you must be willing to lean on others, listen to others and yes, love others. there appears to be a sufficient second. there is a sufficient second. the clerk will call the roll. >> senators this week defeated two proposals dealing with energy policy. on tuesday they rejected a democratic thing to eliminate $20 billion in oil company tax subsidies. today they defeated a republican bill to expand offshore oil and gas chilling. this portion of the debate is 45

minutes. >> debating a bill to increase taxes on oil and gas in the united states as well as the tens of thousands of americanseall that industry employs and really the millions of americans that serves, we should have been debating a budget. in fact, the senate had not passed a budget for 749 days. f but the majority decided to bring this bill to the floor yesterday, an effort i thinkhe pro could change some of the conversations from the problemoblem i that had come the witcheston. overspending problem in washington. today we borrow 40 cents of every dollarnd. we spend, depending on domestic government agencies. get this nondefense government agencies in the past two years increased 24%. that that does not count 700 --

almost $800 billion stimulus package with much more than that stimu added to it.il the medicare trust and will gorupt in bankrupt in 2024. social security trust fund will be insolvent in 2036 and in theased past decade our nation's deaths have increased from 5 trillion gravity to 14 trillion. despite the gravity of our majority has chosen to debate the bill to increase taxes on oil and gas an industry that employs 170,000 americans in my state and added this past year at 11000 new jobs.axes - the 1.9 trillion has been generated. een 1.9 billion in taxes have been generated by the indus three since 1981. the menendez bill would not have decreased prices at the pump

but would have shipped more jobss overseas and really resulted in the importation of more oil and it. gas. ever whenever you tax something come you get less of it.hatever, y whenever you tax the refining process or whatever from a java the cost. it's just that simple. so we are all aware that gas prices have doubled in the a president's first years in office and raising taxes on ica energy companies operating in america would do nothing to help that situation. e the real solution is for america to enact legislation that increases american energyf production from a variety of more his. oil, natural gas nuclear. we need to do more nuclear. i sure like it biofuels and r other sources of reliable energy that americans can put to good our use. ergy our energy. a

conservation is a very important fact. should play a very important our natnal role. america needs an inner-city policy that strengthens our t national security, fosters economic growth, protects the environment in a reasonable and cost effect manner. the affordable, domestic energy. regrettably the senate majorityf plan does not seem to be interested in that kind ofpril energy policy. g any early this year get to, lt just last month the unitedorted states imported 344 million barrels of oil from foreign news.3440% of 344 million euros. that is over 60% of the oil can america. and inthat america. that means we spentlone $42.5 trillion overseas in april o alone to purchase the oil that

we import. stated differently last month alone the united states spent $980,00 over $980,000 per minute on oil from foreign sources or that's almost a million dollars a minute. this presents a significant risk to our national security as as ma folks have told us in many if dollars are going to nations that are not friendly to us. this also further ask that surveys our nation's trade import balance. export we import our more export and our export now are beginning to rise a little bit but those gains have been more than offset by importing of oil and the price of oil. ener so the menendez bill would've increased the price of energy in america, which i have to sayctive aims to be the objective of the thi

administration and some in the senate. 2 in september of 2008 steven chu an told "the wall street journal" in an interview, somehow we have to figure out how to boost the to price of gasoline to the levels in europe, close quote. that or to is now secretary of energy for the united states ofthousand get america. c he needs to beos thinking about how to get the cost down inamerica -- a third the constituency of ameri america.now i don't know what ideas you had that we had to be raising the b cost of e energy to the level inhe env europe.tion age and the environmental protection agency, in fact, is enact a newhe regulation that will also driveener up the cost of energy. in a way that should never have happened in my view. we've had some vote on that that close. votes on that.

hopefully we'll soon be able to pull back that effort. power a study by the affordable power.p.a.'sgree alone concluded that epa's greenhouse gas and regulations that increases the cost of gasoline by 50%. gas b electricity by 50% and natural gas by 75% of the next 20 years. that's a stunning figure. there's no doubt hope to have itso re up. so the majority has yet to new recognize the impact of these on tax increases and new epa regulations will have onthe the $4 economy. with gas prices up $4 a gallon, 2.75% in september. $4.275. 5 this trend leads to a 5% cut income.

the average american amoun discretionary income, just for the same amount of gyoaus you buy. imprements does this mean less spending on home improvement? tngs vacations, things families need. increase energy costs could formed in a way on the american people. bhe unite further increase in energy taxes remains doing business in theobs wl united states more expensive as a result of jobs will go $10 overseas which pays $100 per $140 month for gasoline will not pay over $140 a month for gasoline. and if you're paying $200 a month and many are coming you'd be just paying $280 a month. up. just in change gasoline price. ended added up that's what it amounts to. the family amounts to 200 bucks

for gasoline. some argue raising taxes will help reduce our deficit but the bill increases in the menendez bill would have approximately $1.2 billion in 2012 with a project to deficit of over $1,600,000,000,000 this year. the revenue produced from these taxes would be a drop in the bucket. don't think it's going to balance their budget. that's for sure. would furthermore, the bill's sponsors claim that the money would beut used to reduce theth deficit. there's nothing in the bill that l does not. although the language soundse is good the language is and essentially what we call a sense. of the senate and has no bindingill power. in the end, nothing in the bill could have been construed in mandating deficit reduction as

simply a tax increase, plain and simple tax been spent. as the majority tried yesterday to increase taxes on the energy andhe is very, they ignore theem that i convoluted tax system that is in increasing in inhibiting job th growth in america.e un the united states has the second-highest tax in the world. at a 9.5%. other developing nations have been producing their tax is.e taxate as only japan has higher corporatethe tax rate and reducing errors. the canadian finance minister had a chance to meet him last raten week, to bring the tax rate down to 14 -- below 15% and were taxing it 39.5. both that not cause a business to decide maybe to build thfae fact dream canada rather than the united states. chair

>> senator time has expired. >> i think the chair. a i believedd i have been to have one additional minute. >> without objection. >> thank you chair. i would say that i believen mcconnell legislation which has three components one aimed at restoring america not sureratorium production in the wake of the moratorium that's been imposed. safety component being dead fut future incidents like deepwatering horizon. efficiency component aimed ate that'she rig streamlining permits.o i believe that's the right way to go. more production of american energy love ouren country, our economy and ourerntry people. the chair would yield the floor.mr. mene >> senator from new jersey. abouhe rep >> mr. president, i've come to the point of talking about theithout republican bills to expand

coastal drilling without environmental review without me the normal planning process, without important safety to m measures. before i d o you just have toll respond to my distinguished colleague from alabama's remarks about her bill legislation yesterday. only in washington -- only in washington could taking $21 billion from the oil companies tax breaks, which the legislation said clearly would go to deficit reduction at a time the oil companies are making anywhere between $125,000,000,144,000,000,000 inofits profit not revenue, but profits with that not producing the deficit. only in washington would take $21 billion in the oil industry and the tax breaks they get forarly record profits. the law said very clearly on the only back be viewed fugitive

frontline. and to suggest that the oil companies cannot do without the $21 billion by the taxpayers money when they are making 125 billion to $144 billion in profits is pretty outrageous. know but you know i know whathe today's legislation is about. yesterday was standing up for big oil by republicans and today notbout standing up for big oil because it's not about reducing gas prices. haven't we learned anything from 11 m that tragic death of 11 men a little over aboard the deepwater horizon w e ridge a little over a year ago? haven't we learned anythingnd the gul about families that lost their lives in the gulf economy that will take decades to finally abo rebuild. you know, just over a year ago i came to the floor to speak abouthamber s this human and environmental

catastrophe, a skill that many in this chamber said was inconivable d inconceivable.hat a well, inconceivable despite the fact that a remarkably similar still had happened a year before off of australia's coast. 200 dirty miles of coastline inl louisiana, mississippi alabama, florida was spoiled by toxic had oil. lives countless families who mademple their living turn your life upside down. this is similar to what happened in the polls. ot now herdespite the sobering in reality, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have milli introduced a bill that will open new areas to coastal drilling but millions more families at risk of losing everything.oastal and at the same time that they are calling on coastal communities like my home state of new jersey to risk everything, they have blocked safy

c efforts to address the fundamental safety concerns bl raised by the deepwater horizon blowout and the results of what the commission said. this reckless bill would allow drilling in sensitive coastal areas, even though current safety and oversight laws have ina been deemed to be inadequate to prevent a repeat of the coast disaster. so i ask you mr. president, have we learned nothing? my home state of new jersey would face arrest of drilling along virginia's coasts, less than 100 miles from the "jersey viia waters, shore." if the goal so happened in virginia water spending newuld be jersey families and much of our postal economy would be ruined. we have not sent in beaches.

the dams along the coast are breathtaking. wildlife is abundant, tourism depends on it. jeopar and it would all be in jeopardy. this is the second major driverlions of d of billionsol of dollars. now for no what?goes wrong this photo shows what happens to wildlife and coastal drillingisk we goes wrong. it shows at risk we can all take.pe may it's bill similar to one in the gulf could quickly travel and a blanket the entire "jersey shore" in the sheets of toxic oil. this would not only be anconomic dis environmental disaster, but also an economic disaster for new jersey. if our coast is covered in oil woul d and all wildlife disappeared, to risk weighted in the ocean to be replaced a cleanup crews in biohazard n suits. coast that's not what i want for the any

people of the coastal communities of. my state or any other state.'s with approximately 60% of new $ 38 jersey's 30 alien dollarsnot tourism industry generated by happen the "jersey shore," we cannot afford to let this happen. my and when we have the effect thatindustry if i would have in my state'ses are multibillion dollars fishing industry, the economic is our roulett unimaginable. it simply does not make sense to play russian roulette with an asset that generates thousands t do of jobs and tens of billions of dollars per year for drilling gener outside that could never o generate even one 10th of m y that. must now, my colleagues argue that we t must risk our coastal economies in order to bring down the price of gas would you need is more production domestically. but here's the problem, we have greater production than in anyince

of this chart shows that if any times ends 2005.rice h and yeah, gas avprices haven't gone down.heory so how does the theory player befor work?ic the greater productiones down. domestically than ever before. gas prices haven't gone down. it and what is the department of energy talus clinics and estimates opening all the shores pri to drilling would reduce gas prices by how much three mr. president? one, two 3 cents. in the year 2030. that's what the department of energy of the united statest's a trilogy were 3 cents in 2030. thre i don't think that's aboute n providing relief right now.et we would three cents per gallon in 20 coa years would risk tens of billions of dollars in damage to her coastal economy. on so instead of doubling down onhould

