you wanted more litigators, and the missing but i should never assume anything, let me ask, if this is so you could possibly have more opportunities to pursue cases and not have to settle with no consequences? >> i would say no, we won't settle a case if we don't believe we are getting the appropriate remedies, and we will bring a case we don't think we would win if we had to litigate it because that would be a responsible. but the expectation is as we bring more and more cases we will have to litigate more of

them, and we need experienced trial counsel, paralegals to support them, and investigators to support them to do that. >> do you ever contract out for those services? like some agencies actually do. >> i believe we have a pair legal contract. we obvious have expert witnesses from time to time under contract, and that's another expense of going to trial. in fact is needing expert witnesses, but i don't believe we contract out any of our core enforcement functions. >> i was just curious but there are other agencies, for example, you know for a specific trial that doj needs some extra help with, for example. i was just curious. >> i associate myself with remarks by ranking member on settlement, because there is, we need to strike a very careful balance between settlement and

litigation your because of the impact it has on what i term some measure of risk, and we have to be careful, as they do in criminal proceedings, that if you don't do something, from time to time, that elevates that risk by prospective perpetrato perpetrators, and if you're just settling for what you would normally get, didn't to me it doesn't do anything about the risk factor. so i would just make that kind of as an observation. you said in passing a minute ago when you're talking about capital formation, caught my attention, because last year i worked with jim hines on a bill that, as you know, madam chairman, chairwoman, elevates the threshold registration number for community banks from 500 to 2000. that same line which is coming

back in a bill this week, as you know. the fcc has, i guess, the authority within its purview to do that on its own. we had 420 votes? >> it was overwhelming. >> it was pretty decisive. help me with that. why can't we -- >> and let me add, we have a new advisory committee at the sec on small and emerging business, which has just been a tremendous resource to us, over the last six or eight months in looking at a lot of these issues, and they recently recommended to us that we raise that triggered to 200 immunity banks, and 1000 for other public companies. they just transmitted that recommendation to us recently. so this is something we are looking at very carefully. we would have to engage in rulemaking, which may take longer than actually passing legislation, would take. but the staff is working very

hard on this and there's a lot of interest in moving forward. >> might experience in a short period of time as being a member of congress, i'm not so sure that legislative activity is any faster or slower than rulemaki rulemaking. i just, i haven't been convinced yet, but we will see going forward. i was also pleased that you mentioned in discussing cost-benefit analysis there was a mention in passing of high-cost, low cost areas. when you add 670 some people in a given year, if all of those personnel additions, and a new you've are indicated will be spread out around a lot of offices, but if they're all located in, say, the district of colombia, or in my friend, mr. serrano's 11th bronx, we are talking about a sizable amount of cost associate with people living in some of those

locations. whereas if they were to be in the cape girardeau, missouri, or -- >> northwest arkansas? >> fort smith, arkansas, and. >> no, no, stop it. >> the cost associate with people located in those areas that have nice qualities of li life, cities, communities run by some of america's best mayors, having been one of those, there's some merit to having people in these areas and help reduce that cost. i know it's not a lot in the overall scheme of things but every little bit helps. >> i agree with you completely. the largest number of spots in his budget proposal would go for examiners who are not in washington, d.c. because there's very little securities industry. washington, d.c. to be regulated, and they would be spread around the country, in you know, places around salt lake to fort worth to boston, philadelphia.

we have 11 regional offices. and so part of this regional office strategy that the chairwoman and i were discussing really needs to look at things like where we can most affordably house and hire people, and give them a quality of life as you point out, and hopefully have them say with the agency for a long time. >> thank you. i yield back. >> mr. yoder? you are good. wow, everybody seems to be good. let you off the hook early today. do you all have questions want to do that for the record? if so, we will submit them to you, if we could possibly request a response in 30 days would be terrific. you don't have to do it by tomorrow, but chairman schapiro, we really thank you very, very much. you do have a tough job, and it's a responsibility that few others in this government have.

i know it can't always be easy to say but not so thanks for the good job you do. our job is to make it easier for you to do your job, but please understand that we also want to be as efficient as we possibly can. >> we want to be a session also because of their we can spend the money on things that really matter. but i appreciate you saying th that. >> thank you so much. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations]

>> fire j. edgar hoover? i don't think that president couldn't have gotten away with their -- >> tim weiner details of the fbi's 100 year hidden history, and j. edgar hoover's fight against terrorists, spies and subversives. >> oeuvre stands alone. is like the washington monument. he stands alone like a statute encased. as one of the most powerful man whoever served in washington the 21st century, 11 presidents, 40 years from woodrow wilson to richard nixon, there's no one like him. and a great deal of what we know, what we think we know about jade hoover is myth and

legend. >> tim weiner on enemies, a history of the fbi. sunday night at eight on c-span q&a. >> and not fighting and dying because they are al qaeda. they are not fighting and dying and sacrificing their lives because they are muslim extremists pick their fighting and dying because they want the same universal rights and freedom that we guarantee in our constitution. >> i think if we don't get the international community together and a coalition of the willing soon we will look back and say we not only didn't do the right thing morally to stop innocents from being killed, we missed an extraordinary strategic opportunity. >> i want to make the point that the concerns that senator mccain and you and others have expressed are exactly concerns of the administration. we are not divided here, and we are not holding back. this administration has led in

iraq, we have led in afghanistan, we are led in the war on terrorism. we are leading in syria. we are working with those elements to try to bring them together. if the agreement here is that we ought not to just simply go in unilaterally, then we have to build a multilateral coalition. we've got to be able to work at that. it's not that easy to deal with some of the concerns that are out there. >> watch this week series and news conferences whenever you want online at the c-span video library. search events from today, from this year and earlier. over a quarter-century of american politics and public affairs on your computer at c-span.org/videolibrary. >> at this house hearing yesterday, energy secretary steven chu responded to questions about gasoline prices and set the obama administration is considering the use of the strategic petroleum reserve. he presented the present energy department budget request for

2013 highlight in projects that promote alternative energy research and develop and. this house energy subcommittee hearing is two hours 15 minutes. >> i will call this hearing to order, and the subject of today's hearing is the fy 2013 d.o.e. budget. and we'll have one witness today, and that's secretary chu, and we appreciate very much your being with us here this morning, mr. secretary. we certainly have a lot of questions, and we look forward to your comments as well. and at this time i would recognize myself for an opening statement. i would start off by simply saying that i think just about everyone agrees that america

ever quality as among the best in the world, and there's no question that the obama administration is totally focused on transforming the energy delivery system in america. and the reasons given for that are, number one, to make the air quality cleaner. and number two, ms. jackson and others quickly talk about regulations create more jobs. and i might also say that i've never ever seen an administration go after one industry the way this administration is going after the coal industry. president obama, when he was campaigning in sever cisco, and he said they can build coal plants but they will go

bankrupt. and even youth make comments about how bad cold is, and many other people in the administration, and you know, that's fine. that you also view, and many of us disagree with that. and from looking at the budget that you proposed, asking for an increase i guess about $856 million, and in the scheme of things that's not that much money but we have a $16 trillion federal debt, and any kind increases are significant in today's atmosphere. and when i look at that budget, when i read that budget, it appears to me that america is moving as fast as he can to adopt the european model for energy production.

i recently have read a number of articles about the things that are going on in europe, and we know that in spain they place great emphasis on wind energy. they have an unemployment rate of 22%. there was a study from juan carlos university that talks about for every green jobs created, there was a loss of two jobs in traditional industries. and one of the things that i find most disturbing about this is, it looks like dba is setting the energy policies or america. the most comprehensive regulation coming out of the epa released a utility mac. and ms. jackson has never been able to give us a total cost. in fact, no one has been able to give us the total cost, outside experts have testified that it would be up to $90 billion.

but epa said you can expect to close maybe 14 gigawatts of coal plants. even nurtured is saying it'll be even more like 56 or 59 gigawatts. and nerc indicated there were liabilities on being serious issues. and get whether it's transportation or it's in electricity production, this administration is totally moving on the transportation side, provide all sorts of grants and loan guarantees to technologies, many of which have not proven to be able to deliver. solyndra. we've got fester is not going to open up the delaware plan. we have a 213 battery systems that are closing that are reducing their employment.

and my time is running out here but i was just reading some of the headlines in europe. e.u. faces 20 years of rising energy bills. wind and solar subsidies dried up in your. wind turbines in europe do nothing for their goals. germany's rising costs of going green. and so my whole point is that this administration is moving so fast and so determined to transform the energy sector in america that i don't think they're giving adequate consideration to the consequences of that. so that's what i'm, one individual, representing 700,000 people are most concerned about. and my time is expired so at this time are like to recognize mr. rush for his five minute opening statement.

