i am just arbitrarily going to go alphabetically. keep your comments to around five minutes as much as you can. we want to have plenty of time to get into questions. alphabetically, it would be the doctor. >> sector, always hoping you would begin at the end of the alphabet. [laughter] thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify on this important subject. in 2009 i had the honor of serving on the space flight planning committee. the committee formally ceased to exist on december 2009. today i am speak solely in my personal capacity. the human spaceflight committee

was established to offer possible alternatives. the committee looked at nasa and included -- concluded it cannot be executed for budgetary reasons. the committee considered a variety of alternatives. the report emphasized that the choice facing us is one of goals, not destination. spaceflights should not began as an argument over destination. for example, should we get to the moon or should we get to

mars? choosing a destination and searching for a reason to justify that choice. the committee inspires and next generation, driving technology, and other important aspects. this does not make contributions to these areas that are so unique or cost-effective that they justified the decision to go beyond a low earth orbit. the fundamental goal is for charting the human expansion into the solar system. we embraced the space station as a means to an end. the report insist on scientific integrity. human spaceflight should not be justified with exaggerated claims. we live in a time of extraordinary discoveries about

space. we have learned that early march and standing liquid water on its surface and the resulting sedimentary rocks are still accessible. we have learned that there are many other ocean world in our solar system. oceans and that are as big as our own. we applaud the other solar systems are common and we have learned that most of the energy in the universe is not made up of the kind of matter we are familiar with here on earth and we are not sure what it is. human space flight should be an ally and certainly not a budgetary component. the committee's report called for the government space agency to concentrate on the hardest technical problems associated with the goal of space flight. the commercial sector should play a bigger role.

the committee's report noted that problems forever confronting nasa is that they can either have the budget to develop a new human spaceflight architecture. to afford a major new launch system, nasa has to stop flying. this is the reason for the gap. to develop a constellation, nasa has planned to stop flying the shuttle and to terminate the international space station in 2016. the act of 2010 declares that the longtime goal of nasa it shall be to expand beyond at low earth orbit. at its highest level, the 2010 authorization act is consistent with our committee's framework. an important objective is to sustain the capability for long duration presence in low earth orbit and assisting with the commercial presence to lower of

permit. there will always be arguments over relative and absolute levels of funding, but the provisions in the authorization bill provides our best chance to bring costs down. beyond leo, the authorization act calls on nasa to preserve the nation's core capabilities in space launch and to provide a final backup for cargo delivery. we want to ensure that funding can maintain this court capability and does not -- can maintain this court capability. to conclude, 40 years later, the decade of apollo is still remembered as a nasa's heroic age.

nasa spent almost $20 billion on human spaceflight annually. evidently we are not going to spend $10 billion for human space flight. our committee argued that $3 billion per year more could enable exploration beyond leo on a reasonable timescale. that too is not going to happen. if not, then our experience over the last four decades should try out over hope and we should embrace a model different from the apollo model as we move forward. thank you. >> thank you, dr. chyba. we are at $18.5 billion. that is the constraint we are looking at. capt. culbertson? >> thank you. good morning, mr. chairman,

ranking member hutchinson, and senator rubio -- i appreciate the opportunity to discuss the contributions of the space program. and the vital need to maintain our leadership on this endless frontier. this hearing comes in the same month of alan shepard's spaceflight and president kennedy's speech to congress about going to the moon. what it is true that every day spent in space is a memorable, there was one day aboard the international space station that remain in my memory. you'll see in a moment while i refer to this. it is a constant reminder of why america's commitment to be fully explore space for the benefit of our citizens and people around the world is so vital to our

collective future. we must not retreat from our leadership in space, especially in light of recent events. while serving as commander, i was the only american in orbit. on the morning of september 11, 2001, i just comedic -- completed medical evaluations on my crew. someone said, "frank, we are having a very bad day on the ground." he described the events in washington, d.c., new york city, and pennsylvania as a unfolded. i was able to focus my video camera on the smoking dust in manhattan. we just witnessed the second tower fall. i was reassured by my wife with a nasa's help that our children was safe. we learn the pilot who crashed

into the pentagon was my former classmate. became very personal to me at that moment. i wrote a personal letter to my academy classmates who were gathering for our reunion. "it is horrible to see smoke pouring from wounds from such a fantastic vantage point. watching life being destroyed by such will fall terrible acts is drawn into your psyche no matter who you are." i have confidence in our country and in our leadership that we will do everything possible to better defend her and our families and to bring justice to what has been done. but profits that justice would be served began a month later as i observe the invasion of afghanistan from space. it was even better fulfil three weeks ago.

the dichotomy i wrote about after september 11 -- eleven at our peaceful venture to utilize the space station for human purposes served as a point for discussing the critical need for a space program. everything was different after we landed. we had a job to do, but our relationship with the ground that change. we spoke to a larger number of variety of people then we had planned to. from royalty to newscasters, they had questions. i spoke to over 40 schools in the time i was out there. they were looking to us to prove that humanity can build together and do great things even in the midst of the unthinkable. we wanted to look at the sky for example of something good we could point to four others.

an international project. the children wanted to note that the world still look the same from up there. some men went to the men in the midst of the other war -- vietnam. it was an extremely difficult time, but we still have the ability encourage to expand our boundaries while changing society on earth and dealing with the reality of that conflict. everyone remembers the significance of the moon landing and help prowled it made them to be alive at a time like that. it proved that the biggest challenges on earth -- we can still do great things beyond the earth, beyond the horror we get to deal with day-to-day. we should be proud that we have a permanent residence in space. the space station has been

permanently manned for over a decade. the space station which was called the "centerpiece of our space flight endeavors for the coming decade" is one the greatest examples of international cooperation. the use of the research facility would prove the lives of men. space exploration currently led by the united states of america is a true march of progress. in a cooperative project between the u.s., canada, japan, and russia is a tremendous example. the ability of the united states and our partners to expand our influence because our goals and technological leadership. i saw the benefits of it. as the second manager of the shuttle program, i saw the

incredible benefits of partnering with our former adversaries, learning their capabilities, and together building a space that has provided us a permanent orbit for decades. this is a platform for developing technologies and techniques for executing more ambitious and missions to other destinations. the crew of endeavor and the crew of the space station are working together now to continue the job that was begun many years ago. at this time, i want to give my tribute to the shuttle team that made this possible for so long. the dedication, commitment, the long hours, the do-overs -- they have done a fantastic job. my hat is off to them. like almost all of the military

aircraft i have flown, the shuttle is ending its mission. we are transitioning to a new phase. we have been outfitted with 15 pressurized modules. the solar ray that powers at the facility has a surface area that can cover the u.s. senate chamber three times over. someone has suggested that they do that. [laughter] there are 22 locations for experiments. we are accommodating 300 to 400 payloads. we are just reaching the point of full assembly and full utilization. my written statement contains several references to all that has been done up there and on earth. it will require in the future a

robust system for transport. in the end, nasa and the u.s. space industry is looking at systems and will be safe and reliable. the combination of personal and government endeavors will need to work to make -- we need to get to the station as often as possible with as many spacecraft as we can. the authorization bill moves us in that direction. i would imagine that members of the committee probably share might frustration. the survey shows the public overestimates nasa's budget. i was astounded the other day when i read a congressional quarterly which wrote that nasa's budget has suffered at

around 1% of the budget since 1970. nasa's budget represents less than one-half of 1% of the budget. finally, the discussion of nasa budget contributions must include which nation will be the first among nations to lead peaceful robotic operations in the solar system. it is not a foregone conclusion that the united states will remain the preeminent space nation. we will reap the benefits of leading the march to progress. i am gratified this hearing is being held. in closing, i am proud that our nation continues. my mother and father's generation took on the responsibility of leading the world as a great nation.

