the negotiation process recommended by the president's blue ribbon commission. i would like to submit that for the record. >> no objection. >> we do meet with the county to initiate a negotiating process? >> we are in the process now of reviewing the recommendations. we would also like to work with members of congress. the commission has said very clearly that they would like to

see congress look at the nuclear waste act revisions. >> we had great testimony here with the commissioner. on page 48, it says the importance of the local communities. we havethe importance of the local community. we have the county sang, we are ready to go into negotiation with you, to see what you are going to bring to the arena. on page 40 it says this, " helpvering local support sustain the process." the blue ribbon commission highlights the importance of local communities in saying we will accept this nuclear waste, let's get involved in negotiations. that is what your commission suggested. we have a local county that has

taken you up on the author of the blue ribbon commission. i would hope we would talk to the good folks and get into negotiations as the commission had suggested, which is the commission you ask for. >> we have a process that can do this. the commission says you need local support. i would also ed, i think the commission said this, you need state support. >> let me quote from this. on page 48, "is underway for in a local support helped to sustain the project during times when federal and state agencies had to work through disagreements." the commission said, norway, finland, spain, local communities, a very helpful in working to the disagreements from the state or the national government -- communities, very

helpful in working through the disagreements from the state with the national government. i think we have a local committee that is fulfilling the intent. i think the department would welcome that. the commission said two things. we have so much nuclear waste, we need a second geological repository. >> right. they did say that. we welcome local community support. >> you will welcome the county when they come visit with you? >> we need to set up a procedure so we can deal with this as rapidly as possible. >> i would hope you would consider the county. >> thank you. i regret our ranking member from california on our side is not

here. i know this is not the ways and means committee, california benefits from the high-tech industry. they have been pretty financial successful. i do not know if we are going to take away their incentive is to produce their products in our country. let me ask questions about -- one specific question. the university of houston has been doing great work in a field that shows promise. the federal government funded the need for continuing science and development demonstrations in this field to keep the technology leadership in the u.s. and lay the foundation for the growth of manufacturing jobs. the line item for superconductivity technology funding was eliminated two years ago. what are you doing to maintain the u.s. competitive advantage on superconductor technology

that will have a major impact on energy, transmission, storage, in light of the government investment, to push technology? what is doe doing? >> we support research in superconducting technology in the office of science. we continue to do this. many of the discoveries made and the understanding, we think this has great promise. we will continue to support research. >> i will get a letter to you and ask you about that. watching what happened at a university of houston, the success they have done, i appreciate it. the president's budget includes a study that examines the

environmental of effects of crafracturing. how is this different from what the epa has already been doing? the combination of intelligence is compared to what the epa has done. >> the subcommittee advisory board felt the department of energy, in collaboration with ies, industries -- agency i would be in a good position to help develop natural gas resources safely. we want to see them developed. we want to see them develop in a safe way. we are requesting funding to help companies extract those resources in a responsible way.

>> in texas we want to expect it safely. there are some things we need to work on. there is a required posting of ingredients. they have them available. will there be. you can stakeholder in put incorporated into the study -- will there be peer review and stakeholder in-put into the study? >> yes. it is very rapidly improving technology that we agree can be done. >> carbon captured is constantly discussed in the context that is used, it can be used as cut and control technology. the problem is it is still --

as carbon control technology. the problem is is still too expensive. can you describe activities? >> i can. there are only 47 seconds. i could do it in four hours. we are very committed and focused to reducing the cost. reducing them greatly so one can tammy -- can continue using our fossil fuel resources. >> i know i am out of time. hopefully we can get to that point before you get mandates. >> we recognize the gentleman from california. >> thank you. i am very happy you are where you are, you have been brave enough to stand up on energy issues that were politically incorrect, plenty of the shortfalls with ethanol. i am glad -- pointing out the

short balls of ethanol. i am glad to hear -- shortfalls of ethanol. i am glad to hear you talk. we have 20 nuclear reactors within a mile of san diego. we cannot power are street lights with it. there is a lot of cheap shot that go back and forth. let me try to bridge the gap and find a place where americans across the board can agree. you agree that the crisis with finding a replacement for gasoline is a supply, how clean it is, and the infrastructure to distribute it. a major problem, i am a big ethanol die, opposed to it, the environmental -- ethanol guy, opposed to it. algae is very clean, but we do

not have supply and will not have supply in the long term. it is compatible with the infrastructure. we have natural gas, which we have massive sources of, it is super clean, it is cleaner than propane, which is permissible to be used. the thing we miss out is 85% of the urban homes in america are plumped with natural gas. the infrastructure is there. you had a 3 foot barrier between the water heater and a car parked in the garage. we have not bridge that gap. all the money we have spent, are you looking at what we are doing for research and development of home dispensing to allow the american consumer to be able to say, i do not want to fill up

with gasoline, i am going to fill up with natural gas. what is committed to bridge in that 3 foot gap between the automobile and energy independence and the water heater? >> i am glad you asked that question. the programs we have are in energy and efficiency, renewable energy. what we are doing about that, i share your excitement, our abundant natural gas in the united states. it looks to remain in low prices for another decade or two, it has a great opportunity to help with transportation cost. what we are doing is right now, the barrier beyond that wall is the natural gas tank.

honda sells a natural gas model. the carbon tank is very expensive. >> you are talking about the tank in the vehicle? i drove a car in 1992. i am talking about the home dispensing pump that will be able to bring the pressure up into the tank of the car. is there anything that is addressing an aggressive attitude towards that home dispensing paul. >>-- pump. >> there is. the short answer is, the commercially available, has to be able to pump 3,500 pounds per square inch. it is very expensive. it has to be refurbished for a couple thousand dollars.

it is $6,000 for the dispenser. the tank we are trying to develop is something that can allow compression at several hundred pounds per square inch. we know that when you decrease the pressure and still have the range, things become very accessible. that is what i was trying to get at. >> if we head home dispensing, the big advantage is flex fuel. the same system that burns natural gas has the ability to burn regular gasoline. >> that is true. you disney two tanks. >> right, but you -- you just need two tanks. >> right, but you do not need two motors perry >> thank you for being with us today. the national energy technology

lab is funded by your department. unfortunately, the budget request continues the very troubling trend of decreasing the department's fossil energy budget. a large portion of research is in advanced coal technology. in 2010, the coal portion of the budget was four hundred million dollars. this request is only $240 million. specifically, the president's request zeros out critical research in fuel cells and field programs -- fuel programs. some of these cuts appeared to be especially poorly timed. mr. secretary, are you aware that the epa is preparing to

issue in -- to issue a rule that is going to limit greenhouse gases. >> i am not sure of the timing. >> it is imminent. that would require coal-fired power plants to either capture their carbon emissions or utilize technology that allows them to emit less carbon to begin with. >> i have to get back to you on the ruling the epa is contemplating. >> we cannot have it both ways. i support the effort to reduce greenhouse gases. if the administration is going to issue a regulation requiring car and capture this year, -- requiring carbon capture this year, can you explain why the budget is the lowest ever requested? >> we are very supportive.