{>>} thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you mr. secretary for being here today. mr. secretary, it is always a pleasure having you appear before this subcommittee and i must commend you for your knowledge, expertise, and leadership in directing such an important agency at such a critical time in our nation's history. as you know, high gas prices are on the minds of every american , my constituents and others, concerned about these high gas prices. and although we all understand that fuel prices are influenced by a variety of geopolitical factors, to hear my republican colleagues tell it, it is

the president and his energy policies that are contributing enormously to these sky high prices. of course, mr. secretary, we would agree this does not explain, their position does not explain why gas prices skyrocketed from just over $1.50 a gallon in 2001 when president bush took office, to just under $4.00 a gallon in the spring of 2008 before the bush recession took our economy over the cliff, but that's an argument for another time. i won't belabor without at this moment. mr. secretary, as the person who heads the energy department, i would like to hear your thoughts on how the obama

administration's policies have helped american consumers, through fuel efficiency measures, the promotion of renewable sources of energy, and other forward-thinking policies that are necessary to move america forward and to wean us off of imported oil. i would also like to get your comments on the record regarding the levels of fuel consumption, importation of foreign oil, and oil and gas production during the obama administration. the research i have seen shows that under president obama we are importing less oil now than in any other time in the past 13 years. research also shows that we are

producing more oil now domestically than we were at any time during the last eight years. in fact, since president obama opened up millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration, the u.s. now has more working oil and gas rigs than the rest of the world combined. additionally, your agency recently reported that average fuel demand has actually dropped 6.7% as compared to the same time last year. yet despite all of these facts, gas prices have continued to climb much faster and far earlier than in previous years, and, of course, my friends on the other side, those who want to blame the president and those who have a keen eye, a sharp eye

towards the november 2012 election, are using this as a way to make political hay against the administration's policies, as you will hear repeated time and time and time again. the constant refrain of those on the other side will be pointing a finger at the president, solely at the president. mr. secretary, again i welcome you here today and i look forward to your testimony to set the record straight, finally i hope setting the record straight, but i'm not too confident that even though you will set the record straight, that they remained, your comments in the past as they have been will be distorted,

taken out of content and use for political mileage and political burbage and used for political gain. but please inform the american people of the true benefits of having an energy policy that is forward-looking and will help us plan ahead for the future. so the congress will not have this same finger-pointing debate 10, 20, or 30 years down the road. thank you, mr. secretary, and i yield back the balance of my time. >> at this time recognize mr. upton for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and mr. secretary, welcome. today's hearing on the department of energy fiscal year 2013 budget comes at a very critical time for energy policy in the country for sure. gasoline prices continued their march toward and probably past $4 a gallon.

we remain dependent on unstable foreign sources of oil despite abundant untracked domestic supplies as well as canadian supplies. that this is ministration so far has blocked from coming into the u.s. at the same time residential electricity prices have been increasing every year over the last decade. mr. secretary, you raised some eyebrows in your comments on gas prices early on in what the administration's, about the minister's overall energy policy. many of us were stung by your past suggestion, sometime ago that somehow quote have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in europe. and more recently, last week you were asked whether your overall goal was to lower gasoline prices, and you're injured was no. you said the goal was to decrease dependency on oil, a long-term goal for sure which means we are not necessarily focused on reducing prices for families and small businesses that are struggling today.

increased energy prices mean the energy households are spending a greater percentage of their income on energy costs leaving them with less money for food, health care, education and other basic necessities. so what as the president done to help us? he twice rejected the keystone pipeline project and the job creation and secure energy supplies that it would deliver. his solution to higher gas price appears to certainly threaten our emergency oil supplies like tapping rather than opening more federal lands and domestic energy development, instead of eliminating regulatory red tape, he has impose costly new rags on our power sector. asserted will drive up electricity prices. he recently did begin to brag about that he supported all-of-the-above energy policy but these actions look like the policy of nothing from below. oil production opportunities remain blocked. layers of new federal reqs

contemplate for natural gas development, policy rule designed to squeeze out coal in the yucca mountain halting the vote of a long-term repository and raising questions about our long-term nuclear prospects. so the president's proposed fy '13 budget for d.o.e. is not all of the above. rather, it seeks to transform energy portfolio based on unproven and more expensive alternative. certainly his budget proposes to slash funding for proven energy resources such as coal, nuclear, hydro, while significantly increasing funding for high-cost, high-risk energy alternatives. although many of us do support alternative energy sources, they are laudable goals, there is a place for research for sure, but the questions that are placed as to whether not they really produce a healthy overall economy. so we welcome your testament today. we look forward to your answers, and i yield the balance of my

time. >> thank you, chairman. secretary, it's always good to see. we love to have you come before us. give us your views on the state of the department of energy. today we're going to talk about deal budget. we saw the total budget request by the president was a little over 27 billion. just coincidentally, i saw the overall the obama administration less you spend over $24 billion on alternative energy projects. it's obvious that some of that money hasn't been too well spent. i continue to be concerned about solyndra. i continue to believe that that project has been mismanaged by your department. i am going to ask you some questions when i'm allowed to what changes, if any, have been made in the management of the loan guarantee program. it's obvious that mistakes have been made, and i think some laws have been violated with regard to the subordination situation, but i would hope that you'll be

able able to tell me that things have been corrected and those practices in the past won't happen again. we are always glad to see it again and look forward to your answers. i would yield to whoever i'm supposed to. if not, i yield back to the chairman. >> the gentleman gets back. at this odd like to recognize the gentleman from california, mr. waxman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and secretary chu, we are pleased to see again that are committed to the lot of energy challenges that we're facing and you'll be asked about them, by members of her committee. at the american people are concerned about high gasoline prices. and i think because of our dependence on oil, oil itself, that is leading, leading us to higher prices in gasoline. oil is priced at a world market. so even if we produce more oil

in the united states, that's not going to lower the price of gasoline here because we have oil priced based on what the world prices is. canada, for example, should be the utopia republicans pray for. in canada they produce more oil than they consume. and yet their prices are just as high as ours. and their people are complaining about the high price of gasoline as well. so when we hear republicans say reduce -- produce more oil, they are doing with all copies want but it's not going to reduce the price of gasoline. energy economists tell us that the republican plan does not even remotely possible to reduce the price of gasoline. they will have zero effect on gasoline prices. so we need to face reality. and the reality is that oil prices are determined on a global market, and no matter how much we drill here, are gasoline prices are going to rise if

there's a crisis in the middle east, a fear about disruption from iran, if there's a labor unrest in nigeria. if opec sees there's too much oil and they decide to reduce supply. and the demand increases. china and in india. so there's only one way we can protect ourselves from the impact of rising oil prices, and that's if we reduce our demand for oil. that brings us to another energy challenge that we face. we have to invest in clean energy to diversify and reduce our energy use. we are locked in a competition with china and other countries, in the future of clean energy. and if clean energy is our future and we are not investing in that, as house republicans call it the strike those investments, we are going to lose out on jobs and the future. we have to also confront the

enormous challenge of climate change which threatens our economic strength, our foreign national security, and the health of our citizens. yet rather than confront this challenge, the republicans deny the science and they vote to block all action on climate change. democrats and republicans in congress seem to have two completely different visions of our future. the president says we need to listen to scientists and energy experts, and become the world leaders in clean energy, the economy of the future. house republicans deny the science and they seem to want to obstruct the president's every step of the way. despite of these constant obstructions and attacks on commonsense policy, the administration has made significant advances. the president has acted to cut the emissions of cars and trucks, doubling the fuel efficiency of our fleet as a

result, our energy dependence on oil has declined. the department of energy has made significant investments in renewable energy, and we're seeing the results, even while our economy a struggle during the last three years, solar energy double the number of american solar jobs from 46,000, the more than 100,000. u.s. wind industry has added more than 35% of all new generating capacity over the past four years, second only to natural gas your the percentage of those wind components manufactured in the u.s. has more than doubled. the department of energy, just looking at a weatherization program to improve energy efficiency of more than 750,000 homes across the nation. that's a savings for low income families on average of $437 a year in heating and cooling costs alone. you won't hear much about these

accomplishments from the republicans. they are going to talk about solyndra and keystone. we will hear the president's budget didn't include enough money for fossil fuels or nuclear power. we are not going to hear about real solutions from the republicans. they are playing politics with this issue. we need to get on with the job of making sure america is less dependent on oil, and we have our future in the clean energy sector that our consumers face lower gasoline prices, as we move away from our dependence on foreign oil. i yield back my time. >> thank you, mr. waxman. that concludes the opening statement. as i said earlier we only have one with us today, and that's the honorable steven chu, secretary of energy. so mr. secretary, you're recognized for five minutes for an opening statement. >> thank you. chairman whitfield, ranking member rush, chairman upton,

ranking member waxman, members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to discuss the department of energy's fy '13 budget request. to promote economic growth and security, president obama called for an all of the above strategy that developed every source of american energy. the american -- the president wants to fuel our economy with domestic energy resources will increase our ability to compete in the clean energy race. the departments fy '13 budget request of 27.2 billion guided by the president -- >> excuse me for interrupting. mr. bush said he could not hear you. is your microphone on? >> i'm wondering actually, i'm have difficulty hearing you as well. if the person in charge of the audio and visual can crank it up a bit. [inaudible] >> that seems to be better. >> thank you.

