trust. as he said it is being turned around but that work needs to be undertaken with all speed. >> mr. speaker, the director stated the taxes grossly unfair. listen to the voice of reason. does the prime minister, the widows and widows left in their home, can lose up to 25% of housing benefit support if he continues with this. is he unveiling are determined to get his way? >> the issue is this. we desperately need to reform housing benefits. if we hadn't done anything about housing benefit it was expected to cost over 24 billion pounds a year. as his own welfare spokesman, the member for birmingham,

beverage would scarcely believe housing benefit alone is costing the uk over 20 billion a year. that is simply too high. i have to say, mr. speaker, i'm getting frustrated with these statements in principle of reform. they sit there in -- they said they're in favor of a cab when they go for. they recognize housing benefits out of control but every attempt to deal with it, they are frustrated. >> mr. speaker, on this leap day, throughout the country will be nervously hoping that their girlfriends might make a commitment. can ask the prime minister to remind us and confirm with us the reforms will always, always support hard-working families of? >> i was wondered where the audible lady was going with that for a minute. [laughter] but she is absolutely right. it is a very special day where all sorts of things can happen, all sorts of possibilities.

the absolute key thing is both our tax system and welfare system we should be encouraging families to come together and stay together and celebrating commitments. >> is the prime minister aware that the entry clearance in abu dhabi has rejected an application by someone to come from pakistan to attend her granddaughters wedding in manchester? with the right honorable gentleman specify what kind of employment a 72 year-old woman who does not speak english and has never left pakistan is liable to be obtained in my constituency where unemployment is 1026%? will be overruled this decision and allow her, a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, to attend her granddaughters

wedding? and if -- [shouting] >> the right honorable gentleman, i'm sure he is bring it to an end. >> i am. i am bringing it to an end. [laughter] and if the home secretary -- the wedding is april the second -- [laughter] >> the prime minister barak to answer the right honorable gentleman struggled i wasn't aware of the individual cases. there are hundreds of thousands of people who travel between pakistan and britain every year. we do have to have tough controls to prevent the abuse of our immigration system, but i would suggest he takes up the case individually with the immigration minister, the honorable member tom who has a superb grip on these issues and usher will be able to give him some satisfaction be make

mr. peter bone. [laughter] >> under tony blair's regime, we can sleep sleep safely at night. if tony blair is incapacitated. what would happen if the premise is incapacitated. >> i've been waiting for some time because i know that my honorable friend has asked this question to almost every single cabinet member, including the deputy prime minister who i think replied he seemed to have a morbid fascination with the end of the leader of the conservative party. all i can say is i've no plans to be incapacitated. >> we are very relieved to hear it. >> thank you very much, mr. speaker. further to the question to the answer that the prime minister gave to my right honorable friend on elevenths inquiry, he is of course absolutely right that we need a free press. the nation will not thank him however if he goes along with the suggestion from the chairman

of the pcc. in his proposal to use the defamation bill to legislate new system. the defamation bill is coming forward in september. this would preempt -- this would preempt the inquiry. >> i'm glad the audible lady asked that question because i've no intention of preempting the leveson inquiry in any way at all but i think we look back to the debate we had in this house, both the right honorable gentleman the labour party, to get on with the job, to give every signal we want to be able to adopt what is proposed without there being sort of regulatory arbitrage between the parties but i think there is an understanding on that basis. given there is the understanding i will just repeat again. i think it's important that honorable members on all side stretch the importance of a free press in the health of our

democracy. >> hard-working families in my constituency are astonished that a benefit cap for some 26,000 pounds is being opposed by the party opposite. will my honorable friend agree with me that would always make a and provide benefits for those that are unable to work? >> i'm delighted, mr. speaker, my honorable friend caught your eye because today's the day that the welfare bill becomes an act. and for the first time we will have a proper cap on welfare, supported by this site, opposed by that site, but backed by the overwhelming majority of people in our country. >> ordered. point of order. be back here on c-span2 will be the british house of commons now as they move onto other legislative business. you have been watching prime minister's question time air to live wednesdays at 7 a.m. eastern while parliament is in

session. >> and with the firm confidence in justice, freedom, and peace on earth, men will raise the hearts and the hopes of mankind for that distant day when no one rattled the saber and no one drags a chain. bit as the candidates campaign for president this year we look back at 14 men who ran for the office and lost. go to our website c-span.org/thecontenders to see video of the contenders who had a lasting impact on american politics.

>> it is further the cause of republicans to restore clear understanding of the tyranny of man over man in the world at large. it is our cause to dispel the fog opinion in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony. >> c-span.org/thecontenders. >> energy secretary steven chu testified yesterday before the house appropriations subcommittee on energy and modern development. topics include the presence decision to hold off on the yucca mountain nuclear waste site, rising gas prices and energy department research projects. the president's budget plan would eliminate $4 billion in annual tax incentives for oil and gas companies. this is an hour and a half. >> good afternoon. i would like to call this

hearing to order. secretary chu, i would like to welcome you back once again to the subcommittee. i understand through the grapevine that today is your birthday, is that correct? and that it is also your wedding anniversary. >> what is he doing here? >> i was going to say. >> we appreciate your being here, of course. you are here today to present the administration's fiscal year 2013 budget request for your department. your request totals $27.2 billion, a $1.5 billion increase, 1.5 -- 5.5 '07% increase from the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. nearly one-third of that increase comes in one program, energy efficiency and renewable energy. your request is painfully on its specifics and we need to know

