>> don't let this turn into a simpson/bowles where we make recommendations and nothing gets pushed forward. if you're going to push it forward, push it forward and don't wait for congress. secondly along the lines with what mr. rogers was talking about, 50% of our electricity is produced by coal, 20% by nuclear power. when i look at your budget, i look at huge increases in the renewalable energy which is very small part of the electrical portfolio. and cuts in the other area producing electricity. i'm frankly disappointed where we're seeing reductions is in small modular reactors. this was the new ground we were going to and head down that road. we're seeing reductions in that arena and other things. seems to me like there's an agenda of trying to push green technology when nuclear energy is green technology, it doesn't put hydrocarbons in the air. if you're really going to

address global climate change and hydrocarbons, you had better adopt nuclear energy. it doesn't seem like we're doing that in this budget. this is the first time i've seen a retrenchment in this administration in advancing nuclear energy. the talk is all there, but the budget doesn't reflect it. >> well, i think you know very well my support of nuclear energy and my support of clean 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 time. do you believe you have the authority to overturn a previous presidential determination on how to handle these materials together? frankly, i don't want to see defense nuclear waste be an

orphan left at places it currently is. >> i agree. >> how do you plan to handle them differently? >> they are different, number one. we have a responsibility for both of those, or the u.s. government rit large has a responsibility to handle both those extremes. one is they are different in the respect if you look -- if nuclear power is going to be part of the energy mix in this century, that requires more attention. that's not to say the other is not important. >> thank you, mr. simpson. mr. oliver. >> 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 written testimony that the r&d we do is 5%, 6%, and that of china is something like 20%. can you tell me -- china is a very swiftly emerging economy, growing and emerging economy. the other two largest, japan and germany, would be the third and fourth largest economies after china and the u.s. what are the r&d budgets they put forward? >> off the top of my head, i can't really say exactly how the r&d budgets, but i can say that certainly china especially has a

very strong commitment to those industries which china deems would be an important part of their economic prosperity and 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. they are investing in nuclear reactors. the biggest deployer of wind and solar in the world, in their country. they also view that as something for export as well. >> okay. well, i was just hoping 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 economies would be doing more r&d than we would be doing. i'll leave that. we can discuss it at another point. our r&d, some of our r&d major activities have been the

engineering with frontier research centers. i guess we now have 46 of those. those have been standing for a couple of years now. do you have an ongoing program for oversight or for measuring what the output of those centers is? >> yes. >> at this point or -- >> yes. we're in the midst of starting a thorough review of the effectiveness of those so-called efrcs. very rigorous policies and how to evaluate them based on outside scientific referees to see how each one is doing. we want to make sure the ones working very effectively, we'd like to continue. the ones that are not, fair discussion. >> what's a fair period of time

to begin to account -- >> every year they are reviewed. in this next review, it's a much more thorough review. you step back and look over the next couple of years. >> if they were established in '09, they could not have been functioning effectively at all until probably late '10. >> that's right. so we're about two years into this. i think some of the frcs started in middle of '08. i'm not sure the exact dates. let's say '09, '10 and '11. >> were the hubs also standing at the same time or are they more recent? >> they are more recent except for the three hubs which are the energy biocenters. they got started in the last administration. those were actually the prototypes of what we had. >> those were before the energy research centers?

frontiers research centers? >> thinking six or seven -- about the same time roughly, maybe a little earlier. the bioresearch centers, again, i can get back with the details may have come a year or two earlier than the erfcs. >> you're asking for an additional hub. there are five up and standing and you're asking for a sixth one. in your testimony you said electricity systems. can you tell me what you mean by electricity systems? >> well, if you look at the electricity system in the united states, it's a very complex organism if you will. >> is this the delivery system? >> it's the transmission and distribution system. it's the delivery system. it controls the flow of electricity. it's how do you, as you work to go to a modern grid that you can

control how you flow the electricity, and you want to look at where there are potential vulnerabilities in the grid. >> would that hub be responsible for trying to figure out how to reduce greatly the loss of power over distance? the delivery of power in a much more proficient manner. >> that wouldn't be -- >> mr. secretary, if you could maybe summarize in response to that question. we want to get everybody in here before we blow the whistle for votes. >> i'll give you the details, but it's not over long distances. it's more distribution and control systems. >> mr. olver. mr. rodney alexander. >> thank you, mr. secretary. the president's budget includes interagency study that says the department of energy, epa and usgs are partnering to study

the environmental and health effects of hydraulic fracturing. can you tell us a little about what that might lead us to? >> as you know, the president tafrked to us to set up a subcommittee to look at hydraulic fracturing. and i think the conclusions of that subcommittee report were that we believe that hydraulic fracturing can be done in an environmentally responsible way, so you can take advantage of this great resource. it creates jobs. we think gas is a very important fuel mix and a transition that we will be needing in this century. what we believe we have in the department of energy and is also aligned closely with the expertise in usgs. we have a lot of expertise in how fluids move in rock.

how do you develop the city so 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 in the state of the union said the government has been investing in shale 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 industry began to pick it up in a real way, the u.s. government got out of it. now, since that time, and it's been a story where then the development of shale gas and shale oil has been quite remarked on in the last half dozen years.

