that would be the conclusion. >> the budget proposes $650 million to fund important research and development advances in cyber security, explosive and chemical biological response systems, and of course both chicago and new york have had some problems. how do you see these -- how optimistic are you that these new technologies and programs are going to help rectify those problems? >> well, again, it depends, but by focusing the research and development dollars, we do get to three or four areas, which we plan to do and are doing. we've actually stopped about 100 different programs and projects in order to focus and concentrate. we think we have the odds that we'll get some significantly

better technologies. again, the research cycle is not a one-year or two-year cycle, but over time. >> well, thank you very much. we've noted some, what i think to be rather important advances, and, again, we appreciate your work. >> thank you, sir. >> and i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. i recognize the gentleman from south carolina mr. duncan for five mithts. >> thank you, mr. chairman and secretary napolitano. thanks for sitting here. i know you've been here a long time so i appreciate your patience and this is my second round of the president's budget request and budget hearings and i must say, it's been an eye-opening experience for me. one thing that i'm reminded of is that washington loves to talk with flourishes, but generally calls for more bureaucracy at the answer to the problems. so how is it that the public rhetoric of deficit reductions and savings is so add odds with the actual action? budget request states that

guarding against terrorism was the founding mission of department of homeland security, and remains our top priority. you state the importance of border security, but cbp has no plans to build any additional miles of fencing. it does not use operational control as a measurement and it fails to include an alternative standard to measure its effectiveness. in the budget proposal, the coast guard eliminates 1,os 56 personnel including 1,000 uniformed active duty personnel and 752 people from the front line operational units, and it decommissions numerous front line operational units which significantly lessens the interdiction of illegal aileen, amount of drugs captures, this budget request will result in reduction of 10% of all of the 110 foot patrol boat operations. talk about the importance of

partnering with other countries around the world in your testimony, yet you include no funding to expand the visa waiver program to provide additional information for visa screening and in high-risk countries. yet your departmental management operation request as 10ds milli $10 million increase. your own personal budget, $1 million increase from physicalial year 2012 and combined three other offices including an office of international affairs with 44 positions and a budget of $8 million, with no real explanation what they will do, who they will answer to, and if i do the math or, it's about $180,000 per employee. all that isn't associated personnel calls, but just did quick math here. my question is how can you justify taking people away from the field with regard to the coast guard and other areas to bloat area of bureaucracy and with the work the state

department does, duplicity. i mean a lot of things within the office of international affairs i would think the state department is already doing, redundancy and duplicity. justify that for me. >> cdp, where the budget does sustain all the existing plusops in personnel. our numbers at the border speak for themselves, and they are very strong. we haven't seen this few or little immigrant attempts at that bored since the earl '70s, and i say someone raised in a border state and lived her adult life in a border state. and the numbers continue to be, to go down. we have -- >> let me ask you that. do you think the economy has anything to do with that? the number of illegals wanting to come here for work? >> undoubtedly. but reports we have, also, with the added personnel, equipment and the like that you all have funded. >> i agree with you there. >> it allows us to do a lot more, and i'll be going back -- i go down regularly and be going back in the next couple of days, back and i'll go now to arizona

and south texas. so what we requested for cbp allows us to sustain those very, very strong efforts. with respect to the coast guard, we're not laying off anyone, or removing anyone, but what we are doing is not filling some atrited positions and not hiring for positions in the judgment of the commandant we really don't need. and those fall within headquarters staff in washington, d.c., some of the recruitment staff there that are unnecessary. but they're not -- they, again, the front-line personally i think you are thinking about. what was the third one you had? >> we were just talking about some of the duplicity with -- >> the state department. >> and international affairs office. >> yeah. we have an enormous international portfolio. it's something that, because we're calmed homeland security, most people don't realize, but we actually have personnel in 75

countries right now. they do everything from screening cargo. they work in airports. they do training. missions. they do a whole host of activities that we are required to do, add one and one of the t have been focused on is pushing the work of the department out from the actual physical borders of the united states to other places in the world. if we do it, that has a number of benefits. one is, it max mysel mize -- mas do take pressure ef off and offers at airports. that international work is more and more important as the department matured. >> for the record, i just want to say that i appreciate you not taking people out of the field, the front line operatives. i understand the need to trim personnel to trim budgets in