19th century feels, we should be investing in a new 21st century green economy that would create thousands of new jobs utio billions of new wealth and help protect our air water from pollution. it's time for the country to ways o move forward and embrace the future rather than clutched at the ways of the past. over the last two days, we are to those that present a clear br choice. b my bill to cut oilil tax breaks and this bill to recklessly expand oil drilling. g a new bill would do any thing gasolin despite rhetoric on the other side of the aisle. o i found it very clearly. my bill to cut oil subsidies was wful about lowering the deficit and hd enoug h doing so by cutting wastefulir pocke subsidies. to have the taxpayers thee tm generic pockets and give money profi to big oil to havets them make pretty bigger profits is pretty

abou outrageous.ng them n areas the republican leaders boast about enriching oil companies by granting new areas to drill without normal safety ofd to hel environment to review. my bill was designed to help taxpayers and theirs was designed to help oil companies.hat we are when it all said and done that's over deciding today.ddle-cla america are you with working class, middle-class americans agree with oil?n to think there's only one fair is fathir. sense f what is it that makes sense for futur american families only one answer to make sense of i s ourselves as company looking toe future generations. the reality is that we learn nothing from the tragedy of the it's a year ago then it's a sad dlling commentary. but if we have learned yes we can pursue drilling in certain areas, but it must be doneing uphe safely arrest we spend billions afterwards cleaning up the mess. don't wa i do want to claim the oil americans at company messes that. i do want tof put future generations of americans at in

terms of the conservation of and their environment and they to certainly don't want to wait for and to 2030 to take all of that risk and risk all of the billions of dollars and coastal economy for 3 cents, mr. president. let's vote no on this suggestion and let's move forward to a a green energy future that finallyon breaks our addiction to foreign oil and breaks our addiction to the w gas price is three separate today.offi mr. president, with that i yield the floor. >> senator from missouri.k about gas p >> mr. president, i am here to talk about gas prices and the -- economy and the effect of thee sur ecoenomy on our future. american j we need to work hard to be sure that we are producing more american jobs. and frankly i can't think of a se a better way to do that than produce more american energy. we use about the same amount of energy and a good economy as we do in a weak economy. are

this is the place to go where we o know that consumers are, whether it's ther electorate will or oug gasoline at the gas pump. ce and we had to be doing all we can to produce those jobs. of certainly there are many factors that affect the price of oil. d instead value of the dollar ke supply and demand. n the global events that affect oil-p oil light problems right now in you kno i libya and other oil producing companies or even the weather.nd the you know i live in the state is bound by the mississippi river and floeoding dozens of 50 has had some impact on the north-south movement of refined products in the country and all those thingson that impact on gas prices. one thing that will come up this joined m summer that i've worked hard on would in my colleagues to join me on our would be looking at what we can do to be sure that our efforts to have clean air don't -- needlessly restrict the supply we of g gasoline.

as we can into the summer ble months, to many cities have their own unique blendt of feele -- and that means we turned thento refinery centers -- refineries into profit centers, making of these unique blends of fuel instead of places that processent blend oil into gasoline and different as blends of gasoline only when necessary as opposed to whenever someone is convinced the city that the unique linda feel is the only one they can possiblyf fuel the use in my state of misery we have one blended fuel in the and a summer in tshit. louis and another blended fuel across the seas in kansas city and a third blended fuel in between. all of those have to be funded separately tracked separately,as sold obviously separately. fe and the gas tax which i hope we we can talk about more than thes next few weeks is one of the ways we can say let's bring as much common sense into the

system as we can. but take the supply we have available and use it in a way that makes the most sense. in fact, right before katrina in giv 2009, the president was given a new authority in cases of natural disaster to suspend re these fuel blends if there was ad the restriction p of supply.ty and the president did that. before i don't think he'd had the authority a month before katrina used,as hit, the president did not endp in the six months the authority was used, gas prices didn't go up in any significant way at all period as i recall because for the six-month period of time could get gasoline became a commodity again. if you can get gasoline, you can gasol sellin gasoline.d if someone had gasoline you could i gasoline and it didn't matter whether it was the unique unique end blend of you become convincede that your community was the only one that was right. for you.ime in

and we set some standards on gas those plans at the time in the have gas that. 30 different colleagues have or that'sne way will that more standards. and so that is one way to try to use the supplies that we have in sense a way that make the most sense. another way is clearly to go outore. and find more.needs to our approach to energy needs toe be threefold. it needs to be to use energy more efficiently, to use less, to find more and to invest infind the future to find out what as we those things or we need to be looking at as we transition a have a transition. i am not at all of the opinion that we won't have a system of a fleet of cars and is powered in different ways at some date in bu thet foreseeable future, but the foreseeable future would be 25 30, 40 years.

i'm equally convinced the matter what direction we had beenajority of c fueling automobiles, that 25 years from now the majority of and s cars on theo highway will still be using gasoline. so let's find more of it hereg and and that's what the offshore th producing andat s safety act does that senator mcconnell introduced. i along with many of myored colleagues cosponsored that. this bill really tries toore explation restore our offshore exploration 30 o of energy.nergy 30% of our energies come from the cold.omes our domestic energy supplies come from the polls in recent years that we want to be surethat that the number continues to remain at that level. admi and april of 2010 the approved administration has only approved 53 shallow water and routine deep wa deepwater permit. most of those were underweight ago before the deepwater horizons morator built a year ago. and in fact, the moratorium has

for all practical purposes become what some people are describing is the permitmane torian. t we permanently decided we were going to look at the goals for the kind of oil that it can fac showed and needs to produce.jected in fact, offshore energy production is project it to file by 210000 barrels per day this per year. 210,000 barrels per day. we begin at fewer barrels every day tastier then we got last solion year. surely that is no solution, to t become more dependent on other countries who are the recipient of the jobs that follow our energy future and we need those jobs to mabe here. the estimate is $190000 per day would be down in 2012 because we been

have not been pursuing the drilling practices that it's possible to 2011 could be the first year since 1958 that the federal government won't hold lease offshore lease sale. les the first time since 1958. than does w that mean we're less dependent on oil and gasoline than we were in 1958 or 1959 or it 1969? now, it doesn't mean that. we are more dependent and weo need to move forward with looking at the resources we sat have. recently -- recently meeting saturday, and his saturdays each the president appears to have reveed cou reversed course on this issue and has called for alaska andco the gulf of mexico leases to be reinstated and for an extension of leases, impact by the called moratorium. i think this bill actually helps what the president called for on

saturday. fo the that would be at lightning speed for the senate to pass the bill on wednesday or thursday at the president asked for and saturday, but i think this isld very much in line with what i but it would admit is a new position sat for the president to take, butthis leg it's one he seemed to takeis firmly on saturday and this o legislation would help them out. the number of lease sales is determined by the president's address, but we could help by act. th pursuing, leasing and permitting what does that. the fact the fact the fact the fact sales the administration challenged -- canceled rather in 2010 december 2010. these release sales that were underway, the process was well e along in the administrationn

canceled those lease sales in we december of last year. these were lease sales in the western and central polls and onl the virginia outer continental shelf in the alaska outerac that continental shelf to let's go back to that point what does wheatfields move forward as they said were doing before they wereur canceled. the president just said him saturday, let' ts dheo this.ncouragement well let's do it and must give them the tools and encouragement he needs to do it right now. this would end the permanent in the gul moratorium that occurred last year in the cold. interio it puts a 30 day time on it forior depar the interior department to review and decide on drilling permit. they projected the inner tapir met have to disclose why we rejected check if the permits.ng shouldn't be anything wrong with that if they permit should beord. day. everybody ought to be told it's part of the record.

it also provides for default approval of th e interior department doesn't make a decision within 60 days.by and finally, it approves the safety procedures by addingnts additional requirements for a pn spill response plan, containment response plan to see that was a done. this would mean that we would have more american energy. i and more american energy has two marketplace impacts. one, it would inject more supply in the market place putting the pressure on the worldwide rocket plays, putting price pressure. if we fully pursue our ownn the resources, that does have an impact in the short term on the -- response of the industry becausemr. blu: they know it's coming that. i so i would urge we approve this bill. i intend to vote for it and i yield back.

