mr. secretary. i also want to go back to mr. thornberry's point about the 2005 brac, which, again, i respect the fact that you have deep, profound personal experience in terms of what you went through in your time in congress. but some of us have our own experience as well. i served on the readiness subcommittee for the last phi years. we've been following the 2005 brac like a box score in terms of its results. it costs about twice as much as was predicted, and as mr. thornberry said, the net savings is still years away. and, you know, obviously we all sort of get pinned as sort of looking at our own backyard when this issue gets discussed. but i think there is a legitimate question here, particularly with the fact that we've got a deal with the budget control caps. how you do this, in terms of not costing money in the short-term, the answers we've gotten so far from dr. carter and yourself is that it's zero in terms of projected savings for the plan that was submitted there. so zero minus zero equals zero. if we don't do it, it

mr. secretary, i understand that. but i'm talking as far as the strategy, wouldn't it have been a better approach to do it in the manner i just delineated. >> that would have been nice, but we$480 billion. >> i understand. but wouldn't that have been the better approach? >> of course. >> the point of fact as you mentioned, that approach wasn't what you took. what we did was give you $470 billion of cuts. and you were forced to create a strategy that worked within the parameters of those cuts, is that correct? >> that's right. >> and then based on that, mr. secretary, isn't it true that it would be virtually impossible for you, or anyone else testifying on behalf of this budget, to delineate for us the portion of that strategy that was driven by those budget cuts versus the portion of the strategy that was driven by security changes around the world. >> i don't think you have to make a choice between fiscal discipline and national security. i really don't. >> no, no, no. mr. secretary, because my five minutes, isn't it

mr. secretary. and during all those months, we never got from you the same thing that you said -- telling us right now you're never going to give to us. >> did the leadership share with you the proposals we discussed? >> we never got legislation, formal legislation from you. >> nor did we get it from you. we didn't get that from you either. >> on entitlement reform and tax reform -- >> not on tax reform you didn't. you just said -- you said we'd like to get to 25. that was it. that's not a tax reform plan. >> where is your tax reform plan? that's why we're here today. is to learn where this administration -- >> congressman, if you you want to bludgeon me into admitting we're not giving you a tax reform plan, i confess. it's not in the budget. it's not proposed now. if you want to use your time for that, that's fine. >> my second question is where is your entitlement reform plan. >> we have in the budget -- >> are you going to do the same -- >> hold on. -- $360 billion of specific scorable savings in

mr. secretary. >> thank you. mr. hunter. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you all for your service and time. let me start with this, this is a quote from secretary perry and general shalikashvili under president clinton. a dramatic reduction in the threat allowed for a significant reduction in the size of our military force, the most obvious benefit of force structure was a reduction in the defense budget. this peace dividend, i'm quoting, amounted to about $100 billion a year has been a major contributor to the balance budget our country enjoys. did the nation pay too high a price for this benefit, in particular, was the capability of the military forces reduced to the extent they cannot adequately protect american national interests? our answer to that question is an emphatic no. a year and a half later terrorist murdered 3,000 americans and off we went to war and as secretary rumsfeld went we went with the army we had not the one we wished for. how do you differentiate yourself from these two leaders in that time who were presiding over what they wo

mr. secretary. >> if i can comment on your last question. this was all part of a nuclear review mandated by law and the administration began the process of going through that review. the second step was basically how do we now implement the review that was taking place. that followed that procedure. there a number of options that are being discussed. as the general pointed out, one of those options is maintaining the status quo. no decisions have been made. this is something that is part of a process for discussion within the national security team and remains there at this point. as you know, reductions that have been made at least in this administration have only been made as part of the start process. not outside of that process. i would expect that that would be the same in the future. with regard to your question on the funding issue, let me ask bob hale to respond to that. that's the 5.7. >> we are working closely with the nsa and their concerns on our part and theirs too.h th it sounds like y