the ascent of the leadership and responsibility, but when you assume that responsibility, a lot goes with it. to me, the space program as part of that responsibility. we need to put beacons in these types of the international space station can be seen with the naked eye. i feel a special responsibility because it might unique position that our leadership in space is of vital to our way of life and our future. one -- we should never considered surrendering easily. we always show we are meeting. our freedoms allow us to do that. this is the abiding lesson of light unique experience. thank you for the opportunity to testify before this important hearing. >> thank you. >> said burton nelson, members

of the committee, i would like to thank you for your service to our nation and i would like to thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony today on the importance of our space programs. our mission is to invest space endeavors to inspire, enable, and propel humanity. implicit is our understanding of the development and use of space. it really does inspire our nation and the world. it allows us to greatly achieve our goals and propel us into the future. first, let me address the global economy. the data in i am exciting today is from a report from 2011. the staff already has copies of this. it is our most recent annual report of the industry. this year, the global economy has grown by 48% from $164 billion to two under $76

billion. the average annual growth rate increased from about 5% to nearly 8% last year. that is a strong industry in a good investment. the economy provides services to space-based infrastructure. while government space activities continued to play a major role, the space economy today is predominantly commercial. commercial satellite services, commercial satellite infrastructure together account for $189 billion in 2010. that is nearly 70% of total space activity. nonetheless, and the united states remains by far the largest government player. space is a tremendous economic engine as my colleagues have referred to. the space products and services have become an integral part of daily life.

most people reap the benefits of space systems and technology continuously and without probably knowing it. the degree to which u.s. national investments in space have proven to be high impact investments a tremendous national benefit cannot be overstated. itsy's space industry has origins in government-based investment. directv, serious satellite radio, cnn, monday night football, and countless other satellite services are all the grandchildren of america's investment in the telstar program. satellite weather, do "birth -- google earth are descendants of the corona satellite program. it accounts for 50% of the new wealth generated in america

between 1962 and 2002. it built its muscle on government- investments. space shuttle, international space stations. u.s. national investments in space have spawned a new technologies and new industries that could not even have been imagined when those investments were made. because spacecraft need a renewable source of energy on orbit, today we have solar power industries. because of spacecraft need to be guided and controlled, today we have accelerometer technology from everything to cheering seat belts in cars up to triggering smart phones.

to date we have precision guidance technology that enables eye surgery. because in the set -- nasa needed to protect the environment kennedy space center, today we have the vast cleanup technologies. because the airports required a precise global positioning system, today gps is part of the architecture for commercial, military, law enforcement, emergency services, and personal navigation around the world. because of nasa required ability to work the main engines, to date we have a life-saving heart pump technology. these technologies and more than 40,000 others are the result of a previous focused national investment in space. i would like to touch on face

and foreign policy. funding national space programs has brought tremendous benefits to farm policy. it has been a factor in soft power. president kennedy's speech is often quoted for its aspirational values and less a quoted for national security realities. man, said kennedy, in his quest for knowledge the and progress cannot be deterred. the exploration in space will go ahead whether we join in it or not. no nation that expects to be a leader of other nations can expect to stay behind in this race for space. whether our objective is to win the cold war and extend a hand in friendship, the collaborative effort will build a broad based international community.

the soft power of space programs is part of our foreign relations and national security tools. all americans know about the mission to get osama bin laden. i wonder if any of us will ever know how big a role played in that bill accomplishment. our capacity is directly impacted by our investment in space programs. as the apollo program was gaining momentum, the program was both expected and intended to double the number of american scientists and engineers. doing hard things at duke -- requires our best and brightest minds. it requires inspiring, challenging, and exciting work to do. when america has made the investment, we have never failed to achieve our capacity for greatness.

thank you. >> thank you, chairman nelson and distinguished members of the subcommittee. it is a pleasure to be able to testify on the importance of the space program and the rolein addressing american national priorities. desolate here on behalf of the association of over 300 aerospace companies representing 90% of american industries. our organization was disappointed that the present's budget proposals to under find nasa. the level was agreed upon just last fall. given the current fiscal environment, we believe that the funding proposed by the president of $18.70 billion is the root -- is the minimum required for the program. the funding distribution should

reflect the funding priorities as set forth in the fiscal year 2010budget brigid's -- budget. the impact of the long-delayed cr is causing ripple effect throughout the industrial base and the work force. as the space shuttle is being reinforced in the u.s. is paying russia over $60 billion to get crews to the international space station, it is critical that nasa's transportation programs be adequately funded. two generations of americans have never known a time when our nation was not engaged in human space flight. it is a legacy, not an entitlement. this could become the last generation of americans t.

this has led to considerable work force uncertainty across the entire industrial base. highly skilled personnel have been let go due to lack of funding or clear direction pripet in addition to work force and pacs, and fluctuated budgets and delays take their toll on production capability and industry's ability to engage in programs. it puts programs ought at risk of overruns. it directions or cancellations negatively impact large companies and can be catastrophic to smaller firms. often the only entities with the unique ability to create small, but critical components on which we depend. only one firm in the united states produces a chemical that is necessary for rocket propulsion.

it is used in a wide variety of military systems. the shuttle's retirement is already impacting a large range of users. whatever government budget cuts cynically, the capacity lost please be industry and capable of developing systems in the future. this is a top issue for our industry. nasa's space programs remain a source of inspiration for our youth. aia is committed to education. we posted over 600 students from all across the country at a rocket launching competition this past weekend in virginia. while the students there are clearly motivated, for many

students, the lack of program continuity is impacting the attractiveness of the aerospace profession. in 2009, 57% of students found the aerospace industry to be an attractive place to work. one of the reasons for a lack of interest may be the uncertainty of nasa programs. just as the wall street prices turn young people away from financial careers. a commitment to a robust space flight program will attract students and hold on to the current work force. a robust and sustainable space exploration program is essential to our future economy. it is our nation's investment. a number of space systems are being developed by our

entrepreneurs who made their fortune in information technology. in conclusion, the u.s. space program is at a critical juncture. while cutting the federal deficit is important, cutting back on investments is a penny wise but pound foolish approach >> insteffed the embarrassing situation of buying crew launches from russian 50 years after our first manned space flight, our nation's future will hopefully include one or more american crew vehicles supporting the "sportsnation." along with a multiple crew vehicle and a heavy lift launch vehicle for missions beyond earth or bit. it is dependent on making the investments necessary to lead in space. >> and all of your written

statements will be put in and made a part of the record. i would start with you. i am just going to ask one question, and then i am going to flip it to you, senator hutchinson. dr. chiba, you participated on the august continue commission, and one -- augustin commission, and one of the things discussed was the flexible path, which included a bill that we worked on. so how would you respond to the criticisms over the incremental approach or headlines that come out about a rocket to nowhere?

>> thank you, senator. i appreciate that question. as you know, the committee presented a set of possible options. it didn't make recommendations among those options. but the flexible path was one of those options. if you look at our analysis, as i am sure you have, sir, of the different possible options according to the metrics against which we evaluated them, flexible path contained the other options. it ranked best in virtually -- along strirtly every metric. so i am not surprised that in the end it was the option that was chosen. it also has a great advantage -- or has the great advantage of providing the best budget profile. if you imagine a scenario in which you are going back to the moon quickly, you not only have to develop the heavy launch vehicle, but the landers. the altere lander was a very

capable lander. you do not have to develop the lander structure along with the heavy lift vehicle. i think if it is not framed well, it is easy to level the criticism you just mentioned. but i think in the end we have to think more carefully about what our future beyond lower earth orbit. i said in my brief comments that everyone looks back on the apollo program with admiration. but we need to draw lessons not only from that program but from the 40 subsequent years of space flight. there have been two efforts to launch an apollo-like initiative. president george h.w. bush announced an initiative to go to mars but the budget wasn't there. virtually immediately the budget was below that to which

constellation was planning. they were planning against an ultimate steady state of $10 billion a year. that was lowered virtually instantly as well as not taking into account of deorbiting station in 2016. and with president obama's budget we were looking at something close to $7 billion a year. so i think we have learned from experience that that kind of apollo vision, as desirable and inspiring as it is, is not working for us as a vision for the future for nasa. so we need a different approach, and i think the right approach is an approach in which we still keep our eye on the human move out into the solar system. i want to get there as badly as anybody else. our experience says we are not going to do it by announcing an

apollo-like program. what we have to do is two-fold. we have to develop a kind of infrastructure, or you might even call it an ecosystem in low earth orbit that has a variety of ways of encouraging the advance of human space flight and cost cutting in human space flight. that includes encouraging the robust sector. they are going to have to provide the station as a destination. not for mack-work but for important experiments and developmenting that will further enable human space flight. this remains to be demonstrated, but let's hope there will turn out to be a private market. that remains to be seen. but i think that the government demand alone is sufficient to get that ball rolling.