we think this is still a very important part of what we do in the department of energy. we remain committed to develop the technology to lower the cost so we can continue to use our fossil fuel perry >> if we are going to ask for reduction -- fuel. >> if we are going to ask for the reduction of greenhouse gases and yet we are reducing the funding for the technology to do this, i think it is not fair or there is a lack of coordination. let me ask you another question. this administration has championed regulations to reduce pollution. one way to do this is using solid oxide fuel cell technology, which is being developed to the conversion alliance in the office of fossil energy. this is producing highly

efficient power from natural gas and eliminates a delay in -- eliminates idling emmisions. can you explain why the funding for this program was eliminated? >> solid oxide fuel cells have made tremendous progress. we are very excited about this. there are major and smaller companies that are heavily investing in this. we think it is evolving to the point that the private sector is taking this well. we applaud the development. most of the applications will be stationary applications. >> south korea has made it a major part of their energy plan. we just completed a free-trade

agreement with south korea. are you concerned that a limited in support in the united states will drive that industry overseas? >> i hope not. if i look for the manufacturers in the united states, there are significant players. we are hopeful the united states can manufacture these fuel cells and sell them abroad. >> i hope that is right. thank you for your time. >> i recognize the gentleman from west virginia. >> i am concerned, when the department of energy was formed

under the organizational act, there were three paragraphs i found interesting. the first was it was set up because the increasing dependence on foreign energy supplies presents a serious threat to the national security of the united states. it was also charged to provide for a mechanism to deal with the short, mitt, and long term energy problems of the nation. we are going with grenoble's, short-term, we should be worried about cole -- renewables, short term, we should be worried about coal. secretary, i think you have gone away from those principles. i think you have allowed, some of the testimony about the use of the epa, their predictions,

the closure of plants that were talked about. it was said they said only this level. based on this level, epa has been emboldened to continue to strive for greenhouse gas emissions. the others are saying, if you do that, you of going to see closures all across america. challenging the reliability of energy across america. i am concerned whether or not you have a real interest in riegning in a rogue agency that is allowing this kind of activity without comprehensive knowledge of how other people are looking at it. i go back to your remarks he made in pittsburgh. you said, i want all of the above. i applaud that.

i wish it was packed with action. i am going to go back to your statement in 2007. you said, kohl is my worst nightmare. coal is my worst nightmare. we have this. coal makes us sick, will makes us sick, it is ruining our country, it is ruining our world. but those the facts? -- are those the facts? is that why you are cutting research money, 41% reduction in spending on r&d in coal? i am awes. d. i cannot comprehend where this administration are with it. with all due respect, with all due respect, i think the doe and

epa have become the worst nightmare for the working men and women in our coal fields across america. you are causing them to not know whether tomorrow they are going to have a job. i hope you go back to the requirements of the doe and look at the short term requirement. they look at taking care of the families for the safety of the american public. >> let me try to explain what i said. that was taken out of context. al, as it iswas col being used today in china and india and around the world, in terms of its pollutants, is a big worry of mind. that is why, even before i became secretary, i was

committed to developing the technologies to bring the prices down so we can continue -- >> i hope you will be able to get back to mr. doyle and explain how we have a 41% reduction. will you be able to get back to us -- we hear a lot of folks talk about how fossil fuels, coal, is subsidized. will you be able to tell us how american companies are being subsidized? >> i would be glad to get back to you on that. >> thank you very much. >> i recognize the gentleman from new york. >> thank you. let me first say that i am one person who has followed the. i think you are doing a fine job. i think there has been a lot of political cheap shots at you. i do not think that is reflective of the job you of

doing. i wanted to say that. i want to talk about an issue we have spoken about in the past, that is an open fuel stand it for cars. i believe -- standard for cars. i believe that every car should be a flex fuel car. competition helps bring down prices. it would bring down prices. i have seen that happen in brazil. it would cost $100 or less per car to manufacture a car with flex fuel feautures. i know the president has issued an order to have the federal fleet be flex fuel. >> the ability to have flex fuel vehicles, especially if the cost would be $100 or less, gives the

american consumer more options. it makes them more in control of what they can do, just in case the oil price does increase. we are very conservative about the price of gasoline. one of the options we have to bring relief is to allow them to have a diverse sources of energy for transportation. flex fuel vehicles allow that. natural gas, i am also very and visit -- and his estimate about that. you can fill it up with -- i am also very it enthusiastic about that. you can fill it up with natural gas. >> let me ask you about renewable energy investment. a survey by debit concluded

that clean tech innovations are more likely to succeed in the uk and they are in the u.s.. -- uk then they are in the u.s. according to ernst and young, china leads the world as the largest source of and destination for clean energy. they attracted at $54 billion worth of energy financing. it is a 39% increase. such financing stagnated at $34 billion. your budget proposes to invest in energy and efficiency, science, and clean energy research development and deployment. it eliminates $40 billion in tax subsidies to big oil. big oil is making record profits. some people have argued that if you eliminate the subsidies, it

means the government is in the business of picking the winners and losers. they say, if we remove the subsidies, we should remove subsidies from every other specific industry or business. how do you respond to this? >> i think the government over the past decade, the past century has always looked at subsidies and tried, as a part of the congress, to decide what would be appropriate. how long, subsidies have been used in the past to encourage new industries to get started. the oil subsidies began 100 years ago. for the intent of helping this industry get started. as you pointed out, they are

doing very well on their own. >> they did make $137 billion last year. i do not think they need any help from the government. 2/3 of the department of energy's budget is directed at nuclear weapons. there are some who argue those activities would be better handled by the department of defense. how did you respond? >> i do not agree. off i think the nuclear weapons and cleanup needs a science- based approach. we had a lot of expertise. i think we should continue to have it within the department of energy perry >> thank you. -- energy. >> thank you.