>> to promote economic growth and strengthen security, president obama has called for all the above strategy to develop every source of american energy. the president wants to fuel our economy with domestic energy resources what increasing our ability to compete in the clean energy race. the departments fy '13 budget request of 27.2 billion is guided by the presence of vision of our 2011 strategic plan on our quadrennial technology review. it supports leadership in clean energy technologies, science and innovation, and nuclear security and environmental cleanup. decades ago the energy department's support help to develop the technology that has allowed us to tap into america's abundant shale gas, and i might add, oil resource. today, our investment can help advanced technology that will

unlock the promise that renewable energy and energy efficiency. the budget request invest approximately billion dollars in our energy programs and advances progress in areas of solar to offshore wind to carbon capture utilization in storage, a smart grid technology. and it helps develop next-generation biofuels, advanced battery and fuel efficient vehicles to reduce our dependence foreign oil which everyday places a crushing burden on families and on our economy. as the president and i have said, there is no silver bullet. what we can and must pursue is a serious long-term all of the above approach which diversifies our transportation sector, protects consumers from high gas prices. creates jobs here at a. that's this budget does. the budget request also invest $770 million in nuclear energy program to help develop the next generation of nuclear power

technology comically small modular reactors. concludes sunday for continued nuclear waste r&d which aligns with the recommendation of the blue ribbon commission on america's nuclear future. as we move to a sustainable energy future, america's fossil fuel energy resources will continue to play important role in our energy mix. the budget includes $12 billion as part of a $45 billion priority, our indian issued by the department of energy, interior and epa, to understand and minimize potential environmental health and safety impact of natural gas the government through hydraulic fracturing. the budget also promotes energy efficiency to of americans save money by saving energy. it sponsors r&d on its osha materials and processes to help u.s. manufacturers cut costs. to maximize our energy technology efforts in areas such as battery, biofuels, electric grid technology, we according research and development across our bases and applied research programs.

and to encourage the manufacturing, technology, the president's call for extending proven tax incentives including the production tax credit, and advanced energy manufacturing tax credit. competing in the new energy economy which causes our country to harness all resources including american ingenuity. the budget request includes $5 billion, to support basic research that could lead to new discoveries and help solve energy challenges. it continues to support energy frontier research centers which aim to solve specific scientific problem to unlock new clean energy development. it also supports the five existing hub and proposed a new hub in electricity systems. through the hub we are bringing together our nation's top scientists and engineers to achieve game changing energy goes. additionally, the budget request includes $350 million for arpa-e to support research projects

that could transform the ways that we use and produce energy. taken together, research initiatives will help up to accelerate energy. in addition to strengthen our economy, the budget request also strengthens our security by providing 11.5 billion for the national nuclear security administration. finally, the budget request includes 5.7 billion for the office of environmental management to protect public health and the environment by cleaning up radioactive waste from the manhattan project and the cold war. this budget request builds on the program, build on progress that's been made by the program. by the end of 2011, the program has reduce its geographic footprint by 66%, far exceeding its goal of 40%. the budget request make strategic investments for our prosperity and security. at the same time we recognize

the country's fiscal challenges and are cutting back where we can. we are committed to perform our work efficiently and effectively. countries around the world recognize the clean energy opportunity are moving aggressively to lead. this is a race we can win but we must act with fears urgency. thank you and i am pleased to answer your questions. >> thank you, secretary chu but i would recognize myself for five minutes of questions. i had mentioned in my opening statement about the utility. >> , which is one of the big regulations, coming out of the p.a. and the thing that bothers me the most about it is that it was basically explained that the reason we had to do this was primarily for mercury reductions, and some acid gas reductions. and whenever lisa jackson talked about or anyone else, they talk about this is the reason that

we're going to save x. thousands of people premature death, whatever, whatever and whatever. and yet, in their own documentation, it was very clear that mercury reduction had no significant benefit rum utility mact. that any of the benefit came from double counting reduction in particulate matter. and i would just like to know, were you involved at all in formulating utility mact, or discussing the implications of utility mact or the benefits of utility mact? >> we were involved to the extent that when asked to provide technical information on, for example, potential impacts having to do with reliability of transition distribution of energy, we provided that information to the epa. things along those -- i remember

this especially, that was some of the concerns the epa, but plan, what power generating stations, was there any threat to the delivery system for the continued reliability. >> well, are you concerned that epa had estimated that they would be a 14 gigawatt reduction in total production of electricity, and nerc is saying it would be more in the neighborhood of 5 56 to 30 gigawatt reduction. and nerc has also raised issue on reliability. as secretary of energy responsible for the reliability and a lot of these issues, does that concern you? >> well, when we looked at, again, in working with come in discussion with american epa, we look at the mechanisms and felt that there were procedures and mechanisms in place so that the american public, that, you know,

should something occur, because it's not taken the aggregate for each particular sector that received electricity, companies would be able to supply electricity in a reliable manner, and so we certainly worked with those agencies to say that there were mechanism in place to respond should something poker. the planning. [inaudible] from the information you have? >> no. of course we have concerned about the reliability. that is one of the very important duties of the department of energy. >> what about this, i am disturbed that i think epa misled the american people on utility mact. because all they ever talk about, and it many of our friends on this side of the aisle, not all of them, every time there's a public state they

talk about what to reduction of merger in missions is going to be. and all of the analysis, all the data indicates that there is insignificant benefit from mercury reduction. so is epa is selling it a stunt that benefit, and that benefit is not there, then why would you be moving forward with such an expensive regulation that will potentially affect reliability, as well as the increase in electricity prices? >> well, thank you i can't speak directly to the military centers that the epa is talking about. it's mostly, mainly because that is not the purview of the epa to protect air, to protect america's health. our role is in determining power distribution reliability. our role is in developing technologies to make coal so we

can help industry reduced the price, to continue to use coal but in a much cleaner way. >> i mean, i just have a philosophical difference i guess with you also, because we have the $16 trillion debt as arpa-e, you're asking for up to 27% on that. basically that is used for very speculative technology. you have asked for a 30% increase on the energy efficiency and renewable energy grants. and i was reading a biography of henry ford, and when he started ford motor company he did it all with private investment. and just like on fester, yes purpose picking up venture capital the and i'm just question why should the federal government be putting up millions of dollars when where and the financial system that we are in. and it's very speculative. so what is your view?

>> i'm passionate arpa-e, there was a summit that was at the end of february, there was great excitement and enthusiasm, leaders in american industry including fred smith of fedex. i will paraphrase what he said when he gave a plenary talk there. he said, and, pound for pound, dollar for dollar, he felt arpa-e was the most effective use of government resources hissing and a a long time, that's a pair fries. paraphrase. we can get you the exact quote. many people thought that it was very important to help america get a leg up to increase our competitiveness and help our prosperity. >> thank you, secretary chu. senator rush, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, as i state in my opening statement, i am -- set the record state with regard to the level of oil and gas

production importation, and consumption during the time that president obama has been in office. while my republican colleagues may engage in a scorched earth strategy and an endless and senseless blame game, and point to the administration's policy that the single cause for rising gas prices i believe is the fact that your agency supports the policies that will help america move past our dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels in general so that we do not continue to have this debate every year as gas prices inevitably climb. ..

>> before president obama took office? are we importing more or less oil from foreign countries under this administration? >> we're importing less. again, roughly, i believe, less than the last 16 years as my memory serves me correct. >> for the record, has american consumption of gas increased or decreased over the past year, and is this changed, and -- [inaudible] of that change? can you discuss some of the policies under president obama that are impacting consumer habits and lowered u.s.

consumption of gas? >> are you speaking of gas as in gasoline or natural gas? >> gasoline, i'm sorry. >> um, well, our consumption of gasoline has decreased in part due to two reasons. first, there was a dramatic decrease, unfortunately, due to a very severe recession that we're slowly climbing out of. but there's another very important part, and that is we want to climb out of this recession as quickly as we can. there's another important part, and that is the efficiency, the use of gasoline is improving. and this goes directly to help every american family in reducing the amount they spend on gasoline every week. and so, again, obama administration's been very supportive and helpful and leading the way, indeed, in improving the efficiency of automobiles, trucks and other vehicles. >> part of your responsibility

and part of your concern, i'm sure, is the weaning of the american consumer off of fossil fuels and our heavy dependence on fossil fuels and also foreign sources of energy. what policies do you have in place and give us a rationale for how you view these possibilities as being a top priority for the american people and for this congress. >> well, the policies the president has taken in terms of increasing our production of oil and natural gas include the making available for lease an increase in the federal lands made available for lease for oil and natural gas. and so that has continued to increase and will continue. so that the multi-national

american oil and gas companies have her access to federal lands -- have more access to federal lands. >> my time is up. >> do thank you, mr. rush. at this time recognize the gentleman from michigan, mr. upton, for phi minutes. >> -- five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, welcome. i learned that president obama is personally weighing in on members of the senate to vote no on the keystone pipeline amendment which is going to be an amendment that's part of the highway bill today, and i'm not happy about that at all. i will say that for the record we passed that bill out of this committee a couple times. it was bipartisan support. we saw the same thing on the house floor. are you weighing in at all with any senators on this amendment vote today in. >> no, i'm not. >> i know it's been reported that oil production on federal lands has dropped 14% since