because the commercial sector independently is not there, we have to have the heavy launch vehicle capable that is going to allow us to move out beyond low earth orbit. so i absolutely support the authorization bill's approach to this. flexible path is not a mission to nowhere. it is a mission to expand civilization go the solar system, the most ambitious possible space objective. but it tries to do it in a way that i think has the hope of being sustainable and of actually providing us with that future. if you look back at some of the reports that have been issued in the last 40 years in space, too many of them in my view including dramatic artist's renderings of what our future was going to look like with rockets going in every direction. i respect and admire that vision, but i think our

citizens and children need more than power point depictions of what that looks like. i think flexible path is our hope of obtaining that future. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i appreciate that very much. we tried to make the balance right within our budget constraints of a flexible way forward that does support private innovation, but also keeps the base of our expertise and what has already been proven also as an ongoing effort, and we hope we got the balance right. but here we are. the chairman and i and senator bows man -- boseman are all

concerned about the delays, the seemingly unmotivated approach to modifying contracts to that you keep the industrial base. from 14,000 contractors and civil servants that have been in the space shuttle work force, we are now down to about 7,000. so we have cut our speaker tees and work force in half. what we were trying to go in the authorization bill was create a new vehicle where these people could be transferred and keep their expertise rather than have them leave and not be able to get them back. i would ask dr. chyba and

others what can we do to motivate real movement and decisiveness in nasa that does keep the basic work force for the goals that we all have, because we are share everything that you have said today, and yet have the private sector continue to innovate, but to keep the balance that we have tried to create and see some success? i would just ask any of you who would want to step up to the plate. we are getting fairly frustrated.

>> one thing i will give you from my experience in watching the "sportsnation" program in the 1990 -- the space station program in the 1990's, working on the floor of the house to keep it alive. it was decided to keep it at a level of about $2 billion a year. it kept at that development funding level. by keeping to that level -- although development programs want to look like a bell curve. but if you know what your funding is going to be, and if an effort is made by the white house and congress to protect that flat line budget, to protect a budget, to allow them to manage to it effectively, we have this remarkable asset in space today. here it is less than six months after the authorization of the request, which did not reflect the authorization, and the

shuttle pension came in as a one-time expense. we had a one-time expense in the 1980's after the challenger was lost. we made a one will have time appropriation to cover funding the endeavor. that came in under budget. if you throw disruptions into the funding plan, it makes it more difficult for nasa, the industry and makes it more frustrating at the end. i don't know what the right answer is for the nate program. i will tell you that once a plan is agreed upon, sticking to that funding profile is the most important thing you can do for them and the industry. >> do you think that we still have the expertise in the employees that are left? there has been another round of lay-off notices following the shuttle that comes down. do we have enough to fulfill

the nasa part of the mission, or are we just getting bled to death so that all we will have is the private sector? >> i guess my observation would be that many of the people that are being let go now are on the operations side, who are very expert at operating the space shuttle system. while we certainly need to have operational systems for new systems, one of the critical things are the scientists and engineers that can actually develop new systems. on that level we may be doing pretty good. right now we have at least three different commercial crew systems being developed. we've got the orien multipurpose crew exploration vehicle, and there are still activities tied to the constellation as well as the up grades to the e.l.b. program. i wouldn't say we are super

healthy right now, but with the program we have got going right now, the painty end of the spear is there. but we need to figure out that transition of work force because operational speaker tees is important as well. >> is there anyone who is sterned about whether we have the capability to do the last shuttle, which is the clean-up shuttle to make sure we have everything on the "sportsnation" that a -- that the shuttle can take? >> senator, i think i can address most of your question. i am pretty close to the people at the nasa centers, and talk to them frequently about how things are going and what is happening with the missions, the count downs, et cetera. your first question was do we

still have the expertise in nasa to safely conduct missions, and my answer is yes. there are a lot of really good people still there. it is unfortunate that people are being laid off. the major hit is to the contractor work force, but these are also people who have been in the program for decade who have the same corporate knowledge and expertise as what we attribute to nasa as a whole. they are basically the arms, legs and in many cases the brains of what goes on. it is an issue and one we have seen coming for a while, and hopefully people have done the best planning they could on a personal and professional basis to prepare for these changes. but the remainder of the work force on both the government and industry side is still extremely competent. stip capable of making the right decisions and conducting the program safely. i believe that we have the people on both sides of the

table to execute what has been asked of the country. we do need to continue to have bipartisan support on that. one of the problems has been the continue was debate over what many would see as partisan issues over exactly what the details of nasa's direction should be, and i think we need to get that behind us and decide that we now have a plan that can be executed and that people need to move rapidly on it. it will be a mix of commercial endeavors and government-led endeavors, and i think well need that going forward. we need to continue to focus on the technological parts. by the same token, we need to encourage access to space by many, many people and many, many companies. as i said before, the measure

of whether we are remaining a great nation or not is whether we can get through this difficult time and maintain our leadership in space. it is going to require some hard decisions, and it is going to require bipartisan commitment from both the congress and the government leadership. >> i think when you are referring to bipartisan, the congress is speaking very forcefully of one mind, bipartisan. however, congress and the administration i think is what you are referring to as not being in sync, which is clear. >> i'm just a witness. >> but when you said a bipartisan effort, we had one. we passed an authorization bill overwhelmingly. >> this committee was a leader in doing it in a bipartisan fashion, and i think the whole government needs to take a

lesson from that. >> senator, i share your frustration in this regard. whether you support the flexible path or not, the fact is we have an authorization. that authorization sets out where we are going and what level of funding there is going to be for each component of where we are going. nasa has not always had that. they have not always had an authorization bill. the congress has taken great pains to set forth what is now law that says this is what nasa should do. i am just astounded that one from nasa isn't sleeping on a couch in each of your offices and working this on a daily basis, because it gives nasa the opportunity to get the enterprise focused around what the law of the land says will be done. so i think the letter that you have sent to the administrator is a good step. i think some additional meetings are clearly called for to make sure that the agency is

implementing what they have been given to implement. >> thank you. >> senator, if i may make one specific comment that is not as broad reaching as my colleague's comments. the subcommittee has just been given a commercial market assessment from nasa. that was a question in the 2010 authorization bill. there is a one-page appendix, appendix b in that market assessment that i would suggest would prove good in examining in detail. they cost out how expensive it would have been for nasa to have built that rocket. with two different assumptions they get an answer of $1.7 billion at the low end and $4 billion at the high end. they state they examined

spasex's costing of it, and it cost them $400 million. that suggests two things. one, if that is real, if that tinches is real, that is encouraging about the future, and it would be good to learn as much as one could from that for how to do things differently in the future. it may mean ultimately the commercial sector could play a much more ambitious role. but the other thing i think one would want to understand in some detail, why would it have been that much more expensive, somewhere between four and 10 times more expensive for nasa to do this, especially at a time when the statement is that one of the issues facing nasa right now is how to develop the heavy launch vehicle with the budget profile that the committee has given it. i would hope that that kind of examination could be done in a cooperative way. let's roll up our sleeves

together and figure out what changes we might make. there is an implication there that there is a much less expensive way of doing things. perhaps that would evaporate under closer scrutiny. >> i would like to associate myself with my colleague as remarks. i would like to further suggest that the government has not been good on projecting future markets. it is pretty astounding how bad the estimates were for what was going to happen with the e.l.v. i would encourage the committee to look towards a disinterested party, whether that be the g.a.o. or an outside organization to get an objective view on these costs. >> as someone who also worked on the e.l.v., i have to intercede. industry was part of that market objective at the time.

