this great resource. it creates jobs. we think gas is a very important fuel mix and transition that we will be needing in this century. what we believe we have in the department of energy is also aligned closely with the expertise in u.s. gs. we have a lot of expertise how fluids move in rock. how do you develop the tropical storm so industry -- we can help industry know what is happening and develop this resource in an environmentally responsible way. >> how much time are we talking? the president that the state of the union said the government has been investing in shail extraction research for 30 years. how much more do we need to study it? >> what the president was referring to in that case, in about 1978, from '78 to '92, the

department of energy invested in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing at a time when industry wasn't really interested in that. when interested began to pick it up in a real way, the u.s. government got out of that. now, sips that time, it's been the story where then the development of shale gas and shale oil has been quite remarkable in the last half dozen years. there's also active environmental concerns. there are reports on future admissions, things of that nature. so the research we're now going to do in the department of energy and usgs, all right, first, what's really happening. second, how do you keep on advancing best practices. we improve on virtually everything we do going forward. as i said, how could our

research help in developing improving on making sure the water tables aren't contamina d contaminated, things of that nature. >> is the administration looking for a way -- a reason to shut down fracturing? >> no. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you, mr. alexander. mr. womack, thanks for your patience down there. >> thank you, happy birthday, happy anniversary. my compliments to the secretary for his comments this morning at the rpe energy summit. i thought your comments, i found them to be enlightening. a well attended event by the way. my compliments to the host of the event. i want to stay on the natural gas subject for just a moment. i'm troubled by the fact when you look at the budget numbers, a little over $2 billion in

renewable energy request, if i'm reading the numbers correctly, we're looking at just a few million dollars on the subject of natural gas. and as was indicated in that previous round of questioning, that money is dedicated, i think, to, if i heard correctly, to determining whether or not -- you said it's got promise. to make sure we're not doing something environmentally. can you help me -- i know those numbers, that's a wide range. the numbers from the information agency suggests natural gas use by 2035 will be equal to all the renewables put together. those numbers don't seem to match up to me. help me out with that. >> sure. if you look -- let's bring in all of energy, including transportation energy. if you consider -- which is roughly 38% or so of our energy

and how much spends on either oil created domestically, produced domestically or produced and imported, that's probably -- my guess would be something on the order of 700, $800 billion a year. and our energy budget is not commensurate to how much we spend on oil. oil is a very mature technology. it's going very well. the budgets we would spend on oil would be having to do with helping improve safety and helping improve technology with regard to, for example, deep water drilling. so one shouldn't really look at the budget in relation to what we are spending as a country but where -- this is how we try to make these decisions. we try to invest in areas which

are younger earlier technologies. we are investing, for example, a small amount of money but a very important amount of money in seeing whether methane hydrates can be developed. again, because industry hasn't really decided whether this is going to be something. so exactly what the department did in the late '70s and '80s. so what we try to do is invest in things where we think the taxpayers have the most leverage and can push the technology forward in these areas. >> speaking of leveraging, we've got kind of a chicken and an egg. i want to go to natural gas as a mobility fuel now. i listened with a lot of interest to mr. fred smith this morning from fedex on the use of

gas, natural gas in their fleet. and in my district, with the basin, fayetteville shale and gas plays that are happening throughout the country, there seems to be growing demand for compressed natural gas as a mobility fuel. however, chicken and egg, we don't have the infrastructure involved helping me get to where that readily available resource can be put to good use. >> first, i agree completely with fred smith about his assessment of liquefied natural gas in heavy trucking. couple hundred filling stations on major interstates, that's a significant part of energy use. that's 20%. you can offset a lot of that.