why this funding is both necessary in a prudent use of taxpayer dollars. and given that consumers are anchored by higher gas and oil prices, one major energy source fossil energy is substantially cut from last year. how does your budget relates to the real world outside of washington where energy costs are eating up family budgets? on top of that, the public's faith has been shaken by revelations that many programs under your jurisdiction have wasted taxpayers dollars, created markets for burial renewables that cannot be sustained without further infusions of federal support. artificial markers plus the reality of wasted dollars undermine the real economy which exists outside of this city. we know all too well the problems the loan guarantee program has faced so far. solyndra has become its public face. we don't know what will be the

next one to fall but we have great reason to be concerned. back home, many people are frankly disgusted that some of these investments have been wasted. they now seriously questioned the proper role, the proper government role in energy markets and the levels of risk that you and those below you have taken over the past two years. the al is a report on the loan guarantee program noted that the failure rate of the program to date has been less than some had projected. i respect the expertise and judgment of mr. allison and the need to do political damage control. all loan guarantee opportunities for whatever purpose will now be painted with the same brush. the loss of public confidence is difficult to calculate. arthur laffer just learned from this? energy projects fail in the marketplace, we know that. but the political directions were behind any project

selection, then our fears would be justified. he may have seen a report by the "washington post" on february 14 which alleged that as much as $3.9 billion of your funds may have been improperly influenced by appointees. now the white house must show the election year budget is not, the election-year is not dictating this budget spending plans. i put yucca mountain in the same box but the administration has tried to kill this project, wasting billions of dollars to accommodate senator reid. mind you, not on any sound scientific grounds which you yourself have said, mr. secretary. now your budget request to obtain funding for some of the blue ribbon commissions recommendations, recommendations which congress has not the last either in whole or in part. as the current law of the land is for waste disposal at yucca

mountain, we need to hear from you if the administration is proposing in the legislative changes to authorize their recommendations. on a more positive note you made some tough decisions to support the nuclear security programs at the nnsa. decisions which this country has been banning for something. nuclear secret programs are the most vital mission within your portfolio. while i have significant concerns about the administration's call for reduce military spending, we showed last year that our national security can be sustained and even improved with less money. and it will be the administration's task to show that you're fiscal year, 2013 request, doesn't sacrifice our strategic security for budgetary savings. and together, the administration and congress have supported small, the development of small modular reactors, another

positive development as was the recent groundbreaking for two nuclear reactors in georgia. mr. secretary, last year we wrestled with how to put together a budget for your department. i am proud of our product, and i want to thank my ranking member once again as a former chairman and ranking member for his many contributions, his sound advice and experience, and that very essential institutional memory. our joint task this budget cycle is no different. funding the right balance for investment for most critical needs with an eye towards those that protect our nation, and yes, create private sector jobs, sustainable jobs and opportunities, not jobs which rely on government largess. i hope you'll be able to explain today how the budget request before us does just that. sector, please ensure that the hearing record, any supporting

information requested by the subcommittee are delivered in final form to us no later than four weeks from the time he received them. members have additional questions for the record will have until the close of business tomorrow to provide them to the subcommittee office. with that, i turned to my ranking member for any comments he may wish to give. >> thank you very much, and i know my comments will be entered into the record. ..

dr. chu, why congratulate you on your wedding anniversary. and that the leap year you would be just one day before my son's birthday. i can greg to let you for that and welcome you to the subcommittee for your fourth appearance. i am pleased president obama continues to recognize the challenges facing this nation, and cannot cede a leadership in clean energy. additionally i believe you need to be conscientious about energy consumption and further answer conservation efforts. and basic sciences and significant technological

demonstrations and commercialization. and production in america of these findings. i cannot emphasize the last point strongly enough. and technological advances or break throughs on products that will not be manufactured domestically. the government can drive policies but i am as i said before very concerned about making sure the department exercises strong leadership and fundamental management reform. the need to be forthcoming for the department of energy. and a successful energy policy. i know contract and project management seem tedious. i am tired of bringing up year after year. administration after administration and actually believe you are the seventh secretary of energy i have questioned on the topic.

i continue to be appalled at the cost overruns the department of energy's major construction projects. in 2009 the subcommittee had a hearing on the department's continued appearance on gao's list. position it held since 1990. given the challenges of last year on major construction projects i fear not much has changed and i do hope you can provide insurances today is that you are taking significant strong actions to get the department of the list. the chairman has noticed areas of concern particularly the department's decision on yucca mountain. i share his concern in that regard. eyewall so at my very serious reservations about the inclusion of $150 million request for usec

in the budget request. i hope to hear from you and others in the department why when coupled with transfer authority request for fiscal year 2012 the department is providing usec with $200,000 in taxpayer money is a good investment and not a bailout. mr. secretary, i look forward to hearing from you today about fiscal year 2013 budget request that will help address energy and national security challenges. none of us will always agree but certainly as a member of the subcommittee and longstanding know that we can work through our differences in a cooperative and a bipartisan fashion and again, mr. chairman, i appreciate you yielding your time. >> the chairman of the full committee is recognized, mr roger. >> thank you in your ranking members for doing great work here. happy birthday and happy