2010, and in reading there the green wire last week let me just read a couple things to you here. domestic oil production may be at an all-time high nationwide, but the increase is primarily occurring on state and private lands rather than on federal land and waters where production appears to have dropped significantly in 2011. according to the most recent government data. production of natural gas on public lands and waters in fiscal 2011 dropped 11% from the previous year according to the interior department. oil production dipped nearly 14%. the reduction in oil production was most significant in the gulf of mexico where a deep decline nearly 17% to 514 million barrels from 618 million barrels the previous year. and this a chart on oil and gas -- in a chart on oil and gas

production on federal waters, it appears it's declined in oil by 100 million barrels from 2010 to 2011. now, we agree that, sadly, because of our decline in our economy is the main reason why i think consumption has gone down. we didn't get the growth, we didn't have the jobs. i know in my state we had 38 consecutive months of double-digit unemployment. but as i look at your own eia if you look out the next couple of decades, your department says we will be using the same amount of gasoline in 2030 as we are now. i presume that in large part that's because we're going to have more energy efficient vehicles, a whole number of different things that are there that, of course, we want. but demand can't be the only answer, and i guess my question is that can -- with this oil production decline on federal

lands, people understanding supply and demand, a report that you all put out just two or three weeks ago predicted that oil prices would hit $4.25 by memorial day. we're one penny be away in my district from $4 gas, at least this last weekend, and some predict we're going to hit $5 gas as early as perhaps the fourth of july. in large part it's because of declining production primarily on federal land, would you not disagree? >> well, chairman upton, i first want to say that both i and the president and everyone in the administration wants very much to do what we can to lower the price of gasoline because it has severe effect on the pocketbooks of americans, it effects american businesses. the, in terms of the federal lands production, what the government does as you well know is we lease land to oil companies, and it's up to them

to produce the oil. currently, they -- >> but right now just to interrupt for a second, it's proposing a five-year leasing plan that would delay sales in the atlantic or pacific through at least 2017. so it's looking for yet another moratorium for five more years. how does that help us? >> well, it's not my understanding. my understanding is a bit different. this is a plan that will be, for example, in the gulf of mexico, the federal jurisdiction be made available. 75% of the area in the gulf of mexico that is under federal jurisdiction. so it's a plan to increase the leasing. now -- >> i was, i was in the gulf last summer, and i went out on a rig that was 120 miles off the coast of louisiana. that day they pushed 110,000 --

pumped 110,000 barrels, and looking out a couple miles away there was another drilling ship that was there, and they're waiting for the permits. just waiting. this is a chevron rig. they're literally waiting for weeks and weeks, paying millions of dollars every day so that ship wouldn't unanchor and go off to brazil where they would never see it again, in essence, trying to tap the same vein that tahiti drill rig was drilling that particular day. you've got keystone literally could be a million barrels a day at the -- that otherwise will go to china. it just seems that we are turning our back on independence from the rest of the world that would clearly help our consumers as it relates to their own

pocketbook, and i know my time is expired. i'll yield back. >> thank you, mr. upton. at this time i'll recognize the gentleman from michigan, mr. dingell, for five minutes of questions. >> mr. chairman, i thank you for your courtesy. welcome, mr. secretary. delighted to see you here. i have a number of questions which i will ask that you respond to by yes or no. it has been a year since your loan program office approved a loan from the advanced technology vehicles manufacturing program. as you know, that program was created to provide the auto industry with incentives to build or expand manufacturing facilities here in the united states instead of taking those jobs overseas. loan recipients such as ford and nissan have successfully built and expanded facilities in michigan, tennessee, illinois, kentucky and other states. question: is the loan program office working to streamline the approval process so that applicants can be assured they

will not be waiting for years to find out if their application will be approved? yes or no? >> the loan program is working to improve their processing in all aspects. >> mr. secretary, i will ask that you submit something on this for the record, and i ask unanimous consent that my letter with those questions and your responses be inserted in the record. next question. has the loan program office implemented any of the recommendations of the allison report to protect taxpayer dollars and provide a uniform system for evaluating loan applications, yes or no? >> we have actually begun to change over the past year and a half many of the things that the allison report discusses. so we internally have been doing that, and we are reviewing all the things that the committee

did. it's very valuable concentration, and we'll continue to improve our loan program. >> now, mr. secretary, i'm very much concerned about this. the lack of funding for the facility for rare isotope beams or frib within the nuclear physics program, i'm told that the funds allocated for that program in fiscal year 2013 budget are not enough for them to start construction in this year. as of now, the program and the project is on time and under budget. furthermore, the facility will generate 5,000 construction jobs, 400 permanent sign terrific positions and -- scientific positions and have a $1 billion economic impact. i notice that in other programs within the office of science the president is proposing to increase funding for scientific projects overseas. i believe that we should first insure that we're meeting our

project obligations here at home before sending our money and scientists abroad. do you agree with that? >> we, we are very supportive of frib. we've asked for $22 million to continue this project going forward, and we hope that congress votes and appropriates that money. and so we want this project to continue and going forward. with regard to this other project you spoke about, it's in a different part of physics, but the thing i do want to point out is an international collaboration, but 80% of the funds will be spent in the united states both in national laboratories, universities and in industries in the u.s. >> now, mr. secretary, your department has already invested $50 million in frib project. i am concerned about the progress at frib. what is the commitment that the department makes with regard to

frib? are we going to let it sort of strangle on the vine, or are we going to see to it that it continues to be funded even though this year we have not given them enough to commence the construction? >> well, sir, we think the effort is a worthy project. we've asked for continued funding, and we hope that congress allows us to have that funding that we can keep this project going forward. >> now, mr. secretary, you know i have great affection and respect for you, but you can't lay this one off on congress. i'm talking about what the budget does and not what the congress might do. now, mr. secretary, frib will have national security implications and applications such as studying the detection of a nuclear weapon or a dirty bomb detonation. i do not believe that we can pursue these types of national

security opportunities and applications at facilities overseas. doesn't that tell us that we should put our money here locally rather than giving it to other countries to do this kind of critical research and programs that will have such a significant impact upon our national security? >> the funds, as i said, the lion's share of the funds for either this international fusion project will be spent in the united states, but department of energy agrees as the other partners that this is a very important experiment that could perhaps unlock fusion energy for the future. >> again, mr. secretary, with great affection and respect, we're going to spend some money in the united states, we're going to build a facility abroad, and the work and the benefits will be that -- that will be achieved from this will be spent abroad and will

strengthen foreign scientific applications as opposed to america's. i find this distressing. i thank you for being here. i will follow this up with a letter indicating further distress to you, mr. secretary. thank you for your presence. >> at this time we'll recognize the gentleman from texas, mr. barton, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and, again, thank you, mr. secretary, for being here. in my opening statement, i referenced the alternative energy budget and specifically said concerns about the loan guarantee program. as you know, we continue to have an ongoing investigation with regards to solyndra. at the last hearing that you attended, i believe with the focus on solyndra, you were very supportive of the way the loan guarantee program had been managed, but i think you did indicate that there might be some changes forthcoming.

