cold war legacy. and with that, i give it back to, and i hope as your visual expert, that things will continue. >> thank you. >> the next few slides, our budget is already published online, so you'll be able to get all of the detailed justification materials. i think if you don't have this presentation already, we'll make it available to you online as well, so you'll be able to see it. i want to run through some of the numbers here. this is our main budget table. as the secretary mentioned, our budget request is $27.2 billion for fy '13. this is a 3.2% increase over our enacted budget for fy '12. i think during the process here, when we started planning for the formulation of this budget, we were very thoughtful in terms of the priorities that we wanted to emphasize, but also, what we wanted to de-emphasize, and

where we could actually draw from existing resources and redirect them elsewhere. i think we're also very mindful of the economic environment that we've been in too. and, again, challenged ourselves to find resources in the department, to program elsewhere. we have taken real steps, not only have we looked at areas where we could avoid significant amounts of costs through better ways of procuring goods and services, or looking at some of our program activities, we've actually done some of the simple things, whether it's something straightforward as setting the default on all of our printers to double-sided copying to some of the things the secretary mentioned in moving towards a nonrefundable ticket policy, which generates real savings every time an employee or contractor travels. and from an accounting and budget perspective, we've had a pretty thorough review of our

old balances, for those that are familiar with the department, we are appropriated no money. so we've gone through and looked at some of our older commitments, our congressionally directed projects that we believe are not going to bear any fruition and reskinded those balances and used some money to offset this significant. our greatest investment is in the energy efficiency and renewable energy sector. our request is $2.3 billion. this is 29.1% above our fy '12 enacted. this is the material investment within the overall context of this budget. we are very thoughtful about how we put our budget together. and if you go through and look at the various line items in this part of our budget, we have made significant trade-offs between various program areas. for example, in advanced

manufacturing, this is a $290 million investment. it's up 150%. we've added things to that program, which is formally known as the industrial technologies program. we've also looked at some of our program areas and changed the shape of those programs. the secretary mentioned what we were doing with our wind program, stays steady at about $95 million in our budget request this year, but we've looked at the content of that program and are divesting, de-emphasizing in certain areas, in onshore wind and focusing on where the real r&d and technology challenges actually are. so we did a lot -- we spent a lot of time, a lot of effort going through the various program efforts here and making some pretty significant trade-offs amongst the bottom line. for our office of electricity and delivery, and energy reliability, pretty steady here, although this does, within the budget fund a new hub for energy

systems. for fossil energy, again, pretty steady. we wail, and the numbers here look better than they actually are, from a 12 to 13 perspective, because we cancelled a major project last year and used that as an offset in our budget authority. we also fund within this area, the r&d work on methane hydrates. in our nuclear energy program area, we're at $770 million, which is a decrease of 10%. however, within this, we are focusing efforts on small modular reactors, as well as funding up to $60 million of some of the recommendations coming out of the blue ribbon commission. our rpe is we are continuing to ramp up our investment in rpe to $350 million. this is a 27.3% increase over our enacted balance in fy '12. again, this is an area where we've looked pretty hard at what we're doing in that program and

we have actually terminated some of the grants that have been issued early on in that program. these projects were not meeting milestones, technical intent, and so we actually closed down those projects and put the money back into the -- into rpe, ready for deployment. in science, we're pretty steady here. we're just under $5 billion in our request for '13, which is a 2.4% increase over our enacted budget in 2012. there are other agencies that also received increases in their fy '13 requests, indicating an investment, continued investment in science activities. i would also say, too, like eere, we also made some pretty tough choices in what we were emphasizing in science and what we were not emphasizing as much,

reflected in this budget. our nnsa budget, $11.5 billion this year, representing a 4.9% increase over fy '12. again, focusing on our weapons activities and nonproliferation activities, both of those receiving pretty significant increases in our investment. em is pretty much static. no major excitement there. $5.6 billion request, about even from our fy '12 enacted. legacy management, no real excitement here, just ramping up with inflation tied to some of our liabilities. our loan programs, we are not seeking any additional loan guarantee authority or appropriate credit subsidy for our programs, but we are continuing to request for administrative expenses to cover the monitoring of our loan programs, and we will continue to work with the applications