anniversary. welcome. this week, the national average price for a gallon of gas is $3.60. twenty cents over last month. $0.40 more than this time last year. increasingly unstable middle east, belligerent iran, exports shutdown the strait of hormuz. meanwhile china's rapidly growing economy is driving up oil prices through increased demand. from state-owned enterprise securing contracts through -- monopolizing new foreign sources. energy security, keys to economic prosperity and national defense is the focus of the debate. the congress has sent a very strong message that we must have balance in the expansion of

conventional fuels, cole, natural gas, oil, nuclear. to provide energy with investment and renewable energy to power the future. the president has repeatedly mentioned support for all of the above energy policy this budget proposal and the recent denial of the keystone exo pipeline seem to insinuate this administration is not serious about the responsibility to diversify. this budget request with budget of interior, is a continuance of this political posturing and diversion of scarce federal dollars, be favored sectors at the expense of the others. in particular, cole, so important to marriage in

southern and eastern kentucky. it remains squarely in the administration's cross hairs. although your budget tries to hide it, carbon captor and carbon storage and advanced energy assistance program that would allow our country to more efficiently use the fossil fuels already at our disposal. these funds haven't shuffled around to support pet project including proposed $500 million increase for energy efficiency and renewable energy program. this is already funded at $1.8 billion. and a proposed greenhouse gas rule, these funds are vital to

developing the new technology necessary to comply with the administration's own control standards. essentially the administration has created a catch-22 demanding that industry meet stricter standards while cutting off the funding for those investments. it is a systematic dispersal of coal the outcome of which will be thousands of lost jobs and more expensive electricity for american citizens while their tax money is thrown at unviable solutions like solyndra's solar panels. combined with underfilling the strategic petroleum reserve after last year's sale in order to create the appearance of savings, i fear your budget reduces our energy security in real terms. obviously my colleagues and i have concerns about the policies as they relate to energy

security. i would like to commend your department through an essay, to maintain the strategic arsenals. of like to expand on the request which include significant reductions, in shores nuclear capabilities or secure, fairly modernize and continue to be a sufficient deterrent to enemies. >> ranking member of the full committee. >> i want to welcome secretary chu to the energy and water subcommittee for the opportunity to discuss the department of energy. i bet you could have thought of better things to do on your birthday and your anniversary but will be brief. for fiscal year 13 the budget request for an department is a sensible proposal that carries on our investment to important

national programs and defense, science and energy efficiency. this is a further investment for many programs that are the building blocks for a more efficient and independent energy future. this contains a small increase for naval reaction, healthy increase for other activities such as modernization, such as nonpro restoration of programs. and was outlined in the budget document of a few years ago. the funding to maintain capability. to establish requirements beyond the proposed budget. a healthy increase, domestic programs such as energy efficiency and program would be increased by $520 million over the f y 12 enacted level.

is to establish and maintain the manufacturing and deployment of energy technology such as making and fixing technology more efficient. it continues adequate support, adequate spending for the cleanup site in washington state which is through the environmental management program. i want to work with the energy department to make sure cleanup succeeds at reasonable cost to the taxpayer. i must express my disappointment this budget continues to reflect the administration's decision to shut down the yucca mountain project. it is my opinion the decision congress made in the 1980s to use yucca as our national nuclear waste repository is still the law land. i want to welcome secretary chu to the committee and look forward to your statement.

>> mr. secretary, thank you for being with us. we welcome your remarks. your entire statement will be in the record. [inaudible] >> is that better? ranking member visclosky and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the f y 13 budget request. to promote economic growth, strengthen our security president obama has called for an all of the above strategy about every source of american energy. the president wants domestic energy resources, increasing our ability to compete in the clean energy raise. the department's have while 13 budget requests $27.2 billion by

the president's vision, 2011 strategic plan and inaugural technology review. it supports leadership in clean energy technology, science and innovation and nuclear security environmental cleanup. decades ago energy department supported energy department support helped develop technologies are of america's and gas resources. today our investment can help advanced technology that will unlock renewable energy and energy efficiency. the budget request invest approximately $4 billion in our energy program. added that as progress in areas solar to offshore wind to carbon captor utilization and storage of technology. it helps reduce dependence on imported oil by developing next-generation biofuel, and fuel-efficient vehicle technology. the budget requests invest

$770 million in the nuclear energy program to develop a next-generation of nuclear power technology including small modular reactors. it also includes funding for the continued nuclear waste r&d which aligns recommendations of the blue ribbon connection on america's nuclear future. as we move to a sustainable energy future american fossil energy resources will continue to play an important role in our energy mix. the budget request includes $12 million and part of a larger aren't the initiative by department of the interior and epa to understand and minimize potential environmental health and safety impact of natural gas through hydraulic fracking and promote efficiency to arab-americans save money by saving energy and sponsors are in deep of industrial materials to help manufacturers cut costs. to maximize our energy technology efforts in areas including battery, biofuel, electric grid technology,

research and development and applied research programs and to encourage the employment of clean energy technology, the president called for extending proven tax incentives including production tax credit, this is the $60 for reprogram and a manufacturing tax credit. congress and the american people make critical energy decisions, fund and the energy it ministration. competing the new energy economy requires our country to harness or reverse including american ingenuity. the budget includes $5 million. including news coverage to help solve the energy challenges. these funds, and advanced computing and more. the budget request continues to support energy fund research centers which falls scientific