have there been changes in the way you and your department have managed the loan guarantee program for alternative energy, and if so, could you tell us what those are are? >> yes, sir, there were changes. let me give you a few examples. we know that sometimes the economics of a particular industry, for example, in the case of solyndra solar, photovoltaics can change very rapidly. 40% dechain in the price of solar -- decline in the price of solar modules in one year, 75-80% decline in three years. one of of the things we now do on a weekly basis is we look very, very closely at market conditions. we establish a risk committee that includes people both within the loan program and outside the loan program, subject matter experts in the department of

energy. also i now have a special adviser on financial matters that look very closely at this, again, an independent set of eyes to make sure that we monitor chosely before future disbursements all of the things that could effect the loan including the things outside the control of an individual company like this very rapidly declining prices. >> well, concerning that this independent adviser you just referenced, has he prepared, and if so could you present to the committee for our review a list of the additional loan guarantees and the status of those and what, if any, of those might be in danger of following solyndra and defaulting and going into bankruptcy? >> well -- >> i know at least one other has since solyndra, and i'm told that there are a number of others that are on the problem list. >> well, there are companies,

again as i said which we watch very closely because of a wide range of issues. we also have to respect the confidentiality of any of the people that we've made loans to or commitments to make loans to, so -- >> well, could you -- how about how many loans are on the what i think you call the watch list. that shouldn't be proprietary. >> well, i don't have the exact number, but -- >> is it a double-digit number? is it, you know, is it between one and ten? the enand twenty? [laughter] ten and twenty? >> well, what we -- i don't, again, recall the exact number. my senior adviser will brief me on this matter, but this is, again, any company that would

be, that we think has a chance of being subject to market, changing market conditions, other issues internal within the company we do watch very closely. >> well, do you think that the american taxpayer should have a reasonable expectation that all of these loans should be repaid as opposed to any loan that's made that's just watered -- just money down the tubes, and it's not going to be repaid? i mean, you have to admit that the history so far of the initial projects has not been, not been good. >> first, i do say that the american taxpayer has every right to expect that there's a reasonable chance of repayment of the loans we give out. i would also say that many of the loans we've given out have been very good successes. it's already billion -- been

mentioned loans, for example, to ford motor company -- >> that wasn't an alternative energy loan. [laughter] >> we have other loans that were -- >> i don't think they came through your department either, mr. secretary, but -- >> sir, actually, the atvm loans do. but with regard to alternative energies, there are a number of loans that we feel and the allison report also recognizes that are low risk, have a very high probability of being paid back. >> well, my time has expired, but we will follow up in writing, and we will ask that, um, these problem loans on the watch list be provided to the committee so that our people can review them and hopefully work with your administration, your agency to take steps to protect the taxpayer money. thank you. >> at this time we'll recognize the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mark key, for five minutes -- markey, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. there are only two tools the

president has to bring down gas prices right now, deploy the strategic oil reserve and get other countries to help to put pressure on the marketplace and, two, curbing excessive speculation in oil futures markets through the commodities futures trading commission. the spro has proven effective in helping to bring down prices, and we have plenty of oil in the spro right now. europe said, mr. secretary, deploying spro is on the table as an option, secretary geithner, secretary sal have said the -- salazar have said the same thing, that you've got it on the table. now, the oil companies and the republicans oppose deploying the sprou but their policy doesn't help drivers right now. none of this oil they're talking about right now is coming online this year, and people are looking for relief at the pump right now. so, mr. secretary, senators bitter, holden, lugar, crapo and

thune have introduced legislation that would prevent the person from deploying any oil from the strategic oil preserve until he approves the keystone xl pipeline permit. do you believe, mr. secretary, that the authority of the president should depend on the permitting of the keystone pipeline even if iran cuts off the strait of hormuz and blocks 20% of the world oil supply? >> no, i don't. >> do you believe that it makes any sense to say to our young men and women that we export over into the middle east to protect this supply of oil that we are not going to use the weapon we have here in the united states, the strategic petroleum reserve, in order to keep the price of oil low and not allow iran to threaten us unnecessarily? >> well, as you noted, the administration has said repeatedly that the strategic petroleum reserve is on the

table, but it's a very complex issue. >> right. but that would -- it would be a bad idea, would it not, to strip the president of his authority to use it unless he approved the keystone pipeline? >> i agree. >> thank you. now, on the cftc, the republicans have a bill that's come out of agriculture committee and come out of, out of the financial services committee. that would stop all rule makings that give the cftc the authority on speculation, on margins, on position limits, on gouging, on protecting the public in the futures oil market where so much of this is just speculation being driven up, driving up the price of oil. do you think it's a bad idea to strip the cftc legislatively of their authority to be able to protect against gouging in the marketplace? >> well, no one would be in favor of gouging. >> the republicans believe you

don't need the rule makings at the cftc. are they right or wrong, mr. secretary? >> the -- everyone is very concerned -- >> no, everyone is not concerned, mr. secretary. the republicans want to strip out the authority of the cftc to go against manipulation, to go against -- to deal with these margin issues, to deal with the position limits s. that a bad idea? >> well, as i said if you'll, please, let me finish, everyone is concerned about speculation unnecessarily driving the price of oil up. we, this is why the administration and one of the things that can counter speculation is more transparent information, and this is why the administration is very focused on that. >> so we need the spro, and we need the administration to have the authority to be able to crack down on the speculation, make sure there's no transparency and no game playing. and i will also say that there is a proposal out there to

create an international national gas market -- natural gas market. the price of natural gas in china is six or seven times higher than in the united states. it's three times higher in europe than it is in the united states. that's leading to a boom in manufacturing in our country. it's really leading to all new planning on that muchal gas vehicles because -- natural gas vehicles because the prices are so low, and many places are switching a faster swishover. there's an application for eight new licenses that are before you to export this natural gas which your own agency says could raise the price upwards of 54%. i urge you to call a timeout mr. secretary, to make sure we get this right. you had an assistant secretary that made a statement last week that really disturbed me. i would urge you not to approve these licenses until we put together a plan for the united states on liquified natural gas exported from our country.

>> gentleman's time's expired. at this time i'll recognize the gentleman from texas, dr. burgess, for five minutes. >> i thank the chairman for the recognition. yes, secretary, way back here. let me ask you because mr. barton was asked you about the loan guarantees at solyndra. when you came to us in love of last year -- november of last year, it seemed news to you that there were postponement of layoffs that had occurred at the company, to take those past election day before they were announced, and you seemed to be surprised that that had, in fact, occurred. and i think if i recalled correctly, you were going to look into that. so can you share with us the results of your investigation, what information you've uncovered as to why those layoffs were postponed past the election day? >> we turned the matter over to the ig, the department of energy

ig, and they're looking into the matter, and when they tell us what they find be, we could share that with you. >> well, i pray that you do, but so far have you identified any of your staff, department of energy, that were involved in making that decision? >> no. as i said, we turned the matter over to the ig, and so that is an independent look at what happened. >> have you yourself been interviewed by the inspector general on this issue? >> no, i have not. >> have you been of informed that that's likely to happen? >> no, i have not. >> are you willing to talk to the inspector general? >> i've always cooperated with the ig. >> let me ask you a question about the allison report, and congressman barton was asking about the watch list. can i just ask you, and i respect the fact that you're concerned about proprietary issues, but would you provide to the committee or committee staff this watch list that provides the copy of the list to the

committee? >> well, actually, i was slipped a note, and i misread it. it turns -- it appears as though the committee staff, this committee staff will be getting a briefing from richard kaufman, my special adviser, on this next week, on the loan program and the allison. >> is that the full committee staff or just the democratic staff? >> i think it's the committee staff. full committee staff. >> may i ask as a member of the committee then that you would have your guys bring that list to that briefing? >> well, we will, we will do what we can but, again, we're going to -- >> we need your commitment, sir, that we will be able to see that list because it is important as far as congressional oversight on this process going forward. >> well -- >> we can all be criticized about the way things have been handled so far. i'd like to be able to stop the bleeding at some point. so let me just ask you for your commitment to make that list available to staff. >> we have to look at -- again, we don't want to violate the

company confidentialities, the dynamics of what happens to these company changes very rapidly, and so it's, again, part of our loan -- >> if i may, sir, the taxpayer has taken a pretty bad hit on this, and while i want the companies to do well, i think at some point we may have to put the taxpayers' needs and wants ahead of those of the companies. again, i cannot see a reason why you could not bring that list, and i for one as a committee member am going to be expecting you to bring that list. let me ask you a question. you had the chief financial officer of your department, department of energy had produced a report on uncosted balances in 2010, and just in the purpose and the background notes at the beginning of this report it said your approach was developed in the '96 in response to gao criticism that the department did not have a standard effective approach for

identifying excess carry over balances that might be available to address future budget requests. you established thresholds. so where are we with that? are you prepared to produce for this committee those numbers on that, that met that percentage threshold that might be available to offset the numbers you're requesting in your budget? >> yes. we've been working very aggressively at reducing these balances in the last several years. >> well, the gao estimated that this current fiscal year it's in excess of $680 million from carryover programs. what's your justification for asking for funding increases in the programs with significant carryover balances? >> i believe the lion's share of that amount has to do with program, with carbon capture sequestration which means that you -- according to the statute, we need a significant private

sector investment, matching funds of over half, and some of that has not materialized because if we have an uncollected balance because the private sector doesn't want to invest, there's not much we can do about that. >> the gentleman's time has expired. at this time the gentleman from california, mr. waxman, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, people are complaining about the high prices of gasoline, understandably so, and we want to help. but do you see any short-term way to lower gasoline prices? >> you, as you said, everybody's concerned about the high price of gasoline and diesel fuel, and we do want to help in any way we can. the, but as the president said, as i have said there is no single magic bullet that can instantaneously do this. and so we work very hard and all the tools at our disposal, the

most effective tool is that we want to improve the efficiency and to diversify the energy we use in transportation. the boon in the natural gas, we think, is wonderful because we now see and are very support i and are helping -- supportive and are helping offload some of the demand from petroleum on to natural gas using transportation. we see great movement in heavy trucking and delivery trucks, things of that nature. >> well, the republicans have said over and over again that we just need more oil. if the we had more oil, we wouldn't have this problem. and then, of course, they go on to say the@the president's fault we -- it's the president's fault we don't have more oil when the reality is we're producing more in the united states than ever before, and we're using less because of the greater efficiency in the automobile. so if we had more oil and the oil is priced at the world price, would that lower the world price?