these economic time, but the taxpayers expect us to make sure that every dollar is accounted for, every dollar is spent wisely, and that was the purpose of the line of questioning, but i think having visited the port with ms. milner baltimore, seeing what the coast guard is doing, the cbc, i appreciate that keeping our country safe. thank you. >> thank you. >> the gentleman's time expired. you've been here well over two hours. i thank you very much. i have one question. ranking member a question also. for the record, mr. smith, he had to leave this hearing. three questions he would like responses to if possible bite end of february. i submit them for the record without objection so ordered and get those questions on to you. a question i have myself is that in a total of 2011 a select group of mexico based trucking carriers granting provisional operating authority allowing them access throughout the united states and eventually

permanent authority. section 703 of the safe port act requires the secretary of homeland security and transportation, no later than april 2008. the department has yet to issue those guidelines. november 21st of blast year, chairwoman miller and i wrote an oversight letter expressing concerns about the pilot and january 20th, your staff got back to us, currently drafting guidelines and anticipate a timely resolution. four questions now. answer now or get back to us. can you provide a timeline when you can expect the department to issue these guidelines? how has the pilot impacted the volume of trucks at the border and how are you handling this and to the extent can you disclose in an unclassified setting, are the mexico based carriers involved in this pilot subject to significant level of additional scrutiny compared to

american based trucks in terms of risk based targeting and does the pressen of mexican trucks and personnel with access throughout the united states result in any additional valuer inability and if show how is it mitigated and the federal safety administration equipped all vehicles involved in this program with gps device that allows repeat monitoring of the vehicles. how do you collaborate ensuring that the relevant dhs components have access to this gps information? either answer today, if you wish, or get back to us. >> why don't we get back to you. some of that requires us going into some classified information, mr. chairman, but i'll be happy to send you something in writing, if you wish. >> if you would. >> and i'll answer those questions for you. >> okay. thank you. with that i yield to the gentleman from mississippi. the ranking member. >> thank you, mr. chairman. madam secretary, at several hearings we talked about recoupment, and the concern that

a lot of people who through no fault of their own received reimbursements for expenses, and what we needed was some clarity on whether or not those individuals would be pursued for possible prosecution. i think the appropriators saw that issue, too, and i'd like to thank your operation for understanding the sensitivity of what those many families went through during katrina, and some several years later received a bill, and the fact that since you now have devised a notification procedure and some appeal procedure of payments, i

would encourage you to make that as robust as possible so that individuals who probably don't have the money to pay back can pursue the waiver provisions of it, and i would encourage you to be as aggressive in public service announcements and a lot of other organizations who worked with many of those families to include them in part of the strategy so that they were not become victims of a system that wasn't designed to make them victims. so i would encourage you to look at that. >> yes. i appreciate that. and we have the ability now to grant waivers for these old disasters, katrina, rita being

among them and fema is preparing that process now, but i think we are prepared to be very robust there. >> another issue is basically we've spent millions of dollars trying to design biometric intrinsic systems, starts, stops. that is still, i believe, the wish of a lot of us, that somehow we should perfect this and make it a part of the system. do you see that happening at some point? >> i think biometric entry is well on its way. biometric exit is a much different kettle of fish. in part because our ports were not designed to have biometric commitment in the exit lanes. that's just one of the many reasons. so that's going to be a very expensive process. to compensate for that, we are,

us a know, a u.s. visit to cdp. we want to consolidate those kind of border vetting responsibilities, get greater leverage out of the resources that we have. cdp and i.c.e. for over stay, but cdp at the exit stage, and we also have developed now and are able to combine a number of different data bases for very -- very layered and robust biographic information at the -- at the exit stage. it's not the same as biometric, but it is very close to the same, and we think that that will give us a good bridge to when ultimately biometric becomes feasible to do. >> thank you. yield back. >> yielding back. i yield to the general lady from texas for one kwenchts thank