>> senator from oklahoma is recognized. i >> mr. president, first of all let me say for starters i will be supporting the bill we have today. it didn't go far enough, though. we are to open up everything. i am talking about pacific, atlantic north slope, that'sular the what we really need to be doing. ar i know there are some reasons legisla. why they are defining its vocals in terms of this legislation. and while a respect that again it does go far enough.s let me just make one commenthink about yesterday. i think right now the single issue they have in terms of energy is the price of gas at the pumps. i know this isn't just my wife. they are all that way and i can see that.they but when the democrats came up with their bill last night, i hope people remember who was

voting for this. increase as for a major tax increase on what they call big oil. nonethe big oil is the five biggest oil companies are nonetheless, and i hate to say this, but sometimesand you i walk on the floor with much half-truths and get by with it and people will assume that'ss true. as much as i love my fellows on the other side, some of the tot things that were stated wereal actually totally inaccurate. to say that the big five don'tpae. pay taxes they pay huge taxesi am here. i don't know where they come up with some of these g numbers. i want to single out one company, exxon mobil and tell f you something you're not aware of, mr. president because it hasn't been set on the flooronmobil's total yet. in 2010, exxon mobil's total tax they expense in the united states for taxes $9.8 billion. that's what they paid in taxes in 2010. that includes income tax six and in more than 1.6 billion. the 9.8 billion in taxes 201

exceeded the 2010 u.s. operating earnings of $7.5 billion.hey what we are saying is they paid $9.8 billion in taxes. they only b received 7.5 billion in terms of earnings from the united states. now why is that? is because about 80% of their operations are in otherther countries.hen the third 100 different countries. not one of the other countries charges taxes when they go off shore there. we are the only country thattes charges the united states tax on oth production that takes place in some other country.st singl now for thate reason, if you taxnot a t them like most people do it would've been a tax credit and i taxol. b nonetheless, they were yea accountable for paying taxes byuring year's $9.8 billion. a look at this year was 2010. our during the first quarter of this this partular year u.s. operating earnings quarter

o that this figure company were 2.6 billion. that's the first quarter ofheir 2011. earni the ngrest of their earnings more00 than a billion dollars came from operations in more than 100s a countries worldwide. du here is a member wilker in washington. during the first quarter of those earnings, u.s. earnings of sachs t $2.6 billion, they incurred aof tax expense and paid a tax of $3.1 billion. now, they are paying more than of th they're getting out of thisl country.the they think sooner or later you have to pinchas told the truth of what's happening. it's all class warfare and i bi think we knowg, b that. big bad oil. you know, they are all bad.okla and yet you know, we have a lot of production in my state of oklahoma. anadarko, who are really doing a relie lot to relieve this problem. i know it's going to happen. it didn't pass obviously in not but if going to pass. n

but if it had the next targetonform would be the smaller domesticur company. remember coming down to the floor lasher winner could and he senator from vermont had a bill and was bringing up auc you it know, i just happened to get w, t here in time to stop it and are debated and defeated. che they even held at the picture of exxonbil as a chat from exxon mobil as tod what the tax liabilities were totally wrong in my opinion and 100 sators apparently an opinion of 61 of the 100 senators because they join me and opposing that particular legislation. - now, do we have a so- lution to the problem? hav this is not rocket science. i mean, right nowon we have an accent on the floor many, many times that it just happened in the last eight months. that congressional research service nobody has stood on the floor and question - the fact they are nonpartisan, object is.and ty our recoverable reserves in cold

oil and gas are greater in any america than any other country in the world.e now we have those recoverable reserves. the problem is we have a here will -- political problem, where the in liberals here along with exploit liberals in the white house including the president lamont there x what our own resources. we have all the oil and gas andhe middle cold without they are. in a we could be totally independent of the middle east. in a very short period of time if we just go offshore on all three coasts, along with the and with north area and with our public won lands. and as they say, every other country does. you have to wonder why don't we do it? why is it we don't care about a coal an supplying ourselves with home-grown oil gas and coal. us do we have the ability here that the politicians will let us dos that -- an it.d well, there's one reason and that that is really disturbing that

in the case of this mea administration, they don't wantre it.d -- ln to i mean, this administration haser said many times they are notsecr interested in looking atet it. alan krueger says a tax subsidy -- they are not subsidies subsidies. these are tax increases. oil tax subsidies in the oil and gas industry lead to inefficient heat by encouraging and overinvestment of domestic resources and industry. suffi secondly, he says thisad administration believes it is no longer sufficient to address our fuel" nation's energy needs by finding more fossil fuel. o wellil i am for coal, gas oil a nuclear. i am for all of thell above. tra all of the renewables, wind sun years. and everything else. we've got to run this machine the -- today, tomorrow the next five in 10 years. you can't do that without fossild,ted fuel. w further, they stated the administration's goal is to have resources invested in waysal return. which yield the highest socialotally

difrent return.ing. this is a totally different thing. not an economic return. not the ability to run our country cells, but some kind of a social engineering that is going on. quotey the best quote really in the secreta most telling is the one that came from secretary to come in the energy secretary for presidenobtam obama. now listen to thiso mr. president. he said we are going to have toatory get some sort of regulatory generacturing on hydraulic fracturing. and he said this is a quote,o boost th that somehow -- listen to this, somehow we have to figure out e e. how to boost the price of gasoline to the lowest in europe.he our administration i ss saying ob this here this is the secretary of energy.out this is president obama. somehow we have to figure out" how to boost the price of gasoline to levels in europe. they're intentionally raising

the price of gas and it's byand we w their owern admission. campaig we were warned way back duringn unittates the campaign when president of barack obama was united statesstem senator. he said under my plan of cap-and-trade system, like trista the race would necessarily skyrocket. we have enough for by them and i the would just warn mydemo goodou friends -- my good friends on the democrat under the aisle. you know, watch this pretty of close because just because the president wants to increase the price of oilt doesn't mean thatts do your constituents do. in fact, i can assure you your constituents do not.e unless there's something really unusual about my state of oklahoma, let's see what the crs. "ithe report said a little more report" specifically. in the updated report, america's combine recoverable oil is the rou largest on earth. america's recoverable resources are far larger than those in lud saudi arabia china and canada

combined. that's the resources we have in oil, coal and gas. in oil the world's thirst 163 largest oil producer is endowed with 163 billion which will run the united states of america forfeit years. just go we can run on the oil will needliticiansut o for 50 years. we've got it. we just got to get politicians out of the way so we can produce it. natural gas in terms of ove trillions of defeat. the supply of natural gas has over 2000 an increase of women c 25 to 10 just as the committees amer 2006 estimate. at today's rate of use, this is enough natural gas to meet natural g asamerica's demand for 90 years.fo keep in mind and natural gas is not just natural gas to developat we're going energy, but also t natural gas isworking on something we'll be using in our

cars. today it's available in there working on tech elegy. it's we are working on certification of vengeance that would burn naturalie gas. gal it will relieve the tension also. right now the price of a comparable gallon of natural gas to run on a mobile is 1 dollar x $4 to 6 cents a gallon. gas $1.60 as opposed to $4 a gallon. that's natural gas. natural gas i have to say this. the president made his speech and i responded on a couple of tv stations. this p is probably three weeks ago on energy.h, w they said in that speech we have ea n an abundancena of five good, clean haveo natural gas.ul at the end of the speech, he sent however, we have to be very careful what were going to be doing because we don't want to hydraulic contaminate our drinking water with hydraulic fracturing. i happen to come from oklahoma, first hydraulic fracturing job at oklahoma was done in 1948. documted we have not had one documented case of groundwater

co contamination ever since 1948 60 years. and yet right now, they're going tonatu stop us from going after natural gas by taking away the hydraulic fracturing. now, hydraulic fracturing in the tape formation, and the shell gas wi formation can't develop cubic in t foot of natural gas withouts using federal at fracturing. it's a way of inserting liquids into force the gas out so we candent isg develop it. so what the president is saying we need to use natural gas, but we don't want to use hydraulican to tak fracturing. there is enough for right now by many members in here to try to take that over as a federalt. function. the regulation of hydraulic edt's fracturing. there's never been a problem with it. t it's regulated differently in different states. for example, my status oklahoma some at the anadarko base income you're talking about deaths of fe. some 35000 feet. you could just work in the

egul kansas senate between three anatdion. 4000 feet. so it's different in different states. secreta any stiffer regulations. if it's not broke, we don't need to fixry it. what is the president on? he is the secretary chew inwe'r withydraul charge of determining what we're going to do with hydraulic 've g fracturing.rice o wow, that secretary chew. be cparable the same guy that said we've got -- to raise the price of gasoline to be comparable to the gasoline price in europe and so that'sside the wrong guy for that kind ofnt mistakeactu could decide thatnmental tion drained you, mr. president, do we have a study going on break out by the environmental protection agency and hydraulic fracturing that isn't through there yet. it seemed to me we had to ateing least finish before you rush in natural there and try to pass something that will stop us from being able to degavelop our natural gasreserves. ri gh is.ple are now for coal, america'n's number50% of t one, right now people aren't aware that we are reliant on coal for 50% of the power thatces it takes to run this machine

called america. it america's number one coalwe h resources, kind from her than 20% of the world's coal. i so we have it here. have. we have gas, coal, oil. all we have k to do is develop what we have. you know, how many people in pply a america who have gone through elementary school don't remember supply and demand? and the we have a huge supply and there's a great demand for it.and as l we have our politicians who won't let us developon our supply. as long as that happens it isso i w going to be very difficult for us to make that. so i would just say this. there is a wake-up call here forote for the american peop ile. ou we have a vote this afternoon. we had to be opening up our w production all over america. a and to do that, we've had to go beyond this bill. this is a start and if they start this worthwhile.

aimed at addressing high gas prices at the pump. one democratic sponsored bill one republican sponsor. how did these two bills aimed to lower gas prices? what was the attempt here but both sides? >> well, yesterday the senate democrats tried to move to a bill that would we feel about $21 billion in tax breaks for the five major oil companies. and that was defeated. it reached a 60-vote threshold at the needed. and today the republicans tried to move to a bill to expand offshore oil and gas drilling which they said would increase supply. but they couldn't meet the 60-vote threshold either. they're both this afternoon was 42 to 57.

so the senate is pretty much in gridlock right now on how to deal with high gas prices. >> senator wead suggested after yesterday's vote that the subsidies cover the tax rates will and gas companies may end up being part of the final agreement to raise the debt ceiling. with his rationale for that? >> well, he still believes the democrats still believe that they had these tax breaks which were most approved what are oil prices were much lower. and so based on studies, congressional research studies and other experts say that taking these tax breaks really well raise the price of gasoline and they don't do that as a fact they are. they see it as a fairness issue

and the largest deficit. >> the one that didn't move forward in the senate partially based on legislation that was passed by the house concerning drilling. doesn't present obama -- hasn't he said lately that the event opening to more drilling and making it faster. >> in his weekend radio address he started to move to a ground where he would leave there needs to be some faster offshore gelling in the last guy. and so he's moving toward the middle. so maybe there is some common ground they can find. this particular bill that was voted on today was considered a partisan bill and they still have a lot of work to do. there is some room for compromise. and this is an issue they're going to have to continue to work on through the spring.

maybe they can find some common ground. >> the senate democrats couldn't end the subsidies in their legislation. they could move forward with republican bill. he caught a quick buck in the senate. so what really is the next stage for this debate over gas prices cannot offshore drilling click >> well, democrats are not giving up next week the senate energy committee is supposed to have a markup and senator bingaman to chairman would like to try to move oil spill legislation, was a farm legislation and production legislation through this committee next week although that is a tall order and look think some of the republican may not let that happen. so the senate energy committee is going to try to continue to work on this issue and come up with a bipartisan bill to address some of these issues on energy supply and demand. and so we're going to see that

play out in weeks ahead. >> covering issues on liberty hill. lynn turner, thank you for that update. >> a few moments, chinese army chief of staff of the relations between the u.s. and china. and our commandeered on the energy department public request for next year. after that a reprieve or president obama's trip to europe next week. later will re-air the senate bill to expand offshore oil and gas drilling

[? >> now, a discussion of u.s.-china military relations.