>> thank you for your time and testimony today. a couple of questions. we heard the impact the reserve had on the price of oil. it reduced the price of gas at the pump. >> certainly after, you are talking about the last? >> in june, 2011. >> yes. >> is the president considering releasing it to respond to gas prices? >> that option remains on the table. >> is it supposed to be used only during times of severe supply disruptions. >> it is complicated. that is the primary use. >> do those circumstances exist now? >> the primary use is for a

supply disruption. there are also issues for severe economic disruption. >> due to energy disruption. >> for example, we released it before when there was a hurricane katrina. >> do we have a hurricane now? >> nook, we do not. >> the president said the only solution to high gas prices is decreased demand. 60 million barrels of the reserve was released. the price of oil dropped to $4. supply made a difference perry >> i think the supply did make a difference. >> when the president bush lifted the moratorium, the price dropped $9. if it kept going down even the people knew the supplies would not come on for years. the anticipation of supply made

a difference. >> that is true. >> if the man has an effect on price, don't the laws of supply and demand dictate that seoul will long-term supply and demand? >> i agree. >> if you are going to pursue short-term policies, should you not couple that with long-term supply solutions? >> as you pointed out, the primary uses are to deal with supply interruption. >> supply, we need a long-term supply solution. >> we need a long-term supply solution. the world needs a long-term solution, as well. >> it will decrease cost. that is what you have admitted to. >> i will agree that supply matters. >> oil prices were $95. you have not replaced those

barrels, have you? how the plan to replace those barrels? >> there is a plan put forward in our budget over a period of years to begin to buy back that will perry >> you are buying back oil. -- buyback that oil. >> you are buying back will. -- oil. william meet with secretary salazar to reinstate the program -- william meet with secretary salazar to reinstate the program? >> i will get informed of the situation. >> will you report to us about your conversation? based on what the president said yesterday and this morning, he called a phony to get down to two dollars of gasoline. is it a phony? >> he is very clear. we do want the press to go down.

>> we need to do that by increasing supply. by increasing domestic production. >> as the president has pointed out to many people, the supply in the united states is not going to -- it will affect -- it does not control. >> you said it increased supply decreases price. >> as you know, petroleum has increased over the last eight years. the prices -- >> it did not cause gas prices to go down. you have said supply causes it to go down. >> there was a short-term -- >> because of a supply infusion. it was not applied?

-- supply? >> the gentleman's time has expired. we recognize the gentleman from washington state. >> if you would like to finish your answer, go ahead. >> very quickly, there was an international coordinated release. it was meant to deal with these temporary disruption supply of libya. now libya is coming back. the release served its intended purpose. >> i appreciate the work you are doing on a band forms of energy. bill gates was at our consortium last week talking about the need for greater national investment. i echo that. i would appreciate you advancing

that cause. i want to ask you about biofuels. we are looking at bioreactors. we are ready to go out. could you comment? what should be in the near term? >> we think, the of idea of making transportation of liquid fuel has great promise. the department of energy has been supporting this. we think these technologies do have, from algae, from grasses, all these things have the potential of altering transportation fuel that would go further to a less dependency

on oil and foreign oil. these things can be made in the united states. >> do you like the idea of by refineries? a company in seattle as the first by a killer -- is the first bio-fueler. others are leading a consortium to work for a bio-refinery in the northwest. what could you advise us as far as an opportunity? >> we will look at that of a particular project. we will look at all the projects. -- at that i did kill the project. we will look at all the projects. -- at that particular projects. we will look at all the projects. >> there is a consortium from the genetic design a to the

grower to the aeronautics company, you are going to find a network that is prepared for this. i hope you will take a good look at washington state. we have some success down at one side. we are freeing some land ready for development. your agency is allowing 1,600 acres for commercial development. we are excited about that. we need to transition. we are told they could be a year and a half. -- told it could be a year and a half. i hope you can take a look at that. i want to thank you, i have not agreed with everything you are doing. we have a disagreement on the yet it is you. i want to thank you.

i have a 1-month-old granddaughter. i want to thank you for your effort to give her a shot to enjoy a world that looks like the one we have here today. our friends talk about something ruining the world, you are doing something to make sure it is not ruined. the work you are doing is spectacular. you look at the companies, the most durable cells. rec, advanced nano technology, energy companies, these are spectacular off things you of doing. because of your success, my granddaughter is going to have a shot at having a world that looks like the one we have got. i know you are going to be catching a lot of arrows in your back.

i believe a positive voice is the american one. we are going to grow this economy. we are going to give my granddaughter a shot. i want to thank you. keep it up. >> we recognize the gentleman from kansas. >> thank you for being here today. i want the world to look great for my son as well. we have to do things that work. i am going to be asking you about where your budget is intended to spend money. it says the goal is to have 1 million of electric vehicles on the road by 2015. how are we doing? >> we are going to wait until 2015. in terms of what is happening technically, i think things are developing.

i remain hopeful. >> are we going to make it? how many do we have today? >> we do not have the exact number. >> less than a million. >> it is significantly less than a million. >> with the administration's support higher gas prices to achieve this goal? >> -- would the administration support higher gas prices to achieve this goal? i appreciate you state that as your objective. the president said he would buy a chevy volt. last week, chevy announced the volt would be suspended from production. how many taxpayer dollars have gone in support of the volt?

>> i do not know. i know it is a great car. there is a huge investment by gm to invest in this. right now, i feel very hopeful that it will be adopted. >> i appreciate it if you could get back to us and let us know how much money has been expended. do you drive one? >> no, i do not own a car at the moment. >> there was over $500 million in loans. you cut off the funding last may because it had not met its sales target. that was one of the reasons. they think we are looking at another -- do you think we are looking at another solyndra?

>> we have milestones in our loan programs. we work with the companies and do that. we are hoping they can work through the things, the temporary blips and continue. >> i hope so too. how much tax exposure it -- how much exposure does the taxpayer have? >> i can get back to you. >> we heard the same reassurances about solyndra up until the time there was still advancing month. we heard you were monitoring and watching and making sure that money was going to be paid to the treasury. i hope you are right and the taxpayer does not end up another $500 million short. >> we appreciate your time.

unfortunately, we have four votes on the floor. we have four members who wanted to come back to finish asking members. i was wondering, would you be able to be back here for a little while? >> i just heard from my staff we have agreed to do it. >> i understand. we appreciate it. we have some of the finest restaurants here in the building. if you want to get something to it. we will be back as quickly as we can. we thank you for your time. there may or may not be four coming back. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> those of us appreciate it very much. as you know, the united states is blessed with huge coal reserves. i note that as technologies become available, coal liquification is becoming more affordable. south africa gets a third of its gasoline from coal to oil processes. the president introduced legislation to do that. my question is, what d.c. department doing to help iget coal to liquid to play a vital

role? >> the united states has great resources. we are looking at the potential for coal-to-liquid and gas-to- liquid. the issue is the high capital cost. the plants are very complex. when i talk to the oil companies, they say that the very high capital cost is a problem. having said that, we also want to do this in a way that does it even without capturing the carbon. it is less marginal. we would like to capture the carbon. ultimately, we need to capture the carbon. >> absolutely. these bills that the president