mr. secretary. now your budget contains funding for projects to implement some of the blue ribbon recommendations, recommendations which congress has not blessed neither whole or in part. the current law of the land is for waste disposal at yucca mountain, we need to hear of any legislative changes to authorize their recommendations. on a more positive note, you've made some tough decisions to support the nuclear security programs at the nnsa. decisions which this country has been demanding for some time. nuclear security programs are the most vital mission within your portfolio. well, i have significant concerns -- significant concerns about the administration's call for reduced military spending. we showed last year that our national security can be sustained and even improved with less money. and it will be the administration's task to show that your 2013 request does not sacrifice our strategic security for budgetary savings. and, together, the administration and congress have supported small --

mr. secretary and before you got here, mr. chairman, secretary gates in that same seat, was saying that we had to, over the next five years, have a 2% growth over inflation or we would have to reduce the size of the force. well, that's come to pass because we not only are not having a 2% growth overinflation, we're having a reduction when you consider inflation. and your report from the department points to the fact that we're going to have negative real growth over the next five years based on the budget. when you take into account inflation. so we understand that and we're going to work through that and you have stepped up and said that the military can live with this. but the sequestration we cannot live with. i think we're all in total agreement on that. so i have a question. the way we're moving forward right now, there's nothing in the budget to deal with sequestration accept a possible tax increase if that's needed at the end ft day. >> this budget that we'll be dealing with kick information and starts with the new fisca

mr. secretary. >> mr. secretary, these are your numbers. and the numbers in your budget are based on a similar philosophy. tell which tax increase also create new jobs. >> the budget contains a comprehensive and balanced set of reforms, both spending and tax reforms combined with investments that in our judgment, and you can ask cbo to judge it -- whether it would be good for growth or not. we're very confident it would be good for growth. >> honestly i hope you're right. but you're 5.4 million jobs wrong. you've been wrong again and again and again. for this room it's about numbers, for people in america it's about real jobs for their families. >> i would say an adolescent perspective on how to think about the impact of economic policy. the right question is -- >> mr. secretary, let me tell you a quick story for someone that's actually been in the private sector and helped create jobs. i know that's not your background. you've never started a business. i understand. joe in junction city said if the president raises the capital gains tax, t

mr. secretary general, thank you for being here and for your service. mr. secretary, i have a two-part question for you. i see that this year's budget you submitted a request for approve tool enter into a second multiyear contract for the ch-47 chinook helicopter. since you've been using the multiyear for chinooks for the last five years and i understand that one will expire this year, what have you seen as the biggest benefit for you and the taxpayer of having the authority that has led you to request a second multiyear contract. and the second part of it is the armed aerial scout program an army priority? >> as the ch-47, we found that multiyear contract to be very efficient. we're very, very pleased with the product and the product line. and as we have looked hard at our acquisition strategies both successes and failures over the last several years, the ch-47 contract is currently configured, seems to have embodied a lot of the answers and a lot of the solutions to some of our challenges. so we thought it was in the best interest both in terms of producti

mr. secretary, please proceed. mr. chairman and senator sessions. budget proposal for the department of transportation. importantly, thank you for the kindness and your kind words about my son and what's happening in egypt and your interest in that. we appreciate that very much. as you know, transportation has been in the news a lot lately. that's a good thing. this week both the house and senate will debate long stalled legislation, as you've heard president obama and i are strong supporters of the senate's bipartisan approach. i congratulate senator boxer and senator inhofe and those who serve on the epw committee for the work they have done and also senator baucus for working very hard to find the pay for. at the same time on monday the president detailed his plan for a six-year surface transportation reauthorization proposal, which is part of his blueprint for an america built to last. here are the facts. our budget proposal has three broad goals. number one, creating jobs by investing in our infrastructure. number two, spurring innovation acros

mr. secretary thank you for being with us, mr. hale and i want to recognize colonel toliver, who commanded one of the finest air force bases, in rapid city, south dakota. i think you've touked on this once already. i want to put a fine point on it. you recommended in your budget that congress enact two more back grounds. and it seems like that a lot of that excess capacity among domestic bases could be filled by closing overseas bases, particularly in europe and bringing troops home from bases that back to bases in the continental u.s. and particularly given the fact that it seems that we've had a military presence in europe for a long time, obviously, but it seems to make abundant good sense to get some of these folks home. if you could just kind of elaborate on why you haven't recommended closing overseas bases in this budget, especially in parts of the world where it's perhaps no longer necessary to have that kind of a military footprint? >> well, we have, we have made recommendations with regards to reducing infrastructure abr