[applause] [speaking chinese] [inaudible] [speaking chinese] [speaking chinese]

[speaking chinese] [speaking chinese] [speaking chinese] [speaking chinese] [speaking chinese] [speaking chinese] [inaudible]

and our military relations, in an effort to implement president president -- [inaudible] the name of this country literally means a beautiful country. pain hurts you personally enjoyed her beauty and her people. [speaking chinese] [speaking chinese] [speaking chinese]

>> translator: 94 years ago in 18 woodrow wilson signed mobilizing the whole nation to the occasion of the law that at current unprecedented catastrophe to mankind and also initiated the struggle for stabilized relations along major powers. the war and peace in the past century deserves our deep reflection. and this road we desire a good

faith of stability. [speaking chinese] [speaking chinese] [speaking chinese] [speaking chinese] [speaking chinese] [speaking chinese] [speaking chinese] [speaking chinese] >> translator: the largest developing country in the

largest default country shares responses for common development. and it second decade of the 21st centuries the subject matter of the era with the stable and harmonious attacks on the structures. freeride and historic moment of choice. president hu jintao and president barack obama shared the commitment to a cooperative partnership based on mutual respect and mutual benefit. as an important component of the relations, the new opportunities are developed. [speaking chinese] [speaking chinese] [speaking chinese]

>> translator: today i will focus on making two paragraphs in the relationship in an effort to out consents. i'll talk about three points. one, it building new relationships under circumstances. to, developments of this relationship. and three, with ways and means to further develop. [speaking chinese] [speaking chinese] [speaking chinese] [speaking chinese] [speaking chinese]

[speaking chinese] >> translator: my friends come in the ultimate relationship and partnership in tall as a shakedown of the previous mindset and the adoption of a new feature development. a final u.s. relationship the circumstances should bear the basic features. [speaking chinese] [speaking chinese] [speaking chinese] [speaking chinese]

[speaking chinese] [speaking chinese] [speaking chinese] [speaking chinese] [speaking chinese] [speaking chinese] [speaking chinese] >> translator: to respect and accommodate the major concerns instead of holding one from the other. ..

security, territory integrity and national unity. third, will guarantee through china is sustainable, social and economic development there never ever violated and we have always been on such major principal issues. [speaking chinese]

[speaking chinese] >> translator: through the dialogue and communication since the gulf to suspicion. the relation among the country's sprout the needy and growth. principals in during and study development from our financial relations. the great scientist albert einstein said every kind of peaceful cooperation among men that is primarily based on

mutual trust. >> [speaking chinese] [speaking chinese] [speaking chinese] >> translator: in the recent year's rapid growth of china's national friends has unfortunately a roast unfounded suspicion and chinese defense ministry development, not to mention the height of chinese strategy. it not only in schools china's strategic and intention and international image but also the political environment for the

relations. that said taking fuller advantage of the channels of communication we should promote understanding through dialogue and the level in broad areas. >> [speaking chinese] [speaking chinese] [speaking chinese]

>> translator: to be motivated in pursuing the current development china and the u.s. are now more than ever interdependent with the degree of share interest. supported by the growing common interest could china u.s. relations remain constantly in mur jihadist and untested. history goes that if any bilateral cooperation in the bowl is no more than a zero sum game. and that relationship is hard to sustain. >> [speaking chinese]

>> can china and the united states make progress in relations under the new circumstances? my answer is clear and affirmative. [speaking chinese] [speaking chinese] [speaking chinese] >> translator: interest make the relations that enable the to to emerge. both the permanent members of the u.n. security council china

and the u.s. share significant responsibilities for the regional and global stability. the two countries are conducting the security economic social injured knee and environmental issues. s president obama once said china and the u.s. are now economically inseparable. [speaking chinese] [speaking chinese] [speaking chinese] >> translator: china's great achievements and is impossible without the steady development

of the u.s. relations in addressing major international and regional issues. it should be mutually agreed that cooperation and confrontation puts neither on skate. [speaking chinese] [speaking chinese] [speaking chinese]

[speaking chinese] >> translator: [inaudible] of joint programs. it is an unprecedented challenge [inaudible] and transnational crime to exist is an important for other against terrorism however the soil of terrorism are not yet removed. >> [speaking chinese]

[speaking chinese] [speaking chinese] >> translator: through energy security and public health security continue certain regional without any solution in sight. they overlook peace and development. facing such common threats, no

single country is able to stay immune or deal with them single-handedly. common security is only possible through the media and collaboration. given that both china and the u.s. with shared security concerns it is natural and necessary for the two militaries to work together towards a peaceful and stable landscape through the constant communications and deepen the collaboration. [speaking chinese]

[speaking chinese] >> translator: taking the role of peaceful development china stands ready to forge a healthy stable and reliable relationship together with the united states. as a major developing country, china's prospect is one of the most topics now in the world. we're watching chinese development closely and some about how china will use its power in the future. i believe this is mainly because the differences in the history, traditions, social systems cultures and values lead to a lack of understanding of china. [speaking chinese] [speaking chinese]

>> translator: the reform will be passed over three decades is a strong testimony and a peaceful and stable external environment and a central condition china has run the development and china's development also continues significantly through world peace and development. world peace and -- the world of peace is related with china's demint. >> [speaking chinese]

[speaking chinese] >> translator: the attention to the fact the greatest desire is that china gets better and the livelihood of the 1.3 chinese people get better. cherished piece is an essential value in the culture and seek hegemony and press it to the national policy. internal development external piece and collaboration is china's strategic objectives. [speaking chinese]

[speaking chinese] [speaking chinese] >> translator: maintain unification and a guarantee on economic growth and social development. china's military duty does not and will not change the defensive nature of the defense policy. the world has no need to wait and let alone a fierce if china's growth. president franklin roosevelt's quote leads to the only thing we

have to fear is fear itself. [speaking chinese] [speaking chinese] [speaking chinese] >> translator: the chinese forces have been sincere in the relations with u.s. military. the case in point is that even when the u.s. relationship was

at a low end, the military archive cooperation continued. research in the archive of o.s. terminal cancer painstakingly worked with his colleagues searching for cues on the personnel in the china in world war ii. this has the page in the friendship and cooperation between the two militaries with life and dedication. [speaking chinese]

[speaking chinese] >> translator: relations between the two nations and militaries are important and complex. the course of the bilateral relationship in the past decades shows that whenever china is valued and china's core interests respected state to state relations are. on the contrary, whenever china has ignored the interests compared to the relations between the two nations and military is are subject to setbacks. this is how the past decades of relations have shed light. so long as the two sides look afar, respect and accommodate

each other's core interests and unimpeded progress of the u.s. relations is certainly possible. [speaking chinese] [speaking chinese] [speaking chinese] >> translator: first is imperative to precisely

understand the orientation of the chinese u.s. relationship under the new circumstances. this relationship is with the cooperative partnership based on mutual respect and mutual benefit by the president's materializes and military failed. in this relationship mutual respect is prioritized and fundamental interests are essentials. it is based on communication and engagement facilitated by practical cooperation and targeted mutual benefit. it reflects the relevance of the mill to build a relationship between china and the u.s. in today's world >> [speaking chinese]

[speaking chinese] [speaking chinese] >> translator: the military involvement have come a long way in the recent years, but the gaping gap between u.s. and thus remains. china never intends to challenge the u.s.. china welcomes a constructive u.s. role in maintaining and promoting peace, stability and prosperity in the asia-pacific region. we hope for and objective and accurate picture of china drawn by our american friends and the consequent leave that china and chinese at ministry.