it was pretty amazing if you look at it from the perspective of how the government managed that program. between the two companies, and most of the money that wept into the development work was money from lockheed martin and boeing. we wound up with two families of launch vehicles. we wound up with a brand new rocket factory. we woned up with -- wound up with three new pads and a capability that has not had a failure yet. if you want to look at how programs can be managed with government involvement but still produce results affordably, it has some lessons out there. >> i think your points are well taken, and i think there is a future in the private sector, which is why we have created the balance in our bill.

but we also have to have the reliability, the back-up systems and all of the extra efforts that must be made when you are talking about human space flight. so i think going at a measured pace is what we ought to be doing, and assuring that we are not going to be moving so fast that we end up not having something that is reliable. and also that we have all of the safety and back up systems that would be required, and that we don't have big cost overruns that end up being more expensive in the long run because you are at a place where you don't have back-ups, you don't have anything that is an alternative, and something

doesn't work in the one you have. it was even mentioned within nasa that, oh, we will put it all into the private sector, and we will bail it out when we need to. well, that is not a good business model either. i think the balance that we struck is what we would hope would be a measured and safe way forward and also one that could produce -- i mean if it really is a difference of $400 million versus even $1.5 billion, then that is what we ought to be looking for. thank you. >> thank you, senator. the authorization, just to build on your comments, the authorization bill requires nasa to look for these types of efficiencies that we have been talking here, better acquisition, better

contracting, with an eye to bringing down the cost. senator bozeman. >> thank you. you mentioned in your opening tefment -- testimony a number of goals. you may elaborate on that again in a second, but i would like you to comment in regard to those things, how we are doing as a nation right now in regard to those things which i think we all agree are very important. >> thank you, senator. the three key words in our mission statement are inspire, enable and propel. the inspiration part is a lot easier to do when you have a visible vibrant program, as opposed when you really don't know what is coming next. if you have that program, that

then enables a lot of things to happen. it enables the technologies to evolve. it enables programs to be created that engages students and teachers. it enables all america to see what is going on and take pride and support whatever amount of money we are putting into the program. consistently americans think we are putting in a lot more into this endeavour than we have. the third can't is propel. we want to propel our nation in terms of global leadership. you want to propel our scientific base, our engineering base. you want to propel our young people into programs in college that are hard programs and to get them there without requiring mathematical remediation, and to maintain that intellectual base and that intellectual capital that i

talked about. i'm not sure if that quite answers your question. i really think it is terribly important that we have a vibrant vase program. the international space station, as frank knows, is very near and dear to my heart. i worked on that program with boeing in huntsville, alabama. the fact that there is -- that it is not more known that that program is up and running and that there is a tremendous amount going on there is detrimental in terms of our being able to support other space programs as a country. i think if people don't get it that there is something wonderful that has happened from this, they have a hard time believing that something else wonderful is going to happen. so really leveraging that international space station is important. i will say that at the level of

teachers and students, and we have an academic branch to our organization, they do get the whole international space station thing once you start talking with them. if they come off the street, they may not have any knowledge of it whatsoever, but once you start talking to them, they latch on to it and build programs around it. we have taken a failing inner-city school and turned it into a space academy. i guess my worry is that however we implement this flexible path, we do it in a way that people can see that something exciting is coming. >> good. thank you very much. i agree totally. dr. chyba, i know you worked very hard on the commission, and you guys did a good job and explored a lot of different pros and cons in coming up with

your decision. you have alluded to this, but i guess for the record, would you agree that an important element of any heavy lift vehicle and crew module would be the degree to which they maximized the use of previous investments in vehicle developments, pro pummings systems and, -- propulsion systems and infrastructure? >> as you know, the committee simply presented options. while it certainly factored into its analysis of different options, as an explicit one of its metrics was one of those types of questions. there was a workforce metric, for example. the committee presented options. it didn't make recommendations. my own view is that, especially given that we are in this

delicate position now of trying to move towards an expansion into the solar system while we have to simultaneously maintain and foster this largely commercially-driven filling in behind nasa's spearhead, i don't think we have much choice but to build as much as possible on existing capabilities. there may be a price to that. in the long run that could mean that we have a system that costs less up front to develop but has higher recurring costs in the future. i hope that the way to mitigate -- that there would be a way to mitigate that, which would be to make the system as evolveable as possible. i think you see that in the way the use of the shuttle main engines are being discussed for that heavy lift vehicle, that they would move towards a more

zpossable version of the engines. as long as there is at least a prayer of bringing down recurring costs, that is the way to go. i don't see much choice regarding the budget reality.

.

i'm also very supportive of initiatives such as the peace bridge, which will expand economic opportunities for the entire western new york region. i think that's an important way to bring over new business, to help our businesses to have products to sell to others. >> thank you. ms. hochul? >> i absolutely agree agriculture is huge in this district. what i'm concerned about is leaving our farmers out in the cold under the budget, because it eliminates $30 billion worth of subsidies that are currently in the law. that's going to be tough on our farmers. the ones i visited as i go through this district are very concerned about not having the support they need. in fact, i'm actually hoping to be able to have a slot on the agriculture committee in congress so i can continue to look out for small farmers that we have compared to the big agribusinesses that dominate out west. also infrastructure, if you look at any reports of the

infrastructure in this district about the quality of our bridges and our roads, that's a role for government to step into and make sure we've got the resources allocated to this area to ensure that our roads are safe and that we are there to be able to transport the goods and services across our highways. the other thing i think would be interesting is an issue that came up when i was at home in holley not too long ago. a farmer gave me a plastic bag that had -- >> sorry. your time is up. in your rebuttal, you can finish your story. >> yes, absolutely. going back to the agriculture issue, it's number one in our area. the former representative of this seat had advisory boards. and i would continue with that effort. that way i would constantly have the ability to reach out and communicate with members of the agriculture community, to give me direction as to what kinds of policies they're looking for to be successful, also to be a member of the agriculture committee and dairy

caucus in congress would be terrific. our dairy farmers have some terrific ideas. they're talking to me about solutions to the current aub siddy programs, programs that would be much less costly and would still give them the benefits that they need in order to be successful. so i would look forward to working with our agricultural community. >> i do think this area could be a real catalyst for alternative fuels. we do have one end of the district -- in niagara falls, we've got the power facility, wind turbines, the great universities. i think we should try to make this corridor between buffalo and rochester, with all of our farms in between, an opportunity to be showcased, new innovative ideas for alternative energy research, and i want to go to washington and make sure that i partner with the right people to bring the resources back here. i think it's very exciting. this could be a replacement for our old reliance on the manufacturing base, which, unfortunately, due to trade agreements like nafta, which i don't support and my opponent does, that have left us a lot

of vacant buildings. we need to give ourselves a chance to have new industries here. >> that ends our question round. we are now going to go into closing statements. we have about a minute and a half for each of your closing statements, the order of which, again, was determined by a coin toss. miss corwin, you will go first. >> thank you very much. i thank all of you for the opportunity to have this hour. this has been terrific. we have a clear choice among the candidates in this election. i am very much a believer in cutting wasteful spending, and i have a track record for doing that. my opponent increased spending, both at the town board and as county clerk. i support reducing taxes. my opponent has made it clear that she intends to raise taxes. raising taxes on small businesses will do nothing except stop small businesses from creating jobs. that he wants the number one thing i'm hearing about in this district, is that people want jobs. raising taxes on small businesses is going to kill that. i'm also a supporter of reducing the regulations on businesses as well. i think it's very important