put it in our a loan guarantee program. i am wondering if any of the loan guarantees helped any of the capital costs? >> i think the one i know of, there are a few still going forward. there is gassification and the use of carbon dioxide. there is a project going forward on that. >> that brings me to solyndra. what was happening in the chinese market, you have indicated that what was happening was not anticipated in 2009. one of the questions i have always had was, that was known based on the way i heard the

testimony. that was known by late 2010 and certainly by february, 2011. if you knew what was happening in the chinese market, the price was so low that they could not manufacture the product at the price that the chinese were selling their product for, why the subordination? >> you are absolutely right. by late 2011, we knew that they were in deep trouble. by then, -- >> you knew the chinese market had made them, had made their products cheaper than they could produce their products. the chinese could sell their products for less. is that not correct? >> it is correct that we knew that solyndra was in trouble and there was a chance for bankruptcy. when it came time to decide how

to do this, it was a judgment call. >> i know you have said that before. i respect the. that being said, is it not a fact that in late 2010 and by february, 2011, when the subordination was sign off on, when you look at the price of what the chinese were able to sell their product at, and the price at which solyndra could produce their product at, chinese could sell for cheaper. is that not a fact? >> that is correct. >> thank you. chairman upton recently sent you a letter on the loan program -- solyndra was to be the supplier for the first phase. they went bankrupt. why did doe feel comfortable

including solyndra as the first phase of outlier when you knew they were about to fall? if -- first phase supply air when you knew they were about to fail? why did you go forward and say, this ought to be or supplier? >>-- your supplier? >> we were not comfortable. the initial one was solyndra. i believe the business model was a good one. i was nervous that they should line up a plan b period >> -- plan b. >> thank you. >> thank you.

i would like to thank you for it testimony today and especially for waiting for us to come back, it is appreciated. i would like to ask you a few questions. as you are aware, the potential for conflict between greater liability is greater now than ever. i would appreciate it if he could answer yes or no. question no. one. are you aware that under section 202 doe can issue emergency orders? >> yes. >> thank you. are you aware that a generator is compliance could result in the violation of environmental laws? >> i am aware of that. >> thank you.

do you believe it is fair to make generator's choose between complying with an emergency order or complying with environmental laws and regulations? is that fair? >> we believe it does not have to be an either/or. our job is to make sure, to ensure that we have a reliable source of electricity for our businesses. >> i will count that as a leaning not fair. are you aware this situation has arisen twice where a generator was forced to pay environmental fines because they complied with an emergency order? are you aware? >> i am not sure. it may have occurred. >> it has occurred.

once in san francisco, i can give you details. my final question, would you be supportive of efforts to fix this? >> i am very supportive. we do not want to order that a generator continued to be on- line and face federal fines. we are eager to work through those issues. >> i am looking forward to your support when i issue legislation. thank you for your patience. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for coming and stings to the boat series. i want to get into -- staying through the vote series.

well we have been passing legislation lahood -- while we have been passing legislation to lower price of gas at the pump, the president has started talking about an all-of-the- above energy strategy. when you look at things he has done, his policies have hurt energy production. i want to start by asking you, the president is boasting that energy production has never been higher. as if he supports that. when you look at the facts, from what we have seen, actual production on federal land, which the president has control over, is down a 11%. the gulf of mexico is down 17%. have you seen any number of similar of that to indicate what is happening in areas with the federal government does have jurisdiction? >> i have seen members i have

gleaned from a speech. >> if but they delegating -- are they validating what i am seeing? let's the numbers i have seen show an increase in tea we have seen -- >> the numbers i have seen show an increase. >> we have seen a 17% reduction. the increase has come on private land, north dakota. the president is trying to shut down. it is disingenuous for the president to say he is for all- of-the-above when he has used his influence to reduce production. where he does not have influence, he is trying to shut down the fracking process.

i will go back to the comments you have made in the past, in support of higher gas prices. in 2008, you said, let me make sure -- we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in europe. >> as i said before -- >> yu said it or you did not. >> i said something very similar to that. >> the prices in europe are what? >> everything i have done when i became secretary of energy was to help bring down the prices of gas. >> that has not happened. president obama said he would

prefer a gradual adjustment. he said that. unfortunately, he has put policies in place that have gotten us to four dollars a gallon. $1.83 when he started. he got his wish. people are furious. it is killing the economy. it is killing jobs. let's look at the record. if you look at the gulf of mexico, we have lost a dozen that have leftakrigs the gulf of mexico. they have left the country. they have gone to egypt. better to do business in egypt than in america. we saw what the president did on the keystone pipeline. the president has implemented a policy that has reduced

american energy production and supply. he has been to saudi arabia. he has to beg them for more oil. i understand you have been to saudi arabia as well. >> i have been to saudi arabia. saudi arabia is one of the few countries -- >> have you asked them to produce more oil? >> allow me to continue perry >> i did not have the time. >> -- continue. >> i did not have the time. rather than go into saudi arabia, i have mapped out, it is a five minute walk to the white house. i would suggest going to 1600 pennsylvania avenue and as the president to reduce -- reverse his policy.

in the gulf, there is no consistent process to get permits. we have lost a dozen rigs. the keystone pipeline, we lost a million barrels from canada. the attack on fracking is killing innovation. we talk to a company -- i ask you pursue the administration policies. >> the gentleman's time has expired. if you would like to try to respond, feel free to do so. >> him we are talking about immediate spare production. said a arabia it is one of the few countries that have -- saudi arabia is one of the few countries that has impeded spare

production. for immediate spare production, we think that would moderate price hikes in the world oil market. >> that includes today's hearing. i want to thank you and your staff. i want to enter a recent survey made in nevada regarding the public's view on the yucca mountain. that will be entered into the record. we will keep the record open for 10 days for any additional materials. once again, thank you. we look forward to working with you as we move forward. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> this is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> they are not fighting and dying in -- and sacrificing their lives because they are

muslim extremist. they are fighting and dying because they want the universal rights and freedoms we guarantee in our constitution. >> if we do not get the international community together in a coalition of the willing soon, we will look back and say we not only did not do the right thing morally to keep in essence from getting killed, we missed an importer and mary -- an important opportunity. >> i want to make a point that the concerns that senator mccain, you, and others have expressed are exactly the concerns of the administration. we are not divided here. we are not holding back. this administration lead in iraq and afghanistan. we have led in the role -- in the war on terrorism. we are working with those elements to try to bring them together. the agreement here is we ought not just go in unilaterally, then we have to build a multilateral coalition. we have to be able to do it.

it is not that easy to deal with some of the concerns out there. >> watch this week's hearings and news conferences whenever you want online at the c-span video library. search events from this year and earlier with over a quarter century of american politics and public affairs on your computer at c-span.org/videolibrary. >> in a few moments, fred barnes of the 2012 campaign. in 45 minutes, attorney general eric holder's testimony on capitol hill about the 2013 justice department budget request. we will repair the budget here terry -- budget hearing with energy secretary steven chu. on "washington journal close-" tomorrow morning, u.s. options in syria with former undersecretary of state for arms control aelle tauscher.