>> well, the price of oil's very, very complex. it is certainly driven by supply and demand. it is also affected by uncertainty in the middle east and several -- >> well, if we produce more oil and opec decides to produce less, that won't help us, that'll hurt us. if we produce more oil and more oil is being demanded by china and india, the world is going to divert oil there as well. i mentioned in my comments earlier that canada produces more oil than they use, and yet they're paying the same price for gasoline that we're paying. so it seems to me, and you made this point, that we've got to look beyond just producing more oil. we've got to look at using less oil. and the way to use less oil would be to invest in clean energy to diversify and reduce our energy use. that's a tough challenge.

the congress should be helping you and the president to accomplish that goal. instead, republicans in congress attack every proposal you and the president make, every idea you offer, every initiative you take. for example, battery manufacturing is an industry that's been dominated by southeast asia for decades. the united states has essentially no capacity. so the administration changed all that, and the way i understand you changed it is to use the recovery act to incentivize the development of manufacturing supply chain for vehicle batteryies and here in the united states we have a domestic production of the chevy volt, an innovative, award-winning, plug-in hybrid electric vehicle. but the republicans seem to be rooting for failure. they're attacking gm on this groundbreaking product. does it make sense for us to be rooting against american manufacturing at a time like this? >> no, of course not.

we should all be rooting for very innovative products that can be sold worldwide that would show industrial -- >> that makes just common sense. but this isn't the only example. the president proposed a clean energy standard to increase the amount of energy we get for renewable sources of energy as well as from nuclear and advanced natural gas plants. similar to what mr. barton proposed from the last congress, and it's really an all-of-the-above strategy, but the republicans don't even want to discuss this idea. the president proposed it to eliminate unnecessary subsidies for the oil industry. last year the top five oil companies made $137 billion in profits. the price of oil is over $100 a barrel. with oil at such a high price, do we need to be giving out $4 billion in tax breaks for oil companies each year to have an incentive for them to drill more oil? can you explain that to me?

>> i don't believe that the oil industry is doing very well financially, and they have a lot of incentive. >> they have a lot of incentive now. so we'd be better off repealing those subsidies and using that money to develop sources of clean energy that reduce our dependence on oil and move us forward to a clean energy economy. and yet the republicans oppose that as well. i think the president's on the right track. i appreciate what he has been doing. even though congress tries to frustrate him, and i applaud his statements about how we need to move forward -- >> at this time recognize the gentleman from illinois, mr. shimkus, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i love following my friend, mr. waxman, because the -- for us to move in the clean energy world we have to pay for that. isn't it true, secretary chu, that you espouse european gas prices for the united states? i mean, briefly, yes or no. have you been quoted as saying

it would be good for us to have european gas prices? >> at no time when i was secretary of energy have i ever said -- >> okay, prior to. >> prior to -- >> the answer is, we all know the answer is, yes. and, obviously, that, obviously, that's to move to a clean energy future based upon americans paying more at the pump which is the desire and the goal of this administration. i didn't want to go in that direction, but my friend from california empowered me to go. >> mr.-- >> no, reclaiming my time -- >> you've got to give him time to answer. >> i would like to reclaim my time. mr. secretary, if d.c. circuit rules against the doe impending yucca mountain litigation, will the department abide by that ruling? >> yes, it will. >> if federal court orders you to pursue the yucca application at nrc, do you have the staff to pursue it? >> if federal court orders us to

do so, we do to. >> -- we will do so. >> this would include any carryover funds that were made available until expended, any obligated funds that are, therefore, subject to redirection. >> i would have to get back to you on the details. >> would you do that for me, please? thank you. as you hopefully know, the board of commissioners from nevada unanimously sent you a letter notifying you of their consent to host the proposed repository at yucca mountain and requesting that you initiate the process recommended by the president's blue ribbon commission, and i'd like to submit that, mr. chairman, for the record. >> without objection. >> and will you meet with my county to initiate a cooperative, negotiated process? >> well, first, we're in the process now of reviewing the recommendations of the blue ribbon commission. we'd also like to work with

members of congress in order to see, because the blue ribbon commission has said very clearly that they would l like to see congress look at a vision of the nuclear waste act. and so -- >> well, we've got the blue ribbon commission, we had a great testimony here with the commissioners. on page 48 it says the importance of the local communities. and so we have our county saying we're ready to go into direct negotiation with you and looking at what you can afford to bring to the arena. on page 40 it says this unwavering local support helped to sustain the project during periods when federal and state agencies had to work through disagreements over the issue. so the blue ribbon commission really highlights the importance of local communities. in saying we will accept this nuclear waste, let's get

involved in negotiations. that's what your commission suggested. we have a local county that's taking you up on the offer of the blue ribbon commission. i hope that you would then talk to the good folks of nye county and get into negotiations as the blue ribbon commission had suggested which is the commission that you asked for. >> well, we have to set up a process that can do this. it's certainly the blue ribbon commission says that you need local support. i would also i think blue ribbon commission said this as well, you also need state support, and -- >> well, let me quote from this. on page 48 it says this unwavering local support helped to sustain the project during periods when federal and state agencies had to work through disagreements over the issue. so the blue ribbon commission said norway, finland, spain,

local communities very helpful in working through the disagreements from the states or the national government. i think that we have a local community that's fulfilling the intent as identified by the blue ribbon commission. i would think that the department of energy would welcome that because the blue ribbon commission said two things, right? it said that we can't, we're not disregarding yucca. we have so much nuclear waste, we need a second long-term geological repository. >> right. >> that's what it said. >> they did say that, and we welcome a local community support. >> so you'll welcome nye county when they come visit you? >> may i very briefly answer? >> go ahead. >> again, i think we need to set up a procedure so that we can deal with this thing as rapidly as possible, and so -- >> i would hope you'd consider nye county. >> the gentleman from texas,

mr. green, is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i regret our ranking member from california on our side is not here because i knows this is not ways and means committee, but, you know, i know california benefits from the high-tech industry and motion picture industry, and they've been pretty financially successful, and i don't know if we're going to take away their incentives to produce their products in our country like i hear all the time on oil and gas. i'd like to have those incentives continue. let me ask you some questions about one specific question. for many years the texas center of superconductivity in houston has been doing great work in a field that shows promise. from 1993 to 2011, the federal government financially supported the need for continuing science and development demonstrations in this field to keep the technology leadership in the u.s. and laid a foundation for the growth of well-paying research and manufacturing jobs. unfortunately, the line item for superp conductivity technology funding was eliminated two years

ago. what is the u.s. government and the doe doing to maintain the advantage on superconductivity technology that will have an impact on generation, storage and in light of the overseas government investment to push technology in the commercial products? what is doe doing with -- >> we in department of energy, we support research in superconducting technology primarily in the office of science. we continue to do this. many be of the discoveries made in superconductivity and the understanding that's developed in the united states, we think that this has great promise, and we'll continue to support -- >> okay. >> -- research. >> i'll probably get a letter to you and ask you about that because having watched what happened with another dr. chu at the university of houston and the success both with state funding and federal funding, i appreciate it. the president's fy-13 budget

includes an interagency study that the doe, epa and u.s. geological service are partnering on to examine environmental and health effects of -- [inaudible] can you explain the purpose behind this study and how is this different than what the epa's been already doing, and then what is your energy advisory board has already addressed? that combination of the interagencies compared to what epa's done and what department of energy's already done with their energy advisory board. >> right. our -- the subcommittee, the secretary of energy advisory board felt that the department of energy in collaboration with other agencies, notably usgs, would be in a good position to help industry develop the natural gas and natural gas and oil resources safely. we want to see those resources developed, but we want to see them developed in an environmentally safe way. so we are requesting funding to

help, um, help the companies extract those resources in an environmentally responsible way. >> and believe me, in texas we want to extract it safely. i know there's some things we need to work on. the state law actually changed in texas requiring posting of the ingredients, you know, although i know they already, companies already published them or had them available through osha requirements. but will there be peer review and stakeholder input into this, incorporated into this study? >> absolutely. we, we feel that this is using science to help develop new methodologies, again, so we can continue to extract natural gas. but as we both agree, in an environmentally safe way. so it's this very rapidly improving technology that i think you and be i both agree can be done. >> yeah. carbon capture and sequestration is constantly discuss inside a