that we get the private sector, partnering more with university of rochester or university of buffalo to make sure that we are commercializing all the terrific research that's coming out of our university system. and helping kodak and companies like that -- kodak was such a major employer in this area, still a significant employer. we want them to bring their overseas operations back into the united states and invest in the people here, because this is where we want the jobs to be. we've got a tremendous workforce. we want to encourage development and research and investment here in western new york. i believe we can do that if we get the policies in the right order. i just want everyone to understand that i come from the private sector, i came from a family situation where i lived the american dream. i am running for congress because i want to preserve that american dream. to me, that's what this country was founded on, that's what our constitution calls for, and that's what i want to go to washington and fight for. >> thank you very much. >> i want to thank you, julie, and our panelists, and for jane for participating in this debate. we're literally just a few days

away from a very important election day, and i think these debates have given people the crystal-clear differences that lie between us. it's all about question of priorities. you've heard my priorities. my priorities are looking out for the middle class, the small businesses on main street, our families, and you know i'm looking out for our seniors. people across this district are worried. they don't want to lose the guaranteed health insurance through medicare that they've been promised from our government their entire lives, and i feel very passionately about that. again, the pirates -- i think when times are tough, let's cut our deficit, let's cut our spending, but i'm not prepared to throw our seniors under the bus and make them bear the brunt of our excess in washington while we're letting the wealthiest people in this country not have to pay their fair share of taxes. we continue to allow corporations that ship the jobs overseas, to be able to get off with corporate loopholes and tax breaks that aren't available to the mom and pop businesses on main street. it's all about priorities. i'm so proud to have had the chance to even run in this

race. this is a true honor for me, and i'm a passionate person, a fighter, and i promise, if given the honor of people's vote, i will look out for them every single day. thank you very much. >> and this concludes wxxi's voice of the voter debate between the candidates in new york's 26th congressional district. thank you both so much for joining us. our participating candidates, kathy hochul and jane corwin. also, thank you to our panelists. wxxi's voice of the voter debates are supported by the rochester area community foundation. that special election is next tuesday, may 24. from the wxxi studios in rochester, good night. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

a thaw morning on c-span -- energy secretary steven chu visits capitol hill to discuss his department's annual budget. then "washington journal" live with your phone calls. later, live coverage of president obama as he talks about the middle east. >> history is, as you know, is much more than just politics and soldiers, social issues. it's also medicine and science and art and music and theater and poetry and ideas, and we

shouldn't jump things into categories. it's all part of the same thing. >> samuel morris, john singer sargent, thomas edison, henry adams, sunday night on "q&a," part one of two weeks with david mccullough on the americans who made the journey to america from paris, on 8:00 on c-span. >> follow c-span's "washington journal" on twitter and join viewers who get advance notice of tomorrow's guests, the question of the day, high-profile bookings, and links to video clips of key program highlights. you can also tweet your questions to our guests and add your comments to the conversation. don't miss any updates from "washington journal." start your twitter account today at twitter.com/cspanwj. >> energy secretary steven chu testified on capitol hill yesterday about his department's 2012 budget request. the white house is seeking

$29.5 billion in annual energy department spending, 12 person person more than in 2010. secretary chu also talks about efforts to promote the production of renewable energy, including solar and wind power. this is just under two hours. >> d.o.e. has requested an increase of 19% from fiscal year 2011. about $1.1 billion of the $4.8 billion increase, or 25%, is for the national nuclear security administration's nuclear weapons for nonproliferation and naval reactor programs.

this subcommittee has already explored the request with the administrator two weeks ago. the rest of the increase is for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects, loan guarantees, and basic energy research. it's my understanding that d.o.e. submitted this budget request before congress passed the 2011 continuing resolution, and so it doesn't reflect the new spending reality. so it's clear that d.o.e. and congress will have to make some joint painful decisions and focus the limited resources that we have on the highest priorities. and so, i think,knowing your highest priorities is of substantial importance to us, secretary. i hope that you will highlight those. don't feel shy. i'd like to just highlight the

three largest increases in this budget. the largest single increase would be for the office of energy efficiency and renewable energy, which would see an increase of $1.4 billion, or 76%. the only programs in this account that see a decrease are hydrogen and water power, and i know we want to ask you about that, too. given the budget increases for all other programs, it's hard to determine which of these r&d programs would have the biggest impact on energy use and the clean energy economy. secondly, the office of science would see an increase of $5.5 million, or 11%, so those of the two, office of energy efficiency and office of science. innovation clearly drives economic prosperity, and the office of science has been one of the leaders in new scientific and technology

deliveries. for example, argon national lab in illinois spent 10 years researching cathode materials for a lithium ion battery that was small, energy efficient, and low on waste. general motors used this technology to develop the battery it now uses in the chevy volt, the first mass-produced, plug-in, hybrid electric vehicle. so that's significant. but despite these types of successes, the office of science must do a better job explaining how basic research can lead to new, clean energy technologies, and how it can better leverage large science facilities to help american industry remain competitive. i mean, i'd hazard a guess that that would be a substantial priority for all of us. third, we would see an increase of $370 million, or 206%.

arpa-e, of course, holds a promise of advancing high-risk, high-reward technology. even though arpa-e is a new agency, i'd like to ask that a ply the program management to other d.o.e. offices such as the rigorous peer review process and contract or grant negotiations completed in just a few months. streamlining contracting processes and assembling high-quality management teams, i think it would benefit many d.o.e. energy programs. my last observation is that outside of nnsa, the department of energy's budget does not provide a five-year spending plan. without this plan, it makes it difficult to buy off on committing to programs that create large obligations. so joining us today is, of

course, dr. steven chu, the secretary of energy. i have the greatest respect and fondness for secretary chu in the full disclosure. i want to say that. i happen to meet him when i was head of lawrence berkeley labs, and his achievements are many, marked, and quite astounding. so we all grant that you are a most brilliant secretary, secretary chu. and we are delighted to have you here. but let me turn to senator alexander for his remarks, if i might. >> thank you, madam chairman. when i was the education secretary and was in your shoes, i didn't get that kind of compliment from the chairman of the committee, so i'm a little gemous. but, you know, i agree with her. i think, dr. chu, you've one of the president's best appointees, you've been a terrific leader, and i'm glad that you're spending this part of your life in this form of

public service. i want to -- in my remarks, and then in the questions when my time comes, i want to focus on some of the things that senator feinstein talked about. for me, i would say it would be putting a priority on energy research for our country, something i know, dr. chu, you've long advocated. in 2008, i went to the oak ridge national laboratory and gave a talk called the new manhattan project for clean energy independence and suggested that we apply the same rig or and ambitious goals to energy research that we did at the manhattan project in world war ii. and listed several objectiveses of such a new project. most of them taken from the 14 grand challenges of engineering in the 21st century.

but they included plug-in electric cars, carbon capture, solar power, recycling used nuclear fuel, green buildings, and even fusion. now, you were a part, dr. chu, of the national academy's effort to say to congress what we should do to help our country be more competitive. we called it america competes based upon your report. and you have moved to form hubs, you call them, in several areas, and in your request, you want to form more. so i'd like to indicate my broad agreement with that sort of strategy and work with you to find ways even in this tight budget situation to prioritize spending and find more energy for clean energy research. for example, my colleagues have wanted to talk this week about subsidies for energy for big oil. if we're going to do that, i think we should talk about all

subsidies. we might talk about big wind. the taxpayers are on the hook for $27 billion over the next 10 years to subsidize windmills, which is more money than we would save if we cut out the tax breaks for the five big oil companies. that's just an example. and that was based upon the production tax credit that was put into place temporarily in 1992. now, my staff's research indicates we only spend about $6 billion on energy research in our federal government every year, and i would wonder whether some of these long-term subsidies for energy, whether big oil or big wind, might be better spent for energy research. there are other parts of the budget, even this budget, where i wonder whether the energy efficiency section, i wonder if energy efficiency money should go up at the level that is mentioned here or we should increase the research budget.