[speaking chinese] [speaking chinese] [speaking chinese] [speaking chinese]

>> translator: it is necessary to engage in dialogue in practical and various military fields. the communications and exchanges are an important prerequisite for better understanding of the agreement. practical cooperation is an effective way to trust and foster friendships. it is to work with u.s. military to view trust through engagement , facilitate collaboration with trust and promote the development of the relationship through the collaboration. we agree extensively on the issues. chinese and u.s. military will have high-level contact institutionalized dialogue and professional exchanges. in addition to greater cooperation in the security fields including tauter piracy. as long as china and the u.s. conduct practical cooperation

with the approach and incremental manner, the mill to no relationship as promised to be proactive. [speaking chinese] >> translator: in the press would like to share the relation with you. [speaking chinese] >> translator: at the moment we look forward to visiting china and i've already officially extended by invitation to him and i hope to visit china as soon as possible. [speaking chinese]

[speaking chinese] [speaking chinese] [speaking chinese] [speaking chinese]

>> translator: third it is important to handle differences and sensitive issues. china and the u.s. share extensive common interests. they fail to grasp the man pictured of collaboration one weakens confidence in this relationship. it failed to properly handle differences and problems. one weakens the foundation of this relationship. that is accommodating each other's concerns and handling important issues that lead to a healthy and stable development of state to state and milled to build relations otherwise by lateral cooperation and pared and continued development about the defense relations. the question on the integrity is

were the core interests lie. speaking it is also the main source of friction inside the investing relations. china's defense position on taiwan is consistent, explicit and unflinching. all i hope president abraham lincoln for this historical role in defending the sovereignty and territorial integrity. i particularly agree with one of his quotes on broken to the extent of my ability i shall take care. [speaking chinese] >> translator: if america can put ourselves into our shoes

appreciate and support china on how to live on and the major issues of the mill to build relations will be able to advance in the direction in the sound, stable and continuous manner. [speaking chinese] [speaking chinese]

[speaking chinese] >> translator: friends from the press the conclusion i need to share with you a story over half a century ago. during world war ii and in general to china hundreds of were also brought with them. today the descendants still serves the region. it's the symbol of peace and friendship given today's modern means of communication attention to the to pigeons are

almost irrelevant to communication anymore. however, still captive by the military this is our remembrance of the history in china and the u.s. for peace shoulder to shoulder. [speaking chinese] [speaking chinese] [speaking chinese] [speaking chinese]

[speaking chinese] [speaking chinese] >> translator: on the cradles of high caliber entitlements. i'm still proud to be the former what is heartening most is to me the cadets and course members accounting the backbone of military. that said, your presence today

is such a reminder of the good old days on campus. it is a world renowned institution, and i am admirable for all the outstanding people it produced. representing the future of the military those present today are expected to see the responsibility of consolidating and developing the mill to millo relationship historic we. i sincerely hope by passing over the friendship view china and u.s. relations with a broad vision in mind inject new vitality is as accompanying actions between the two nations and military's and contribute positively to the people and the peace and development of the world.

[speaking chinese] >> translator: thank you all and any questions i would be more than happy. [applause] ladies and gentlemen i think we have time for a couple more questions. dr. cole? >> jogging on the remarks of the transnational cough [speaking [inaudible] [inaudible] >> [speaking chinese]

in the recent years has been a major contributor to the united nations and currently [inaudible] >> [speaking chinese] >> i wonder if you envision the army would be making extended further deployments in the gulf of the state's.

[speaking chinese] [speaking chinese] [speaking chinese] >> translator: thank you for the question. it's a very good one. [speaking chinese] it's been over two decades since the peace treaty to be cut keeping troops so far over 10,000 were deployed in over 20

omissions. [speaking chinese] >> translator: it is a very meaningful operation. >> [speaking chinese] >> translator: relatively speaking, our military is inexperienced and conducting overseas operations. in addition to that we also have realistic barriers. [speaking chinese] >> translator: for example when the organization officials

entrusted missions to post the troops on the amendments and units of other countries the pla swiftly conducting and fulfilling those. [speaking chinese] >> translator: some of the other countries have failed to start the actions and therefore they were interim. >> [speaking chinese] >> translator: we believe the efficiencies of those missions sometimes also defer.

>> [speaking chinese] >> translator: right now we are still having some units operating in certain areas. [speaking chinese] >> translator: except for those units operated china has not a single and other parts of the world. >> [speaking chinese] >> translator: it is a very complicated issue. >> [speaking chinese] >> translator: the firm resolve to fulfill the missions.

>> [speaking chinese] >> [speaking chinese] >> translator: as i discussed with psychiatry clinton today for the hirsi operations i personally believe. >> [speaking chinese] [speaking chinese] >> translator: was the operating pilots on the sea are low ranking and the two masterminds are on the ground.

>> translator: that they obtained were talking over to their chiefs of organizations. >> [speaking chinese] >> translator: countries must work together in fighting against pirates. >> [speaking chinese] >> translator: the pla is not only protecting chinese chips we also provided services to many including ships for the program.

>> [speaking chinese] [speaking chinese] >> translator: in hong kong was hijacked by paris and after that, the ships at that time being american ships, indian and turkish and were very efficient in rescuing the troops. >> [speaking chinese] >> translator: we are working together very well and will continue to do so to make it even better in the future.

as i agree to the admiral mullen shall also hold a joint exercise to boost our cooperation. >> [speaking chinese] >> translator: you asked whether china will continue to send troops to maintain the safety i would be frank with you and saying the situation continues to do that it would create the difficulties for us to continue the operations. >> [speaking chinese]

[speaking chinese] >> translator: although the development of a chinese pla has come along and we do a number of ships, but we are not that strong yet particularly after this visit i feel that in terms of the stress of the pla me fi the gaps exist and to be honest, i feel very sad after visiting because on aphelion i know that how poor our equipment are and how wonder developed they remain.

>> [speaking chinese] [speaking chinese] >> on the one hand if we continue to build new ships we will have constraints of the national defense budget, and what is more it will lead to the issue of chinese threat again because of our growing capabilities. on the other hand if we stopped dealing with the ships and not

only would enable them to send more ships but they will find it even difficult to protect and maintain our own maritime interest. so i think we still need a long-term solution to that. >> [speaking chinese] >> translator: i think there still exists at least in the 20 year gap in terms of equipment in china and western developed countries. >> [speaking chinese]

>> translator: the chinese military and chinese people remain confident because after all if you look back at our history we were under developed with our equipment and the path of the spirit. >> [speaking chinese] >> translator: although we are trying to be cooperative partnership, we still find it unfortunate to see that the u.s. still have sanctions for example in the high-tech export and other scientific areas.

>> [speaking chinese] >> translator: the issue was raised and discussed in the meeting and president obama says that they still need some time to process that to approve it and we sincerely hope that will come as soon as possible. >> [speaking chinese] [inaudible] >> it's been almost 20 years since the military strategic

guidelines and you had the unique opportunity as a military region commander the central military. >> [speaking chinese] [speaking chinese]

>> translator: my question is and what opinion has the pla made the most progress in which area has the pla made the most progress? thank you. >> [speaking chinese] [speaking chinese] >> translator: ever since the founding of the people's republic of china and the proposed that the people's liberation army must be built into the force that is regular

modernized and revolutionized. >> [speaking chinese] >> translator: for the organization different ages, different areas have different ones. how you see this presumption also grows and changes. >> [speaking chinese] >> translator: as for china's military i must say america is a good example and we do learn a lot that is applicable.

>> [speaking chinese] >> translator: what is the largest achievement the is made this. >> [speaking chinese] >> translator: the officers and soldiers on the people's liberation army for the high degree generally speaking are very poorly educated. >> [speaking chinese] >> translator: the soldiers

and people have become much more educated and certified and find more and more educated people not only technical officers but also commanders and logistical offices. >> [speaking chinese] >> translator: second as we call the regular edition of the force structure of the organization. >> [speaking chinese] >> translator: so we have managed to keep ourselves updated in terms of military theories. >> [speaking chinese]

>> translator: based on of the different comment doctrines and the series of world military's we have made an adjustment and modification and our new region of the doctrines. >> [speaking chinese] >> translator: it isn't possible without the urbanization in the material aspect. the weapons systems have seen some progress. >> [speaking chinese]

>> translator: reasons in this aspect because of the constraints in the development and technological preparation and the conditions we haven't done that well. >> [speaking chinese] >> translator: two years ago when he was still alive and because the chinese economy still was bad, the famous quote is that the military must be patient and as a result the military hasn't developed much particularly in terms of equipment for those decades.

>> [speaking chinese] >> translator: progress was made in the military. >> translator: time clarifying what i have said to you is not the biggest achievement that we've made and when we say that we have made some achievement and those are those achievements >> [speaking chinese] >> translator: the development of the information technology

networks and the status quo of our military in this aspect. >> [speaking chinese] >> translator: china remains a vulnerable and not long ago during the the period of chaos in the middle east and other revelations the cybersecurity of china is under pressure. >> [speaking chinese] >> translator: so in this aspect i believe we've made progress. >> [speaking chinese] >> translator: we don't know

how will want to have better development but that comes to the issue of money. >> [speaking chinese] [laughter] >> translator: [inaudible] [laughter] >> general, we hope that this event is the first of many. we appreciate it very much your time and certainly your leadership and we know that with you and admiral mullen has promised would a great future and we think you on behalf of the national defence. [applause] [applause]

[inaudible conversations] >> ladies and gentlemen, thank you for coming. [inaudible conversations] >> if i were in the pakistani shoes i would say i've already paid a price. i've been humiliated, i've been

shown that to the americans can come in here and do this with impunity, and i think we have to be -- - we have to recognize that they see a cost in them and a price that has been paid. but if the leadership doesn't know, look i've done as much about accountability as perhaps anybody, but i never fired anybody because they didn't know about the problem. i fired them because once they found out about the problem they didn't take it seriously so it is the senior leadership in pakistan didn't know, it's hard to hold them accountable for it.

..

