in 2001, after 9/11 is when i found out the nsa was in abject violation of the first commandment at nsawas, you do not spy on americans without a warrant. as was pointed out in your earlier segment, significant abuse in the 1960's and 1970's under programs where they were actually in violation without -- the were in violation of the for the met rights. political dissidts, journalists not liked by administrations, antiwar activists were being spied upon on a routine basis by the intelligence agencies, including the nsa inside the usa you had watergate, hearings, basically the nixon administration, whatever the president says is legal. never would i have imagined that would have come full flower post 9/11, in fact, makes that a whole era of the nixon administration look like pikers. because of where i was, and people coming to me privately with concerns about what we were doing spying on americans. we have a puerto rico to in secret with the probable cause evidence, yet now we're tossing it overboard and treating our own country the equivalent of a four nation for the purpose of dragnet e

an nsa so we need these two components of d.o.d. to work closely together. nsa's got the technical talent, got the access, got the capability. cybercommand will have the forces to deploy and the capability to leverage that platform and work with the intelligence side of nsa to further support the combat and command. so i think that relationship is growing, is headed in the right direction. i think that's one of the things that we have talked about and we both strongly agree is something that we've got to maintain. >> thank you for that. general kehler, i know my time's up. if you want to reply further for the record, i would certainly appreciate it. thank you for your service as well. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator udall. senator chambliss? >> thanks, mr. chairman. gentlemen, thank you for your service. general alexander, i thank you particularly for your recent trip down to fort garden, where you gave a pat on the back and a morale boost to some of the smartest, hardest working, most committed americans who are d

we are not proposing and have never proposed that two nsas be created, rather two different lines of authority that emanate using the nsa, one of course for civilian and one for military. >> that's a very important factor. i want to come back to that in a minu minute. one of the opinions expressed to the committee as we face the challenge and decided which part of our government should be responsible for responding was that there would probably be very deep and widespread concern among the public if we, for instance, asked the national security agency or the department of defense to be directly in charge of working with the privately owned and operated cyber infrastructure. it particularly with nsa that there would be a concern about privacy and civil liberty concerns. does that make sense to you? >> i've heard the same they do make acceptsense. indeed when we kind of figured out the division of responsibiese nsa, one of the things we were careful to elevate was the discussion of the protection of pry ivacy, cil liberties and we have people at the nsa accompanied by our office of pri

and nsa and cybercommand lead for detection, prevention and defense in foreign space. defense of the nation comes under if the nation comes under attack. i'd line to go into a few, if i could, a little bit on what i see we need in cyberspace. the requirements to defend the nation from attack, because there's been a lot of discussion on this and i think it's important to put this up front. i think this is the heart of some of the discussion that's going on with the legislation today. first, we need to see the attack. what do i mean by that? that was a quote that we made up at the fordham university. if we can't see the attack, we can't stop it. what we're not talking about is putting nsa or the military into our networks to see the attack. what we're talking about that all of you have put on the table is, we have to have the ability to work with industry, our partners, so that when they are attacked or they see an attack, they can share that with us immediately. the information sharing and the liability that goes along would allow industry, armed with signatures that we

nsa, dhs, fbi. all of us need to work together to provide the best set of signatures to protect that critical infrastructure. industry can actually operate that and tell us when that occurs. i also think that you need to set a set of standards for how those systems are operated to give you the best and i'll call that, the general mentioned it, it's in there, resilience. we need resilience in those networks to ensure they can operate and be defensible while we're trying to defend the country outside. does that make sense? >> um-hum. you know, just last friday, i read about it yesterday, microsoft was accompanied by u.s. marshals and they raided office buildings in pennsylvania and in illinois to disrupt a group of computers, a botnet that was harvesting bank accounts, passwords and other personal information from millions of computers, and microsoft's actions show what's possible and some say is certainly necessary now to stop cybercrimes. what are your thoughts on these actions, just taken recently,