there's $4 billion in unspent recovery act funding and weatherization and state energy grants. you're seeking $384 million more. would that not be better spent to take a federal research budget up closer to $7 billion to $9 billion a year? i too like arpa-e. i think that's a very promising area. we are only able to find $180 million for it this year, although it's authorized at $300 million and it's now fully authorized. i would just -- i'd like to weigh in favor of energy research. i think many of my republican colleagues see energy research as an appropriate role for the federal government. lock-term subsidies, some of my republican colleagues have problems with. die with long term. short term, i support jump-starting electric cars, maybe natural gas trucks, jump-starting the nuclear plants through loan guarantees.

all these are things that you've suggested. i'll be looking to work with you on seeing if we can prioritize money from the current request, maybe look at these long-term subsidies and apply more of our dollars over the next 10 years to what you call hubs and what i call the new manhattan project. >> and i thank you, senator alexander. we will proceed in five-meant rounds and use the early bird rule as people come in to attend. and so, secretary chu, why don't you proceed with your remarks, and then we'll go to questions? >> thank you, chairman feinstein, and thank you, ranking member alexander, and the other members of the subcommittee. first, for your kind remarks, but also for giving me the opportunity to present and discuss the president's fiscal year 2012 budget request for the department of energy.

president obama has a plan for the united states to win the future by outinnovating the rest of the world while at the same time addressing the deficit. many countries are moving aggressively to lead in clean energy. we must ref up the great american invasion machine to create jobs and win this clean energy race. to that end, president obama has called for an increase investment in clean energy research, development and deployment. in addition, he's proposed a bold but achievable goal of generating 80% of americans' electricity from clean sources by 2035. the department of energy's fy-12 budget request of $29.5 billion support these goals and strengthens the nation's economy and security. we recognize that families are feeling the effects of high gas prices right now, and while there are no challenges, president obama is committed to breaking our dependence on foreign oil and easing the

burdens on families. this budget helps reduce our reliance on oil by developing the next generation of home-grown biofuels and by accelerating electric vehicle research development and deployment. and through energy efficiency programs, we will save money for consumers by saving energy. in addition, the budget supports the research, development, and deployment of renewable energy, the modernization of the electric grid, and advancement of carbon capture technologies. the budget also supports loan guarantees for renewable and energy efficiency technologies. nuclear energy has an important role to play in our energy portfolio. that's why the budget request additional loan guarantee authority and invest in the research and development of advanced nuclear technologies. to unleash innovation, the president's budget supports the research through the department's office of science. for example, we're investing in basic energy sciences, advanced

scientific computing, biological and environmental sciences, all key areas for economic competitiveness. in addition, they also support widely used facilities that provide unique analysis tools for materials, chemistry, and biology research. the budget invests $515 million in advanced research project energy agency for energy known as arpa-e. this will allow them to continue to support research projects that delivers clean energy technologies. the projects are generating excitement in the private sector. for example, through a combined total of $24 million, six companies have already been able to advance the research efforts and show the potential viability of their cutting-edge technologies. these early -- this early support enabled those companies to achieve r&d milestones that in turn have attracted more than $100 million in private sector funds to the project. this is precisely the

innovation leverage that's needed to win the future. another key piece of our research effort are the energy innovation hubs. through the hub, we're bringing together top scientists and engineers to achieve similar game-changing energy goals, but we're a concentrated effort over a longer time horizon that's needed to establish innovation leadership. the budget requests $146 million to support the three existing hubs and to establish three new hubs in the areas of batteries and energy storage, smart grid technologies. finally we support centers which are working to solve specific centers. to better integrate and maximize our research efforts, the department is organizing a long line of business. this will help us create a sum worth more than its parts. in any specific technological area, we are examining current projections and looking across

arpa-e to determine where we in the d.o.e. can add the most value to act semirate the pace of innovation. for example, we have an initiative with participation from science and the office of energy efficiency and renewable energy. to make the solar energy clause competitive with any other form of energy before the end of this decade, this would position the u.s. to lead in this growing industry. at a time when industry, congress, and the american people are making critical energy decisions, we'd make sure to fund the energy administration, the nation's premier source of independent, statistical information about energy production and use. even a modest increase to support this will go a long way in providing congress and others with an unbiased data and analysis needed to make informed decisions. in addition to strengthening our economy, the budget also strength ups our security by

providing $11.8 billion for the department's national nuclear security administration. the request of $7.6 billion for weapons activities provides a strong basis for transitioning to a smaller, yet still safe, secure, and effective nuclear stockpile without additional nuclear testing. it also provides much needed resources to strengthen science, technology, and engineering capabilities and to modernize the physical infrastructure of our nuclear security enterprise. to support the president's goals of securing all vulnerable nuclear material around the world in four years, the budget invests $2.5 billion in the defense nuclear nonproliferation program. through our investments, the obama administration is laying the ground work for the nation's future prosperity and security. at the same time, we're mindful of our responsibility to the taxpayer, we're streamlining operations and cutting back in multiple areas, including

eliminating unnecessary for the he will fuel subsidies. this faces a choice. we lead in innovation or will we fall behind? to lead the world in clean energy, we must act now and we can't afford not to. >> i'm going to try to get three quick questions in my first round. one is on hydrogen, and one is on the sunshot initiative, and the third on the loan guarantee program. you've proposed to cut the hydrogen in fy-12. that's a cut of $70 million from the 2010 level. you zeroed out all funding for fuel cells in the fossil energy program. we gather your advisory committee was dismayed by that. i think it's important that you tell us what your current view is on hydrogen technology and whether it can be successful or not.

>> sure. first, in terms of the fuel cells, we do have a research program for stationary fuel cells. there has been very good progress made in fuel cells and in the longevity in fuel cells and bringing down the cost. the idea of a hydrogen economy is something that is very hopeful, but the fundamental issue is we need a source of hydrogen that's going to be -- that will make good economic sense. right now our hydrogen comes from reforming natural gas. when you reform natural gas, you create hydrogen and carbon dioxide, so in terms of the carbon benefit, there is none unless you sequester the carbon dioxide. in order for that to happen, we have to develop more sources of natural gas that can allow you to do those things. so the first priority is to develop sources of hydrogen that will make economic sense and sequester the excess carbon dioxide. there's a hydrogen storage

issue in automobiles. right now, despite best efforts, and we're going to continue the research in this area, it's still high-pressure tanks. and so there's the storage part. there's the source of hydrogen, which i think is the most fundamental issue. you know, it doesn't come out of -- it's a transformation of energy from one form to another. and the fuel cell part is actually -- is going along well. the stationary fuel cells, because of the higher efficiency, is something we can see can be deployed quickly in the next five or 10 years. there are a number of companies doing this, and so we will continue into research on developing better fuel cells for stationary sources. and we also are looking at how they can actually develop the source of hydrogen that will actually lead to a hydrogen economy. that's why we are -- >> quickly, how realistic is

all of that? >> i think the fundamental thing is the source of hydrogen , right now it's natural gas, but natural gas will have to be significantly moribund ant and less costly. we're going in the right direction, but we will have to be significantly moribund ant. or the gas of coal with carbon sequestration, but that's a technology issue to make it cost effective. but there has to be -- turning a hydro carbon into carbon and sequestering the carbon. >> the second thing, the sun shot initiative, which seeks to reduce the cost of solar power to roughly a dollar per watt, and at that price, the belief is that solar power generation becomes cost effective without subsidies with other forms of electricity generation. i'm very pleased to see that the sunshot initiative will include the manufacturing initiative.

