calling the relationship dysfunctional. what additional actions are you taking relative to the national academies report that just persisted year in, year out for agencies on that watch list. >> regarding the watch list as you noted, the science is also on the watch list, and if you look at the record, it's 100% on time and on budget. that's proof in the department of energy that one can develop very complex multi-billion-dollar budgets and carry them through to project. i knew that when i walked in the door. it was a concerted effort to export those practices to nasa and environmental cleanup. let me say a strong common denominator in the nasa and watt are doing, you don't start

construction until a large amount of the manufacturing drawings are done. and if you start putting shovels in the ground when you've got 10% of the design done, you will in variably find out -- this is not only true in government projects, it's true in the private sector as well -- you invariably find out, oops, you should have done more design before you started construction. so a lot of the things that you see are products from years ago, but there are things to progress further along in a first budget effort, and you're also not very lucky until you know what you're building. >> i would ask you about that, really. >> i'd love to tell about you that, but for another day. >> thank you. the big chairman, mr. rogers. >> thank you, chairman. coal provides 50%, roughly, of

the nation's energy, electricity, today. if we went completely at 100 miles an hour developing other sources, you're still going to need coal for the foreseeable future. it is an abundant resource that we have that we call the saudi arabia of coal. it's inexpensive, relatively speaking, on the world market for energy, and yet it seems this administration is intent on completely shutting off the use of coal and the mining of coal for the purpose of generating electricity. epa is issuing regulations almost every day, and on the most recent mats, the mercury and air toxic standards, the

rule that they issue, there is no technology capable of meeting those standards. and so consequently, there can be no new coal plants because of that rule, among others. and at the same time, the epa is demanding new technologies for compliance with their regulations. you are cutting the research that would develop those technologies. that seems to me to be incomprehensible. we've got two agencies of the government at cross purposes. the fossil energy research and development program in your department has played an important role in improving existing technologies and inventing entirely new ones. your request for funding is cut

for fossil energy, r and d is cut at 20%. $113 million cut. the request cuts advanced energy systems by 45 million, that's almost half. and it cuts cross cutting research to 19 million, which is 40%. in essence, on the one hand the epa is saying you can't build a new plant because you don't have the technology to burn coal the way we want it burned, and you're saying, but i'm not going to give you the money to find those ways to burn coal the way you would like. help me out here. am i confused? >> well, mr. congressman, i have to say that i am very much supportive of developing those

technologies that you speak of that would develop -- be able to use gas and coal in a clean way. we believe that it is very important to develop those technologies not only in the united states but in partnership in the world. coal will be around for a long time and we recognize that. and to those -- i think constable warmike heard me speak about that this morning, how important it is that we continue that research. and part of the issue in the budget was there was a lot of money rescinded in some of the carbon projects that were a partnership between the government and private sector. and what we're trying to do our path forward we see as a viable path forward is that there is a

beneficial use of carbon dioxide which will further our research in capturing carbon dioxide that can now be used in the enhanced world of oil recovery, but also as we pump the carbon dioxide in the ground, we will learn a lot about what is going on. these industries saying what we say, all right. we understand, we're still interested in that. so we're trying to work with the industry and reprogram some of this, and we haven't, in having the carbon capture, and the sequestration is in the oil recovery which will tell us a lot and sequester in the short term and we'll learn a lot. >> you're proposing to cut the funding. you're going to cut fossil research and development 21%. you're cutting advanced energy

systems almost half, cross cutting research by 40%. all the while, you're increasing funding for all the other research programs other than for coal. notably a $500 million increase for the renewable program which is already funded at 1.8 billion. how do you explain that? that's completely contrary to the answer you just gave me, if i understood you correctly. >> as i said, we do support the research. there is a deployment side -- >> then why are you cutting it? drastically cutting it. if you support it, that's a funny way of supporting. how are you supporting it with other than money? >> we are supporting it with money, we are supporting it with trying to work with the utility companies in these projects.