nsa, dhs and fbi. we need to work together to provide the best signatures to it -- protect that critical infrastructure. industry can operate that and tell us when that occurs. i also think you need to set standards for how those systems operate to give you the best -- i will call that -- general kehler mentioned it -- resilience. we need the resilience of the networks to ensure they, operate and be defendable what we are trying to defend the country outside. does that make sense? >> last friday, microsoft was accompanied by a u.s. marshal and office buildings in pennsylvania and illinois to disrupt a group of computers harvesting bank accounts, passwords and other personal information from millions of computers. microsoft actions show what is possible and some say is the necessary to stop cybercrimes. what are your thoughts on these actions taken recently and should they serve as a model for other private industry and is there a takeaway for the department of defense on this recent rate? >> i think it

nsa, dhs, fbi. all of us need to work together to provide the best set of signatures to protect that critical infrastructure. industry can actually operate that and tell us when that occurs. i also think that you need to set a set of standards for how those systems are operated to give you the best and i'll call that, the general mentioned it, it's in there, resilience. we need resilience in those networks to ensure they can operate and be defensible while we're trying to defend the country outside. does that make sense? >> um-hum. you know, just last friday, i read about it yesterday, microsoft was accompanied by u.s. marshals and they raided office buildings in pennsylvania and in illinois to disrupt a group of computers, a botnet that was harvesting bank accounts, passwords and other personal information from millions of computers, and microsoft's actions show what's possible and some say is certainly necessary now to stop cybercrimes. what are your thoughts on these actions, just taken recently,

the nsa is building the country's biggest spy center.ngressional hearings days ago director general sander took the issue head on. el specifically addressed the accusations in the articles definitively saying know to the allegation. the u.s. does not tap into citizens especially without a warrant. we receive add written response from the nsa which reads many allegations have been talking planned activities. it will be a state of the art facility design to do support the intelligence community efforts to strengthen and protect the nation. nsa is executive agency for the director of the national intelligence. will be the lead agency at the center. intelligence gathering is limited to foreign communications. they have occurred such as warrantless wire tapping controversy. one thing i did want to mention earlier in the monthly on pineda's group of reporters in kentucky. one reporter said what keeps you up at night? what are you most afraid of. right away he said cyber attacks which is what the nsa is focusing on. >> the way of the world and

attack against this country were being planned, there may not be much that either cyber command or nsa could legally do to discover and thwart such an attack in advance. you said, quote, in order to stop a cyber attack, you have to see it in realtime and you have to have those authorities. those are the conditions we put on the table. now, how and what the congress chooses, that will be a policy decision. in a fight where the threat can materialize in mill i seconds and quick action is essential, i look forward to better understanding what authorities you believe are needed to protect the united states interest both at home and abroad. the department of defense is requesting nearly $3.4 billion for cybersecurity in fiscal 2013 and almost 17.5 billion over the future years' defense program. the cyber budget is one of the only areas of growth in the dod budget because of broad agreement that addressing the cyber threat must be among our highest priorities. ive thank the witnesses for appearing before the committee today and look forward to their testimony. >> thank you very much. senator

>> guest: there's one bill that pretty much everybody agreed to, the rogers bill that allows the nsa to communicate to industries about known threats. that has not moved. it's still in committee as we build on that. >> host: well, as you know, the senate is actively per -- pursuing legislation. the lieberman-collins and the republican bill. where do you stand on those. >> we're looking at those, but we're doing our own efforts in the house of representatives. i was on the speakers' task force, and now i'm on the goal leading with the bipartisan committee to give us the outline, and so not that we're recreating the wheel, but we want to make sure we're doing it in a little different way than the senate's doing. >> host: if the collins-lieberman bill comes to the house, what's your thoughts about that specific bill? >> guest: well, i think, you know, it -- i think that bill comes close but we're looking for a way of breaking down barriers to empower private sector internet providers, backbone developers. first of all, those are the first line. we have to empower them. it's a little bit