that we currently have under the various loan programs that we have, there's plenty there to keep us busy. and finally, in how we run mission support operations, again, we're trying to live within our means here. a pretty flat budget for all of the offices that helped run the department, and support the mission of the department too. here's what you can find by digging around on energy.gov, all of this budgetary information. with that, that concludes our formal presentation here. happy to open up to questions. >> i had a question about funding for your facility. the requested level is $22 million. that's less than the $55 million in the cooperative agreement with michigan state. bhi is it less and what does that mean for the project?

>> dr. bill brinkman? >> what it means is that the -- our priorities have been in clean energy, and so the budget of the nuclear physics part of research has been at most flat or down some, so this year we cannot afford the full $50 billion. so what we're doing, and we don't see it at this rate, we don't see being able to do all the things that were proposed in nuclear physic, so we'll probably do a reevaluation of the whole program in the next nine months. >> do you want to -- >> you can -- >> on the $60 million nuclear waste r&d that will align -- the work will align with some of the brc recommendations, can you give us a more detailed breakdown of what kind of work

will be done there? if any of that funding is coming from the waste fund? and if any work will also be done administratively that won't require funding? >> well, i'll give you a few examples, and you know, as noted by the blue river commission, let me make one point, that they noted that there is a waste fund, but that waste fund is not directly accessible to the department of energy. it depends on appropriated dollars. so what we have to do is work out of what congress gives us in 2012 and 2013. we don't have direct access to it. so with that in mind, what we're proposing in our budget, and one example of one of the things that we'd like to see within our administrative authorities is the blue ribbon commission, for example, talked about, as a high priority, beginning to take some of the spent fuel in reactor

sites that are no longer operating as nuclear reactors. so but we're still paying a lot of guards and security to look after that fuel. that particular site is now closed down. you want to start to consolidate those things. at least get them to where you have operating reactors, and in order to do that, it makes a lot of sense to have, as you take this fuel, let's say it's in a spent fuel pool, you want to take it in what's called dry cast storage. you take the rods out, they can be air cooled. but you also want to put it in a structure that will allow for safe transport to another site and you want to have it standardized and licensed by the nrc. so there are a number of companies that are doing this. and to support the standardization and the licensing of nrc licensing, so it can be much more economic. that's one example of the steps we can take.

>> okay. if you can state your name and affiliation before we answer the questions. gentleman, over to you. >> my name is michael coleman. you had a choice with respect to the facility in lose alamos. can you talk about the reasoning behind that decision? >> tom d'ingis our director. >> this is a matter of what does the country need in order to do its job. we take a look at our capabilities both on the plutonium side and uranium side. and it's very clear when you do that, there is a clear and urgent need to move the functions that we have in uranium work, to move it out of there. because that's a high-risk activity. the defense boards told us that, we understood that. we had to get moving with that. on respect to plutonium, which

is what the facility was going to do, we decided to defer that decision. it's not canceled, it's deferred. what that means is we know we have existing capabilities in our infrastructure, we have a radiological build right next door that we just built. we're going to maximize the use of that to get what the country needs in material characterization and analytical chemistry. we'll take advantage of the capability we have at lawrence ve our super block facility. and if we need additional storage for reans for this nuclear facility, we've decreased the volume of material by 70%, if we need additional storage, even though we reduced the volume, we have other options. whether it's the device assembly facility or the like. not for storage, but for staging of future work. so the country had options on the plutonium side. it didn't have any options on the uranium side. >> and let me just reiterate what tom said at the very beginning. i mean, within these budget realities, it was very clear, we

couldn't do both things in parallel at the same time. so we adjust the ones that we thought were the most critical. >> this gentleman here. >> the rpe program, the projects that were canceled, i think you said it was 38 that were canceled? >> no, that's 38, including ere and others. i think there were six or seven. six in rpe. >> could we get a list of those, just out of curiosity. >> sure, sure. >> and in what areas. and does that money go back into the rpe funds? >> it does go back into the funds. i have to tell you a little anecdote, if you bear with me. i was giving a talk at a materials workshop that the department of energy initiated that could actually bring the national lab closer in in with industries, so there's tighter interactions again with this idea of hoping to facilitate the transfer of a lot of the valuable intellectual property, into innovation, into industry. and i gave a talk, a keynote