>> next energy secretary steven chu's spending request for next year. the administration is asking for nearly $30 billion at 12% increase. the energy department's budget request includes increased funding for renewable power projects and for communities that invest in electric vehicle infrastructure. this is a little less than two hours. >> good afternoon ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the energy and water subcommittee's

budget hearing on the department of energy fiscal year 12 budget request. d.o.e. is requesting $30.5 billion for fiscal year 2012. that is an increase of $4.8 billion or 19% from fiscal year 2011. about $1.1 billion of the $4.8 billion increase, or 25%, is for the national nuclear security administration's nuclear weapons for non-proliferation and naval reactor programs. this subcommittee has already explored and nsa's budget request with administrator d'agostino two weeks ago. the rest of the increases for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects, loan guarantees and basic energy research. it is my understanding that d.o.e. submitted this budget request before congress passed the 2011 continuing resolution

and so it doesn't reflect the new spending reality. so it is clear that d.o.e. and congress will have to make some joint painful decisions and focus the limited resources that we have on the highest priorities. so i think knowing your highest priorities is a substantial important -- importance to a secretary. i hope that you will highlight those. don't feel shy. i would like to just highlight the three largest increases in this budget. the largest single increase would be for the office of energy efficiency and renewablesee an increase of $1.4 billion, or 76%. the only programs in this account that see a decrease are hydrogen and water power, and i know we want to ask you about that too. given the across the board budget increases for all of

their programs, it is hard to determine which of these these r&d programs would have the biggest impact on energy use and the clean energy economy. secondly the office of science would see an increase of 5.52 million, or 11% so those are the two office of energy efficiency and office of science. innovation clearly drives economic prosperity and the office of science has been one of the leaders in new scientific and technology's deliveries. for example, argonne national lab in illinois spans 10 years researching cap those materials for a lithium-ion battery that was small come energy efficient and low in way. general motors use this technology to develop a battery in the chevy volt, the first mass-produced plug-in hybrid electric vehicle. so that a significant.

but despite these types of successes, the office of science must do a better job explaining how basic research can lead to new, clean energy technologies and how it can better leverage large scientific facilities to help american industry remain competitive. i would hazard a guess but that would be a substantial priority for all of us. third, arpa-e would see an increase of $370 million or 206%. arpa-e, of course, holds a promise of advancing high risk, high reward technology. even though arpa-e is a new agency, i would like to ask that you apply arpa-e program management to other d.o.e. offices such as the rigorous peer review process and contract or grant negotiations completed in just a few months. streamlining contracting

processes and assembling high-quality program management teams i think would benefit many d.o.e. energy programs. my last observation is that outside of nnsa the department of energy's budget does not provide a five-year spending plan. without this planet makes it difficult to buy off on committing to programs that create large out your applications. so joining us today is of course dr. steven chu, the secretary of energy. i have the greatest and -- respect and fondness for secretary chu. and full disclosure i want to say that. i happen to meet him when he was the head of the lawrence berkeley labs and his achievements are many market and some quite astounding. so we all grant that you are a most brilliant secretary, secretary chu and we are delighted to have you here.

but let me turn to senator alexander for his remarks if i might. >> thank you madam chairman. when i was the education secretary and was in your shoes i didn't get that kind of complement from the chairman of the committee so i'm a little jealous. [laughter] but i agree with her. i think dr. chu you are one of the president's best appointees and you have been a terrific leader and i am glad that you are spending this part of your life in this form of public service. in my remarks and in the questions when my time comes, i want to focus on some of the things that senator feinstein talked about and for me, i would say if we be putting a priority on energy research for our country, something i'd note dr. chu you have long, long advocated. in 2008, i went to the oak ridge

national laboratory and gave a talk called the new manhattan project for clean energy independence and suggested that we apply the same rigor and ambitious goals to energy research that we did to the manhattan project in world war ii, and listed several objectives of such a new manhattan project. most of them taken from the 14 grand challenges of engineering in the 21st century the vet check best of the national academy of science headset. they included solar power link, used nuclear fuel, advanced biofuels, rain buildings and even fusion. now, and you were a part dr. chu of the national academies effort to say to congress what we should do to help our country be more competitive and recall that the america competes. based upon your report. you have moved to -- in several

areas and in your request you want to form more. i would like to indicate my broad agreement with that sort of strategy and work with you to find ways, even in this tight budget situation, to find, to prioritize spending and find more money for clean energy research. or example, my colleagues have talked this week about subsidies for energy for big oil. if we are going to do that i think we should talk about all subsidies. i suggested on the floor this morning we might talk about big wind. the taxpayers on the hook for $27 billion over the next 10 years to subsidize windmills which is more money than we would save if we cut out the tax breaks for the five big oil companies. that is just an example and that was based upon the production tax credit that was put into place temporarily in 1992.

now, my staff indicates we only spend about $6 billion on energy research and our federal government every year and i always wonder whether some of these long-term subsidies for energy, whether big oil or big wind might be better spent for energy research. there are other parts of the budget even this budget, where i wonder whether the energy efficiency section -- i wonder if energy efficiency money should go up at the level mentioned here or we should increase the research budget. there is $4 billion in unspent recovery act funding and weatherization and state energy grants. you are seeking 480 billion more. would that not be better spent to take your federal research budget closer to seven, eight or $9 billion a year? i too like arpa-e. i think that is a very promising area that we are only able to find $180 million for this year

although it is authorized in 300 now is fully authorized. so i would just like to weigh in favor of energy research. i think many of my republican colleagues the energy research as an appropriate role for the federal government, long-term subsidies. some of my republican colleagues have problems with. short-term i support jumpstarting electric cars and maybe natural gas trucks, jumpstarting the nuclear plants through loan guarantees and all these things that you have suggested. so i will be looking to work with you on seeing if we can prioritize money from the current request and maybe look at these long-term subsidies and apply more of our dollars over the next 10 years to what you call hubs and i called new manhattan project for clean energy independence. thank you madam chairman. >> i thank you senator alexander. we will proceed in five-minute

rounds and used the use the earlybird rule, as people come in to attend. secretary chu why don't you proceed with your remarks and then we will go to questions. >> thank you chairman feinstein and thank you ranking member alexander and the other members of the subcommittee. first for your kind remarks, but also for giving me the opportunity to present and discuss the president's fiscal year 2012 budget request from the department of energy. president obama has plan to win the future by out educating and outbuilding the rest of the world while the same time addressing the deficit. many countries are moving aggressively to clean the energy. we must revved up the great american innovation machine to create jobs and windows clean energy race. and to that and president obama has calls for an increased investment in clean energy research, development and

deployment. edition is propose a bold but achievable goal of generating 80% of americans electricity from clean sources by 2035. the department of energy set by 12 budget request of $29.5 billion supports these goals and strengthens the nation's economy and security. we recognized that families are feeling the effects of high gas prices right now and while there are no silver bullets to this challenge, president obama is committed to breaking our dependence on foreign oil nbc the burdens on families. this budget helps reduce our reliance on oil by developing the next generation of homegrown biofuels and by accelerating electrical vehicle research development and deployment andrew energy efficiency programs we will save money for consumers by saving energy. in addition the budget supports the research development and deployment of renewable energy, the modernization of the electric grid and have moved up

carbon capture and sequestration technologies. the budget also supports loan guarantees for renewable and energy efficiency technologies. nuclear energy has an important role to play in our energy portfolio and that is why the budget request additional low guarantee authority and invest in the research and development of the dance dams and nuclear technologies. to unleash innovation the present budget supports the groundbreaking research to the department's office of science. for example when investing in basic energy sciences it and scientific computing, biological environmental sciences all key areas for economic competitiveness. in addition the office of science or supports widely used facilities that provide unique analysis tools for materials, chemistry and biology research. the budget invests $550 million in advanced research project energy agency for energy known as arpa-e and this will allow

arpa-e to continue to support research projects that aim to deliver game-changing clean energy technology. arpa-e's projects are generating in the private sector. for example for a combined total of $24 million from arpa-e seeks companies the party been able to advance the research efforts and show the potential viability of their cutting-edge technologies. these -- this support enables those companies to achieve milestones that in turn have attracted more than $100 million in private vector funds to the project. this is precisely the innovation leverage that is needed to in the future. another key piece of our research effort are the energy innovation hubs. through the hubs we are bringing together top scientists and engineers to achieve similar game-changing energy goals but where a concentrated effort over a longer time horizon is needed to establish innovation and leadership. the budget request 146 million to support the preexisting hubs and two established three hubs

in the areas of better days, energy storage smart grid technologies and systems and critical materials. finally, the budget supports the energy frontier research centers which are working to solve specific scientific rob long's blocking clean energy development. to better integrate and maximize the research evers the department's organizing log lines of business. this will help us create it. at any in any specific technological area we are examining current business projections and looking across arpa-e and applied technology site to determine where we in the deal we can have the most value to accelerate the pace of innovation. for example we want the sunshine initiative with participation from arpa-e and the office of science and the office of energy efficiency. to make the cost competitive with any other form of energy before the end of this decade. this would position the last two lead in this growing industry.

at a time when industry, congress and the american people are making critical energy decisions we would take sure to adequately fund the energy information administration, the nation's premier source of independent statistical information about energy production and use. even a modest increase to support the eia will go a long way in providing congress and others with an unbiased data and analysis needed to make informed decisions. in addition to strengthening our economy the budget also strengthens our security by providing $11.8 billion for the department's national nuclear security administration. the request of 7.6 billion for weapons activities provides a strong basis for transitioning to a smaller yet still safe secure and effective nuclear stock biowithout additional nuclear testing. it also provides much-needed resources to strengthen science technology and engineering capabilities and modernize the

fiscal -- physical infrastructure of our nuclear enterprise. the budget invests $2.5 billion in the defense non-proliferation program. through our investments the obama administration is laying the groundwork for the nations future prosperity and security. at the same time we are mindful of our responsibility to the taxpayer. where streamlining the operations and cutting back in multiple areas including eliminating unnecessary fossil fuel subsidies. the united states faces a choice, what we we we lead innovation or will they fall behind? to lead the world in clean energy we must act now and we can't afford not to. thank you and i'm pleased to now answer your questions. >> thank you very much secretary. i'm trying to get three quick questions in my first round. one is on hydrogen and one is on the sunshine initiative and the

third on the loan guarantee program. you propose to cut the hydrogen 100 million in fy12. that is a cut of 70 million from the 2010 level, and use zeroed out all funding for fuel cells and fossil energy programs. we gather your advisory committee was dismayed by that but i think it is important that you tell us what's your current view is on hydrogen technology and whether it can be successful or not. >> sure. first come in terms of the fuel cells we do have a research program for stationary fuel cells. there has been very good progress made in fuel cells and the longevity of fuel cells in bringing down the cost. the idea of a hydrogen economy is something that is very hopeful but the fundamental issue but as we need a source of hydrogen that is going to be -- that will make good economic sense. right now are hedging comes from

reforming natural gas. when he reform natural gas you create hydrogen and carbon dioxide so in terms of the carbon benefit there is less use of carbon dioxide. in order for that to happen we have to develop more sources of natural gas that can allow you to do those things so the first priority is to develop sources of hydrogen that will make economic sense and sequester the excess carbon dioxide. there is a hydrogen storage issue. right now despite the best efforts, and we are going to continue research in this area, it is still high-pressure tanks so there is the storage part and the source of hydrogen which i think is the most fundamental issue. it doesn't come out of -- it is true transformation of energy from one form to another and the fuel cell part is actually, is going along well.