guest: well, there's one bill that everyone's pretty much agreed to, the rogers bill, that allows the nsa to communicate to industries about known threats. that hasn't moved, it's still this committee as we're building on that. >> host: well, as you know, the senate is actively pursuing cybersecurity legislation, two bills going forward, the lieberman-collins and the republican bill. where do you stand on those? >> guest: well, those are ones that we will look at, but we're actually doing our own efforts in energy and commerce in the house of representatives, so i was on the speaker's task force, speaker's task force, and now i'm co-leading with dana eshoo on a bipartisan committee that will give us the outline. we want to just make sure that we're doing it in a little different way than the senate's doing. >> host: if collins-lieberman bill comes to the house, what are your thoughts about that specific bill? >> guest: well, i think, you know, i think that bill comes close. but what we're looking at is a way of breaking down barriers to empower private sector internet providers, backbone

you've made very clear that you don't want nsa into our private cybersystems. but you need to have the private cybersystems be able to tell you when an enemy attack is coming, right. >> that's correct. >> so you can act. to me, that's probably the most significant gain that we will have from the department of homeland security and formed by you, setting these standards for defense for the privately owned cyberspace, which is, look, i hear so many stories about critical infrastructure operating systems, using defensive systems that are 15 years old without even basic detection capabilities. i think one of most important things that's going to happen, as a result of the system we're talking about, is that the most critical infrastructure, not every business at home everybody but the most critical infrastructure, will have to develop within itself or hire some of the private companies that do this, the defensive systems that will let them know -- which i lot don't now -- when they're being attacked immediately get to you so you can spring into action to essentiall

an nsa so we need these two components of d.o.d. to work closely together. nsa's got the technical talent, got the access, got the capability. cybercommand will have the forces to deploy and the capability to leverage that platform and work with the intelligence side of nsa to further support the combat and command. so i think that relationship is growing, is headed in the right direction. i think that's one of the things that we have talked about and we both strongly agree is something that we've got to maintain. >> thank you for that. general kehler, i know my time's up. if you want to reply further for the record, i would certainly appreciate it. thank you for your service as well. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator udall. senator chambliss? >> thanks, mr. chairman. gentlemen, thank you for your service. general alexander, i thank you particularly for your recent trip down to fort garden, where you gave a pat on the back and a morale boost to some of the smartest, hardest working, most committed americans who are d

so we are not duplicating or making a redundant nsa. we are taking the nsa and using the framework of the bill to protect our civilian cyber networks. >> and i understand the department of defense basically support this is legislation, what i can understand at least it does. hay, i think wholeheartedly. privacy officer.f the privacy in terms of the information which is supplied where there is -- has been a threat, that government entity is protected. >> right, the content is not sh. more about that protection. >> content is not shared. the information shared requires minimumization, of identifiable information, all of the things necessary to give can haonfiden their own personal communications are not shared. so it's the fact of the intrusion, the methodology, the tactics used, the early warning indica indicators, all of those sorts of things are to be shared but not the contents of then itlf. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. >> madam secretary, nice to see you again. personally i would like to say to senator lieberma

attack against this country were being planned, there may not be much that either cyber command or nsa could legally do to discover and thwart such an attack in advance. you said, quote, in order to stop a cyber attack, you have to see it in realtime and you have to have those authorities. those are the conditions we put on the table. now, how and what the congress chooses, that will be a policy decision. in a fight where the threat can materialize in mill i seconds and quick action is essential, i look forward to better understanding what authorities you believe are needed to protect the united states interest both at home and abroad. the department of defense is requesting nearly $3.4 billion for cybersecurity in fiscal 2013 and almost 17.5 billion over the future years' defense program. the cyber budget is one of the only areas of growth in the dod budget because of broad agreement that addressing the cyber threat must be among our highest priorities. ive thank the witnesses for appearing before the committee today and look forward to their testimony. >> thank you very much. senator

clapper is nsa.st in the morning not knowing about the london bombing taking place or attempted thwarted bombing. >> that was clapper. >> he was national intelligence director. >> bob: that is why military men run it. >> dana: i think they are solid grounds to do this. it's going to create a lot of jobs in terms of administrators and people they need there, i.t. people. so good for utah. in terms, my stuff is entertaining. >> i can't believe you are willing to give your own stuff to the government. you guys are always jumping on the government. >> greg: do i have an opinion on this? every one of your segments you never come to me. everybody, we live in a culture where everybody is sharing everything until suddenly they find out somebody might be listening to it. the solution to in is to take this thing and turn into a network. then everybody will be want to be on on it. everybody likes to do this. how is this not facebook? what they are doing and what they are buying, go on to facebook. by the way, s