as you'll recall, several years ago you told me that photo was not cost effective, but you expected at that time that it would take four to five years to become effective, cost effective. so i'd like to know what progress has been made there as well. do we need to focus resources on the sunshot initiative on domestic manufacturing? >> first, the sole or energy has gone down, it's been decreased 50% in the last five or six years worldwide. the cost of 10 mega watt is large scale, not rooftop, but large scale. so it has come down by that much. in this decade, we've talked to businesses, not only in the united states, but abroad. every manufacturer says that, in their business plan, if the cost does not come down by

another fact, we can't produce them to be effective, then we'll probably go out of business. so they're actually banking on this. and then starting, taking that as the starting point, we started to engage in these companies and can we accelerate this? can we do something with these companies and with research that can actually make, accelerate this progress? so our ambitious goal is to say, can you reduce the cost by 75% instead of 50% by the end of this decade? that's the magical price, because at that price, in many parts of the united states, then without subsidy, it's competitive with any form of energy. so that's a big deal. when i drop by 50%, there are certain areas of peak demand -- and so our goal in most of our energy endeavors is to devise a

plan so we can get there without subsidies. you know, i too share the belief that you might need to sub sid ise for a little while, but you don't want to subsidize for 100 years. 10 years, five years, is there a technology pathway that can develop these things without subsidies? so the sunshot initiative is really that, to say that this is within reach. and there has been remarkable progress. very quickly, in terms of your questioning about manufacturing , this is another key part of what we will need to do in order to be competitive with the rest of the world. it's that manufacturing innovation that began with things like henry ford. he was willing to invest five years of ford's money in the beginning company to develop an assembly line. we started by making handmade cars, but it transformed the automobile industry. so there are things that we're

investing in that we're actually quite excited about, new approaches of energy silicone, new approach could actually transform the landscape. and so we are helping companies in research and development, new manufacturing things that will give us a competitive edge in the decades to come. and that's an important part of what we're doing as well. >> thank you very much. my time is up. senator? >> madam chairman, i see the republican leaders here, i'd be glad to defer to him. >> i was looking on the wrong side for you, mitch. i'm sorry. recognize the republican later. >> thank you very much, senator alexander. mr. secretary, welcome. i'm here to focus your attention on the gas plan, which i believe, you know, has been enriching uranium for 60 years. it happens to be the economic engine of far western kentucky. many people think of kentucky

as a coal state, which we are, but we're also a nuclear state. the plant has 1,200 employees. it is in the process of closing down. there are, however, 40,000 cylinders of depleted uranium in paducah, which are typically referred to in the business as tails. if they were reenriched, it would be a profitable venture. these are government-owned resources, highly valued, stored in a lot, which could be sold to create revenue for the government. and in the meantime, happily enough for western kentucky i can't say, keep 1,200 people from collecting unemployment.

so an avoidance of unemployment for 1,200 people. are you familiar with the issue at the uranium enrichment plant? >> yes, i am. it's my understanding the department does not have a plan for enriching that at paducah, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> kentucky's unemployment rate at right at 10%. we cannot afford to lose one more job, let alone 1,200. if there is the potential for d.o.e. to save these jobs, would you not think that would be worth pursuing? >> we are certainly very concerned about any job impact in the actions we take, but there's other issues that i'd be happy to talk to you about. there's another commitment for

uranium in another uranium enrichment place, and we are bound -- we cannot release more than 10% of the uranium market because there are, for example, the uranium mining industry in the united states would be affected. and so we're bound to only release 10% or less of whatever is on the market. and so we have commitments in 2011 and 2012 for another uranium enrichment process going on. and so we've made that commitment, and so we have to try to figure out how beyond that what to do about the paducah plant, but we are certainly very aware and very sympathetic to this. >> well, let's assume we don't do that. then the question is, do we have the funds in the 2012 budget to safely and securely idle the plant after it closes and returns to the control of

the government? >> well, what we need to do is work with you on trying to figure out a path forward for these jobs. i have to be candid. the technology is one which is very energy-intensive, and i would rather us invest in more forward-leaning technologies and improved centrifuges as an example, and die think the united states would like to have it inhouse. >> but that isn't the issue at paducah, isn't it? that's going to happen -- so in paducah, the issue is, will we reenrich the tails and actually make money for the government or, if we aren't going to do that, will the government pay for clean-up? because we've been getting the clean-up funding on an annual

basis, but there's apparently no plan in your budget for clean-ups after the operation ceased. so under this scenario, it strikes me the government loses an opportunity for revenue. we lose 1,200 jobs, and you're not funding the clean-up, which would cost you company, whereas reenriching the tails would gain the fwovet money. am i correctly understanding that? >> yes and no. i mean, certainly it's going to be -- it will be our obligation to clean up, if and when paducah closes down. but that completedee rain upwill be there. and again, to go forward in the most cost effective way, if there is a technology that they can more effectively enrich those tails, we'd be more biased to doing that. but certainly we have an obligation to, you know, if this is finalized, we would have an obligation to clean up

that plant. >> when are we going to see the plant? >> well, we can get back to you and your staff on that. >> well, we got 1,200 employees sitting there wondering if they're going to be without a job. and i understand it's a tough time for everyone. unemployment's high in kentucky. but here you got an opportunity to continue 1,200 people working, actually raise revenue for the government by reenriching these tails, and what i think i hear you saying is you've got no plan for either contingency at the moment, is that correct? >> right now we have to make very, very hard decisions given the budget reality as chairman feinstein said. we don't expect our congress to give us our proposed budget. we need to work -- >> well, how many of your tough decisions give you an opportunity to actually raise revenue? >> well, we are actually raising revenue, as you mentioned, on the side for the

same reason. and so it's raising revenue in the most cost-effective way. we're always about -- we always like to raise revenue, but remember, we're at this limit of 10%. >> it's not a very satisfying answer if you're an employee in western kentucky. i think i correctly heard you that you have no plan to reenrich the tails, and you have currently not intended to budget, at least according to our figures, by 2014, you're not even going to meet the annual clean-up needs that have been met on an annual basis at the plant. and have no current plan for addressing the shortfall. >> we can look at the clean-up issue, but again, the tails are still there. it's not as though we're either going to move on next year or

the year after. >> no, i understand that, but you start reenriching them now, you still employ 1,200 people and the government makes money. you leave them sitting there, then you've got the clean-up obligation, which costs you money. i'm curious as to why you think this makes sense. >> because if we do this enrichment with this old and now it is very energy-consuming technology that was developed during world war ii, and there are better technologies that we would like to use and develop and develop inhouse in the united states, and so, began, it's a decision with our limited budget. >> so you'd rather make the money later than make the money now? >> well, i about back to, we can enrich it now, but then we can't make the money because we can't release it on the market. because of already what's been put in place.

>> well, thank you very much. >> i've tried to be as liberal as possible -- >> no, i appreciate it very much. >> thank you very much. all right, senator, early bird, you were next. >> thank you. >> thank you, secretary chu, for the wonderful work you do for our country. thank you for helping us now to try to solve problems that will directly affect how our economy recovers and how we protect protect ourselves a lack of energy to fuel our needs. china surpassed the united states in private sector clean energy ininvestment for the first time. in 2010, china began to pull

away, attracting $54 billion in private investments. now, they recently announcement that the government would begin investing the equivalent of $75 billion in clean energy annually. now, will your agency's roughly $30 million budget invest enough for us to regain the lead in the global clean energy race? >> you're quite right to be concerned about china's investment, but it's not only china. i would add it's korea, it's the european union, germany, great britain, other countries are also looking at clean energy development, both on the efficiency side and on the generation side as going to be the big business opportunity in the world market going forward in the coming decades. and so what we need to do is

position the united states so that we can be a leader in this? we've been a leader in other technologies? it's, quite frankly, ours to lose. we need to develop the mechanism to allow american industry to make the inventions and manufacture in the u.s. now, in terms of what you specifically are asking for, what china is doing, they're helping companies with, for example, loans, or loan guarantees. you know, we have an oversubscribed loan program. i think senator feinstein -- we couldn't get to that part of it, and it's something that we feel is a good -- little a highly leveraged way of supporting industry investment, because when we see these companies beginning to build

manufacturing facilities abroad, this is one of the factors that comes through loud and clear, that they're getting loan guarantees from countries like china, and i think we'd love to work with congress as part of our loan guarantee program, the recovery act falls through. it's highly leveraged, and so it's not -- and it's a guarantee, so those programs, i think, would be an important part going forward. >> right. but does that, secretary chu, suggest that we're going to fall further behind these countries with the kind of budget that we're talking about at this moment? >> well, i think that's why the president has chosen to put the energy budget -- you know, other agencies were going down, and the president said that this is a very -- in order to preserve the future and to win the future, in order to