the stationary fuel cells because of the higher efficiency is some thing we can see be deployed quickly in the next five or 10 years. there are a number of companies doing this so we will continue in research on developing better fuel cells for stationary sources. and we also are looking at how we can actually develop the source of hydrogen that will actually lead to a hydrogen economy. so that is why. >> quickly, how realistic is all about? >> i think the fundamental thing is the source of hydrogen that right now is natural gas and natural gas will have to be significantly more abundant and less costly. we are going in there right direction but there will have to be significantly more abundant or the gasification of coal again with carbon sequestration but that is a technology issue to make it cost effective.

but turning a hydrocarbon into hydrogen and sequestering the carbon. >> okay. now the second thing the sun shot initiative which seeks to reduce the cost of solar power to roughly 1 dollar per watt and at that price the belief is that solar power generation becomes cost effective without subsidies with other forms of electricity generation. i am very pleased to see that the sun shot initiative will include the photo book ahec manufacturing initiative. as you will recall several years ago you told me that photovoltaic was not cost effective but few expected at that time that it would take 45 years to become effective, cost effective so i would like to know what progress has been made there as well. do we need to focus resources on the sun shot initiative on domestic manufacturing? >> well, first the cost of

loadable take solar energy has gone down and is decreased from 50% over the last five or six years worldwide. the full cast of large-scale not rooftop but the large-scale so it has come down by that much in this decade. we have talked to businesses not only in the united states but abroad and every manufacturer says in their business plan if the cost is not come down we can produce them. then we will probably go out of business. so they are actually banking on this and then starting taking that as the starting point we started to engage in these come in these and in ways that they can we accelerate this? can we do something with these companies and with research that can actually make -- accelerate

this progress? and so our ambitious goal is to say can we reduce the cost by 75% instead of 50% by the end of this decade? that is a magical price because at that price in many parts of the united states, then without subsidy, competitive with any other form of energy. so that is a big deal. when you drop by 50% there are certain areas of peak demand. and so our goal in most of our energy endeavors is to devise a plan so we can get there without subsidies. i too share the belief that you might need to subsidize for a little while but you don't want to subsidize for 100 years. 10 years, five years. and is there a technology pathway that can develop these things without subsidy? the sun shot initiative is really that, to say this is within reach. and there has been remarkable progress. very quickly in terms of your

question about any fracturing, manufacturing innovation is another key part of what we will be need to do in order to be competitive with the rest of the world. manufacturing innovation began with things like henry ford. he was willing to invest five years of ford's money in a beginning company to develop an assembly line. they started by making handmade cars but it transformed the automobile industry. so there are things we are investing in that are actually quite exciting. new approaches of silicon at totally new approach could actually transform the landscape. so we are helping companies research and develop new manufacturing things that will give us a competitive edge in the decades to come and that is an important part of what we are doing as well. >> thank you very much. my time is up. senator?

>> madam chairman i see the republican leaders here and i would be glad to defer to him and go after him. >> you are recognized the republican leader. >> thank you senator alexander and chairman feinstein. mr. secretary, welcome. i am here to focus your attention on the diffusion plant which is i believe as you know has been enriching uranium for 60 years. it happens to be the economic engine for our western kentucky. many people think of kentucky has a coal state, which we are but we are also in lear state. the plant has 1200 employees. it is in the process of closing down. there are however 40000 cylinders of depleted uranium at paducah which are typically referred to in the business as

tales. if they were re-enraged, it would be a profitable venture. these are government owned resources, highly valued, stored in a locked which can be sold to create revenue for the government. and in the meantime, for western kentuckians keith 1200 people from collecting unemployment. so a revenue raiser for the government and an avoidance of unemployment for 1200 t. pull. are you familiar with the tales issue at the uranium enrichment plant? >> yes, i am. >> is my understanding the department at least at the moment does not have a current plan for re-enriching those tales at paducah, zachariah? >> that is correct.

>> could unemployment rate is right at 10%. we cannot afford to lose one more job let alone 1200. if there is the potential for d.o.e. to save these jobs, would you not think that would be worth pursuing? >> we are certainly more concerned about any job impact but there are are other issues that i would be happy to talk to you about. having to do with -- there is another commitment for uranium in another uranium enrichment plant and we cannot release more than 10% of the rania market because there are for example the uranium mining industry in the united the united states would be affected. so we are bound to only release 10% or less of what is ever on the market, so we have commitments and 2011 and 2012

for a uranium enrichment process going on, so we have made that commitment, so we have to try to figure out how beyond that but to do about the paducah plant. we are certainly very aware and very sympathetic to this flight. >> lets assume we don't do that. then the question is, do we have the funds and the 12 budget to safely and securely idle the plant after closes and returns to the control of the government? >> what we need to do is work with you on trying to figure out a path forward for these jobs. i have to be candid that the gaseous diffusion technology is one which is very energy intensive and i would rather us and best in more forward leaning technologies in improved

centrifuges as an example in order to -- and i do think the united states would like to have a technology of our own. >> but that isn't the issue at paducah. in paducah the issue is, will we re-enrich the tales and actually make money for the government or if we aren't going to do that will the government pay for cleanup because we have been getting the cleanup funding on an annual basis but there is apparently no plan in your budget for cleanup after the operations have ceased. under this scenario strikes me the government loses an opportunity for revenue. we lose while -- 1200 jobs and you are not funding the cleanup which would cost you money where his re-enriching details would actually gain the government money. i am correctly understanding that? >> certainly it is going to be our obligation to clean up if

and when paducah closes down, but that uranium will be there and again to go forward in the most cost-effective way, if there is a technology that can more effectively enrich those tales we would be more biased towards doing that but certainly we have an obligation if this is finalized we would have enough addition to cleanup that plant. >> when are we going to see the plant? >> well, we can get back to you and your staff on that. >> we have got 1200 employees sitting there wondering if they are going to be without a job and understand it is a tough time for everyone and unemployment is high in kentucky but here we have been opportunity to keep 1200 people working, actually raise revenue for the government i

re-enriching these tales and what i think i hear you saying is you have got to plan for either contingency at the moment. is that correct? >> right now we have to make very very hard decisions given the budget reality and as chairman is chairman feinstein said they don't expect our congress to give us our proposed budget. >> how many of your tough decisions get an opportunity to actually raise revenue? >> we are actually raising revenue, as you mentioned, on the side for the same reason and so it is raising revenue in the most cost-effective way. we are always about -- we always like to raise revenue and so but remember we are at this limit of 10%. >> well, not a very satisfying answer for it an employee and western kentucky.

i think i correctly heard you that you have no plan to re-enrich the tales and currently not intended to budget at least according to our figures by 2014 you are not even going to meet the annual cleanup needs on an annual basis that the plan and have no current plan for addressing the shortfall? >> we can look at the cleanup issue but again, details the tales are still there and it is not as though we are either going to move on next year or thereafter. >> i understand that but you start re-enriching them now you are employing 12 what are people in the government makes money. you leave them sitting there and then you have the cleanup operation which cost you money. i'm curious as to why you think this makes sense? >> because if we do this enrichment with this old and now, very energy consuming

technology that was developed during world war ii, and there are better technologies that we would like to use and develop in-house meaning in the united states, so again it is a decision. >> so you would rather make the money later than make the money now? >> well, i go back do we can enrich it now but then we can't make the money because we can't we set on the market because of already what is being put in place. >> thank you very much. >> i've tried to be as liberal as possible. >> i appreciated appreciate it very much. thank you. >> thank you very much. senator lautenberg, early bird, you were next. >> thank you madam chairman. thank you secretary chu for the wonderful work you do for our country and for helping us now to try and solve problems that

will directly affect how our economy recovers and how we protect ourselves with the lack of energy to fuel our needs. 2009 -- pardon me. china surpassed the united states and private sector clean energy investment for the first time. 2010, china began to pull away, attracting $54 billion to private investment. now the recently announced that government would he investing the equivalent of $75 billion in clean energy annually. now, will your agency's roughly 30 billion-dollar budget invests enough for us to regain the lead in the local clean energy rays?

>> well, you are quite right to be concerned about china's investment but it is not only china. i would add korea, the european union, germany, great britain and other countries are also looking at clean energy development both on the efficiency side and the generation side and going to be the big business opportunity in the world market going forward in the coming decades. and so what we need to do is position the united states so that we can be a leader in this. we have been the leader in other technologies where it is quite frankly are still lose because we still have the best research institutions. we have a national lab system that is comparable and we need to develop the mechanisms to allow american industry to manufacture in the u.s.. now, in terms of what you specifically are asking for

what china is doing, helping companies with for example loans or loan guarantees. you know, we have an oversubscribed loan program. i think senator feinstein said we couldn't get to that part of it and it is something that we feel is a highly leveraged way of supporting industries because when we see these companies begin to build manufacturing facilities abroad, this is one of the factors that comes through loud and clear that they are getting loan guarantees from countries like china. i would love to work with congress. part of our loan guaranteed program would -- it is highly leveraged so it is a guarantees of those programs i think would ian important part going forward. >> alright, but does that,

secretary chu, suggests that we are going to fall further behind with the kind of budget that we are talking about at this moment? >> i think that is why the president has chosen to put the energy budget with other agencies and the president said that this is a -- in order to preserve the future and to win the future in order to actually go forward bad investments in science and research development of these things is going to be crucial to our economic disparity going forward and that is why there were decisions made and why the energy budget saw the increase that it did. earlier this month you appointed a panel to study and make recommendations on the practice of fracking.

cornell university recently released a study that says natural gas extracted using fracking as the technique to produce much more global warming pollution than coal and given the administration's commitment to reduce greenhouse gases with your panel consider recommending that the industry capture some of these emissions -- can make capture some of these emissions of natural gas? >> well, this committee, the subcommittee and the advisory lord is actually going to be meeting for the first time today and tomorrow. i am aware of the cornell study and another paper published last week in the national academy of sciences which i read very thoroughly and it does raise some questions.

