We could find money to take a fairly modest energy research budget of $6 billion and make it $7, $8, $9, or $10 billion.

I would like to weigh in favor of energy research.

Is it true that that is about enough for one project this year?

What should it be? If you were Professor Chu and were not bound by the office of budget, I mean, what should--well, let me put it another way.

I am pro research, including offshore--the offshore wind.

we have a Government that is collecting $2.2 trillion and spending $3.7 trillion, we have a lot of tough decisions to make.

Well, we can continue this discussion another time. But to me, this boils down to a pretty simple thing, from our point of view, a very complex operation from yours.

Since nuclear power produces 70 percent of our carbon-free electricity, and renewable--and other renewables produce a few percent, why should nuclear power have to pay for its loan guarantee subsidy and wind and solar not be?

But it does not have a finer advocate than Senator Graham anywhere in the United States.

the amount of money to do the research is relatively modest.

I am a little puzzled by your single-mindedness on consolidating the contracts that--at Y-12 and Pantex.

we do not want our nuclear weapons to begin to resemble a collection of wet matches.

I suggested that we apply the same rigor and ambitious goals to energy research that we did to the Manhattan Project.

I think the sooner, the better. So I would like to urge you to make it a priority and let us see it as soon as possible.

What I especially like about Senator Feinstein is she was a mayor. She can make decisions and she speaks with precision.

most of NNSA's responsibility are in support of the U.S. military, and this appropriation ought to be treated in part like Defense spending.

I think, Dr. Chu, you are one of the President's best appointees, that you have been a terrific leader.

We all feel very well educated about it. But it does not have a finer advocate than Senator Graham anywhere in the United States.

I think we ought to talk about big wind.

the President agreed with that in connection with the vote of the new START Treaty, which I supported. I think it was a wise treaty.

During that time, you have no reason to think that they are in a dangerous condition when stored under NRC regulations on site.

Even crusty, miserly Republicans often agree that research is an appropriate role of the Federal Government.

It takes several years before they are cool enough to put into dry cast storage.

the point is, to keep it in perspective, nuclear power provides about 20 percent of our electricity but about 70 percent of our emissions-free electricity, which is important as we think about clean air and climate change.

A second step of the Obama administration's plan for used nuclear fuel, which I heartily endorse, is not just to store it safely onsite but then to do advanced research to find a better way to reuse nuclear fuel which will greatly reduce…