speaker, followed by the chief technology officer, senior vice president of united technologies. and michael mcquaid got up and gave his talk, and he said, normally you don't brag about your failures, but let me tell you about a failure. and it was an rpe-funded project. it was a very noble project. he said, this was a great idea. this is what we were trying to do. it didn't pay out. we got out, rpe got out. it was absolutely the right decision. you know, if it didn't look like it's going to make it, get out fast. there's an old add nage i used tell all my students they learned when i was 30 years old. it's okay to fail, but fail fast and move on. >> how would i get that list? who would have that kind of thing? >> the rpe guys will. >> okay. yes, sir, in the middle? >> highlights mentions that you're going to move ahead with the nuclear and the fossil loan

guarantees. those are borrower pays, as i understand it. $10 and $8 billion of credit capacity. how many do you have in house? what kind of timeline do you see the fossil projects under? are we going to see some action this year? i know these attract internationally, not just nationally. >> and that's a very difficult question to answer. you're absolutely right, we have the money in those 1703 programs for that, but in the end, it depends on the private sector. whether they're going to make investments. and it's really up to them as to whether they want to go forward. and this is something one can't really predict. we hope, you know, we believe, as we've said quite often, that nuclear energy, we believe, should be part of the energy portfolio in this century. but in the end, it's going to be a financial decision. and what effects some of these financial decisions are things like the price of natural gas and how do you weigh in that

with respect to these other things. so, you know, we would like companies to pick up this funding, also the carbon capture as well, and so -- but it also depends on the private sector and how they decide what they want to do. >> we had a positive nrc decision last week. did that influence the progress? >> well, i think that's a one step -- that was a, you know, it was a positive approval of the application, which was wonderful. that means that that project continues to go forward.  and we expect that one to close and go forward. you know, there are a number of other milestones. but for other companies to embark on this, they have to decide whether it's in their best financial interests. >> okay, unfortunately, here, i think we're out of time. running up at 2:15 and we have another event to run to very shortly. we have members of our press

office here, dan runs our press media operations, so we're happy to hang around and answer questions and get your information before your deadlines if we can do that. so it just leaves me with a chance to say thanks for coming, appreciate your time and effort here, and for the opportunity to brief our budget. thank you. >> and the computer goes to the next one.

president obama is on the first of a three-day trip away from washington today. he is in milwaukee this afternoon at a masterlock lock plant to talk about jobs and the economy. masterlock is credited with moving about 100 jobs back from china to the u.s., something the president noted in his state of the union address. the president was greeted on the tarmac here in milwaukee by republican governor scott walker, who's been targeted for recall by democrats over attempts to restrain the rights of union workers. understand governor walker will not be attending this event today due to the flu. well, after this stop, president obama will head to the west coast later today for political fund-raisers in los angeles, san francisco, and seattle.

ladies and gentlemen, to introduce the president of the united states, please welcome masterlock employee deandre jackson. [ cheers and applause ] >> how everybody doing this afternoon? i like to welcome you to masterlock, right here, milwaukee, wisconsin, right here on 32nd and center. my name is deandre jackson, uaw, local 469. born and raised right here in

milwaukee. i worked here at under five ye. currently working at the combination lock department behind you and now working toward electrical apprenticeship. going to school for it. and that can only be done with the support from my union brothers and sisters and the president, mike baker. it's an honor working for master lock where we build the best products in the world right here on this factory floor. i guarantee you won't find a stronger lock anywhere else. working side by side with men and women every day who no longer come to work to build locks. they come to work to change the world. with our vision and leadership by john hepner, bob rice and

bruce press, we're leading the country by example. it's an honor to have president obama here at master lock today to discuss the importance of keeping jobs right here in the united states of america. >> we have the right formula. we have the right ingredients and we have the right recipe to bring jobs back to this plant and to this country. so from now on, as master lock world changers. with that, join me in welcoming our president, barack obama! ♪ ♪