mr. secretary and general. thank you. general, can you tell us what you believe the status and readiness of the army's current inventory of prepositioned equipment is? >> i feel very confident with it. in fact we've just actually issued our predeployment -- our equipment in kuwait to the brigade that moved that air from iraq. and they've been exercising with it, and it's in very good condition. it's important for us to sustain our preposition flight in very good condition. now we are going to continue to review this. as we now look at this change in strategy, we'll look at do we have the make some minor adjustments in preposition fleets. and are they in the right place. do we need some training preposition stocks to do multilateral training in the pacific, to do rotational training in europe? and we'll take a look at that. as we're downsizing, we have an opportunity here to use some of the equipment that were in some of our forces, potentially to use in these prepositioned sites that will be continued analysis that we wil

mr. secretary. several weeks ago we had a presentation, eia present kind of the global picture. and i had an opportunity to ask mr. gruenespec where alaska natural gas fit into the bigger picture as we talk about domestic natural gas. senator wyden has on many occasions before this committee asked questions about the export of domestic product here. and you as a secretary have the authority to sign off on whether or not export is in the national interest. the question i hadether or not alaska was viewed simply from the rest of the lower 48 market. different type of gas, different processes, and clearly a different market. alaska is much closer to the asian market than we are, most of the lower 48. it was good to get his opinion on it. but you're the guy that ultimately signs off on export licenses. how do you view alaska's natural gas and whether or not this is differently than the domestic -- the lower 48 natural gas domestic production? >> well, given the charge of and the decisions we would have to make on allowing the export of natural gas, it would, again, have to be folded

mr. secretary. since i understand do we have votes and the 4:00 time frame, we'll try to stick to the five-minute rule, and that's for the members to be aware of. mr. secretary, our committee has long-supported -- and this has been very bipartisan -- the department's efforts to keep the world's best science and engineering work force here at home and to keep our position as the world's top innovator. we also need to think one step further by making sure we don't just invent the newest technologies, but that we then manufacture them in the united states. after all, devoting federal funding to support a research team of 10 people at home just so a company can support a thousand manufacturing jobs overseas, truly misses the mark. mr. secretary, beyond the advanced manufacturing program your budget proposes, how are you working? and this is very much in line with the ranking members' comments, to ensure that federally funded research and development conducted at american universities our laboratories an

mr. secretary. mr. secretary, these are your numbers and the numbers in your budget are based on a similar philosophy. tell me which tax increases are going to create new jobs? >> the budget -- spending and tax reforms combined with investments, and you can ask cbo if it would be good for growth or not. >> honestly i hope you're right. but you're 5.4 million jobs wrong. you're wrong again and again. for this room it's about numbers. for the people in america, it's about real jobs for their families. >> i would say an adolescent perspective on how to think about economic policy. the right question is -- >> mr. secretary, let me tell you a quick story from somebody who's been in the private sector and helped create jobs, which i understand is not your background, you never started a business. but joe in kansas city said if that the president raises the tax there's seven people that he won't hire because of your tax increases. you can sigh that that's not going to happen, you convince joe in kansas city, it

mr. secretary. >> dr. price. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary, welcome. i think that the american people by and large want us to get the job done. there is a lot of misinformation and disinformation that comes out of washington. we heard some of it in this room this afternoon. the fact of the matter on the payroll issue is there were some folks staying in town trying to solve this and some folks that fled. the folks that fled were our colleague democratic colleagues in the senate. uncertainty in the market is destructive to job creation. i assume you agree. >> well, i guess i would say right now the biggest source of uncertainty is keeping growth modest is concern about the weakness in demand. >> uncertainty for employers, what their tax rate is going to be, what the consequences of this policy or that policy are going to be. when there isn't certainty when we talk to small and large job creators they say we have to wait. is that not the case? >> it can be. i don't think much evidence today about the long-term questions we're facing is having a material d