we would be helpless if we did not work with dhs, cia, nsa, and the rest of the intelligence community. if there is one substantial change that has made the biggest difference, i would say breaking down the traditional walls between the intelligence community and the domestic law enforcement community because information flows very easily over borders now, and you cannot just see one piece of the puzzle without getting the other piece. it has made a tremendous difference and given rise to the approach from all of us that says we want to work together in a task force context. >> for our radio listeners, you are listening to the commonwealth club of california radio program. our guest today is fbi director robert muller discussing security threats concerning the united states. we would like to ask you a little bit about the national security implications of our energy policy, an issue of much concern in the news and certainly here in silicon valley. what might you say about the relationship between energy policy and some of the national security challenges that the fbi is addressing? >>

not talk to criminal agents and vice versa, much less have persons in the fbi talked to the cia or nsa or others. the great benefit of the patriot act is it did away with that and enabled us to build those relationships, change that culture, and understand that in order for us to be successful, we had to work closely together on any number of these threats. >> is there anything you would >> what about national security letters? >> national security letters was the device given to us to gather information on the existence of the telephone call. we had a procedure we needed to follow. in most cases, we did. in a number of cases, we did not have the procedures. we move ahead quickly and did not put in place procedures to assure we have the proper paperwork and foundation in requesting those letters. we have put into place a software program that insures you have the appropriate foundation before a new issue a national security letter. we have had training. we have had continuous oversight on that issue. in the overall context of things, it was not that we were getting information to which

say it's also irreverently true in the cyber aren't aren't amongst the agencies whether it be dhs, nsa, ourselves, dna and the like. so important to this is what you point out, both the experiences and expertise in the private sector. this is where it's different from addressing terrorism, because the private secretary he sector has to play a sub tash role. runs or critical infrastructures. how you execute that whether through the statute or not is really up to others. my concern is the sharing of information so that we can determine who was responsible for this and lock them up, and perhaps the third area is the necessity of building up the expertise in the federal government amongst all of the agents, and the outreach to the private side. not only building up the expertise, but also the outreach to the -- to private businesses so that we become partners. so we have not any other criminal arena. >> well, you have really highlighted an area that makes this whole intelligence, security holding, accused, terrorists without charges being filed -- we're not dealing with an enemy that is a

in other words, the nsa couldn't do. they have see a passionate cia problems that would. but on the of the land, homeland security can cooperate as they are, and even be a partner with nsa. i don't see janet napolitano, but i don't see keith alexander in the same place, the same conversation. we had a meeting just earlier this week and they were both on the same page, both cooperating with each other. but somebody's got to take the lead, and janet napolitano who i really trust at home in tikrit, which a lot of people look back at katrina and say oh, they didn't do that right, but they don't realize they have a superb intelligence unit which has now been beefed up. so it's the right place to do it, and, in fact, the only place that you can do it. >> host: some groups such as the aclu or the electronic privacy information center have raised privacy concerns for individuals on this legislation. >> guest: that would be automatic, wouldn't it? when i was chairman of the intelligence community we did fisa, which is allowing all of those come in this case, to telecommunication c

the nsa did this a couple years ago, where an nsa official actually told me when we were arguing over how they should do e-mail searches, they had one analyst who went through and read each of her e-mails to figure out which ones were responsive and didn't use the search function. i said you can't do that. you have to use the search function and she said no, there is no restriction that we must use the most efficient method and charge you for it. i don't know where to go with that one. that's what agencies will do, they'd hide behind fees and actually our most recent case that we filed a couple weeks ago is actually a class action case against the cia, because not on foia, because it's almost impossible to do a foia class action, but the cia passed a new regulation that allows it to -- i have to backsecond. in addition to foia, and if you want more information on this, i suggest you go to the national security or kifz website. they have volumes about it. with respect to classified information, there's an additional review process called mandatory declassification review, and this is c