you. >> i appreciate your courtesies. madam secretary, i sit on two committees, subcommittees, that both deal wit issue of cargo. the transportation security committee and the board committee that deals with border both lands and of course, the ports. and i am frankly disappointed and concerned about what we have come to in light of the situation dealing with not doing 100% cargo inspection. so my question is, i heard an earlier answer, but i just wanted a clearer understanding. my question is, with the really concern as it relates to air cargo and the lack of 100% inspection, can we and will you set actual time frames of which we can work together as a committee and as your department is working to see what the alternatives are, or, in fact,

to see whether or not the 100% cargo inspection is still viable, even if the deadline has been pushed back? >> well, i was talking about scanning in the maritime environment. with respect to air cargo, we are at the stage of 100% for cargo put on passenger planes, leaving from u.s. domestic airports. whether they be leaving on a domestic flight or on an international flight. >> that's what i wanted to you clarify. >> yes. and we don't do screening at international airports. so we are working with the international airports or foreign flight carriers to cover the high-risk flights from abroad. >> all right. and with the ports, with the other aspect, you'll work with the committee? the other spect aspect? >> screening and/or scanning. >> thank you for your testimony.

thanks for accommodating our schedule. sorry for the delay. we on the floor voting. thauchlg thank you for that. thank you for your testimony and the members of the committee may have additional questions for you and i would ask to you respond to those in writing. the hearing record held open ten days answers without objection, the committee stands adjourned. >> thank you. we'll have another budget hearing for you this afternoon.

energy secretary steven chu recently testified before the senate energy and natural resources committee about the president's request which includes $27.2 billion for his department. we'll bring that to you at about 1:30 eastern this afternoon. and continuing to look at energy, live in about 15 minutes at the american enter prirz institute for an event at renewable energy, benefits and down sides. live at noon eastern right here on c-span3. meantime, we'll show awe portion of energy secretary chu's outlining the budget request for his department. we'll show you as much of this briefing we can before going live to the american enterprise institute.

okay. good afternoon, everyone. welcome, members of the press. and the media, i believe we have c-span online too. so hello to all of our viewers there. i am the deputy chief financial officer here at the department of energy. it's my pleasure to welcome you all to receive our presentation of our fiscal year 2013 budget request. i'm just going to run through ground rules here. we'll see from the secretary, hear from the secretary, run through a presentation. i will be available also to run through a presentation of other budgetary numbers we have. we'll then move into a question and answer period. i will emcee that, both the secretary, myself and we also have the under secretarys that have joined us, that are available to answer questions, and if we're unable to field any specific questions in the session here, we'll be sure to make sure we get an answer to you before your deadlines.

so just to give a flavor of our budget here and the budget cuts we're under, we're actually down to one laptop in the department. the secretary is running i.t. training for us and so i now know how to use that. without further ado, mr. secretary. >> thank you. thank you, owen barwell, i ammoen barwomen i.t. specialist. so i want to talk about the budget an begin by quoting president obama who spoke about an america with our reach, a country that leads the world in educating its people, an naeshg attract as new generation of high-tech manufacturing and heightening jobs, a future where we are in control of our own energy, our security, and prosperity. and an economy built to last. this budget reflects that. it invests in clean energy and

safely harnessing our energy resources. supports science and it saves money, family, and businesses by saving emergency and it cuts costs through more efficient operation. and finally, reduces nuclear dangers and environmental risks. a lot of this is modelled after two very thorough reviews led by steve, one is a long-term strategic planning, followed by a much more intensive technology review. and that technology review was -- is reflected in some of the things in this budget. so first budget request is $27.2 billion and reflects tough choices, cut back in certain areas. what are we cutting? well, we're -- the president's

budget eliminates $4 billion in unnecessary fossil fuel subsidies. it scales back work on certain projects, sodium ion battery, good sale energy storage because actually it was successful and is being commercially deployed. and its on track viability. it's also cutting back on the things that we have funded which did not work, and with the grantees have discontinued funding for a combined total of nearly 35 projects that did not reach research milestones or whole promise to achieve success. we're investing where we think will have the greatest impact. as an example, given the commercial success of onshore winds, we're not directly funding onshore wind research. that's getting to be an

established technology. onshore wind is a very good news story. the levelized cost of onshore winds estimated by a number independent studies, independent department of energy, about 7 cents a kilowatt hour is, again, becoming very competitive with any form of new energy. natural gas is a little bit less. but if you compare it to the other forms of new energy for the same capital costs investment costs of money, it's next least expensive. we're also committed to fiscal management and responsibility. as an example, if you look across the department of energy, we have programs in the office of science in rpe and energy. we are coordinating across those different funding streams and want to maximize across those