mr. secretary. thank you, chairman, secretary hale. secretary, excuse me, chairman dempsey, i have great respect for you and your service to the country and the important role that you play, but i have to ask you about the interview that you gave with cnn because i need to understand. when you were asked about what we were counseling our is really partners with respect to iran and you said you were counseling them not to attack iran and then you also said that he believed the administration believes i assume that the regime is a rational actor can you help me understand why you would have said that particularly in a public interview about one of our closest allies? and i'm really concerned that in doing that then you're sending the wrong signal to iran. can you help me with that? >> you beat senator gramm to the punch line. honestly i want to clear up some things. first of all i didn't council israel not to attack. we had a conversation with them about time, the issue of time canada will require a m

mr. secretary, general, thank you for joining us today. the new defense strategy and budget requests reflect the hard work and forward thinking of president obama, our d.o.d. civilian leaders and our senior military commanders. i've been saying all week that ominous and exaggerated fears about the national security consequences of reduced growth in the defense budget are certainly unfounded. there's no way a 1% reduction in the pentagon's base budget from 2012 to 2013 could mean the difference between the greatest military known to man or a hollowed out force and the american people i think understand that. in fact, i believe there's room for further savings in the department's budget, though i strongly oppose the cross the board cuts that would be imposed by sequestration. general, is it your assessment that afghan national security forces are on pace to self-sufficiently defend afghan's sovereignty and defeat insurgents by the end of 2014? and also i would like for you to respond, general, to the february 1 quote of secretary panetta whe

mr. secretary. will you grandfather this new policy so that the soldiers are deployed now, get what they thought they were going to get when they deployed. and this applies to all. i'm particularly talking about members of the garden reserve who are making decisions based on these sorts of policies. so if you know that answer, i'll take it now. if you don't, i'll take for the record. i actually sent you a letter a month ago, january 18th to be exact, requesting the answer to this. and i understand from talking to your staff that that's in the works. and i'm going to get an answer. but i just think it's really, really important that we keep that faith and we not change policy. we not have that kind of an impact on our men and women in uniform. that's my first question. >> congressman, if i could just respond to that. we are looking at that program. it is an important program. and i'm looking at the implications of what happened with the policy change to determine whether or not we should make any adj

mr. secretary. having participated in some of those rounds, my sense was he had they basically collapsed because of the fundamental issue we're debating in this economy, whether to take a funneledmental approach to addressing our challenge. we didn't have a partner to compromise on a balanced approach. let me just say what the co-chairs of the bipartisan simpson/bowles commission said. everyone recognizes, including you, that as you get to the second ten years, we got a lot of work to do together. but here's what they said. in the framework he announced in april and what he submitted to the committee in september, the president embraced many of the goals and principles outlined by the fiscal commission and incorporated the policies we proposed. we're pleased that president's latest budget continues to focus on deficit reduction and are also encouraged to see real specific policies for limiting tax expenditures, slowing health care cost growth and reducing spending throughout the government. i would

mr. secretary. i think the final question will come from frank county. >> i've got to go. >> you've got to go? sorry, frank. you almost got there. you got very close. >> thank you, mr. secretary. for taking yet another moment to speak. i'm fascinated and have been watching closely, all the work that's been done and your thought about local foods as a follow-up to the question a moment ago. and also looking at our state in iowa and knowing that we don't raise a lot of -- well, as you pointed out, soybeans or corn that people actually eat. we shove it through something else, and it becomes something else. do we have a model that you're thinking of in cooperation with other agencies and departments where we shrink that model from where our food sources come from? i mean, iowa, i think most people would say the majority of our food comes from over 1,500 miles away. i've been so -- i am astounded and discovering that not only s one apple counts. i kicked it. i'm trying to talk about energy and food and f

mr. secretary, for your patience. i want to follow up on what senator sanders is talking about in terms of i call it retrofitting. and i started a retrofitting initiative in my state called back to work minnesota. and i really believe that this is low-hanging fruit. that we -- what i'm trying to do is find innovative financing mechanisms to get that up-front money to retrofit commercial buildings, mush, municipals, universities, schools and hospitals, et cetera, and residential buildings. knowing that it pays for itself and it puts people back to work. it puts people in the building trades to work who are in a depression or a recession right now. they need the work. it helps our manufacturers in minnesota and would do this all around the country. it's sort of part of the president's better building initiatives as well. i would like to just bring up few little areas in this. you talked about utility companies can provide the financing for this. in minnesota, we have a mandate for utility companies that they have to inc