jim towey will discuss the administration's coverage of a control. we'll answer your questions about u.s. international trade with steve landefeld and ryan avent. "washington journal" is live every day on c-span at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> i do not think the president could have gotten away with it. >> pulitzer prize-winning reporter and author, tim weiner. he talked about the fbi's history and j.f. -- j. edgar hoover's history. >> hoover stands alone. he stands alone like a statue encased in bronze. as one of the most powerful men who ever served in washington in

the 20th century. 11 presidents. 48 years. from woodrow wilson to richard nixon. there is no one like him a great deal of what we know or what we think we know about j. edgar hoover is a myth and legend. >> tim weiner on "enemies; a history of the fbi." >> more now about the 2012 campaign from "washington journal" this is 45 minutes. host: fred barnes, when mitt romney woke up wednesday, did he feel he had a successful super

tuesday? guest: sure he did. he won a lot more delegates. he pulled further ahead of rick santorum and newt gingrich in delegates. i do not mean to diminish the success that rick santorum had, but certainly when in tennessee, oklahoma, and to the surprise of everyone, he won in north dakota. i think it helped romney, but it also solidified that rick santorum is the real challenger. host: in look at the current field for republicans still in, which is the strength and weakness of this field? guest: there is still a great deal of yearning among conservatives for someone else to get in the race. i think the chances are slim. one of the problems with mitt romney is everyone says he is a week from runner. usually, by this time, the party with a unified behind him.

mitt romney has not been able to do that, partly because of the way the primaries were set up this year, to deny winner- takes-all in the early primaries. i think there is still residue of doubt about him from the 2008 race, particularly in regard to the press. i think a lot of reporters thought he was salty in 2008, and did not warm up to him. he still has not generated the common touch with voters. rick santorum is running a campaign based entirely on being a conservative and a hard- nose conservative at that. it is something to do in the primaries. when you get the nomination, you move toward the center. with the resources he has had, he is done well.

newt gingrich has been up and down, and i personally never know what his point to say. he won georgia. he will have to win next week, mississippi, and alabama. if he saw his speech after the primaries, he went on and on, and on tangents, and i think that sums up his campaign. then there is ron paul. he will be in there for that 10%, 15%, 20% of the vote, and he will be there in a strong way at the convention in august. i'm sure he will have a speech, and who knows committee his son, senator rand paul will have one as well. host: an op-ed in "the washington post" -- he compares it to richard nixon.

this is what he says. they do not like me, but it tolerate me. that is the best raw meat is likely to do with the tea party and conservatives, but as it was for nixon, this might be enough. guest: is better to have the enthusiasm of the groups, but i think romney will happily settle for their support, and i think he will get it if he is the nominee. he is the most likely of the candidates to be the republican nominee, and despite all of the fisticuffs in this race for the nomination, i think the party will come together pretty well because almost any republican you talk to, conservative as well, will tell you they are interested in defeating president obama.

mitt romney does have limitations with those groups. host: fred barnes, d.c. any similarity between this campaign and past campaigns yet covered? guest: they're all different, and they did change the rules for a nominee to re-emerge earlier. one of the things you see is candidates running for a second time are better. i think romney's better. i think rodney is a better candidate. really showed with ronald reagan where he ran in 1976, and then in 1980 perfected himself. all the campaigns are different. host: george will says forget the presidential race, concentrate on keeping congress.

guest: if you want to keep congress, you have to concentrate on the presidential race. there are a number of states where it makes a difference on whether obama wins the state. i come from virginia. president obama ran a spectacular campaign in virginia, have been a good democratic for the first time since 1964. if he does that again, if he could pull together even of version of the electorate he pulled together in virginia, it will make it hard for republicans to win that senate seat. george allen is a republican nominee. the democrats have a good candidate in former governor tim kaine. that is just one state. in many you need the republican presidential candidate to do well in order to gain or protect the senate seats and house seats. host: here is the delegate count for the top four candidates.

419 for mitt romney. 1144 needed for nomination. rick santorum, 178. host: coming up march 10 is the kansas caucus, march 13, alabama and mississippi primaries, march 17, the missouri caucuses. march 20, illinois primary. when you look at that road map, how does it look for mitt romney? guest: bump in the road. i think romney will have trouble in all of those states. senator might do well in kansas. rick santorum might do well in kansas. romney might surprise in. i think in democratic states he will do well, particularly on the last day of the primary.

that is a long ways off. host: if you watch any of the news shows, you have seen fred barnes on fox news, but he is also executive editor of "weekly standard" magazine. caller: as a conservative democrat, i appreciate some of the words you said. guest: thank you. i will accept that as a compliment. caller: break. i have a brother, sister, and a sister-in-law, where support of the republican party, and they all like rick santorum. i was amazed and now environmentalist for at mr. romney's comment about the trees and their right height. in oregon, we know that

symmetry is because of clear- cutting, and that is a poor forest management ideal. i do not understand why no one jumped on this as either not understanding the timber industry, or as not understanding how bad clear- cutting could be. guest: the press jumped on it, not for environmental reasons, but for being an odd comment to make. i did not interpret it as being a comment that made some environmental point. i have not asked mitt romney, so why do not know for sure. host: the caller mentioned rick santorum. in this article this morning and many other articles, santorum supporters want newt gingrich out. should newt gingrich drop out at

this point? guest: i think santorum has a better case. he has emerged as the challenger to mitt romney. he goes back to the straw vote, or the beauty contest in missouri where it was just santorum against romney, and rick santorum beat him two-to- one. he would like to produce that matchup again. it benefits mitt romney to have both in the race. host: this from twitter. guest: i think it matters a great deal. this election, there is a wider ideological divide than anytime since 1964.