so we are very concerned about the environmental impact, but we also see that if you can do this safely and not have excess emissions, or pollution of water tables, that it is a transition to a clean energy future and it is producing energy. so the administration wants to do this in an environmentally responsible way. we need to do it in environmentally responsible way and there is no question about that. there are the studies that we are very well aware of and tersely given the charge to spend a couple of weekends reading about this stuff and learning about this. there are some concerns but we want to get all the perspectives and find out what is really going on. >> i will be anxious to get the

panel's report and hope that we can establish the fact that this doesn't present other environmental problems to worsen the situation rather than improve it. thank you very much mr. secretary. >> mr. secretary the governor recently traveled to visit with u.s. senator corker about environmental cleanup at oak ridge urging a focus on the dangers of the mercury there and factoring the large population of region. would be remiss if i didn't say thank you for the meeting and underscore the importance of that. my questions though are along the lines of my comments and opening statement about energy research. does this sound about right that the department has about $6 billion more or less for energy research? what should he? if you were professor -- and

were bound by the us is -- office of budget or let me put it another way, you talk about hubs and i talk about manhattan projects. are revoked talking about accelerating energy research in a focused way? bes and i am here to defend the president's budget but i would love to see increases. i think as i said before the research we do, with the goal of getting the private sector to pick up the stuff and run with it and to give them as chairman feinstein said using a light life source of facility actually give a leading edge and develop a series of patents that allow us to make better barriers. >> if i may interrupt, we are talking about 500-mile batteries and 1 dollar a watt solar power and a better way to recycle and trying to be the country and

that? and even miserly republicans often agree that research is an appropriate role of the federal government. while we might worry about some other things. given the importance of that i mean, as we have given the budget problems we have with 40 cents of every dollar being borrowed, and we all know we are going to have a rough two, three or four years trying to make up the budget, shouldn't we be looking hard at such things as long-term subsidies? i think particularly my colleagues have wanted to talk about big oil all week and i think we have to talk about the plans. i mentioned earlier that we are committed to spending $26 billion, taxpayers are, for the next 10 years on wind subsidies in a production tax credit past as a temporary measure in 1992. you have got in your budget money for research on offshore wind. it seems to me that is appropriate. it seems to me that to continue

to subsidize over a long-term immature technology isn't appropriate. jumpstarting electric cars, jumpstarting natural gas research for offshore wells might he appropriate but if we look at long-term energy subsidies whether they are big oil or big wind it looks to me like we could find money to take a fairly modest energy research budget of $6 billion in may kits seven or eight or nine or 10, and move us much more rapidly toward a low-cost clean energy future rather than at high cost energy future. we have 1 dollar solar power. that is cheaper. if we have 500-mile batteries that is cheaper. that uses a lot less gas so why shouldn't we be developing a policy that takes money from these long-term subsidies and putting them into energy

research? >> i would agree with you absolutely that what we need to do when designing any energy research program, we are responsible for the entire innervation change and what we need to do is design things and have a program going forward where we don't want to start businesses that can't survive indefinitely without subsidy. that is just not the way to do things so i think we are in total agreement with that. and he spoke about this for example, offshore wind has great possibilities. we need to start that to get it going and the sun shot will be an international race, and it is an batteries it is an international race. therefore it is going to be the research. >> but beyond that money to do the research is relatively modest. you asked in offshore wind was 27 million may be for small nuclear reactors $60 million

arpa-e -- you got 180. these big subsidies whether it is big wind or big oil seems like the money could be better spent and that one of the things we might be able to help do is reduce the long-term subsidies and focus more in on energy research where think there is probably a consensus about the appropriateness of roll call spending. thank you adam chairman. >> thank you senator. senator cochran. >> madam chairman, thank you for chairing this hearing. welcome mr. secretary. we appreciate you being here to help us understand the administration's proposal for spending in your department for the next fiscal year. i am pleased to notice that it is recommended that nuclear energy continue to have a place in the national strategy or energy independence and

guaranteed supplies of energy for our country. there is an increase in funding for the office of nuclear energy we noticed in the budget request. i wonder what do you think the priorities of that office should be in terms of reaching our goals and helping maintain our energy security as a nation? >> madam chairman i would love to answer that question. again, the way we are approaching this is we are looking at what industry is going to be doing and what can we do to add value to this? it is on things like for example using high-performance -- which is a -- high-performance computing. >> say that again. >> high-performance computing like what is done and senator alexander's laboratory in oak ridge. they are the leader of this --

actually it is china pushing out ahead but to use high-performance computing to design next generation react there's and how to deal with these things so you can skip engineering steps and you can simulate a much wider space so we think we can do things of that nature. senator alexander spoke about how to develop fuel recycling that makes economical sense that make anti-proliferation sense though that's the amount of electricity you generate from the nuclear fuel can be 10 or 20 times more than what we do today so for the same amount of waste you can do a lot more. i think that is something that is very much part of what we want to do so new recycling technologies.

there is a long road but we have to continue this advanced reactor technologies things of that nature. >> one decision that has been made at the department relates to the strategic petroleum reserve. in our state of mississippi, that program is that in the water as i understand it. there is a decision that i am met by his canceled the expansion of the strategic trolling reserves in our state. we have submitted requests for information, explanation, what plans do you have for that program and we haven't received a response from the department of energy. i wish you could go back and see if you do have a response to that question? we would like to know about what your plans for the future are with respect to the strategic petroleum reserve. you can ask for that now if you would like.

>> we will get back to in the details but right now we are required to have a 90-day supply in case of a disruption of supply of which 75 days comes from this oil reserve and the rest from civilian stock. right now, we are repairing one of our caves but we are close to full capacity. but we came back to you on the details of what we have planned going forward. but the point is we are very close to maximum capacity. we have a cavern or two that needs repair. i don't quite remember whether this was mississippi are not but we have to attend to that. >> we do know we have been trying to get answers to questions about that for two years now i am told and haven't gotten a satisfactory response. so i don't know that there is a response, but i think we are entitled to hear it.

what your plans are. >> right. >> last year after the president recommended canceling that program, congress voted to resent all the funds that we had worked for to provide the department about $70 million, for the expansion of the strategic trolling reserves, so there is a break down in communication about whether you need the money and if you are not going to use the money be may help you think of other ways to do it then what you are planning to do with the money. >> well, there was a blue ribbon commission chartered last 25 president obama to study nuclear waste disposal options. i wonder if you could give us any information about this

program, whether or not you have a specific plan. we understand the reason you canceled the yucca mountain program is in limbo, unclear about whether funds are going to be use for that program are not. it gives me the impression we are having a hard time finding out what the department is up to and some of these areas. could you tell us about what your plans are for storage at yucca mountain? >> sure. first i believe there is a first draft outlining the recommendations from this blue ribbon commission. i think rather than comment here on the drafts that have been put out i would rather than give an official report. lemay comment on one or two of them. what they have said is that

first that one of the things they said that goes to senator alexander's point, while there is no immediate elegy we can use for reprocessing we still should continue to develop that elegy. they have looked at other countries. they have found sweden and finland, where there was a process that seems to have more exceptions by the local people in those regions of the country. so i think at least in this draft recommendation they are saying we should look at those processes. we have examples of low-level waste and there has not been opposition. so there are a number of those things.

so we need to go forward and this is the responsibility of the department of energy. as you know, we are -- nuclear power in the future and whatever occurs, it is the department of energy's responsibility to deal with the waste. >> madam chairman my time is expired. >> thank you very much senator hoffman. senator johnson. >> secretary chu welcome. i am pleased to see d.o.e. is continuing to support the deep underground laboratory, otherwise known as denzel in south dakota. i appreciate that your agency included $15 million for the project in your fy12 budget requests. i understand d.o.e. is nearing conclusion of an internal review of the project and i'm interested in its results.

specific way could you talk about how d.o.e. is prepared to work with the project team to ensure that your recommendations are known and included in future financial and construction planning? >> well, first i know we are undergoing this review and i have not specifically spoken with bill about this yet. we are working though as you well know, the national science foundations have been very discouraging to us about that. but in any case, i think we are trying to figure out a path forward on the investments that have been made by south dakota and the department of energy and international science foundation. we are continuing to get funds to continue doing this but if we

lose in the long term what was supposed to be roughly a 50/50 partner, we are trying to understand how we can go forward and perhaps a reduced pro-grammar what our options are, especially in whatever funding we will be getting and fy12 and going forward. and so these again are going to be very difficult choices and we are -- there are a few requirements that we would like to have done and we need to get some of those experiments done. as i said, i have not seen the report and so i will be waiting for that. >> on a related note, as you know a great deal of activity is already underway and we had

previously hoped we would at this stage be providing more support for the fact to these. in lieu of significant hindrance of construction funding and in order to preserve the great progress in investment, we have already made, what is dod planning to do to ensure no jobs are lost while your long-term plans for the project and/or for high-energy physics in general? >> we are very aware of that and trying our best to keep -- there is a dedicated scientific team that has been assembled on this and while we try to move forward, again for 11 to 12 there is going to be continued funding. we don't want to lose the sign to pick teams that have been

developed, and just as we don't want the water to come back into the mine. and so again, i don't know exactly the timing of when the office of science will bring forward a recommendation to me but i am sorry to disappoint. that is all i can say about it. in a completely unbiased point of view i have to say my own laboratory is the lead laboratory so i know personally how it is affecting a lot of people. not that i will play favorites but it is -- i know personally and as you know i visited the mines in south dakota and i know personally all of the investments made. >> referenced high-priority

experiments. could you list a few? >> sure. fire high-energy physics, we are investing in what we call a high intensity frontier. we are also investing in the highest energy machines the highest energy machines there are so because of what happened decades ago, the highest frontier energy machine is truly a concern. they had a hiccup that they recovered well from that hick up, and so what we have done is we still want to be -- we still view it as a significant part of our program. we still wanted to go forward to the good news is american scientists