actually go forward, that investments in the science and research and development of these things is going to be crucial to our economic prosperity going forward. that's why there's hard decisions made and why the energy budget saw the increase that it did. >> earlier this month, you appointed a panel to study and make recommendations on the practice of cracking. cornell university recently released a study that says the natural gas extracted using franking as a tech nooling to produce -- can produce much more global warming pollution than coal. and gin the administration's commitment to reduce greenhouse gases, would your panel consider recommending that the industry capture some of these emissions from natural gas? >> well, this is -- this

committee there's a board that's actually going to be meeting for the first time today and tomorrow. i'm aware that of the cornell study. there's another purpose just published last week which read very thoroughly, and it does raise some questions. they will need to be answered regarding this. we are very concerned about the environmental impact, but we also see that if you can do this safely and extract the gas safely and not have excess emissions or pollution of water, that it is a transition to a clean energy future, and it's producing energy in the united states. so the administration wants to do this in an environmentally

responsible way. we need to do that, there's no question about that. but there are these studies that we are very well aware of, and i personally, given the charge of this committee, has spent a couple of weekend reading about this, learning about this, and there are concerns. but we want to get all the prospects and find out what's really going on. >> we'll be anxious to get the panel's report and hope that we can establish the fact that this doesn't present other environmental problems. that it works with the situation rather than improve it. >> thank you very much, senator lautenberg. senator alexander? >> thank you, madam chairman. we've recently traveled with you and senator corker and me about environmental clean-up at oak ridge, urging a focus on the dangers of the mercury there and factoring in the

large population of the region. i'd be remiss if i did not say thank you for the meeting and underscore the importance of that. my questions, though, are along the lines of my comments and opening statement about energy research. does this sound about right that the department has about $6 billion more or less for energy research, roughly $6 billion? what should it be? if you were professor chu -- >> if i weren't bound by the office of budget -- >> let me put it another way. you talk about hubs. i talk about manhattan projects. aren't we both talking about accelerating energy research in a focused way? >> yes. i'm here to defend the president's budget, but i would love to see increases. i think, as i said before, this is -- the research we do, with the goal of getting the private

sector to pick up this stuff and run with it and to give them, as chairman feinstein said, the research, using a source of a facility, actually gave a leading edge and developed a series of patents that allows to make better batteries. >> and so, if i may interrupt, we're talking about 500-mile batteries and one dollar a watt solar power and a better way to use nuclear fuel and trying to lead the country in that, and even crustly, myselferly republicans often agree that research is an appropriate role of the federal government. while we might worry about some other things. given the importance of that, i mean, given the budget problems we have with 40 cents of every dollar being borrowed, we all know that we're going to have a rough two or three or four years trying to make up a budget. shouldn't we be looking hard at such things as long-term subsidies? i think my colleagues talk

about big oil all week. i think we ought to talk about big wind, and i mentioned earlier that we are committed to spending $26 billion, taxpayers are, over the next 10 years on wind subsidies and production tax credit that was passed as a temporary measure in 1992. now, you've got in your budget money for research on offshore wind. it seems to me that's appropriate. it seems to me that to continue to subsidize over a long term, a mature technology isn't appropriate. jump-starting electric cars, jump-starting natural gas, research for off shore, all those things might be appropriate, but if we looked at long-term energy subsidies, whether they're big oil or big wind, it looks to me like we could find money to take a fairly modest energy research budget of $6 billion and make it $7 billion or $8 billion or $9 billion or $10 billion, and

move us much more rapidly toward a low-cost, clean energy future rather than a high-cost future. i mean, we have $1 solar power. that's cheaper. if we have 500-mile batteries, that's cheaper. that uses a lot less gas. so why shouldn't we be developing a policy that takes money from these long-term subsidies and putting them into energy research? >> i agree with you absolutely that what we need to do in designing any energy research program, we're responsible for the entire innovation chain, and what we need to do is design things and have a program going forward where we don't want to start businesses that can't survive indefinitely without a subsidy. that's just not the way to do things. so i think we're in total agreement with that. and you spoke about this, for example, offshore wind has great possibilities.

we need to develop that, to get it going. and the sunshot, it's going to be an international rate, and it is, and batteries, it is an international rate, and therefore, it's going to be the research. >> but the amounts of money to do the research is relevantly modest. i mean, you ask for -- and offshore wind was 27 million maybe for small nuclear reactors, 60 million dollars, arpa-e is -- well, you've asked for $500 million, but you got $180 million. and these big subsidies, whether it's big wind or big oil, it seems like the money could be better spent, and that one of the things we might be able to help do is reduce the long-term subsidies and focus it more on energy research, where i think there's probably a consensus about the appropriateness of federal spending. thank you, madam chairman. >> thank you, senator. senator cochran?

>> madam chairman, thank you for chairing this hearing. welcome, mr. secretary. we appreciate your being here to help us understand the administration's proposals of spending in your department the next fiscal year. i'm pleased to notice that it is recommended that nuclear energy continue to have a place in the national strategy for international independence and guaranteed supplies ofing in for our country. there is an increase in funding for the office of nuclear office prenoticed in the budget request. i wonder, what do you think the priorities of that office should be in terms of reaching our goals and helping maintain our energy security and nation? >> sure.

again, the way we're approaching this is we're looking at what can we do to have value of this, and it is on things like, for example, using a very sweet spot. >> say that again. >> high performance computing. it's like what's done in oak ridge. it's the leader of the -- china is pushing out ahead, but to use high-performance computing to design next generation reactors and how to deal with these things so you can skip engineering skeps, engineering designs, things that you can simulate in a much wider space, so we think that we can do things of that nature. senator alexander spoke about how to develop fuel recycling

that makes economical sense, that makes anti-proliferation sense, so that the amount of electricity you generate from the nuclear fuel could be 10, 20 times more than what we do today, and so for the same amount of waste, you can do a lot more. i think that's something that's very much part behalf we want to do, so new recycling technologies, we haven't continued this new advanced reactor technologies, things of that nature. >> one decision that has been made by the department relates to the strategic petroleum reserve. in our state of miss miss, that program is dead in the water, as i understand it. there's a decision that i'm advised cancelled the expansion of the strategic petroleum reserve in our state. we've submitted requests for

information, explanation. what plans do you have for that program? and we haven't received a response from the department of energy. i wish you could go back and see if you do have a response to that question. we'd like to know about what your plans for the future are. with respect to the strategic petroleum reserve. or you can ask for that now if you would like. >> well, we'll get back to you on the details, but right now, the strategic petroleum reserves, we're required to have a 90-day supply in case of disruption of supply. of which in five days comes from the oil reserves and the rest from the civilian side. right now, we're repairing one of our caves, but we're actually at very close to full capacity. but we can get back to you on the details of what we have planned going forward. but the point is, we're very

close to maximum capacity. we have a cavern or two that needs repair. i'm not sure -- i don't quite remember whether this was in mississippi or not. we have to tend to that. >> well, we do know that we've been trying to get answers to questions about that for two years now, i'm told. and haven't gotten a satisfy answer, so i don't know that there is a response. but i think we're entitled to hear. >> sure. you're right. >> what your plans are. last year, after the president recommended canceling that program, congress voted to rescind all the funds that we had worked for to provide the department about $70 million for the expansion of the strategic petroleum reserves. so there's a breakdown in communication about whether you

need the money. and if you're not going to use the money, we may help you think of other ways to do it than what you are planning to do with the money. well, there was a blue-ribbon commission chartered last year by president obama to study nuclear waste disposal options. i wonder if you can give us any information about this program, whether or not you have a specific plan. we understand the recently cancelled yucca mountain program is in limbo, unclear about whether funds are going to be used for that program or not. it gives me the impression that we're having a hard time finding out what the department is up to in some of these areas. could you tell us about what your plans are for storage at yucca mountain? yucca mountain? >> sure.