programs for energy development. it supports five existing homes and proposes a new hub, through the hub where being together, our nation's top five engineers to achieve game changing results. additionally the budget request includes $350 million to support research project that could fundamentally transform the way we use and produce energy. invest in high risk-reward research projects that if successful create the foundation for entirely new industries. the budget requests are sick providing $11.5 billion to the national nuclear security administration. as we begin nuclear arms reduction required by the new start treaty the science and engineering capabilities in the nuclear security enterprise will become even more important to sustaining the u.s. nuclear deterrent. that is why the budget request

includes $7.6 billion for weapons activity and $1.1 billion to the naval reactors program. and work to prevent nuclear terrorism which is one of president obama's top priorities. and implement key nuclear security non-proliferation and arms control activity. finally the budget request includes $507 billion to continue progress in cleaning up the nation's cold war nuclear sites. the budget request makes strategic investment to promote prosperity and security. at the same time recognize our country's fiscal challenges cutting back where we can and also committing to performing our work efficiently and effectively. countries around world recognize the energy opportunity moving aggressively to lead. this is a race we can win but we must act. thank you and i am pleased to answer your questions. >> thank you, mr. secretary.

votes in the 4:00 time frame and try to stick to the five minute role and that is for members to be aware of. our committee -- this is a very bipartisan. the department efforts to keep the best science and engineering work force at home and to keep opposition as the world's top innovator. we also need to think once that further by making sure we don't do these technologies but then manufacture them in the united states. the voting federal funding to support a research team of ten people at home just so accompany can support 1,000 manufacturing jobs missed the mark. be on the advanced manufacturing program your budget proposes how are you working? this is there much in line with the ranking member's comments to

ensure federal defunded research and development conducted at american university's, laboratories and companies then leads to manufacturing and jobs in the united states. >> i couldn't agree with you more. if we invest in research in american universities or national labs or companies, we would like to see that research lead to discoveries but that research leads to manufacturing in the united states because that is where we will see future prosperity. the department of energy is working in a number of ways. when there are issues having to do with i.t. generated by the department of energy we look at what means we have. if you start a company or research that -- what are the means we have at our disposal to make sure it doesn't go to the highest bidder and what are

those -- for example, i will tell you one example. we supported some research done by company based in america on manufacturing of improving manufacturing to drive costs down. it was a successful program. given what was happening in china than they were going to get out of this business and we were taking steps to make sure the ip generated by american taxpayers would have control. >> so it did migrate? >> if we -- [talking over each other] >> what is the reference to china? if we made and you gave this example yourself, if we made a substantial investment what did we do to protect -- >> what we do is we look at the legal means we have and told by

my people when i learned about this that if intellectual property is sold somewhere else, in the united states, we look at what means we have but -- >> the department of energy has been in business for quite a long time. you have been secretary for a couple years. this isn't new news. this is represented by a lot of incredible talent in national laboratories. they have been coming up with some pretty ingenious ideas. what is to prevent that ingenuity and innovation to be sucked out of some of our labs and find ourselves confronting challenges based on cheap labor,

in places like india or china? >> what has happened in the last 15 years is a growing rig -- reservation that we cannot take what we do for granted. and how important it is that we remain a technology leader in high-tech manufacturing that rests on the intellectual property we generated united states. >> you headed up one of those laboratories. and god bless you for doing that. the investments we made in the variety of innovators and people under your area of responsibility. what prevented them from -- that information from migrating abroad? >> first -- >> what steps can we legally

take if it is possible in a global economy -- >> when we support the development of an idea we can in principle -- we are doing this increasingly. we were greasing the interaction between the private sector of the united states and what comes out of national laboratories. in addition to that if you are supporting research we are in discussions. had a if you support this research with taxpayer money, how do you begin to say we don't want to see this, as i said go to the highest bidder. these are complex things we are looking at. >> we shouldn't be looking at it. how about our you acting on it? the horse is already out of the barn. have we come up with ingenious ideas and innovations and

patents being marketed by our global competitors? >> the u.s. government doesn't have complete control over certain things and so when a company picks up an intellectual property and develops it depending -- >> we don't want them setting up shop outside beijing especially if we as the taxpayers have made these types of investments. >> it is a set of reasons to encourage american companies to set up manufacturing in the united states. those set of reasons include provisions whether they can use research by the department of energy but also quite frankly also include issues having to do with the climate in the united states and fiscal policies. >> we know the climate here.