we looked at the numbers. it looks very promising. payback periods, something on the order of three, four years for an investment in more expensive truck. the filling station the private sector is getting behind and investing hundreds of millions of dollars. so the heavy trucking, very few filling stations, we think it's a great way to diversify our energy supply. when you go to delivery vans and personal vehicles, different, because you can't have selected every 200 miles on an interstate of you need a lot more. we think compressed natural gas is the conclusion. however, we need better storage. you either have a very expensive tank at a high-pressure, carbon fiber tank or you have a very heavy tank, which is really not considered an option like a scuba tank. what we have done in looking at this is the best thing we feel

the department of energy can do, we're putting out this announcement for funding opportunity is to do two types of research. one, to decrease the tank costs. so it's not an additional, you know, one-quarter to one-shared extra in the vehicle. so you can use compressed natural gas, which we have more readily available infrastructure. the other is to actually look at research where you can have the gas absorbed in a material in the tank. so you have the same storage capacity. >> i've got to interrupt here. if you can just finish your sentence. >> again, it's technology solution. if we didn't do this, we a lot more and we'd be very thrilled by that. >> thank you, mr. secretary. >> thank you. thank you for your patience at the end of the line. >> thank you. thank you, mr. secretary for being here. before you were nominated you

were quoted as saying somehow we have to figure out how to boost the levels of gasoline where they are in europe. i can't look at motivation, i have to look at results. under this administration, the price of gasoline has doubled. while bumping gasoline to $4, today the price in europe is $8. the people of north mississippi can't be here. so i have to be here and be their voice tore them. i have to tell you, $8 a gallon gasoline makes them afraid. it's a cruel tax on the people of north mississippi as they try to go back and forth to work. it's a cloud hanging over economic development and job creation. it appears to me this administration continues to drag its feet on oil exploration, possible fuel development and recovery. how do you respond to that?

>> well, i think absolutely we should be judged on what we're doing. i should be judged on my track record when i became secretary of energy. and when this administration started, we were in a free fall and a recession. the price had plunged from roughly $140 a gallon down to -- barrel, $140 a barrel down to about $40 a barrel. and we -- and the solution to this, we will do everything in our powers to -- and we agree there is great suffering when the price of gasoline increases in the united states. so we are very concerned about this. as i have repeatedly said, in the department of energy, what we're trying to do is diversify our energy's biotransportation, so that we have cost effective means, natural gas is great.

we're pushing natural gas. lelectrificatio electrification. we've had president spectacular breakthroughs, one announced yesterday that looks like it's going to at least decrease the cost of these barriers two fold and maybe more. biofuels. a very aggressive program started in the previous administration but continuing. again, to diversify that supply of transportation fuel. these are the things we're doing and we're very focused on that because we understand the economic impacts it has on all americans and our economy. >> but is the overall goal to get our price? >> no. the overall goal is to decrease our dependency on oil, to build and strengthen our economy and to decrease our dependency on oil. for the first time in the last eight years through a lot of

policies in this administration and previous administrations, our oil production has increased for the first time. it's at the highest level in eight years. the import, the highest level in 16 years. we think if you consider all these policies, including energy efficiency, we think that we can go a long way to becoming less dependent on oil and with diversifying our supply and help the economy and the person consumers. >> thank you. >> thank you for putting a face on what a lot of americans are feeling at the pump and with their own family budgets. >> chairman, thank you. i realize we're at the end. i just want to highlight three issues that questions will be submitted for the record, mr. chairman, that i have a particular interest in. one is the issue of the safety culture at the waste treatment

facility. there was a doe office of health and safety security investigation last year and report. very concerned about the systemic problem that continues to persist and have an interest in that question. relative to that realized there was an agreement between the department and usac, $44 million relative to detailings and enrichment differences. the question what happens to the loss of government concern for that. i'll strip $44 million of liability. do taxpayers pick that up or does usac pick up that additional liability? the last question i realize the administration looking for transfer authority for $106 million. but the question i would have is where will the $106 million be transferred from should the authority ever be granted. i appreciate the chairman's in

dullence. let me say i associate my feelings with you. you still have $550 million unobligated in terms of the 705 stimulus loan guarantee money. yes, i believe that's the amount. a lot of that money went out in the waning months of that authority. can you give the committee assurances that money and the programs it went to had better oversight than some of the other programs that were initiated. >> how do you want me to -- >> how you want to.