mr. secretary. there doesn't appear to be anything in the article with respect to what you've said, like the public interest test. it makes it out that exporting natural gas is an unmitigated plus. it says, and i quote, supporting natural gas means wealth comes into the united states. >> then the article you're reading from certainly doesn't capture the full -- >> fair enough, fair enough. >> so i think -- certainly our minds are not made up. we're not going to be making up our minds. before we do anything -- first let me just very quickly say that there are two classes of countries. countries we have free trade agreements with, countries we don't. the countries we have free trade agreement with we're obligated to say. the countries that we don't, we have to say what's in the best interest of the united states. before we do anything -- and i talked to people who are concerned about high gas prices. i also talked to the gas industry and ma people and say we are not going to do anything until we make

mr. secretary i'm down to about 45 seconds. i but, again, it's a reduction in benefits to those who protect our personal freedoms and individually betters and quite for other americans but what president refused to make any proposal to deal with the entitlement benefits for those that aren't contributing. one last thing the dramatic brain injury is an issue that we have done a better job of that. i want to commend you for the work that's been done there. some of the gentlemen that i have met with spoke very positively about the use of the hyperbolic chamber the same way you treat bends and the benefit they had from using those machines yet the v.a. has refused to pay for that. i'm out of time. i would appreciate fit you work with us, with the v.a. to make sure those service members that do have that traumatic brain injury can receive that treatment. >> we have five programs in the department of defense including the army that are currently looking at that. i've said if those programs prove promising i'm not going at it for the

mr. chairman. gentlemen, thank you for being here. general dempsey, secretary panetta, mr. hale. secretary panetta, first of all i would like to echo the concerns of mr. thornberry regarding the administration's consideration or potential proposal of reducing our nuclear or strategic inventory by as much as 80%. i have to suggest to you i consider that reckless lunacy. and your response, in all deference to you, sir, was really a nonresponse. and it did little to assuage my concerns. and i just have to tell you, for the record, given the need for a broad umbrella that america represents to the world in terms of our nuclear deterrent, given the tangibles of being able to demonstrate in the mind of any enemy, even those that are not all together sound of our overwhelming capability to respond and overwhelming aggression on the part of someone with nuclear capability. i just to go on record that there are many of us that are going to do everything that we possibly can to make sure that this preposterous notion does not gain any real traction. so with that said, let me shift gears and

mr. secretary, on behalf of mr. viskofky and the committee, we thank you and your staff at this time. >> thank you. >> we stand adjourned. >>> even a person who is a senator, even a person now who is president of the united states faces a predicament when they talk about race. they face all sorts of pre did a predicaments. they deny that people are afraid of race, even now. >> the rhodes scholar is the author of five books and he'll take your comments, calls and tweets for five hours. >>> now a panel of ceos on what companies need to do to compete globally. you'll hear from the heads of archer daniel midland, airbus and alcoa. from the economic air forum in switzerland, this is a little more than an hour. >>> good morning, ladies and gentlemen. it's a great pleasure to have this panel and to have you with us this morning. we have a great group of business leaders talking about the global contacts. let me just briefly introduce them. we have the bus consulting group, and then we have john chambe chambers, chairman an

mr. secretary. it's been a long morning. i've tried to listen carefully on this comprehensive tax reform issue. and see if you can sort a little bit of this out for me if you would. you mentioned three times that we ought to have comprehensive tax reform. that's a good thing. and, yet, when you look at the budget, it's corporate reform is in effect going to come now. that's what's been announced. and individual reform would come sometime later. so corporate reform isn't comprehensive. it's in effect, you know, piecemeal. and if you would, start with me in terms of how your view would get the country to comprehensive tax reform? we both agree that's what's needed. and there is bipartisan support for it. >> good question. and you're right to say that why not do it all at once. i think that's how it's going to happen. but what we're saying is that we want to provide a little bit more detail in terms of framework at this stage. i think that's the best way to get the debate going. i think you're right that ultimately maybe these

