part of what the nnsa does is dismantles the weapon. it's a difficult thing when talking about dismantling the size of a minivan, with plutonium and uranium and, you know, high explosives attached to all of that. you don't take screwdrivers out and take it apart it's a methodical process that they do. i'm sure you can imagine just moving something like that, is really difficult. so they had -- you know, they had to develop special tools, special hoists and cranes to kind of do that. so that's -- you know, part and parcel of what the nnsa does is they maintain, and they dismantle stuff we don't need. it happens at the same plant in texas. they do the modernization efforts. they do kind of the surveillance and they also, you know, take apart the war heads that we don't need anymore. >> i read a tweet a moment ago by jim who wanted to get rid of all nukes. he's a different jim saying the genie is out of the bottle. if doing away with the nukes only makes us vulnerable to nuke terrorism. so we're basically leaving ourselves vulnerable. >> y

. >> we're talking about the nnsa, the national nuclear safety administration. it's charged with maintaining the nation's nuclear deterrence capabilities, securing vulnerable nuclear materials and the president requested a budget for fiscal year 2013 of over $11 billion for the nnsa. the national academy of sciences says that the nnsa security of site such as lawrence liver more, national lab or las almos is affecting the security of the lab. talk to us about security. it says put a little trust in nuclear lab urges the report. according to a national research council report last month, lab employees say contracting oversight, security and human capital strains have diluted that primary goal and are putting research at risk. >> the real issue is how much overnight is on the labs. several years ago, the congress forced the nnsa to compete the contract for those labs. >> so they're privately managed? >> they're privately managed. at the time they were managed by the university of california and had been for decades? the early 2000s, congress moved to force them to

however, i would like to commend your department for its efforts through nnsa to maintain a strategic arsenal. i would welcome you to expand upon how your request which includes significant reductions ensures our nuclear capabilities are secure, thoroughly modeiz a sufficient deterrent to our enemies. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. dicks, ranking member of the full committee. >> i also want to welcome secretary chu to the energy and opportunity to discuss the fy-13 department of energy budget request. and for fy -- i bet you could have thought of better things to do on your birthday and on your anniversary. but we'll be brief. for fy-13 the president's budget request for the energy department is a sensible proposal that carries on our investments and important national programs and defense, science, and energy efficiency. this proposal represents a further investment for many programs that are the building blocks for a more efficient and independent energy future. this fy-13 budget request contains a small increase for naval reactors but healthier increases f

he covers the agency, that's the nnsa. we're talking about its funding, since this is our "your money" segment. the obama administration asked for $11 billion. tell us how the budget breaks down. >> of that money that they ask for, they've asked for $7.6 billion for the weapons program, where they're doing the upkeep on the weapon, they're taking them apart. that also supports the nation's nuclear weapons laboratories, there's three of them in california, new mexico and in albuquerque new mexico. there's a whole cadre of scientists that are constantly studying these thing. that's a large portion of the budget. $2.5 billion goes to the nonproliferation account. $1 billion to naval reactors. there's a program that's about $500 million a year, called the global threat reduction initiative, where they're going around the world and securing things. i mentioned that earlier. a couple years ago they were in chile, taking some highly enriched uranium, which is potentially a security threat, if it's not secured right. so they were

you have to make tough decisions to support the nuclear 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. i have 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. it will be the administration's tass tok show that your request does not sacrifice our strategic security for budgetary savings. and together the administration and congress supported small development of small modular reactors, another positive development as was the recent ground breaking for two nuclear reactors in georgia. mr. secretary, lafrt year we wrestled with how to put together a budge for your department that was fair and balanced. i am proud of our product. i want to thank my ranking member once again as a former chairman and ranking member for his many contributions, his sound advice and experience and that very essential institutional memory. our joint tass thk budget tik wil

the nnsa. we are talking about its funding. this is "your money" segment. the obama administration is asking for $11 billion for fiscal year 2013. tell us how the budget of that y ask for, they have asked to be $7.6 billion for the weapons program which is what i talked about where they're doing the upkeep on the weapons. they're bringing in weapons to look at. they call that surveillance so they're taking them apart. that also supports the nation's nuclear weapons laboratories. there's three of them in california and los alamos, new mexico and in albuquerque, new mexico. there's a whole cadre of scientists there that, you know, are constantly studying the things that's a large portion of the budget. 2. -- i think $2.5 billion goes to the nonproliferation account. approximately $1 billion goes to naval reactors. there's a lot of sub programs. you know, there's a program that's about $500 million a year where it's called the global threat reduction initiative where they're going around to different places in the world and securing things. i mentioned that ea

guest: nnsa is not into disposal of commercial nuclear waste.lly about how we maintain the stockpile we have. there are eight sites to run the country tasked with that. there is the other mission of securing nuclear materials around the world to make sure it is safe. that has been the agenda of the obama administration as well. the money goes to efforts overseas to make sure things are safe overseas. host: you mentioned a lot of this is classified. you report on the topic that is challenging to delve into. how close of you got into the story? have you been able to go to the facilities and visit the sites? have you seen the teams in action? guest: i have been to five of the eight sites. i have been to los alamos national laboratory. there are certain things i can see and certain things i cannot see. as a journalist, i would not want to see something i could not report on. if i go to los alamos, i was not able to see them building things. the quality plutonium center of excellence. they are in charge of building the pins that were going to nuclear

recognize as i said that by this logic under a tax cause and also by their logic under the commerce clause nnsa proper clause you would get virtually unlimited congressional power and that certainly does make a hash out of the constitution. it makes most of congress' other authorities or lease many of them completely redundant. and none of this is actually required by even the broadest president of the court has adopted so far, whether gonzales v. raich or anything else. now, lastly i want to say a little point about the activity versus inactivity distinction. that distinction was not invented by us come the people who want the statute struck in but rather, that distinction isn't a numerous supreme court decisions would have defined the scope of congress' power in terms of activity. andrew has said well, that congress is created activity with fannie mae and other regulatory agencies, but that's not congress using the commerce power to tax power to regulate or compel people in the private sector. rather that is congress creating government agencies wishing? any particular task. the extent of tha