context that's used as carbon control technology under the epa rules for utilities and refiners. the problem is it's still too expensive to commercially be used. can you describe current doe carbon sequestration activities? >> >> yes, i can, but unfortunately, there's 47 seconds. i could do it in probably four hours. but let me just briefly say that we are very committed and focused to reducing those -- [inaudible] so reducing them greatly so that one can continue using our fossil fuel resources. >> okay. mr. chairman, i know i'm out of time, but ccs still is not commercially viable. but, hopefully, we can get to that point sometime before you get mandates there that -- at least the technology needs to be there. >> thank you very much. at this time recognize the gentleman from california, mr. bilbray, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, i'm still very happy that you are where you are because you've been brave enough

to stand up on energy issues that were politically incorrect, pointing out the great shortfalls with ethanol and the great opportunity of nuclear power, and i'm glad to hear you talk about the small reactors. hopefully, the initiative with the united states navy and navy bases will look at that opportunity. in san diego we have 20 nuclear reactors within a mile of downtown san diego being run by 20-something-year-old kids. but we can't power our street lights with it yet. but let me just say this. there's a lot of partisan, cheap shots always go back and fort across here, so let me try and bridge the gap and find a place where democrats, republicans, independents and americans across the board can agree and most importantly you. you agree that the crisis with finding a replacement for gasoline is a supply, how clean it is and the infrastructure to be able to distribute it. major problem. i'm a big ethanol guy, opposed to it, and the environmental

issues and the ply issues -- supply issues and the infrastructure issues i have a real problem with. but algae, which i have supported strongly, is very clean, but we don't have supply and won't have supply in a long time, and it is compatible with the infrastructure. but we have natural gas which we have massive sources of, we -- it is super clean, it is even cleaner than propane which is permissible under federal law to be used in interior spaces. and the thing we miss out is that 85% of the urban homes in america are plumed with natural gas. plumbed with natural gas. the trouble is you have a 3-foot barrier between the water heater and the car parked in the i can't imagine. and we have not bridged -- in the garage. and we have not bridged that gap. and all of the men we have spent and we're proposing to spend, are you looking at what we're doing for research and development of home dispensing to allow the american consumer

not 20, 30 years from now, but 5, 10 years from now to be able to say i don't want to fill up with gasoline, i'm going to spend -- i'm going to plug in my car and fill up with natural gas over the night? what in your budget is committed to bridging that 3-foot gap between the automobile and energy independence in the next decade and the water heater that 85% of city dwellers use today? >> i'm very glad you asked that question. the programs we have in our budget are in energy efficiency/renewable energy and also in arpa-e. specifically, what we're doing about that and i share your excitement that our abundant natural gas in the united states which looks to remain at low prices for at least another decade or two has a great opportunity to help with transportation costs, to reduce the transportation costs. and so what we're specifically doing in terms of the home use is that right now the barrier is

beyond that wall, it's the cost of the natural gas tank. honda civic sells, honda sells -- [inaudible] but that carbon tank is very expensive, so we are -- >> you're talking about the tank in the vehicle? >> in the vehicle. >> i'm not talking about the tank in the vehicle. i drove a natural gas with that tank in 1992. in this isn't brain surgery -- this isn't brain surgery. i'm talking about the home-dispensing pump that will be available in the nighttime, six hours, bring the pressure from the home into the tank of the car. is there anything in your budget that specifically is addressing an aggressive attitude towards that home-dispensing pump -- >> yeah. >> -- so they can get it at their house every night? >> yes, there is, but i was taking too long to explain it. so the short answer is the commercially available pump has to be able to pump to 3500 pounds per square inch.

it's very, very expensive, and after 3,000 equivalent gasoline miles, it has to be refurbished for another couple thousand dollars, so it's $6,000 for the dispenser, and after a while you've got to send it back to the factory. the tank we're trying to develop is something that can allow compression at not 3500 pounds per square inch, but maybe several hundred pounds per square inch. we know when you decrease the pressure to that and still have the range, then things become very inexpensive and accessible, so that's what i was trying to get at. >> isn't it true that if we had home dispensing, the big advantage with this is flex fuel. you do not have to have swing systems in the car. the -- twin systems in the car. the same system that would burn natural gas has the availability to burn regular gas. >> that is true. >> thank you. >> gentleman's time has expired. gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. doyle, is recognized for

five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary chu, thank you for being with us today. the lab in pittsburgh is funded by your department's office of energy, and unfortunately the's fy-13 budget request continues the troubling trend of te creasing the department -- decreasing the department's budget. a large portion of the research is in advanced coal technologies. in fy-2010 the coal portion was 404 million, but the fy-13 request is only 240 million representing a 41% reduction in funding for advanced clean ole and r&d. -- coal and r&d. specifically, the president's request zeros out critical research in fuel cells and fuels programs and senately reduces funding -- significantly reduces funding for energy systems and cross-cutting research. some of these cuts appear to be

especially poorly timed. mr. secretary, are you aware that the epa is preparing to issue a proposed rule any day now setting emission limits for greenhouse gases from coal-fired power plants? >> i'm not sure of the exact timing of the epa's schedule. >> but it's imminent. and to the best of your knowledge, mr. secretary, that rule will require coal-fired power plants to either capture their car ban emissions -- carbon emissions, yes or no? >> i think it's mostly -- i'd have to get back to you on the exact ruling that the epa is contemplating and see it. >> well, i guess what i'm trying to say is we can't have it both ways here. i support epa's effort to reduce greenhouse gases. but if administration's going to require carbon capture from car plants this year, can you explain to us why the budget request for carbon capture and

sequestration is the lowest this administration has ever requested? is. >> well, we are very supportive, and i'm personally very supportive of carbon capture and sequestration as you probably know. and so, and we think, and we think this is still a very important part of what we do in the department of energy. we remain committed to developing the technologies to lower the costs so we can continue using our abundant fossil fuel. >> it just seems to me if we're going to ask our power sector to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions -- which i support -- but at the same time we're nearly eliminating the research funding for the technologies that do this, i just think it's not fair or there's a lack of coordination going on between epa and the department of energy. many mr. secretary, let me ask you another question. this administration has championed regulations to reduce pollution from power plants and from idling trucks. one way to do this is using fuel cell technology which is being developed through the solid

state energy conversion alliance in the office of fossil energy. this program's developing and commercializing technology to produce highly efficient power from natural gas and eliminate idling emissions with auxiliary power units. seeing as this technology could be used to meet regulations coming from the administration, can you explain to us why the funding for this program was eliminated in the president's fy-13 budget? >> solid ox side fuel cells have made tremendous progress. we're very excited about this. both major and smaller companies are haley investing -- heavily investing in this, and we think it's evolving to the point where the private sector is taking this over rather well. and so we actually applaud the development. most of the applications, by the way, of solid oxide fuel cells will be stationery applications, auxiliary power, other things. but we do like that. >> mr. secretary, as you

probably know, south korea has made solid oxide fuel cells a major part of their clean energy plan, and we have just completed -- not with my vote -- a free trade agreement with south korea easing trade relations. are you concerned that eliminating support for this technology here in the united states will drive that industry overseas to south korea? >> i certainly hope not. i think -- but if i look to the united states and the manufacturers in the united states, for example, united technologies, rolls royce america, others, some very significant players in the development of this oxide fuel cell technology. and so we're very hopeful that the united states can manufacture these fuel cells and sell them not only many the united states, but abroad as well. >> i hope that's right. mr. secretary, thank you for your time. i appreciate you being here. i yield back. >> at this time reck -- recognize the gentleman from

west virginia for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. do respect the time. the department of energy was formed in 977 under the organizational act of 977. -- 1977: there were three paragraphs i found interesting with it. it was set up because of the increasing dependence on foreign energy supplies presents a serious threat to the national security of the united states, health, safety and welfare of its citizens. it was also charged to say to provide for a mechanism to deal with a short, mid and long-term energy problem, okay, of the nation. and i think we can see long term we're going with renewables, short term i think we should be worried about coal, but the third is to foster the continued good health of the nation's small business firms, public utility districts, municipal utilities, private corporations, private cooperatives involved in energy production. mr. secretary, i think you've gone away from those principles. i think you've allowed what we heard earlier, some of the

testimony about the use of the epa, their predictions of their greenhouse gas closures of plants that were talked about here that there were said that the epa says only this level. so based on this level compared to all the other national organizations, epa has been emboldened to continue to drive for greenhouse gas emissions when all the others are saying if you do that, you're going to see the closures that are occurring like this all across america, that this questioning or challenging the reliability of our energy across america based on that information, i think we -- i'm concerned whether or not you have, in fact, a real interest in reining in a rogue agency that is allowing this kind of activity without based on science and agreeable, comprehensive knowledge of how the other people are looking at it across america. i want -- i go back to your

remark that you made in pittsburgh, and you said i want all of the above. i applaud that. i just wish it were backed with action because i'm still going back, i want to go back to your statement that you made back this '07 when you said -- in '07 when you said coal is my worst nightmare. coal is my worst nightmare. and we have the, we have a comment here from harry reid. coal makes us sick. oil makes us sick. it's ruining our country, it's ruining our world. coal and oil? are those the facts, is that the mindset of why on the short-term goal you've abandoned that and cutting the research money as mr. doyle just said 41% reduction in spending on r&d in coal? i'm awed.