they disagree on taxes, entitlements, foreign policy -- there's more agreement on foreign policy than domestic policy issues. i think it makes an extraordinary difference. the parties we know are divided. we used to have liberal republicans, moderate republicans, and there are not many of those. one of the callers described themselves as a conservative democrat. there are not many of those in washington, d.c. the parties are wider apart in 2012 than they have been in years. host: is that a positive or a negative? guest: i think it is a positive. it clarifies a lot of things. voters know what they're getting when they vote for republicans and four democrats. they're quite different things. they could choose. used to be muddy when you head

liberal republicans and conservative democrats. conservative democrats were strong in the south. now the south has become extremely republican. host: the next call for fred barnes comes from richmond, virginia. caller: it is a pleasure and privilege to speak to you when you posted "the beltway boys." just one correction, george allen is not the nominee yet. you are from "the weekly standard." you have been around washington for a long time. there has been talk about the republican establishment. who in your view is the

republican establishment? i think it took eric cantor a long time to come out and back mitt romney, which he was always going to do, but i am interested in your view as to who the establishment is. guest: i did not think there is a republican establishment. i do not think there is a democratic is that this meant the, either, for that matter. even with a democrat in the white house, would be the republicans in congress, the republican prominent community in washington, which includes a tiny part of the media and many lobbyists? there might be a group of people who are at the top of the republican party, but they cannot influence what goes on in the party, what goes on in the primaries, who runs for the presidential nomination. and i know so many republicans,

whether they are professional republicans, and they work in campaigns, or our lobbyists, who would love to see another candidate did in the republican race, whether it is mitch daniels, chris christie, or paul ryan, or marco rubio, even, from florida, they have had no success at all in producing another candidate that they like. i think that demonstrates that there is not an establishment, and there is a group of people that some people might think is an establishment, but they have no influence. host: we were talking with the earlier guest, jackie speier, about the social discussion in this country. is it beneficial to republicans? guest: not the way it has turned out. if it is a debate about religious liberty, when the catholic church thinks they have to provide services

against their beliefs, that she turns up well for republicans, but if the issue is on whether we should have contraceptives or not, or what rush limbaugh said about the young woman who testified before congress, that is a loser, and i think we've gotten into the latter category. it does not help republicans. host:, earlier we were talking about potential u.s. intervention in syria. guest: i do not think that is going to happen. i think the response of the obama administration and other countries has been minimal, and certainly not successful. to get together in tunisia and issue a statement, that is not much. what is going on in syria is a blood bath, and people who want some kind of representative

government are being slaughtered in city-after-city, and the response by the obama administration and the nato countries is the rebels are divided, we do not know who to do things for and so on. i think that is pathetic. they could speak much more loudly than they have, and there are so many things they can do short of sending the 101st airborne into damascus. we do have agents in syria. i suspect we do, and we should. host: north carolina. you are on with the executive editor of "the weekly standard," fred barnes. caller: how come no reporter has ever asked barack obama if he is a socialist.

can you do that? guest: i did not cover the white house. my chances are probably not good. he has not been asked that directly, but he has claimed he is not. he has joked about the idea that he has been a socialist. am i right about that? he has sort of dealt with that question, but not in response to a direct question as far as i recall. host: is that a proper or a fair question? guest: i think it is for this reason. it might not deal with a specific issue, but it is something the public would like. i think you should ask some questions, certainly not all of them, but there is a chunk of the country that would like to see that asked.

it is really the issue of the day that dominates the questions, whether it is syria, or something else. i kind of like those questions that are a little bit off-the- wall. host: what would happen if you were in the press conference and you said president obama, are you a socialist? would that be the end of your access? guest: it certainly would not help your chances of getting a question of the next press conference. host: the next call comes from georgia. caller: when you put your money in the bank, that creates jobs, do you not agree?

let me ask you this. tell me how mitt romney's money in the cayman islands and the swiss bank accounts helps america? he always talks about how american he is. how was that going to help america? host: i want to show your upcoming come and "the weekly standard." here is the title. guest: i did not think they care. let me address the question specifically. how you create jobs in america? what is the best way? the best way is simply private

investment. if you have money in the cayman islands, and some of them might come back to the u.s., i do not know, but private investment is what we are lacking and it is the reason why we have a weak recovery. we have plenty of spending and consumption by the public. we have had plenty of spending by the government. the size of government is spending a much bigger percentage of gdp. what we have not had is private investment, and we need more of that, whether it comes from mitt romney or anyone else. host: indiana. nathan, a republican. good morning. caller: i am wondering if your guest might be concerned about mr. santorum being involved with the jerry sandusky group from penn state. if he does get the job, will this be exploited?

guest: i have not heard anything about this. host: where are you getting this information? guest: my mother is involved. he was very involved with the jerry sandusky group. host: what is the group? caller: the group that was molesting children. host: let's leave it there. anne, you're on with fred barnes. caller: i have a personal concern that bothers me. one of my family members is supporting republicans purely on the abortion issue. he is a christian, and so is his wife.

i wonder how much debt affects the partisanship in the united states, and that affects the partnership in the united states. i wonder if the republican party is using them. then you have rick santorum, who wants to impose christian the years. christian views they believe are ultimate. i want to see what your thoughts are about that. guest: i am a christian, and i know many others, and nobody i know wants to impose christian beliefs of the country. you touched on something that is a factor in presidential and other politics, there are allowed a single-issue voters. and the biggest might be pro- life, anti-abortion voters, and they tend to vote in the

republican party because the republican party is the anti- abortion party, and the democratic party is the pro- choice party, or the pro- abortion party. that is the way it is. as it works out, there tend to be more pro-life anti-abortion voters on that one issue of the republican side, then there are voters against that issue on the other side. single-issue voters are a phenomenon we have always had, and it will continue. i do not see anything wrong with it, but i can understand why you might argue with your friends. host: debra has this from twitter - how can mr. barnes say the widening gulf between the republicans and democrats is a positive record no compromise is a bad thing. guest: i agree. we have had times where

compromise does not work out. when democrats were in absolute strong control of washington in 2009 and 2010, they could pass what they wanted without compromising with republicans, and that is what they did. that is the temptation of having large majorities. we have not had that last year, and this year, and i do not think we will have that in 2013 with a new congress, and perhaps a new president, or the reelection of president obama. when you have a conservative party and a democratic party, it clarifies the issues. people know what they're voting for. they know what the candidates are for. that is good, rather than to have this huge, mushy spillover on both sides, where you do not know what you are getting. i like the clarity. host: lou's e-mail.

guest: i do not think it would be fair if they filibustered each vote in the senate, but it is established. guest: it is establish that on any side where views are opposed, you will have a 60- vote margin. you will have to have 60 votes to get it through. remember the difficulty that democrats had for getting the health care program, but they got there. i am afraid that on a lot of votes, that has become the practice in the senate. host: would you like to see a rule change? guest: no. the senate is supposed to be as was constitutionally established. the house are the people who want to do things.

i do not know whether it was george washington that described it but the senate is where the issues are cooled off. i think that works. host: the executive editor of the weekly standard and fox news contributor -- he has served as white house correspondent and senior editor for the new republic. he worked at the "baltimore sun" and the "washington star." guest: right out of college. host: on our republican line, good morning. caller: good morning. good morning, fred. i have been in low-income housing for over 35 years. i want to tell you there has been a mistake republicans have made. the democrats have nurtured an underclass as their voting block. we have people today that

contributed nothing. they get their food paid for. they get their rent paid for. they get their piece paid for. the one thing president obama did was pass this health care -- if they are 26-years-old, they get their health care paid for. our jails are full of these people who have been on welfare, children out of wedlock, generational welfare breaking the back of this country. they have a voting block and the republicans have let this slide for too many years. i hear nobody bringing this up. our jails -- host: we have the point. guest: i agree with the gist of what you are saying. at least so far as this -- dependency on the government is not good for american society and is not good for those who are dependent.