so that's part and parcel of what the nsa does is they maintain what we have and dismantle stuff that we don't need. it actually happens at the same plant in texas that i mentioned earlier. they do the modernization efforts. they do kind of the surveillance and they also take apart the warheads that we don't need anymore. >> i read a tweet a moment ago by jim who wanted to get rid of all nukes. a different jim says -- the jeannie is out of the bottle. we're basically leaving ourselves vulnerable. >> i don't think anyone out there says we need to -- we should get rid of all of our nuclear weapons tomorrow. you know, down the road, people see that as a potential future, there's a lot of hurdles and dissenting opinions on that. there's a lot of people that disagree with the president. but it has to be a slow, methodical process. i think most people recognize that, that for the meantime we can't just say we're done with these. you're right, the jeannie is out of the bottle. we have to, along with the international community, we have to take things down a slow path. that means kind of havi

in other words the nsa couldn't do it. on the other hand, homeland security can cooperate, as they are, and even be a partner with nsa. i don't see janet napolitano and -- at the same place in the same conversation. we had a meeting earlier this week and they were both on the same page, both cooperating with each other but somebody has got to take the lead and janet napolitano whom i really trusted homeland security, which a lot of people look ' train and say they didn't do that right but they don't realize they have the spur of the intelligence units which has now been beefed-up, so it's the right place to do it and in fact the only place that you can do it. >> host: some groups such as the aclu and the electronic privacy information center reveries privacy concerns for individuals with this legislation. >> guest: that would be automatic wouldn't it? when i was chairman of the intelligence committee we did fisa, which is allowing all of those in this case to telecommunications companies to be able to go ahead and collect

the nsa dismantles a weapon like that.ifficult thing when you are talking about dismantling something the size of a minivan with radioactive parts and high explosive potential. you do not just take out screwdrivers and taken apart. it is a very methodical process. just moving something like that is difficult. they have to develop special tools and cranes to do that. the nsa maintains what we have. they also dismantle stuff we do not need. it happens at the same plant in texas, the pantex plant. they dismantle and take apart the warheads we do not need any more. host: a different jim tweeted in. guest: i do not think anyone thinks we should get rid of all of our nuclear weapons tomorrow. there are a lot of hurdles and people who disagree with the president on his vision. it has to be a slow, methodical process. it cannot happen overnight. most people recognize we cannot to say we're done with these. along with the international community, we have to take things down a slow path. that means having treaties with russia, event

it is as offensive starts to the bears are back to the nsa ncaa tournament in their first year as head coach the bears take on the no. 9 seed iowa and killed at the saatchi once again 15 points and eight assists and how about that six steals. that's a good line the bears scored double-digit figures in the iowa 5474 that will take on autopsy noted game in their home in the second round. >>> nc state up by one and s the will bring his restaurant there. the word on how long will be out. >>> will be a huge blow to their child's chances no. 1 seed north carolina beat creighton 87 to 73. just making the tournament n.c. state coach mark guthrie got two more years on his contract before taking on georgetown he did travel agent with this wolf pack. there's a plane waiting for you take is a list there's hotel rooms waiting for you is a game waiting for you to be played in st. louis. the first dassies a lesley with the still taking it all the way this is to seal the win but lorenzo missed the free throw one lashup for georgetown raising up the court hears the shots do-or-die it and no good. he go

cyber command and the director of nsa has warned that our cyber vulnerabilities are extraordinary. and characterized by a distur t exploitation too destruction. these statements are just the latest in a chorus of warnings officials. and the threat as the chairman has pointed out our national security -- but also to our well being. a norton study calculated the cost of global cyber crime at when combined with the value of time victims lost due to cyber crime, this figure grows to $388 billion. orton described this as global black market and marijuana, cocaine, and heroin combined. in an op-ed last month entitled "china's cyber thievery as national policy must be challenged" former dni, mike mcconnell, former homeland security secretary, michael chertoff and former deputfens w lin noted ability of cyber terrorists to cripple -- cripple -- our critical infrastructure. they sounded an even more urgent alarm about the threat of economic cyberel espionage. citing a report by office of national counterintelligence executive, the of the catastrophic impact that cyber espionage, particularl