mr. secretary, that you are here in person. general dempsey, thank you very much for your testimony and service. thank you secretary hale for yours as well -- >> mr. chairman, may i thank the witnesses also for your testimony and for your service to your country, we know that larger cuts already, are working diligently to achieve those in the most effective way that other departments have been asked to a chief. many have been asked to achieve not any cut s zero, that is important it is. with regard to the chart that you were showing, that is dollars not adjusted for inflation, if we continued -- you would not see a growth, i think the relative growth pattern that you showed in that chart is probably accurate. youed a justed it for inflation and energy costs go up, material costs go up. somewhat over the years so i think the sequester represents a greater threat than we would like to admit, and the way to fix it is not to give up the reduction reductions but to look at the other aspects of the government, as senator gram mentione

mr. secretary, i'm looking for help here. frankly your experts have been helpful and they've been right on the money literally. they've reported this thing straight up and i appreciate it. maybe we conclude with is you a you know in our state when we talk about all of the above energy development, we don't just talk about it, we do it. if you go to our state, you'll see wind, biofuels, you'll see ethanol, biodiesel, shale gas, oil, you'll see hydro, biomass, all of these. in other words, we're really doing it. but the reality is to get to that all of the above, that means we have to try to develop all of them, not pick winners and losers. so i'm looking for help in this endeavor. let's touch for just a minute on in-situ. mr. chairman, i may go over my time just a minute. i hope you'll indulge me. with the development of the canadian oil sands oil, 80% of the new development is in situ, whereas instead of excavating, as is the traditional practice, you actually drill, like you drill for conventional oil. you put steam down a h

mr. secretary and before you got here, mr. rman secretary gates in that same seat, was say saying that we had to over the next five years, have a 2% growth over inflation or we would have to reduce the size of the force. well, that's come to pass because we not only are not having a 2% growth overinflation, we're having a reduction when you consider inflation. and your report from the department points to the fact that we're going to have negative real growth over the next five years based on the budget. when you take into account inflation. so we understand that and we're going to work through that and you have stepped up and said that the military can live with this. but the sequestration we cannot live with. i think we're all in total agreement on that. so i have a question. the way we're moving forward right now there's nothing in the budget to deal with sequestration accept a possible tax increase if that's needed at the end ft day. >> this budget that we'll be dealing with kick information and starts with the new fiscal y

mr. secretary. first of all, i think one of the critical issues facing this economy and has persistently is the lack of confidence about the future and the lack of direction and certainty about various policies that are emanating from government or not emanating from congress and the administration. my biggest concern is that we have not created an environment of confidence as represented in this budget here today. by all accounts, this is the worst post-recession recovery in the history of our country, the longest term of unemployment. we have already, you know, increased the national debt by 44%, 45% under this administration. we are going on to the fourth consecutive year of historic annual deficits. so we have seen on the spending side and yet we still have a subpar anemic, weak recovery. if lu to the future as senator grassley indicated about the cbo projections, the fourth quarter of 2013 is a 1.1% economic growth projection, 9.1% of unemployment. it's not only concerns about the facts today t

mr. secretary, thank you, mr. controller as well, and i understand you touched on the value of the garden reserves and how important their services have been serving in afghanistan and iraq. with regard to your air national guard strategy, your air -- excuse me, your air force restructuring strategy, about half the cuts have come out of the guard even though the only represent a third of the cost, and i believe the joint chiefs did a -- who did the report? yeah, vice chairman of the joint chiefs did a report talking about managing budget issues and actually made the point that guard and reserve provide capabilities at a lower cost than would be the case where nation relies solely on full-time forces. i have a question with the air national guard and specifically because of the assets new york has and we have specific assets and strategies and resources in our states we think are particularly important for our national security, but one thing that a lot of our bases and assets has are the reserve and components tha

mr. secretary? >> well, we have taken a lot of steps to try to protect against that happening because, as i said, we absolutely have to protect our industrial base, and those industries that support the defense budget. we can't afford to lose any more, and so for that reason, we've designed an approach that will keep them in business with regards to the systems that we're trying to develop for the future. >> albeit with fewer industrial manufacturing jobs. >> well, there will be -- i understand that, and that does have some impact. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, senator wicker. i asked senator koch if he would allow more time. there's additional $3 trillion in deficit reduction before the trim which has been taken, which, if this budget were adopted as submitted, would avoid sequestration totally. half of the additional $3 trillion is in revenue increases, including the -- as the president's budget says, task reform including the expiration of tax cuts for single taxpayers making over 200,000