it is not to our benefit at the moment. let me yield to the ranking member who through his opening statement and shares very much my concern here. he can speak from an industrial base and ship lot of its assets. mr visclosky. >> a couple questions and we have five minute on this first round. i would associate myself with the chairman and very concerned about the provision for the stimulus bill in 2009. applied to infrastructure investment and credits were used for energy programs. much of those facilities and products -- we lost one production facility and possibility for solar. the produce more steel. then my workers do than any state in the country and every time i see a 25010 window imported because we don't make

it here again furious. and appreciated than the last time we had a discussion, that you initiated the conversation and i appreciate there is a focus that the department about making sure that the influential fire power that you have is going to be used with a goal of making sure goods and products manufacturer, i do appreciate that. the question on manufacturing, there is a proposal for manufacturing demonstration within the 2013 budget and again, on first blush, looks like a good idea. the concern over the last three to five years the department established the bioenergy research center and energy innovative cost and energy frontier research centers and industrial assessment centers and clean energy regional application centers, manufacturing energy centers and

the obvious question is do we need that? do we have too many centers? >> you name a lot of centers. let me start with the bioenergy centers. >> i am just saying why do we need the manufacturing -- >> fair question. let me focus on that. those centers specifically are centers in which you work with american companies and i have toward one -- was done in conjunction with oak ridge where you have companies and you test new manufacturing methods. we don't know whether this is going to work or not so you have a facility that will help develop new manufacturing methods that enable them to develop carbon composite materials, material of the

future but in order to produce it cost effectively cheaper so you can invite american product. these are american companies -- we are going to do experiments and these companies can't afford this stuff but here is the facility like an incubator, we will help you get started. these are facilities which are directly applicable to help keep manufacturing in the united states. >> the second question deals with the issue of management. in the 2011 report by the gao, they did indicate the department has made progress and force many recommendations, and people and resources to resolve contract management problems.

you still have nsa and environmental cleanup on the list. they're hampering the work in weapons laboratories with persistent levels calling the relationship dysfunctional. what additional actions are you taking relative to the national academy report, persistent year in and year out appearances on this watch list. >> the office of science is now all of the watch list. if you looked at the recent record on budget and that is -- one can develop complex multibillion-dollar end carry them through on projects. i knew that when i walked in the door there was a concerted

effort to export best practices into the cleanup. won the 9 will briefly say, a strong common denominator, what they were doing, with drawings are done. 10% of the design, government projects which is true. they started construction and one of the things, a lot of things that you see put in progress years ago, a concerted effort, first budget estimates,

but you never know what you are going to be building. >> it would ask -- >> i would love to tell you about that for another day. >> mr. rogers. >> coal provides 50% of the nation's energy, electricity today. if we went completely 1,000 miles an hour developing other sources you are still going to need coal for the foreseeable future. it is an abundant resources we have, the saudi arabia of coal. it is in expensive, relatively speaking. around world market for energy. and yet it seems this

administration is intent on completely shutting off the use of coal and mining of coal for the purpose of generating electricity. the epa is issuing regulations almost everyday and on the most recent mercury and air toxics standards that rule that they issue, bears no technology capable meeting those standards. so consequently there can be no new coal plants because of that rule among others. at the same time the epa is demanding new technologies for compliance with their regulation. you are cutting the research that would develop those technologies. that seems to me to be

incomprehensible. we have two agencies and of the government at cross purposes. the fossil energy research and development program in your department played an important role in improving existing technologies and inventing entirely new ones. your request for funding. is cut for fossil energy r&d, cut that 21%. the request cuts, best energy systems, $45 million, almost half and cuts crosscutting research, $19 billion which is 40%. in essence on the one hand the epa is saying you can't build a

new plant because you don't have the technology to burn coal the way we wanted burned and usa 9 won't give you the money to find ways to burn coal the way you would like. held me out here. am i confused? >> i have to say i am very much supportive of developing the technologies you speak of. to use gas and coal in a clean way. we believe it is important to develop those technologies not only in the united states but in partnership with the world leader in the what we're doing. coal will be around for a long time. we recognize that. you heard me speak about that this morning. how important it is that we continue that research.

part of the issue was there was a lot of money in some of the carbon captor initiation project in partnership between the government and our sector and what we're trying to do, we see the survival path forward that there is a beneficial use of carbon dioxide which will further our research in capturing carbon dioxide, now to be used for oil recovery but also as we pump carbon dioxide into the ground we will learn a lot about what is going on and industry is saying what we say is we understand we are still interested in that and so we are trying to work with industry and reprogram some of this. we have interest in the carbon capture and the sequestration

part will tell us a lot and it will help sequester in the short term, five or ten years. >> you cut the funding. you are proposing to cut the funding. you will cut fossil energy research and development by 21%. you are cutting advanced energy systems almost in half, crosscutting research by 40%, and all the while increasing funding for all the other research programs other than for coal. notably $500 million increase for the renewable program which is already funded at $1.8 billion. how do you explain that? that is completely contrary to the answer you just gave me. >> why are you cutting it?

drastically cutting it? if you support it that is a funny way of supporting. how are you supporting it other than with money? >> we are supporting it with money. we are supporting it with trying to we -- these projects. >> lots of applications for fossil energy, there has not been any of them approved. >> excuse me? >> the loan guarantee--the ones we are working through. these are complex issues. we are working through that.