there were lessons learned. >> there's always lessons in life. certainly as noted in my testimony we continue to improve how we administer the loan. i wouldn't characterize what happened at the end. we were very careful in how we assess. i think you're talking about the loans. >> yes. and how are you monitoring? >> what we've been doing since 2010, mid 2010, studying a different section, with the department of energy, to look for changes in anything that would materially affect the company and the environment the company is in. certainly if you look at the loan agreements we have, they are very careful milestones before the next part is metered

out. tissue to that, as noted in the solyndra case, there was a very rapid change in photovoltaics. the price dropped by 80% inars one-fifth of what the solar modules are doing. when that happens, the good news there's rapid technology development occurring during that time and will continue to develop. the bad news is not all companies are able to survive that. >> are you laying blame for that disaster on things that occurred in china? how about oversight of -- >> i'm saying when prices vary that much in a commodity product a lot of companies can be swept up by that. >> that's all the more reason --

>> i agree with you. i agree completely with you. >> we will continue to monitor what was approved. >> as the economics and business changes, effectively something like that happened, we have to be very, very conscious of that. we monitor these things very, very closely. >> we're counting on you. obviously a lot of the public confidence issues i mentioned in my initial opening statement rest on the type of assurances you're giving us this afternoon. this is your lucky day. this is your birthday and your wedding anniversary and we have some votes, which means we will not reconvene. but we have a lot of questions, for the record, and we hope we can get responses back in good order. we look forward to cooperation from your staff in that regard. i may say for record, if members have any additional questions, i

think they have a requisite 24 hours to get them in to be submitted to the department of energy. on behalf of the committee, we thank you for your time and that of your staff this afternoon. >> thank you. >> we stand adjourned.

coming up live shortly on c-span3 we'll hear from president obama. he's in nashua, new hampshire, this afternoon talking about initiatives to boost energy production. he's also expected to call on congress to repeal $4 billion in annual subsidies to oil and natural gas companies. this will be the president's second visit to the state in about three months. live coverage from nashua community coverage gets under way in about 10 minutes at 1:30 eastern. right now, phone calls from this morning's washington journal. >> the faces of war were reflected in 200 veterans and guests who gathered in the east room to dine on aged rib-eye

steak, potato croquettes, and chocolate creme brulee. came from u.s. territories, spanning gender, nearly 4500 americans died in the iraq war. there is a veterans group, iraq and afghanistan veterans of america. they have issued an open letter calling on the president to designate a national day of action to honor iraq veterans for special events around the country. the pentagon says for its part it would be inappropriate to have a big national level event like a parade when so many are still serving in combat operations in afghanistan. many of those just home from iraq. no doubt will turn around and go to afghanistan before combat there wraps up at the end of 2014. in all 2.38 million americans have sernd-of- servved in the i afghanistan war so far.

more than 1 million have deployed more than once. that's associated press. this is an article from early in february. more cities consider parades for iraq war vets. the st. louis parade welcoming home iraq. war and other post september 11th veterans spurring talks of similar parades in at least 10 other cities. organizers of the st. louis parade that drew an estimated 100,000 observers, 20,000 participants in st. louis january 28th say they have been approached by officials in chicago, denver, san antonio, philadelphia, oklahoma city, seattle, tucson, nashville, greensboro, north carolina, and clinton, iowa. the st. louis parade and rally was the first major event ronering the end of the iraq war. organizers urged participation from other veterans who have served in the fight against terrorism. organizers craig snyder and tom

applebaum for media. they needed one month and $40,000 to pull it off. we want your views whether there should be a national celebration, national parade for iraq war vets. we're going to begin with the democrat here in the suburb silver spring, maryland. you're on the washington journal. good morning. >> caller: good morning. i think this is just one of the republican's worst trivializing move. they have been talking about this and berating the president for a long time. what veterans really need, service people really need, is a really good foreign policy. what they need when they come home is everything that other americans need. they need a good economy, good fiscal policy, jobs, health care, all the things republicans are trying to stop the president from accomplishing. president obama has really tried. you know, the republicans -- at