mr. secretary. last year, we passed the deficit reduction act that was the -- that took a two-pronged approach to attack the huge deficit problem that we've built over decades of making promises that would be difficult to keep, and spending money that we had to borrow to spend. the first prong was the almost $1 trillion that came out of -- was supposed to come out of discretionary spending. there was a call after the last election that everything should be on the table. and i understand that defense was a big target. and i've repeatedly said, if we could not find some savings within a budget of $600 billion-plus, shame on us. and i think you've done a great job on that, beginning with $100 billion of efficiencies, and then the $78 billion, and then the -- what we find now is $487 billion. the second part of that, we had, through the legislation, assigned the super committee to come up with savings, hopefully, out of the entitlement programs. because if we don't address the entitlement programs, if w

mr. secretary. >> senator manchin? >> thank you very much. i know it's been mentioned before, the president in his state of the union address says that the country needs to -- an all-out, all of the above strategy and develops every available source of american energy. a strategy that we all agree is cleaner, cheaper, full of new jobs but also hopefully keeping the jobs that we already have. i want to show you a chart we put together. this information is from the eia, your own department, showing where we are as far as the first through 2010, 20% is in nuclear and oil and other liquids. when we get to 2025, 27% will be coming from natural gas. renewables 16%. coal and steel, 39% and the rest at 18%. with that being said, the president's budget basically had $2.7 billion that you all submitted for the energy efficiency renewable energy. a 47% increase from current levels. if you hold this one up, tom, so you can see the comparison. stand up. this is where your money's going. this is what you're going to get out of the investment. this is by yo

mr. secretary, good to see you again. thank you for being here. i'd like to ask you a little about gasoline prices. i'm sure you're well aware that the average price for gasoline in the country right now is over $3.50. according to both aaa and the lundberg survey. up 90% since the current administration took office. and so my question relates to, why aren't we advancing projects like the pipeline to bring more supply and help bring gasoline prices down? you were asked to review that project with the department of energy, they were asked to review the project by the state department, and your expert, dr. carmine -- i'm going to probably miss on the last name. you might have to help me. defiglio? does that sound about right? >> sounds about right. >> all right. anyway, he was ask eed to revie the keystone pipeline project and comment whether it would help reduce gas prices in the united states, and i'll quote from his report. gasoline prices in all markets served by pad one the east coast and three the gulf coast refiners would decrease. gasoline p

mr. chairman. first, welcome, secretary chu. let me just indicate first that i appreciate the efforts in working with us on a clean energy manufacturing strategy. it's clearly leading the recovery for the country and our efforts -- the chairman and i championing the advanced manufacturing tax credit, 48-c and the loan program that you mentioned where ford is bringing jobs back from mexico because of their efforts around advanced retooling and we are seeing jobs coming back from a number of countries because we're focused there. i would encourage you to continue that and use the tools available. i want to talk specifically today though about a very, very important project i believe for the country and certainly for michigan and that's the facility for where isotope beam projects, that they won in a rigorous competition a number of years ago. and they're a critical point. we're coming into the fifth year of funding on this national project. it's a core piece of our research for the united states research infrastructure with broad

mr. secretary. >> mr. chaffes. >> are you calling upon the senate to pass your budget? >> i thought you might ask this question because i heard you guys do this over the last few days. i'm not a budget process expert. you guys are the budget committee. but i'll offer a few things in response to that. the senate does not need a budget resolution in order to pass appropriations bills, pass tax cuts, tax reforms, pass entitlement reforms, pass mandatory savings. as you know, pass the american jobs act, pass the payroll tax cut. that's a budget process question. what we want to do is get this -- we'd like to senate and the house together to find more things they can do together that would improve economic growth and jobs. >> i would love to hold hands with harry reid. we have done our job in the house in the past and passed budget bills or the budget here. it's a simple question. are you calling upon the united states senate to pass the president's budget? >> we are calling -- absolutely calling on the united states senate to embrace -- the house as well to embrace the fisc