[talking over each other] >> can you bring us up-to-date on yucca mountain? >> as far as i know, what is happening is this is before the courts and we are awaiting the decision of the courts. >> we believe that this is the law of the land. how much would you estimate it would cost to get this project back? >> i would have to get you back to that. if it is perceived we will proceed but -- >> we understand it is $100 million to get started. tell us about your blue ribbon commissions.

what recommendations do they have on nuclear waste? >> what they recommended is as we all acknowledge, we have to publish the problem and it is important we solve the problem. one of the important things we noted, spent two years and many meetings, very thorough job. we commend them, one of the things they noted was other countries have done it in a different way. norway and sweden and finland. what they found was -- >> tell us what those ways are. >> sweden set up a public type of company. the closest thing to that. not officially in the department

of energy that -- if you can convince the people that this can be done in a safe way that there are economic benefits and what could have been -- with you like it or not it is going there and turned out to be three competitive bids for the right to put the spent fuel in these sites. and completely in reverse, in fact the losers, the people who did not get the sites took some side benefits, there was a serious -- and to control the down side. and in new mexico, it has been

operating for 11 or 12 years, roughly that period of time. great economic benefit. it is being done in a very safe way and economic prosperity for that region. >> in my home town of bremerton, washington we have a big shipyard. and -- and sending it to yucca mountain, this got up to the level of the top level of the clinton administration. there's a time in 2025 this has to happen for idaho to no longer be obligated to receive this waste. this has implications.

the fact that we are letting this go on and on i think is a big mistake. i voted for this to do it at yucca mountain and i think that is the law land. it hasn't been changed. i think you are going to wind up -- i can't believe the courts are going to sustain your position so you better start looking at these -- you better start figuring out how you're going to get yucca mountain moving forward. you just can't declare something as the executive branch that it is no longer the law. you have to come to congress and get the law change. that hasn't happened. >> that was another important recognition in the buddha commission that it was up to congress if congress wants to change the law we will be working with congress to do that. we take the obligations very seriously. you have to get prepared and by 2037 you have to be shipping

something -- does that very serious legal obligations. >> thank you. mr. lewis. >> thank you, mr. chairman and dr. chu. thank you for being with us. i can't help but scratch my head about the fact that we are able to acquire someone of your background and talent to serve in this capacity. to say the least beyond the heat you're taking with committees like this, your willingness to serve is much appreciated by many of us. your background is well known, nobel prize winner in the arena of civics but beyond that you are celebrating your anniversary have another thing. your bride, dr. jeanne chu holds a doctorate in philosophy as i understand it in physics from

oxford university. above and beyond that she served as chief of staff for two stanford university presidents as well as dean of admissions. interesting to hear what you talk about at night. >> all i know for sure is she would not have admitted me. >> i must say your service is very much appreciated but beyond that, the panel probably doesn't realize that yucca mountain has for all these decades essentially been in my district and in the early days, it strikes me that unless we learn from this most recent history we are bound to repeat the disaster at yucca mountain. i was fooling around with a figure earlier thinking we spent $9 billion at yucca mountain. the catastrophe is closer to

$14 billion staff tells me. in connection with that in the early days, all the politicians who want to solve this problem reportedly were supportive of yucca mountain as the location. especially when it was producing jobs in the local economic community and then you move forward and there is some controversy around this subject and all the politicians fleet in spite of the billions of dollars they send too early. the concern we have got to have is first of all we must solve this difficulty in an environment that is a political environment and lord knows if we are not careful about learning from the past we are bound to repeat it. we will spend billions of dollars for another location following yucca mountain and low and behold what will happen? one way or other we have to think through the politics of this if we are going to make serious progress. congress ought to be trying to

help you work their way through that and i can say we have done that very well. >> thank you for your comments. i agree with you but one of the recommendations of the commission is -- that says get it out of the political arena. they get it so you can have very competent people take a professional attitude what will be in the best interests of the united states in solving this program. that is one of the recommendations but right now it is up to congress to way these considerations and the side. that is one of the clear recommendations of the blue ribbon commission. >> in the meantime we are struggling with the reality. it was not that long ago that others in the arena -- we all supported this should go forward

in a logical location. low and behold the next time you locate the facility please don't located somewhere near the creature district because the problems there will be on us as well. so between here and there, i would hope your policy people would work closely with us to try to have a student other hand in hand have an independent commission. not just work effectively but get results on the other end. >> thank you. mr. fa top --fatah. >> i want to go to this question of technology transfer and jobs. i visited many federal labs at the department in terms of executing the responsibility in terms of federal labs. you have done an extraordinary job in terms of the nuclear weapons stewardship and modernization efforts and the committee has done a lot to make

sure we fully fund that and visited the fermi lab, this issue about government funded research is not limited to the energy department. nasa has 17,000 patents. the administration has been doing work -- the white house required all of the department to work on this question, technology transfer and jobs and energy working hand in hand with the commerce department with the innovative marketplace to get american manufacturers a first run at many of these opportunities. this is a serious issue. you have conflicting issues and as a scientist you appreciate the fact it is a conflicting issue in which scientists want to have a broad interaction

around inventions and new ideas and approaches in the scientific community. at the same time we are an economic competition with other countries. making all this information public, making it available leads to economic competitiveness getting opportunities that work -- pick the fruit off of trees we planted with american taxpayer dollars. the issue here of taking patents or taking research that is taxpayer funded and the new widget that will be made will be made in america. i have introduced legislation in this, h.r. 2015, the american discoveries or american jobs act which will focus the country on this question because one of the well-intentioned lab personnel told me directly he tried to build these products, here in america, but he got a much

better offer somewhere else. all the research was paid for by american taxpayer dollars but those jobs are in some other place. there is a lot we need to work on in this regard and i am a big proponent of research. i think our labs are a tremendous asset. i travel with other chairman and others and i was just amazed at the work being done by thousands of ph.d.s on behalf of the american people. we want to make sure the jobs that are created stay here and a lot of work we have to do in that context and the congress has to be involved because we have to chase some of the statutory language that requires that if we are going to tax someone who is working every day

and my district, invested in some smart people will come up and in the commercial market make a lot of money. that is great. we want that but we want the jobs that emanate from that to at least be somewhere in the domestic united states and one of our 50 states so that the whole country benefits from this. whether it is laser eye surgery or gps, this is government funded research. we have to figure out a way to make sure the jobs that emanate from that help us reinvigorate our manufacturing base. i will be interested in you taking the legislation. any time in the near future. i do think we have to work together in this regard. >> thank you, mr. fattah.