are you still the director of the former soviet union at nsa. >> yes, i am. >> why are we in mexico? >> good question. it has to do with the way our office is ork newsed. i'm the coordinator for all of our removal activities regardless of location, ukraine, mexico, chile it doesn't matter. my office is in charge. >> everywhere the nsa is collecting nuclear material, you are in charge of the logistics. >> that's correct. >> can you tell people what you do? like when you leave to do something like this, where does your family think you are going. >> my family in general knows the location of where i am going. it is not classified where i am going but the operation and details of the operation. >> what should people understand about the difference between what we think of as nuclear power reactors and research reactors? >> the biggest difference is the material itself. the material that is used to power a nuclear power plant is only enriched to three to four percent of u-235. it is not material that they could use to make a nuclear weapon 20% or greater. the research reactors have much

what they say is -- what the officials at the nsa say, what they say is the stockpile is the oldest it's been in decades. so that's the focus is upgrading everything. >> todd jacobson, senior reporter at the nuclear weapons and materials monitor. 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

his most recent book is "the shadow factory: the ultra-secret nsa from 9/11 to the eavesdropping on america." welcome, gentlemen, to you both. mr. leiter, let me begin, before we get into a debate, explain what kind of data or information we're talking about here that would be affected by these guidelines. i mean, is it data we would normally think of as private-- cards, travel records, e-mails, phone calls? >> well, it is information that would be considered private, but what i think is most important is that it is not information that is not already collected and already held by other government agencies. it is only information that is lawfully collected, either by the f.b.i. or department of homeland security, and these new guidelines simply allow n.c.t.c., that already had access to this information, to retain this information for a longer period of time. >> warner: so explain why there is a need to retape it for longer period of time at the n.c.t.c.fit already exists at these other agencies. >> well, the reason n.t.c.t. was created was to make sure information from different organizati

jim banford is a controversial reporter but on the nsa, he is not usually wrong and almost everything written has turned out in this area to be right. >> all right. the nsa is denying the allegations and in a statement to "fox & friends", "many allegations have been made about the planned activities of the utah data center. what it will be is a state of the art facility designed to support the intelligence community's efforts to further strengthen and protect the nation." i guess that's what they have to say. >> yes. and they have denied programs before they've actually been conducting so once again, a little bit of skepticism is always, always wise. >> all right. thanks, judy miller for giving us the insights on it. coming up on "fox & friends", real food for thought. two new studies show you may want to trade in your fruit for popcorn and chocolate? i might like that study. and can republicans bury the hatchet and team up in the race for the white house? rick santorum answers that question next. plus he switched from republicans, democrats to cast the deciding vote on obama care. fo

i have a plate in my head and i had to be checked out by the nsa to get through boot camp in paris island. i'm a russian immigrant, i came here in 1952 at 3 years old. my questions are this. steel from china, what kind of quality is it, they were poisoned before. were you ever in the military, natural gas is clean and plentiful. i have a hot -- yes, we all sin. >> all right, we got steel, military service, natural gas uses, syria and sin. >> okay, back to that steel issue, that was a decision made by a republican administration and i really had no say in th that -- use of natural gas energy policy. >> natural gas is what's really going to save us and i think that we have got to be much more bullish in how we move forward. you can just go to these switching stations. we have got to get less dependent on foreign oil and we have got to do it in a bold way. they're going to be creating that network in denmark n australia and in israel, and in a bay area facility as well. >> charlotte, north carolina, democrat, good morning. >> yes, good morning. >> i would like to address -- she said absolute