there's also active environmental concerns. there are reports on future emissions, things of that nature. so the research we're now going to do in the department of energy and usgs, is say, 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 the practices that are more focused on making sure that the water tables aren't 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 the united states 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 billion, $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 various 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 arkoma 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 to support it, so how is d.o.e. involved in helping us get to

the level where that readily available resource can be put to good use? >> excellent question. first, i agree completely with fred smith about his assessment of liquefied natural gas in heavy trucking. a couple hundred filling stations on major interstates, and that's a significant part of our transportation energy use. it'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 a 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. you need a lot more. we think compressed natural gas is the solution. however, we need better storage. you either have a very expensive tank at high pressure, a carbon fiber tank oh, 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, and 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-third 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 a technology solution. if we didn't do this, we'd feel it 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 to the levels 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 bump 4g $4 a galleon,

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 for 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 -- or barrel. $140 a barrel down a little under -- 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 suffering when the price of gasoline increases in the united states. and so we are very concerned about this. and as i've repeatedly said in the department of energy, what we're trying to do is diversify our energy supply transportation so that we have cost effective means. natural gas is great and so we're pushing on natural gas for transportation. electrification is great because then that all flows in electrification. in the battery research we've been funding, we've had some pretty spectacular breakthroughs. one just announced yesterday that looks like it's going to at least decrease the cost of these batteries 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. so these are the things we're doing and we're very focused on that because we understand the economic impacts that 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 between this administration and previous administrations, our oil production has increased for the first time, it's at its highest level in eight years. the import, the fraction is the highest level in 16 years. we think that 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

diversifying our supply and we'll help the american economy and the american consumers. >> thank you. >> mr. 91 nunly, thank you for putting a human face on what american families are feeling at the pump and in 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 suspended 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 d.o.e. office of health safety security investigation last year and a report. very concerned about the systemic problem that continues to persist and i have an interest in that question. relative to usac i realize there was an agreement between the department of usac of $44 million relative to the tailings as well as in return enrichment services.

the question in particular i have is what happens to the cost of the government long-term for those tailings? i'll strip the $44 million of liability. do taxpayers pick that up or does usac pick up that additional liability? the last question is i realize the administration is looking for transfer authority for $106 million. 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 indulgence. >> let me say i associate my feelings with mr. viscosi. there are a number of outstandings questions we will put into the record, not the least of which you still have i think $550 million unobligated in terms of the 705 stimulus, loan guarantee money. and a lot of -- yes, i believe that's the amount. a lot of that money went out in

the waning months of the program's authority. you personally approved that. can you sort of give the committee some assurances that that money and the programs it went to had better oversight than perhaps some of the other programs that were initiated? >> well, how do you want me to -- >> how would you like to characterize -- there were some lessons learned. >> well, there are always lessons learned in life, and certainly as noted in my senate testimony, we are continuing to improve how we administer the loan. but i wouldn't characterize what happened at the end -- we were very careful in how we assessed. so i think you're talking about the conditional loans and that obligation. >> yes. how are you monitoring? >> right.

what we have been doing since i think 2010, mid-2010, setting up a different section within the loan program, but also in the department of energy, to look for changes in anything that would materially affect the company and the environment the company's in. so it's not only -- certainly if you look at the loan agreements that we have, there are very careful milestones the company has, before the next part is metered out. but in addition to that, as noted in the solyndra case, there was a very, very rapid change in the whole ecosystem of photo voltaics. the price dropped roughly 80% in three years. one-quarter to one-fifth of what the solar modules were doing. when that happens the good news is there's very rapid technology

development that was occurring during that time and will continue to develop. the bad news is that not all companies -- >> are you laying blame for that disaster on the things that occurred in -- >> i'm saying that when prices vary that much in a commodity product, that a lot of companies can be swept up by that. >> well, that's all the more roeason for 84 saying -- >> exactly, i agree with you. >> the point of my question -- >> i agree completely with you. >> we continue to monitor what was approved -- >> right. as the economics and the business changes, if there's that -- effectively something like that happening, we have to be very, very conscious of that and we monitor these things very, very closely. and so -- >> we're counting on you, and obviously i think a lot of the

public confidence issues that 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 that we will not reconvene. but we have a lot of questions for the record and we hope that we can get responses back in good order. we look forward to cooperation from your staff in that regard. and i may say for the 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. so mr. secretary, on behalf of the committee, we thank you for your time and of that your staff this afternoon. >> thank you. >> we stand adjourned.

tomorrow, another look at the president's 2013 budget request. with veterans administration secretary eric shen secky. both president obama and house republicans want an increase for that department. thursday the defense department

budget, which is facing major cuts if congress fails to agree on how to lower spending. a look at the federal trade commission budget on friday. this saturday at noon eastern, on c-span2's "book tv," join our live call-in program with chris kyle as he talks about his life from professional rodeo rider to becoming the most lethal sniper in u.s. military history. at 10:00 p.m. on "after words." >> if you think of yourself as a family and you think of yourself as a team. she said, when i get a raise at work she's so proud of me, it's like we got a raise, our family got a raise. i really felt she had redefined providing to include what her husband does and she had a lot of respect for what her husband is doing. >> "the richer sex" on the changing role of women as bread winners of the family and how that impacts their lives. "america the