areas. we're doing this in solar energy, in batteries, in biofuels. coordinating the efforts. and we are approaching this in a business sense and that's what i mean across the lines of business so that we can with the precious u.s. dollars be the most effective in simulating new innovation that would not have occurred without us. we are undergoing a number of things to save taxpayer money through more efficient operations. let me give you a few. we're avoiding $3 million in costs through travel. we found the previous policy was to use refundable airline tickets and in most cases, you could save a lot of money by

purchasing is nonrefundable tickets, that means you purchase three to four weeks ahead. there's rare examples where you would not use those tickets, we think we can save a lot of money in travel that way. we've overhauled the website and saved $10 million annually. we've reduced the fleet in washington at headquarters and germantown. germantown by roughly 35% and the labs have been asked to do the same. in some of the labs, they've already done that, and in others, they're in the process of completing that. so these are government-owned vehicles. we're reducing that. and finally, we're reducing the time to hire by more than 40% and want to continually improve on that. we're better leveraging our innovation resources. and to deliver products to the market.

so the connection between the research we fund and how that actually gets out into the private sector, we're looking at every nook and cranny to make sure that that process, the intellectual property that's developed in the research fund makes it into the private sector. we've streamlined the cooperative research and development agreements, so that it can can be done much faster. in these agreements, we used to require that the companies provide three months of funding, forward funding, before projects could start, and they would remain three months ahead, and for small companies, that is a very big hurdle. we've reduced that to two months, and looking at whether we can reduce that to one month. the taxpayers are still protected, because the contractors, let's say, a national laboratory, would then backstop what would happen

should there be a shortfall. but that would enable us to work more with smaller companies. there's another, first we have a top energy innovator initiative. we just completed a contest where companies with great ideas run for selection. it's a vote. on our website, you can click on these little video moves, and they advertise, you know, their particular innovation. and there were over 500,000 likes or dislikes cast. and we've announced the the top three finalists that will -- which is a great thing. we've also made it so that if companies, especially this is pertinent to smaller start-up companies, if they want to have a low-cost option agreement for licensing in our national labs. all they would have to do in

order to get this option is a $1,000 option fee for up to three patents. so, again, greatly reducing the cost of beginning the process. they can take that option and begin to shop it around to the investment community to see if there's any interest there. that doesn't mean it's $1,000 to license the patent. it means for $1,000, they can shop it around. but it, we think, is going to add a lot of flexibility. we're also allowing, we realize one size doesn't fit all, and so we're saying that in certain cases, especially again if you're a smaller company, you will not start a business unless you have an exclusive license, because if you don't have an exclusive license, you're always afraid of a bigger company comes in and licenses it and it rolls right over you. so in many instances, exclusive licenses are the preferred approach. and again, it's a case-by-case basis, as to what you do.

again, all with the intent of getting this out into the private sector, turning discovery and invention into innovation. and finally, we've implemented the act or agreement for commercialization technology. it's a pilot program i think of more than six or eight labs have already signed up for this. again, an alternate way, different from the so-called c credas, in order to show some flexibility. we're very focused on saving money by saving energy. and so our budget contains $310 million to improve commercial and residential building efficiency. it supports the president's better buildings initiative to catalyze the private sector, investments in commercial building efficiencies, and that's a photograph of president obama, president clinton, who has been also very instrumental in helping get this started. we promote -- the budget promotes the passage of home

start, to provide rebates to help families invest in home energy upgrades, again, to save money by saving energy. we want to strengthen u.s. manufacturing. the president in his state of the union spoke out very strongly for this. if you look at advanced technology products, to try to balance between what we import in advanced technologies and what we export, you find that about 2002, 2001, we went negative. we started importing more high-technology goods than exporting, and this is not good. not only is it not good for a lot of reasons, but it's mostly not good, because more than anywhere else, we believe that the united states can compete in advanced technology manufacturing, and so our budget reflects that. it asks for $290 million for advanced manufacturing office to support r&d on materials and processes, to help manufacturers cut costs.