you will remember welfare reform that was passed in 1996 when bill clinton was president. it was an important reform, but there was a great deal of dependency. there is a book out amongst upper-middle-class whites that live uptown and lower that live in another. in that second neighborhood, you have a large amount of dependency on government programs and you have so many social problems. more drug use. more dropouts. more divorces. more children born out of wedlock. that is a problem for america, no question about it. host: fred barnes refer to the most recent book by charles murray which was covered by "book tv." if you want to watch it, go to booktv.org.

you can watch mr. murray talking about his book. pittsburgh, paul, a democrat. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i wanted to speak about ron paul. nobody covers ron paul in the mainstream media, but he is the only candidate that wants to lower the deficit. he has proposed a budget that blowers the deficit. the media will not cover and the voters do not seem to understand this either. the deficit is the biggest problem we have. we have $80 billion going out of our country every month to pay the interest on our debt. guest: there was a time when

ron paul did not get much media coverage. now, he gets a lot. i read stories about him every day. there was one this morning i read when i got up. he was in 20 televised debates among candidates said he was a factor in those. ron paul 's views have become well known. he says he can cut one trillion dollars out of the federal budget his first year. he wants to get rid of the the reserve. he has very controversial isolationist views on foreign policy so i think he would've had a complaint a few months ago about ron paul being ignored by the media, but he has forced his way in. host: here is a story in the "washington journal" - journal.street

policies convention fight as best bet. i do not know if you saw the story this morning about legalizing marijuana. jim tweets -- would mr. barns support legalization of marijuana? guest: i like pat robertson. i disagree with him on this. legalizing marijuana would be a huge mistake for american society. marijuana is, i think, a gateway drugs. the more serious problems with cocaine and heroin and other things the -- i am opposed to it. i'm surprised that pat robertson has taken this position. host: susan is a republican. caller: my question is concerning this upcoming election. in an article that was in "the wall street journal" on march 5 -- and i wish that you at the washington standard and also at fox news would really give us

the public some in-depth coverage. on march 15, the justice department will have to reveal -- they will have to reveal the 600 pages talking about their misconduct. and how we did this two weeks before the election, which gave the democrats the election and stevens was later -- he had been set aside. these are the same people that are now going after the states that are trying to control voter fraud. guest: this was the justice department during the bush administration, for one thing. the point is good because this was an outrage by prosecutors in the justice department against senator stevens.

one of the things that is mentioned is that senator stevens would have voted against obamacare. the president obama's health- care program. that would not have gotten the 60th vote. the world would have been different as a result of that. stevens'replacement is a democrat. he voted for the health-care plan. i will be interested, as you will, in what is in a 500 pages about the conduct of the prosecutors. and what they have been accused of, of course, is not turning over beneficial evidence to the lawyers, which they are required to do. host: the lead editorial this morning --

guest: that is a little overwrought. i do agree that -- the key words that eric holder said were that we are in a war. he has not said that before. if we are in a war, there is a different standard of what you can do. we are in a war. there is a war against america by radical jihadists. islamists. an american was killed in yemen and possibly more by the drones. in wartime, america can do that. we are authorized to do that and i am surprised that eric holder went so far and use the

word work, which is the key word. host: greenville, rhode island. bill, you are on. caller: hello. in 1999, trent lott move the bill to the senate giving $2 million to every manufacturer who moved to china. that was not a job creator. i do not know how you feel, but that is not the way to go. host: you said every american manufacturer got $2 million to move to china? caller: exactly. guest: i missed that. i am not familiar with it. host: i want to let you know that more people saw

unemployment benefits last week. more people applied for unemployment benefits according to the labor department. weekly applications increased by 8000 to a seasonally adjusted 362,000 -- the highest since january. host: on our democrats' line, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for allowing me to speak. i have a comment and then a question for the guest. i believe that many americans are misinformed about obamacare. i voted for president obama because of his willingness to actually put his whole entire job on the line to get people who access to medical care who do not have itv. -- it right now. they include our self-employed, our small business people, and a few workers who have -- our mcdonald workers, our walmart

workers, people changing our tires and working on our cars. other people who mostly have to have two jobs equivalent in order to pay their bills every month. that is not the people who are not working who are permanently needing help. guest: what was the question? there are a lot of problems with obamacare, i believe. one is the mandate that requires every american to purchase health insurance. it is not like buying auto insurance. you do not have to have bought an insurance unless you have a car. a lot of people do not. it is different from auto insurance. the mandate is one of the things that the supreme court will hear about in a 5.5 hours of oral argument later this month. they will have to rule before they leave town at the end of june.

i suspect they will. it will be hard for them to dodge the mandate. look, i believe that our health care system is very good and lots of reforms are needed, but not ones that give the government so much power over doctors and hospitals and so on. they have a lot. this would take it much further. the mandate is a huge constitutional problem. host: this morning, big spenders. $31 million is spent so far in this race. newt gingrich $60 million. the superpac spent $7.8 million in those same states for these three gentlemen. the rise of the superpac, is

this bad? guest: it is and necessary. all you have to do is allow these people to give money to the candidates rather than having an amount that an individual can give to a candidate in the primary and then another one in the general election. if you get rid of those limits, and just say every contribution has to be disclosed publicly. i think that would be a great reform and the super pac would vanish. host: what do you think of the koch brothers taking over the cato institute? guest: they have a strong influence. cato is the libertarian lobby. i know many people work there. they have tremendous scholars

and experts and i could run down a list of them because i know a great number of them and admire the work they do. the koch brothers are very much interested in politics. they support americans for prosperity. you know, i will have to say that the fight at the cato, i am fuzzy about what they're fighting about. i do not think it is ideological disagreements between the folks at cato and the koch brothers to have been the founders of them. host: what do you think about the strategy in demonizing somebody like a the koch brothers? guest: you know, i am not for it. on the other hand, we have always had this in american politics. you know, i have read a lot lately that politics in the 1790's when you had alexander hamilton and john adams on the other side and james madison and thomas jefferson and you had

a ferocious press. papers would represent one or the other. what we have now -- the 1850's and many other periods. this is not new. it will continue because we have free speech in america. host: last call comes from maryland. mary, you are on our republican line. caller: aye. you for taking my call. it appears that romney is winning because he is using his money to tear down opponents with negative advertisements. his it is have a problem with his past tense. his romneycare was a problem. this will make it hard for him against obama. if romney is the nomination,

obama will tear him down with the negative advertisements here he will tear him a part with the money. guest: that would have been against any candidate. that is what goes on in politics. there is a reason why we see so many negative advertisements. it worked. romney 's campaign has a lot more money. it is better organized. that is his strength. once your that republicans have is that he has used these advertisements to attack his opponent so ferociously that it will be a drawback to getting the party together after one of them probably is the nominee. id will make it tougher, but i think republicans will come together because they agree on one thing and that is the feeding president obama. host: fred barnes, something we have not talk about, but that is the recall of scott walker.