>> well, there's been lots of applications for fossil energy r and d. i don't think there's been any of them approved. >> r and d? excuse me? >> loan guarantees, excuse me. >> i think the loan guarantees are ones where we're working through them. these are very complex issues. we want to actually -- we have the loan money. we're working through that and these are complex issues. and i would like to see more money used. >> mr. dix, the ranking member. >> can you bring us up to date on yucca mountain? >> as far as i know, what is happening is that this is before the courts, and we're awaiting

the decision of the courts. >> we understand that if the courts rule, and there is still law of the land, you have to start forward. how much would you estimate it costs to get this project back on, moving forward with it? >> i would have to get back on dersths to proceed, we will proceed. >> we understand it's around 100 million to get started. now, tell us about your blue ribbon commission. what recommendations did they have on nuclear waste? >> well, what they recommended is first they, as we all do, acknowledged that we have to solve the problem. and it's very important that we do solve the problem. one of the very important things

that they noted is that they spent about two years, many, many meetings, a very thorough job. i commend them for the excellent job, but one of the things they noted was that other countries have done it in a different way. notably sweden, they think also finland has gone a different way. so what they found was that -- >> can you tell us what those ways are? >> yes. they -- sweden set up a public-private type of company. maybe pba is the closest thing to that, but it's not officially in, let's say, the department of energy. that with this they also noted if you can convince the people that this can be done in a safeway that there are econom-- economic benefits. it turned out the three

competitive bids for the rights to dispense fuel. so it was a contest that went completely in reverse. in fact, the losers, the people who did not get the site, actually had some side benefits, but there was a serious competition to say, we see economic benefit, and if you do this in a safe way, there is -- you can control the down side. we actually have an example of that in the united states in the reactive waste in new mexico called the whip in carlsbad. it's been operating 11, 12 years, roughly that period of time, great economic benefit, it's being done in a very safe way, and it's economic prosperity for that region. >> you know, in my hometown of

bremer to bremerton, washington, we have a big shapeyard. nuclear ships come in, and nuclear waste is taken off the submarines and sent to mr. simpson in idaho, and they're supposed to send it on to yucca mountain. there are agreements here. this got up to the level of -- the top level of the clinton -- i guess it was the clinton administration. and there is a time -- i think it's in, like, 2025, this has to happen or idaho will no longer be obligated to receive this waste. so this is -- this has implications. the fact that we're just letting this thing go on and on and on, i think, is a big mistake. and i was here. i voted for this to go -- to do it at yucca mountain, and i think that's the law of the land. it hasn't been changed. i think you're going to wind up -- i can't believe the courts are going to sustain your position. so you better start looking at

these alternative -- you better start figuring out how you're going to get yucca mountain moving forward. you just can't declare something at the executive branch that's no longer the law. you have to come to congress and get the law changed. that hasn't happened. >> well, that was another very important recommendation by the commission, that it really is up to congress if congress wants to change the law, and we would be willing to work with congress to do that. and we take the legal obligations very seriously. i think it's 2035 you have to get prepared, and by 2037 you have to be shipping. so, yes, we know that those are very serious obligations. >> thank you, mr. dicks. mr. lewis? >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. dr. chu, thank you very much for being with us. i can't help but scratch my head about the fact that we are able

to acquire someone of your background and talent to serve in this capacity. to say the least, and beyond the heat you'll be taking from committees like this, your willingness to serve is very much appreciated by many of us. your background is well known. a nobel prize winner in the arena of physics. but beyond that, you're celebrating your anniversary is another thing. your bride, dr. jean chu, holds a doctorate in philosophy, as i understand it, in physics from oxford university. and above and beyond that, she served as chief of staff in two stanford terms of president. my god, it would be interesting to hear what you guys talk about at night. >> all i know for sure is she would not have admitted me.