federal government through the department of homeland security advised and supported if you will by the nsa can work with the private sector to make sure that the private sector is defending itself and our country against cyberattacks? we have spent a lot of time on this and right now, because of the remarkable capacities of the cyberattackers, and the extent to which they can attack privately owned and operated cyberinfrastructure for either economic gains or to literally attack our country, that we need to ask the private sector to make investments and to defend themselves and i'm afraid a lot of them are not yet making it. is that gin your general impression? in other words bottom line, do we have a vulnerability? does the privately owned and operated cyberinfrastructure of america have a vulnerability to both economic and perhaps strategic attack? >> sir, the chairman and the ranking member cited the national intelligence at consecutive report that we issued in october which called out both china and russia as our primary concerns and particularly with respect to the chinese and the the

you know, what they say is -- what the officials at nsa is the stockpile is the oldest it has been in decades. that's really the focus right now. upgrading things and making sure everything is safe and security. >> todd jacobson. he covers the agency that is the national nuclear safety administration. 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 billio

the nsa 0.5%. homeland security, 0.2%. there seems to be a problem there. and that's a huge increase. because just previously to that was about 3%. it was still higher than these other agencies. i'm sure there's a reason for it but there seems to be a huge increase of deniles of freedom of information act requests. because of the relationship i would like to spend time with you all and look at what's going on there. i think there's a serious issue there and i'm sure there's a good explanation but i don't understand what it would be. another issue i ran into, you were talking about budget issues, about i guess your personnel is -- your requests are basically flat; is that correct? >> correct. >> but one of the things that also struck me rather large was -- it's too small, i apologize. i'm going to complain to my staff about that, particularly after 49 1/2, 1/2, 1/2, my eye s sight is not that good. it's on salaries. so even though the number of employees may be flat, those making $150,000 and above have increased dramatically. >> would you like to submit tha

let me very, very briefly say that a strong common denominator, especially fli complex projects like nsa are doing is you don't start construction until a large faction of the engineering drawings are done. if you start putting shovels in the ground when you have 10% of the design done, you'll find out this is not a government project. this is true in the private sector as well. you invariably find out that, oops, you should have done more design before you actually start construction. and so one of the things we've been -- that -- so a lot of the things that you see are things put in progress years ago. and there is now concerted effort to make sure that you progress further along and first budget estimates but never -- but also be very reluctant to put shovels in the ground until you know what you're going to be building. >> all right. in light of that national academy report -- >> i'd love to tell you about that. but for another day. >> thank you. >> thank you. mr. rogers? >> thank you, chairman. >> coal provides 50% of the nation's energy electricity today. if we went completely at 1

the nsa, 0.5%. the hs, homeland security, 0.2%. there seems to be a problem here. and that's a huge increase. because just previously it was about 3%. it was still high. higher than these other agencies, i'm sure there's a reason for it but there seems to be a huge increase in denials of information, particularly on this category, not reasonably described that i don't think shows transparency and it clearly does not reflect the president's call, at least public call, for transparency. so that's, again, because of the relationship, i would like to maybe spend some time with you all and see what's going on there. i think there's a serious issue there and i'm sure a good explanation, but i don't understand what it would be. that's number one. another issue that i also thought i ran into. you were talking about, we were talking about the budgetary issue. about, i guess, your personnel, requests or bas s are basically. is that correct? >> correct. >> one of the things that struck me rather large was, too small i apologize. complain to my staff about that. particularly w

the nsa, 0.5%. dhs, homeland security, 0.2%. there seems to be a problem here. that's a huge increase because just previously to that it was about 3%, still high. i'm sure there's a reason for but there seems to be a huge increase of denials of freedom of information, particularly under this category of not reasonably described, that i don't think shows transparency. and it clearly does not respect -- reflect the president's call for conspiracy. again because of the relationship i would like to maybe spend some time with you all and look at what's going on because there's a serious issue there. i'm sure there's a good explanation but i don't understand what it would be. that's number one. another issue that i also thought, i ran into, you are talking about, we talked about budgetary issues, about i guess your personnel, your request are basically flat, is that correct? >> correct. >> one thing that also struck me rather large, was, i apologize, particularly with, after 49 and a half and half and a half, my eyesight is not that good, but it's salaries. the increa