guest: that has a few significances. one, public-sector unions are elaborate -- their retirement pay, if those are going to be curbed, i think scott walker needs to overcome his a recall effort. if they are not, if unions prevail and they think this is a national issue, this is the most important election in the country, if the unions win, we are going to have a hard time for america and in particular state and local governments coming to grips with their spending problems. there are driving cities into bankruptcy. host: this is "washington journal." we have been talking with fred barnes.

>> fire j. edgar hoover? i do not think the president could have gotten away with it. >> pulitzer prize-winning reporter and author tim weiner the tells the fbi's 100 year hidden history and j. edgar hoover's fight against spies and subversives. >> hoover stands alone. he is like the washington monument. he stands alone like a statue encased in bronze. as one of the most powerful men who ever served in washington in the 20th century. 11 president. 48 years. from woodrow wilson to richard nixon. there is no one like him. and a great deal of what we know or what we think we know about j. edgar hoover is a myth and legend. >> tim weiner on "enemies; a history of the fbi," sunday

night at 8:00 on c-span's q and a. >> in a few moments, attorney general eric colder's testimony about the 2013 justice department budget request. a little more than an hour and a half, a hearing with energy secretary steven chu. then, the head of the commodities futures trading commission on consumer protection reform. later, at a hearing on the 2013 budget request for native american programs. >> several live events to tell you about tomorrow. the carnegie endowment for international peace will host the libyan prime minister on c- span3 at 9:00 a.m. eastern. here on c-span, the justice department and attorney general eric holder host a consumer protection summit. that is at 2:15 p.m. eastern.

>> this weekend, there are two ways to watch the tucson couple of books on booktv, live on c- span2 and on booktv.org. at 3:00, panels on forensic science. mexican drug wars at 6:00. sunday, panels continue starting at 1:00 eastern with the environment, the great depression at 2:30, at 5:30, studying the brain. throughout the weekend, look at coverage -- look for coverage streaming live on booktv.org. the tucson couple of books like this weekend on c-span2 and booktv.org. >> attorney general eric holder was on capitol hill today to

testify about the president's 2013 justice department budget request of $36 billion. an increase of about 5%. this is a little more than an hour and a half.

>> this morning we welcome the attorney general of the united states and as is the usual way, senator hutchison and i will make opening statements. we will go to you, mr. attorney

general, for yours. you may summarize. senator shelby has a banking hearing. we will go right to senator shelby for the first question. does that sound ok? then we will go to senators in the order of arrival. we will expect robust participation. will strictly adhere to the five-minute rule. having laid the groundwork, i just want to say good morning and welcome to our first subcommittee hearing. the attorney general of the united states -- we will hear is presentation on the department of justice budget. we have a very positive relationship with the attorney general. he has brought to the justice department the experience of a

career prosecutor. he is dedicated to fighting violent crime and terrorism his primary work -- and terrorism. his primary work is cyber security. well, mr. attorney general, before we get into the numbers about the money, i would just like to thank you and all of the hard-working men and women who work at the department of justice. there are 119,000 employees that work there. 25,000 are federal agents. we have 20,000 prison guards and a correctional staff and 10,000 prosecutors and investigators. they have done some amazing accomplishments, which i will

talk about when i get to my question period. we want to thank them because every day in every way they do prevention and intervention, make sure they are out on the street doing traditional violent crime at work. as the chair of the subcommittee, i had three priorities. national security where resources are needed to keep america safe. oversight and accountability. i want to make sure the justice department has what it needs to do its mission. as i looked at the president of the budget, there was only one

new initiative and that is the that request is $611 million. it is a targeted increase, and we're going to want to hear more about that, because we in maryland have seen such a rising number scams and schemes and predatory lending practices, and we need to know what you want to do with the money. we cannot have a strong economic and vibrant community unless they are safe, whether in our neighborhoods, protecting small business on main street. i want to know how the budget will keep america safe at home on main street. their request for $2 billion for grants to state and local law enforcement -- i wonder if it is sufficient. this is $32 million below 2012,

and we might have to consider reorganizing priorities. the state and local funding seems to have borne the brunt of budget cuts. since 2010, grants have been cut by $1 billion in local funding. part of this was the ax -- a-x -- and acts -- a-c-t-s -- of the congress itself. many of my congress realized cuts have consequences in discretionary spending, so we need to hear your view on what we can do. we know that gao has recommended you should conduct a review and eliminate unnecessary duplication. we support that. we also want to look into community security and protecting our charter. one area of bipartisan support is in the money to catch predators who use the internet to stalk children, break up pornography rings, and track down and arrest child molesters.

we understand you are requesting to have $328 million, and we look forward to seeing how you allocate that. the southwest border -- my colleague has expertise in that area. i want to know that this has not only a bipartisan support -- we think it should be non- partisan to support our border, and i will let her raise those questions. in the area of cyber threats, our nation faces a growing threat overseas, from hackers, spies, and terrorists. we need safe and resilient networks. we worry about banking and commerce, the safety of our power grids, air-traffic control systems, digitized records. the congress held with the administration -- yesterday the senate held a cyber attack exercise. the majority of the senators

were listening to a mock attack. we need to know about cyber. i want to know how the justice department is improving its accountability to taxpayers. you have gotten a bad rap -- lavish banquets, cost overruns -- so we want to know how we stand sentry over the money we spend. we have specific questions, but with the number of people here, i am shortening my statement. i'm going to turn now to senator hutchison. >> thank you, madam chairman, very much, not only for the deference on border security, where i live, but also on the way you run this committee, which is for us to do what is

right for america. mr. attorney general, i do want to address some of the areas of border security. first of all, scaap funding is something that continues to be shortchanged by your budget, and scaap is the reimbursement for local counties that incarcerate illegal alien prisoners. along the border, our counties are generally very poor and do not have those kinds of resources, and each year you continue to not fund. we put the money back in last year, $240 million, but i would hope you would support increasing that as we go through this process because we must incarcerate these illegal alien criminals who are mostly in the drug cartel operations so that this will not be borne by theou