>> requirements of the doe and look at the short-term requirements. and those short-term requirements looked at coal and taking care of the family for the life, safety and welfare of the american public and our national security. >> let me try to explain what i said. that was taken out of context, the quote. and what i said is that coal, as it's being used today, as it's being used today in china and india and be everywhere around the world in terms of its blew taxes -- pollutants is a big

worry of mine. and so that's why when i, even before i became secretary, but certainly after i became secretary became very committed to developing those technologies to bring the prices down so that we can continue to use -- >> okay. i hope, mr. secretary, you'll be able to get back to mr. doyle and can others and be able to explain how we have a 41% reduction with national energy technology. let me just in the 36 seconds, will you be able to get back to us, we hear a lot of folks on the other side talking about how fossil fuel, particularly coal, is subsidized. will you be able to tell us how american coal companies are being subsidized? >> well, i'll be glad to get back to you on that. >> thank you very much. yield my time. >> the gentleman there new york, mr. engel, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, let me first say i'm one person who's followed you, and i think you're going a fine job, and i think your agency's doing a fine job, and i

think there have been a lot of political cheap shots on you, unfortunately, and i just don't think that' reflective of the job that you're doing, so i wanted to just say that. i want to also spend the next minute talking to you about an issue that you and be i have spoken about in the past, and that's open fuel standards for cars. i believe, and i'm doing the bill with mr. shimkus, that every car produced in america should be a flex fuel car. i believe if a car can run on ethanol, methanol, gasoline, natural gas, whatever, competition helps bring down prices. and it would bring down prices. i've seen that happen in brazil, and i think it could happen here. and i would hope -- and it would cost $100 or less per car to manufacture a car with fleck fuel features. so i would hope that i know the president has issued an executive order to have the federal fleet be flex fuel cars, and i would hope we can continue to move in that direction. so i would just like you to briefly comment on that, if you could. >> certainly. the ability to own a flex fuel

vehicle, especially if costs of the new car would be something, as you indicated, $100 or less, gives the american consumer more options. it makes them more in control of what they can do in the terms of -- just in case the world oil price does increase. as we said, we're very concerned about the price of gasoline, and one of the options that we can have to bring relief to the american public is to allow them to have a diverse source of energy for transportation, and flex fuel vehicles allow that. natural gas, also very enthusiastic about. and so the ability to have this conversion, you can fill up with natural gas, fill up with higher blends of ethanol, is something that will help american businesses and consumers. >> thank you very much. i couldn't agree more. um, let me ask you about energy,

renewable energy investment. a survey of global climate policies by deutsche bank concluded that clean tech innovations are more likely to emerge and succeed in the brazil, china, india, germany and the u.k. than they are in the u.s. these countries have used a combination of investments and national energy standards, feed-in tear my standards and a price on carbon. china now leads the world as both the largest source of and destination for clean energy investment. china -- [inaudible] in 2010 which is a 39% increase over '09 and such financing in the u.s. stagnated last year at 34 billion, approximately equal to 2010 levels. your budget proposes to invest in energy efficiency, renewable energy technologies, science and clean energy research development and deployment, and it eliminates 40 billion over ten years in tax subsidies to

big oil of which i agree. big oil is making record profits, and they don't need the tax subsidies. some people have argued if you eliminate subsidies for big oil, it means the government is in the process of picking winners and losers. i don't agree, but they say if we remove the subsidies from bill oil, we should remove subsidies from every other industry or business, clean technologies or whatever. how do you respond to this? >> well, i think the government over the past decades, really over the past century, um, has always looked at subsidies and tried to -- and it's a part of the congress and the presidents to try to decide what would be appropriate subsidies, but also how long. the subsidies do, have been used in the past to encourage new industries to get started. and so the oil subsidies began roughly 100 years ago, and for

the express intent of helping this industry get started. but as you pointed out, they are making, doing very well on their own. >> yeah, they did make $137 billion last year. i mean, god bless them, but i don't think they need any help from the government anymore. let me ask you this. about two-thirds of the department of energy's budget is directed at nuclear weapons or nuclear clean-up activities, and there are some who argue that those activities would be better handled by the department of defense, by dod. how do you respond to that? >> well, i respectfully don't agree with that. i think the, um, the nuclear weapons and the nuclear cleanup is a very, needs a very science-based approach to this that we have developed since the manhattan project a lot of expertise. i think that we should continue to have it within the nsa and also within within the department of energy, department

of environmental management. >> again, thank you. thank you very much, mr. secretary and, again, thank you for the good job -- >> recognize the gentleman from colorado, mr. gardner, for five minutes. >> thank you, secretary chu, for your time and testimony today. a couple of questions we heard our colleague from massachusetts refer to the impact of the strategic petroleum reserve had on the price of oil. it did, when that was released, it reduced the price of gas at the pump? >> cause and effect, certainly after the -- you're talking about the last -- >> yeah. in june of 2011 the price did drop? >> yes. >> okay, thank you. and is the president considering releasing, you said it before, he's considering releasing the spro right now to respond to gas prices? >> as we said, that that option remains on the table. >> is the spro intended to be used only during times of severe supply disruptions and real emergencies? >> it's a little more complicated than that, but that is the primary use. there also are -- >> do those circumstances exist

now? >> it's -- let me just finish. certainly, the primary use is for supply disruption. there's also issues for severe economic disruption -- >> due to a severe energy disruption, correct? >> not -- well, for example, we released spro before when there was. >> hurricane katrina, correct? >> yeah. >> do we have a hurricane that's taken refineries out now? >> no, we don't. >> thank you. the president said yesterday said the only solution to high gas prices is decreased demand. last year, though, together with our allies 60 million barrels of the world's strategic reserve was released. the price of oil dropped by $4, and even though it returned to $95 six days later, supply made a difference, don't you agree? >> i think the supply did make a difference -- >> thank you. on july 14, 2008, when president bush lifted the moratorium, the price of oil dropped $9, more than two times of the drop from

the spro last year. the anticipation of supply made a difference. didn't it? >> that is true -- >> if long-term decreased demand has an effect on price, then don't the basic laws of supply and demand dictate that so will long-term increased supplies? >> i absolutely agree -- >> so if you're going to support short-term policies, shouldn't you at a minimum couple that with long-term supply solutions such as increased production? >> well, as you yourself pointed out, the primary uses of the spro are to deal with supply interruptions and other economic emergencies. >> so supply, we need a long-term supply solution because you said that supply matters. >> we do, we need a long-term -- >> and we need increased supply at that point, is that correct? >> the world needs a long-term demand solution as well to moderate -- >> if you increase supply, it will decrease cost. that's what you've admitted to,

that's what the spro did, is that correct? >> i agree -- >> last year you haven't replaced those 30 million barrels, have you? >> no -- >> how do you plan to replace those barrels now that the price of oil is even higher? >> there is a plan put forward in our fy-13 budget over a period of years to begin to buy back that oil. >> so you're buying back that oil but not increasing production. what about the royalty in kind program? secretary salazar's office was in charge of. >> um, i'm not intimately aware -- >> you're not familiar. will you meet with secretary salazar to reinstate the program before you draw down again? >> i will certainly get informed of the situation. >> would you, please, report to us about your conversation with the department of interior? >> sure. of. >> based on what the president said yesterday, this morning at a press conference he called phony to try to get down to $2. is it phony to want to reduce

the price of gasoline? >> i think the president's very clear or as i've been very clear, we do want the price of gasoline to go down. >> and we these to do that by increasing supply, as you've said, by releasing the spro or perhaps increasing domestic production. >> well, as the president has pointed out, as many people in this session have pointed out, the supply in the united states by itself is not going to -- it will effect the -- >> like the spro, like the release of spro. >> in itself, it doesn't control -- >> you said increased supply decreases price as exemplified by the spro. >> but as you well know, the production of u.s. petroleum products has increased over the last eight year, and yet the prices -- >> so the spro didn't then cause gas prices to go down? we know it did. you said the supply caused the spro to go down. >> the spro release, there was a

short-term -- >> because of the supply infusion into the market. >> no. i think -- >> it wasn't supply? >> if you would let me finish -- so what happened in this -- >> sorry, gentleman's time's expired. at this time recognize the gentleman from washington state, mr. especiallily, for five minutes. >> mr. secretary, if you'd like to finish your answer, you weren't given an opportunity. go ahead, if you'd like to do that. >> yes. very quickly, the spro during that release in an international coordinated release, the spro was meant to deal with the temporary disruption supply