>> hello, milwaukee! it is good to be back in the great state of wisconsin. it's the closest i've been to ho i was thinking about getting on the 90/94 and just driving down to my house. thank you, deandre for that outstanding introduction. and for sharing your story. i can tell, though, deandre is a little shy. he doesn't necessarily like to get out in front of people. before i begin, i want to thank some additional special guestsr. milwaukee mayor tom barrett is

in the house. your congresswoman gwen moore is here. you heard from your local uaw representative john drew. and got a great tour from the president of uaw local 469 mike bing. finally, i want to thank master lock ceo john hepner for inviting us here today. it is wonderful to be at master brought back some memories. i was thinking about my gym locker in high school. and, you know if you go into the boys' locker room in high

school, sometimes it's a little powerful, the odor in there. so i was thinking about the fact that we weren't washing our stuff enough. and then i was thinking about, as i got older and i kept on using master locks ibecame an even better customer because i couldn't always remember my combination. so i'd end up having to have the lock sawed off and buy a n givi of business. and now as i was looking at some of the really industrial sized locks, i was thinking about the fact that i am a father of two girls who are soon going to be in high school and that it might come in handy to have these sup superlocks. for now, i'm just counting on the fact that when they go to school, there are men with guns

with them. but i'm actually here today because this company has been making the most of a huge opportunity that exists right now to bring jobs and manufacturing back to the united states of america. i talked about this during the state of the union. over the last few decades, revolutions in technology have made a lot of businesses more efficient and more productive. and that's a great thing. it means you generally have a better choice of products. you get better prices. but as some of you know, technology has also made a lot of jobs obsolete. and it's allowed companies to set up shop and hire workers almost anywhere in the world

where there's an internet connection. you can produce things that previously you could only produce here in the united states. so the result has been a pretty painful process for a lot of families and for a lot of communities. especially here in the midwest. too many factories where people thought they'd retire. some have left town. too many jobs that provided a decent living got shipped overseas. and now the hard truth is a lot of those jobs are not going to come back. in a global economy, some companies are always going to find it more profitable to pick up and do business in some other part of the world. that's just a fact. but that doesn't mean we have to just sit by and settle for a lesser future. that doesn't mean there's nothing we can do to create new jobs and restore middle class security here in america. there is always something we can

do. for starters, i'm glad to see that congress seems to be on the way to making progress on extending the payroll tax cut so taxes don't go up on all of you and 160 million working americans. you know, this tax cut means that the typical american family will see an extra $40 in every paycheck this year. and that's going to help speed up this recovery. it will make a real difference in the lives of millions of people and as soon as congress sends me that extension of tax cuts and unemployment insurance to my desk, i will sign it right away. we're going to get that signed. >> we love you, mr. president! >> i love you back. but that's only a start. there's a lot more we can do. a lot more we have to do to help create jobs and bring back manufacturing and middle class

security to milwaukee and wisconsin and the united states of america. and we've got examples of success. when i took office, a lot of uaw workers here. you guys remember this. when i took office, the american auto industry was on the verge of collapse. and there were some folks who said we should let it die. with a million jobs at stake, i refused to let that happen. i refused to let that happen. we said in exchange for help, we're going to demand responsibility. we've got workers and automakers to settle their differences. we've got the industry to restructure and retool. come up with better designs. today the american auto industry is back and general motors is once again the number one automaker in the world.

chrysler has grown faster in the u.s. than any other major car company. ford is investing billions in u.s. plants and equipment. factories. and all together over the past two years, the entire industry has added nearly 160,000 jobs. well-paying jobs. what's happening in detroit can happen in other industries. what happens in cleveland and pittsburgh and raleigh and milwaukee, that's what we've got to be shooting for is to create opportunities for hard-working americans to get in there and start making stuff again and sending it all over the world. products stamped with three proud words -- made in america. that's our goal.