mr. simpson whose name was invoked a few minutes ago. >> and very well. glad to see someone else brought up yucca mountain. i don't know that i won't bring it up. a couple of quick questions. first of all is interesting when you mentioned the carlsbad an area and how that created jobs. back in the beginning, congress had to force whip on carlsbad. it was not readily accepted by the people of new mexico. we were sued several times. sometimes these things have to get done one way or another which is the issue at yucca mountain obviously. has the department embraced the blue ribbon commission's recommendations? and if so will it require legislation to implement some of those? will you do that by administrative fiat? >> it is very clear congress

will have to play a very key role if it wants to amend the nuclear waste acts. so that was clearly stated in the blue ribbon commission. >> it would take an amendment -- >> the pens what part you are talking about. for example, one of the recommendations there were fees collected to power generators. those fees, a considerable amount of money. they recommended a fraction of those fees -- if a semi private organization -- because it gives -- takes away from yearly appropriations and put on a more professional basis and it can start with a small fraction but to let that began, results were quite before that. >> that occur probably.

>> that would require an act of congress. >> have you propose it? >> we would love to work with congress and decide what congress would be willing to accept on those things. that is one example. another example is the blue ribbon commission points out you want the department site. >> don't let this turn into some erskine bowles. nobody pushes it forward. if you push it forward work with congress to get it done. secondly along the lines of what mr. rogers was talking about, 50% was introduced by coal and 40% by nuclear power. when i look at your budget and the increases in renewable energy which is a small part of the electrical portfolio and cuts in the other area producing most of the electricity. i am frankly disappointed that we're seeing reductions of small modular reactors.

this was the new ground we're going to go on to and head down that road. there is an agenda when nuclear energy is green technology. if you are going to address global climate change and hydrocarbons, you had better adopt nuclear energy, this is the first time we have seen a retrenchment in this administration in advancing nuclear energy. the talk is there but the budget doesn't reflect it. >> i think you know very well i support nuclear energy and coal. we are trying to push what we can where we do this in this century. those things will play an important part of our energy

mix. >> you recently testified you intent to separate civilian and defense nuclear fuel issues. you believe you have the legal authority to do that in the policy act to overturn previous presidential termination to handle these materials together. frankly i don't want to see defense and nuclear waste be an orphan left in places where it currently is. >> i agree. >> how do you plan to handle them differently? >> they are different. we have a responsibility for both of those. has a responsibility to handle both of those. one is they are different in respect that if nuclear power is part of our energy mix in this century there is going to be -- requires considerably more attention but not to say that

others are not important. >> thank you, mr. simpson. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you, mr secretary for being here today. it may surprise you but you put forward a reasonable and responsible budget. i wanted to clarify a few things. you referenced in your written testimony that the r&d that we do is 5% or 6% and that of china is 20%. can you tell me, china is an emerging economy, growing an emerging economy. the other two largest -- japan and germany would be the third

and fourth largest economies after -- after china and the u.s.. what are the r&d budgets they put forward? >> i can't really say exactly but i can say china especially is -- has a strong commitment to those industries which china deems would be an important part of their economic prosperity in the future and for that reason, they are investing -- they want to diversify in nuclear reactors, the biggest deep foyer of wind and solar in the world in their country but they view that as something for export as well. >> i was hoping i could get a sense of whether other mature

economies like germany and france -- much more similar to what's. fast emerging economies were doing more. we discussed it at another point. some of our r&d activities have been the engineering research centers. we have 46 of those. those have been standing for a couple years now. do you have an ongoing program for oversight for measuring the output at this point? >> we are starting a similar review of the effectiveness of those. . rigorous and how to evaluate

them based on outside scientific and referees to see how each one is doing. we want to make sure the ones that are working very effectively we would like to continue. the ones that are not we will have some discussions. >> what they fear period of time to begin to account? >> every year they are reviewed. in this next review, we look over the length the next several years. >> they could not have been functioning until late 10. >> two years into this, we started -- not sure of the exact

dates. >> standing at the same time or are they more recent? >> they are more recent exit for the three hubs that are the energy centers in the last administration. those of prototypes. >> the energy research centers? >> thinking six or seven. maybe a little earlier. the research centers -- and the energy home. >> you were asking for an additional hot. you are asking for a sixth one. in your testimony you said electricity systems -- >> if you listen to the

electricity system, is a very complex organism if you will -- >> the delivery system -- >> >> it controls the flow of electricity. as you work toward a modern grid you can control the electricity and want to look at potential vulnerabilities in the grid. >> is that responsible for trying to figure out how to reduce greatly the loss of power over distance? the delivery of power -- >> that wouldn't be -- >> if you could summarize a response to that question? a want to get everybody in before we blow the whistle blew >> i will give you the details but that is not the central

