mr. augustine. thank you for your continued service to the country. your ideas are always spot on. the american energy innovation council has done yeoman's work here and i hope we will listen to, and implement, your recommendations. as you've pointed out, we are in the midst of a clean energy revolution and by that i think we mean all energy sources and all energy technologies have clean elements. we can't have, as you point out, inconsistent and uncertain innovation policies. that's why it's -- you've underscored here and why this hearing, again, is so important. i have in my notes here -- i've said to myself -- we need to be leaders in this field and we've always been a paragone of innovation. i think about the fact we have been leaders, particularly -- well, in every energy technology, but i think about solar and wind, for example, in the '70s. now we're trying to play catch up with some countries that have seen the possibility here. you know colorado. i'm biased, honored to represent the state o

mr. augustine. we seem to have a debate over the very nature of the role of government in development and new technologies. again, i appreciate the ranking member being here, but i don't see any of my colleagues from the other side. we have these hearings a lot, and either they don't show up at all, or they come in and make a statement and leave and do not even want answers to their statement. your report points to government support for development of all kinds of technologies that have led to all kinds of jobs. we talk about jobs. civilian nuclear reactors would not have happened without the government. gps technology would not have happened without the government. civilian aircraft, the way they have developed, would not happen without the government. the internet, darpa. along list of government support -- the long list of government support for all these industries shows what the track record has been. i don't see any reason why the track record would not continue to be -- is there anything a b

mr. augustine mentioned to drive further innovation in that sector. i think it's an intriguing model here. early shale fracturing and directional drilling technologies were also developed and later the department of energy, the bureau of mines and the morgantown energy research center in west virginia, now the national energy technology lab, to senator bingaman's home state, the national laboratories played a key role in developing imaging technology originally to detect fractures and collapses in coal mines. that was later applied to understanding the geology of shale deposits and where the fractures would occur so private industry could figure out where to locate their drill bores and fractures. so -- and beyond the initial demonstration of these technologies, there was also a period of time when shale was technically recoverable but prohibitively expensive compared to more conventional extraction technologies. once again, this is the second key role the government has to play. the government instituted the section 29 production tax credit for uncon

mr. augustine to the committee here this morning. also mr. jenkins everybody mr. zindler. it was your report on competitiveness, rising above the gathering storm that served as a foundation for legislation that passed by an overwhelming margin back in '07. it wouldn't surprise me if your work on energy innovation encapsulated in the report that we're going to hear about today ultimately could lead to a similar result. i think most would agree that it's time for us to renew a coherent, long-term approach to energy development truly in all of the above-approach. innovation, of course, is absolutely at the core of that strategy. i think it's one of the few areas of where the government can and should be providing greater funding. at the same time, i'm aware that if we do decide to spend more on energy innovation we have to make very difficult choices about the amount of spending and the duration as well as what our priorities are for it. a couple comments in each of these areas. first, the obvious, investment is code for spending and that's going to retire taxpayer dollars wi

mr. augustine. seem to have a debate in the senate over the very nature of the role of government in new technologies coming and i appreciate the ranking member being here again i don't see my colleagues from the oversight and we have these hearings a lot and either they don't show up tall or they come in and make a statement. we needed the development for all kinds of technologies that have led to all kinds of jobs. we talk about jobs civilian nuclear reactors creating the internet. the long list of government work for all these industries just shows how the track record of them with a track record wouldn't continue to be, is their anything about clean energy and renewable energy that is different by its nature different what they have in common the fact that the were high risk undertakings offering high pay off and i think energy puts this very well. it comes at a cost if you will to a power that you would never get there with the private sector it just won't happen, that's right and if you talk o

mr. augustine.f the role of government in development and new technologies. again, i appreciate the ranking member being here, but i don't see any of my colleagues from the other side. lot,ve these hearings allo and either they don't show up at all, or they come in and make a statement and leave and do not even want answers to their statement. your report points to government support for development of all kinds of technologies that have led to all kinds of jobs. we talk about jobs. civilian nuclear reactors would not have happened without the government. gps technology would not have happened without the government. civilian aircraft, the way they have developed, would not happen without the government. the internet, darpa. along list of government support -- the long list of government support for all these industries shows what the track record has been. i don't see any reason why the track record would not continue to be -- is there anything a bowel clean energy -- is there anything about clean

mr. augustine mentioned. to drive innovation in that sector, we think it is intriguing. fractional and chilling technologies wer developed by the bureau of mines and the morgantown energy research center, center, which is now the energy technology lab. senator bingaman's home state, they played thank a key role. that was a key technology that was later applied to understanding the geology of shale deposits and where the pressure is when a girl so the private industry could figure out where to locate the fractures. beyond the initial demonstration of these technologies, there was also a period of time when shale was recoverable, but expensive compared to more conventional extraction technologies. once again, this is second key role that the government has to play. the government instituted the section 29 tax credit for unconventional gases from shale and coal bed methane. that was in place from 2002. they continued to develop and innovate upon those shale extractions. >> they helped develop the market? >> without the tax cut, there would not have been any profitable retur

mr. augustine to the committee here this morning, also mr. jenkins. it was a report on competitiveness, rising above the gathering storm, that serve as a foundation for legislation that passed by an overwhelming margin back in 2007. it would not surprise me if your work on energy innovation encapsulate in the report we are going to hear about today ultimately could lead to a similar result. i think most would agree it is time for us to renew a coherent, long-term approach to energy development, truly and all the above approach. innovation, of course, is absolutely at the core of that strategy. i think it is one of the few areas where the government can and should be providing greater funding. at the same time, i am aware that if we do decide to spend more on energy innovation, we will have to make some very difficult choices about the amount of spending and the duration as well as what our priorities are. a couple, each of these areas. investments is code for spending. that will require taxpayer dollars with the debt situation sitting at 15 trillion d

mr. chairman. this amendment would reduce funding for nuclear weapons opportunities by $369 million beyond the budget request. this funding increases unexecutable. and on april 17 house strategic forces subcommittee hearing, nnsa administrator tom d augustine know stated it would be irresponsible of me to try to jump back onto the 1251 curve that. would be like $100 billion increase in one year. we can't responsibly spend that kind of money. that from the administrator. the bipartisan and reason house pass budget control act has imposed a new fiscal reality that is putting enormous pressure on all government programs, including the pentagon and the nnsa. the section 1251 report which committed unprecedented levels of funding for nuclear weapons and new delivery vehicles was crafted in the prebudget control act era. even though these promises in exchange for new start were made nine months before the budget control act became law, fiscal 13 target falls 4% short of the $7.9 billion target. and the fiscal year 13 budget increases nuke lass weapons budget by 5% over fiscal year 12 appropriations when most of the agencies in the federal government and most of the programs are taking cuts. the fiscal year 2013 request of $7.58 billion for weapo