least romans understood it was bread and circuses. romans understood it was bread and circuses. republicans want statues, parades but totally irresponsible about what our veterans and service people really need. >> we have set aside our fourth line this morning for iraq war vets 202-648-0184 is the number for you to call. republican ed in kansas is at chanute, kansas? what do you think? >> caller: i think we should do a parade and national day of recognition. we can't do enough for these veterans that left home, put their lives on the line while the rest of us stayed home. we need to do everything we possibly can. >> cedartown, georgia, james on our democrats' line. what do you think about a parade for iraq war vets. >> yes. i think the president is the top

commander in chief. him and his wife michelle. they did a great job working with these military families. republicans, if it was left up to them, we would still be in iraq fighting a war. they are doing everything they can to try to undermine what president obama is doing. what you see is the difference in an intelligent person compared to president bush, it's totally different. these people need health care, jobs, just like the first caller said. if you really listen to the republicans, they are all about show. they are not going to actually try to do nothing. he's been trying to get people jobs, all kinds of health assistance, homs and things. the republicans -- would still be in iraq, the war would not be over. mitt romney still wants to be in iraq. newt gingrich, all the republicans still want to be there. so i send out congratulations to the president. thank you. >> thank you for your call this morning. in other news, political news,

here is the washington times. bob kerrey, a vietnam war vet changes minds, decides on senate run. senator bob kerrey changed his mind and will seek the democratic nomination for senate, a move to boost efforts to keep one of the most vulnerable seats this fall. mr. kerrey, 68, represented the state for 12 years before retiring in '01 said his reversal fit his character because doing things the conventional way has never been my strong suit. i came to realize the previous decision was the easy one, not the right one. my commitment to serve nebraska and america and be part of the didn't about the challenges we face was too strong to dismiss. he says his family supports his decision 100%. a kerrey candidacy would jump-start enthusiasm, media attention and cash for democrats in a state where registered republicans outnumbered democrats 48% to 32%.

that's in the washington times this morning. here is from cincinnati, the cincinnati inquirer newspaper only. it's all about how now, and battle starts today. all about super tuesday, of course, which comes up next tuesday. in this article on cincinnati inquirer, ohio is a state where according to the university of cincinnati's ohio poll mitt romney trails rick santorum by 11 percentage points with only six days to go until ohio republicans go to the polls. next call comes from nebraska. justin is an iraq war vet. hi, justin. >> caller: hello, sir. good morning. >> when did you serve and where did you serve? >> caller: i served in bagged and sauter city in 2004 and 2005. it was right after the invasion. there was no iraqi government. there was no iraqi army.

everything was pretty fuzzy and hazy. that was at the height of the war, 160,000 troops there. i kind of feel foolish in a way. i would do it over again. i proudly wear the uniform but i didn't figure we would spend a decade in that country and in afghanistan. there just -- i want to know what i did for my country over there in that war. i really don't feel like we accomplished anything and it kills me to say that. >> thank you, justin. are you still in the military now? >> no. i only served one enlistment, a brief, two years plus training, no gi bill. but i still get my benefits. i was with the 82nd airborne division. i sustained a back injury. so i'm a disabled vet.

i get my v.a. benefits. nobody asked me for any parade. i can't get any vocational rehab. i was infantry. that doesn't leave many options on the outside world. i didn't learn how to fix something or a trade skill like that. >> thank you for participating this morning. this is a call from new york city. mike is a democrat. hi, mike. >> caller: thank you for c-span. funny enough, a part of my agrees with all of the callers so far both republican and democrat. each caller seems to -- i'm finding myself in agreement with. but i think that we've heard many democrats and republican politicians look at the iraq war as we've heard people -- >> see washington journal every morning at 7:00 eastern on c-span. we're going live now to hear president obama.

he's in nashia, new hampshire, talking about initiatives to boost american energy production. the president appearing at nashua community college. >> thank you. hello, nashua. it is good to be back in new hampshire! thank you, mike, for that wonderful introduction and for your service to our country. i want to thank the president of nashua community college lucille gordon for hosting today. give lucille a big round of applause. we have professor paul wonderlick who gave me a tour today. where is he? he's got a beard. can you see him. there he is. and i want to