>> i must say your service is very much appreciated. but beyond that, the panel probably doesn't realize this, but yucca mountain has, for all these decades, essentially been in my district. and in the early day, it strikes me that unless we learn from this most recent history, we're bound to repeat the disaster that is yucca mountain. i was fooling around with a figure earlier thinking we had spent something in the neighborhood of $9 billion on the yucca mountain catastrophe. it's closer to $14 billion, as staff tells me. in connection with that, in the early days of yucca, all the politicians who want to solve this problem reportedly were supportive of yucca mountain as the location. especially when it was producing jobs in the local economic community. then you move forward, and lo and behold, there is some

controversy around this subject, and all the politicians flee in spite of the billions of dollars they signed onto earlier. the concern that we've got to have is that, first of all, we must solve this difficulty in an environment that's a political environment. and lord knows if we're not careful about learning from the past, we are bound to repeat it. we'll spend billions of dollars again for another location following yucca mountain, and lo and behold, what will happen? so one way or another, we have to think through the pure politics of this if we're going to make serious progress. and the congress ought to be trying to help you work their way through that. and i can't say that we've done that very well up to this point. >> can i respond? >> sure. >> thank you for your comment. i agree with you, and one of the recommendations of the commission is to set up the semi-autonomous arm, like a

devia deviate, that says, get it out of the arena. get it out so you can have very competent people take a very professional attitude of what will be in the betts interesst f the united states in solving this problem. that was one of the recommendations, but right now it's up to congress to weigh these considerations and decide. but that is one of the clear recommendations of the commission. >> in the meantime, we are struggling with this reality. it was not that long ago that others in the arena who i serve where yucca mountain is located, we all supported that this should go forward to a logical location. lo and behold, the next time you locate a facility, please don't locate it somewhere near the speakers district because the problems there will be endless as well. so between here and there, i would hope that your policy people would work very closely with us to try to have us together hand in hand, have an

independent commission or otherwise, not just work effectively but get results on the other end. but thank you. >> thank you, mr. batah. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and welcome again to the secretary. i want to go back to this question of technology transfer and jobs. i visited many of the federal labs. i think that's a department in terms of executing its responsibility in terms of the federal lab. you've done an extraordinary job particularly in terms of the nuclear weapons and the modernization efforts, and i know the committee has done a lot to see that we totally fund that. i also visited the ferma lab and the aragon lab. this issue about the fundamental research is not limited to the department. but there are -- and i think the administration has been doing

some work in this regard. i know the white house has acquired all the departments, the work on this question, technology transfer and jobs and that energy is working hand in hand with the commerce department, with the national innovative marketplace to get american manufacturers first run at many of these opportunities. but this is a serious issue. you've got conflicting issues, and you'll appreciate as a scientist that it is conflicting issues in that scientists want to have interaction around inventions and new ideas and new approaches in the scientific community. at the same time, we are in economic competition with other countries. and so making all this information public, making it available leads to our economic competitors getting opportunities to work off of -- they pick the fruit off the trees we planted with american

taxpayer dollars. and the issue here of taking patents or taking research is taxpayer funded and having the job. if the new widgit is going to be made here, we want it made in america. so i would adopt 2015 called the american studies and american jobs act which would focus on this question. because one well-intentioned lab personnel told me directly he's got four patents, he tried to build these products here in america, but he got a much better offer somewhere else. all of the research was paid for by american taxpayer dollars. but those jobs are some other place. and there's a lot that we need to work on in this regard, and i think that i'm a big proponent of research. i think our labs are a tremendous asset. i travel with the chairman and

mike simpson and others, and i was just amazed at the work that's being done by the thousands and thousands of phds on behalf of the american people. but we want to make sure that the jobs that are created stay here. and there's a lot of work that we have to do in that context, and the congress has to be involved because we're going to have to change some of the st statutorial language that if we're going to require someone who is working every day and invest it in some very smart people who will come up, and they're going to go out in the commercial market and make a lot of money. that's great. we want that. but we want the jobs that emanate from that to at least be somewhere in the domestic united, in one of our 50 states,

so the whole country benefits from this. so whether it's mris or laser eye surgery, all of this is at the base government funded research. and we have to figure out a way to make sure that the jobs that emanate from that help reinvigorate our manufacturing base. i would be interested in you taking a look at the legislation. it's not obviously cast in stone. it's not going to pass any time in the near future. but i do think we have to work together in this regard. >> thank you, mr. fattah. mr. simpson, your name was invoked a few minutes ago. >> and very well. i'm glad somebody else brought up yucca mountain first. a couple quick questions. first of all, it's interesting that when you mention the carlsbad area and how that's created jobs, remember back at