focus. is more distribution control. >> mr. alexander. >> thank you. the president's budget includes interagency study that says the department of energy, partering to study the environmental and health effects of hydraulic fracturing. can you tell us a bit about what that might lead us to? >> the president asked us to look at hydraulic fracturing and the conclusion of the subcommittee report were that we believe hydraulic fracturing can be done in an environmentally responsible way so you can take advantage of this great resource -- we think that gas is very

important transition that we will be needing in this century. so what we believe we have in the department of energy and a line closely with usgs is we have a lot of expertise and how fluid moves in rock and how do you develop the technology so that industry -- we can help industry to know what is happening and develop this resource in an environmentally responsible way. >> the president in the state of the union address, the government investing in shale energy extraction research for over 30 years. how much more do we need to study it? >> what the president was referring to in that case, in 1978 from 78 to 92 the department of energy invested in a horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing at a time

when industry wasn't interested in that and win industry began to pick up a real way the u.s. government got out of that. since that time it has been a story word development of shale gas and shell oil has been quite remarkable for the last half-dozen years but there are also -- active environmental concerns. reports on things of that nature. so the research we want to do, what is really happening and how do you keep advancing best practices? we improve on virtually everything going forward and how could our research help in improving practices that are

more focused -- that water tables are not contaminated and things of that nature. >> is the administration looking for a way or reason to shut down fracturing? >> no. >> thank you. thanks for your patience down there, mr. womack. >> thank you. happy anniversary. i thought your comments were an lightning and well attended event and my compliments to j d jundar who is hosting the event. hy am troubled by the fact that when you look at the budget numbers are little over $2 billion in renewable energy request and if i am reading the numbers correctly we are looking

at a few million dollars on the subject of natural gas was indicated in the previous round of questioning and that money is dedicated if i heard correctly to determining whether or not it has promised but to make sure we are not doing something environmentally -- can you help me? those numbers -- ny range, to suggest that natural gas use by 2035 will be equal to all the renewables put together. those numbers don't seem to match up. help me out with that. >> let's bring in all energy including transportation energy. how much it depends on oil

created domestically or produced domestically or produced and imported, my guess would be a hundred billion dollars a year. our energy budget is not commensurate to how much we spend on oil because oil is a very mature technology. is going very well. the budgets we spend have to do help improve safety and technology with regard to deepwater drilling. one shouldn't really look at the budget in relation to what we are spending as a country but -- this is how we make these decisions. we try to invest in areas which are younger, earlier technologies. we are investing a small amount

of money but an important amount of money on seeing whether it hydrates can be developed. this is going to be something -- exactly what the department did in the 70s and 80s. what we try to do is invest in things where we think taxpayers have the most leverage and push technologies forward in various areas. >> speaking of leveraging we have a chicken and egg. i want to go to natural gas as of mobility fuel. i have listened with a lot of interest to mr. fred smith from fedex on the use of natural gas

in their fleet. and with the gas plays happening there seems to be growing demand for compressed natural gas. we don't have the infrastructure -- how is dod involved in helping get to that resource? >> i agree with fred smith about liquefied natural gas. a couple of hundred filling stations in major interstates and that is a significant part of our transportation energy use. you can offset a lot of that. we looked at the numbers. it looks very promising. payback period on the order of three four years for an

investment -- the filling stations, private sector is getting behind investing hundreds of millions of dollars so the -- very few filling stations. this is a great way to diversify our energy supply. when you go to delivery and personal vehicles, different because you can't have every 200 miles on an interstate. you need a lot more. compressed natural gas is the solution. we need better storage. you have a very expensive tank or you have a very heavy tank which is not considered an option like a scuba tank and what we have done in looking at this is the best thing we feel the department of energy can do in funding the opportunity is to

do two types of research, decrease the tank costs. is not an additional 1/4 to 1/3 extra in the vehicle so you can use compressed natural gas which we have more readily available infrastructure and the other is to look at research where you can have the gas a absorb material--the same storage capacity. >> if you could finish your sentence. >> it is the technology -- we have a lot more and we would be thrilled by that. >> thank you. thank you for patients at the end of the line. >> thank you for being here. before you were nominated you were quoted as saying we have to figure out how to boost the gasoline to levels in europe.

hy can't look at motivations. i have to look at results. under this administration the price of gasoline is doubled. $4 a gallon in mississippi, the price of gasoline is $8 a gallon in europe. the people of north mississippi can't be here so i have to be their voice. i have to tell you that it dollars a gallon gasoline makes them afraid. it is a cool tax on the people of north mississippi as they try to go back and forth to work. is a cloud hanging over economic development and job creation. this administration continues to drag its feet on oil exploration and fuel development and recovery. how do you respond to that? >> we should be judged on what we are doing and i should be

judged on my track record when i became secretary of energy. when this administration started we were in free fall in a recession and the price plunged from non-farm -- $4 of -- $40 a barrel down to $40 a barrel. the solution to this, we will do everything in our power and we agree there is great suffering when the price of gasoline increases. we're very concerned about this and as i repeatedly said in the department of energy what we're trying to do is diversify our energy and bio transportation so we have cost-effective means. natural gas is great. we're pushing in on transportation