the beginning of whip? congress had to force whip on carlsbad? it was not real readily accepted by the people of new mexico? we were sued several times and everything else. so sometimes these things have to get done one way or another. has the department embraced the blue ribbon commission recommendations, and if so, will it require legislation to implement some of those provisions, and if so, will you present that to congress or will it be done by administrative fiats such as closing yucca mountain? >> no, i think it's very clear that congress will have to play a very key role if it wants to amend the nuclear waste act. and so -- and that was very clearly stated in the blue ribbon commission. >> it would take amendment of the nuclear waste act? >> it depends what parts you're talking about. for example, one of the

recommendations was that -- there are fees collected from the power generators, and those fees are a considerable amount of money, three-quarters of a billion dollars a year. and they recommended that some fraction of those fees start to go to this -- if a semi-private organization is set up, because it gives and takes it away from yearly appropriations, it puts it on a more professional basis. and it can start with a small fraction, but to let that begin, because those moneys were clearly collected for that reason. >> and it's recommended that that occur promptly. >> but that would require a proposal to congress. >> have you proposed it? >> i would love to work with congress and decide what congress would be willing to accept on those things. that's one example. another example is the blue ribbon commission points out that you would want both the permanent storage site and you

would want interim site. >> don't let this turn into a simpson-bowls where we go out and make recommendations and nobody pushes it forward. if you're going to push it forward, push it forward and come work with congress to get it done. secondly, along the lines of what mr. rogers was talking about, 50% of our electricity is row du produced by coal, 20% by nuclear power. when i look at the budget, it's a very small part of the electronics portfolio, and cuts in some areas that are producing the most electricity. i'm, frankly, disappointed. where we've seen reductions in small modular reactors, this was the ground we were heading down, but we're seeing new direction in that arena and other things. it seems to me there is an agenda of trying to push green technology when, in fact, nuclear energy, i think, is green technology. it doesn't put hydrocarbons in the air. and if you're really going to

address global climate change and hydrocarbons, you had better adopt nuclear energy, and it doesn't seem like we're doing that in this budget. this is the first time i've seen an entrenchment in this administration in advancing nuclear energy. the talk is all there, but the budget doesn't reflect it. >> i think you know very well my support in nuclear energy and my support in coal. so we're trying to push what we can where we can do this. i think in this century, those things will play an important part of our energy mix. >> yes, they will play an important part. one other question. you recently testified you intend to separate nuclear and defense fuel issues. do you believe you have the legal authority to do that in a nuclear waste policy act, to overthrow a determination on how to handle these two materials together? frankly, i don't want to see defense nuclear waste be an

orphan left at places that it currently is. >> no, i agree. i mean -- >> how do you plan to handle them differently? >> well, they are different, number one. and we have a responsibility for both of those in the department. let me say we have a responsibility to handle both those streams. one is they're different in the respect that if you look at -- if nuclear power is going to be part of our energy mix in this century, there is -- that requires considerably more attention. but it's not to say that the others are not important. >> thank you, mr. simpson. mr. alver? >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. secretary, for being here today. it may surprise you, but i think you've actually put forward a fairly reasonable and

responsible budget. i wanted to just clarify a few things. you referenced, in your testimony that the r & d that we do is 5 or 6% and that of china is something like 20%. can you tell me, china, of course, is a very swiftly emerging economy, growing and emerging economy, and are the other two largest japan and germany, i guess, would be the third and fourth largest economies after china and the u.s.? what are the r & d budgets that they put forward? >> off the top of my head, i can't really say exactly how the r & d budgets are, but i can say that certainly china especially is -- has a very strong

commitment to those industries which china deems would be an important part of their economic prosperity in the future. and for that reason, that is why they are investing in many -- they want to diversify from coal. they are heavily dependent on coal, but they're investing in nuclear reactors, they're going to be the biggest employer of wind and solar in the world, in their country. but they also view that as something for export as well. >> i was just hoping that i could get a sense whether or not other really mature economies like germany and france were doing numbers much more similar to us. i think all of the really fast emerging countries would be dog