U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

49–406 PDF 2008

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY’S FISCAL YEAR 2009 

BUDGET PROPOSAL 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

FEBRUARY 7, 2008 

Serial No. 110–86 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,Chairman 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado 

Vice Chair 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANE HARMAN, California 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

BARON P. HILL, Indiana 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Ranking Member 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING, 

Mississippi 

VITO FOSSELLA, New York 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

DENNIS B. FITZGIBBONS,Chief of Staff 

GREGG A. ROTHSCHILD,Chief Counsel 

SHARON E. DAVIS,Chief Clerk 

BUD ALBRIGHT,Minority Staff Director 

(II) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. John D. Dingell, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, opening statement ....................................................................................... 1 

Hon. Joe Barton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 3 

Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 4 

Hon. Edolphus Towns, a Representative in Congress from the State of New 

York, opening statement ...................................................................................... 5 

Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7 

Hon. Diana DeGette, a Representative in Congress from the State of Colorado, opening statement ...................................................................................... 10 

Hon. Cliff Stearns, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 10 

Hon. Hilda L. Solis, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, opening statement .................................................................................... 11 

Hon. Tim Murphy, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Pennsylvania, opening statement ................................................................... 11 

Hon. John Barrow, a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 12 

Hon. Lois Capps, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 13 

Hon. Janice D. Schakowsky, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Illinois, opening statement .............................................................................. 14 

Hon. Bart Stupak, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 60 

Hon. Gene Green, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 63 

Hon. G.K. Butterfield, a Representative in Congress from the State of North 

Carolina, opening statement ............................................................................... 64 

Hon. Tammy Baldwin, a Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin, opening statement ................................................................................... 64 

Hon. Anna G. Eshoo, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Califonia, opening statement .............................................................................. 65 

WITNESS

Samuel W. Bodman, Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy ............................... 14 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 17 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 168 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Letter of November 30, 2007 from Samuel W. Bodman, to Hon. John Shimkus ......................................................................................................................... 67

Letters from United States Governors ................................................................... 68 

Letters from Members of United States Congress ................................................ 79 

‘‘Every dollar puts us closer to our FutureGen goal,’’ Journal Gazette-Times 

Courier Online, January 24, 2008 ...................................................................... 129 

Letter of February 6, 2008, from Governor Blagojevich of Illinois, to Hon. 

John Dingell ......................................................................................................... 131 

Inserts for the record, Department of Energy ....................................................... 133 

(1) 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY’S FISCAL YEAR 

2009 BUDGET PROPOSAL 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2008 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in room 2123 

of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John D. Dingell (chairman) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Dingell, Markey, Towns, 

Rush, Stupak, Engel, Green, DeGette, Capps, Allen, Schakowsky, 

Solis, Inslee, Ross, Matheson, Butterfield, Melancon, Barrow, Barton, Hall, Upton, Stearns, Whitfield, Cubin, Shimkus, Terry, Murphy, and Burgess. 

Staff present: John Jimison, Chris Treanor, Alex Haurek, Rachel 

Bleshman, David McCarthy, Kurt Bilas, Tom Hassenboehler, and 

Garrett Golding. 

Mr. DINGELL. Good morning. Today the committee will hold the 

first in a series of hearings on the President’s fiscal year 2009 

budget request. For each of these four committee hearings, the 

chair is going to recognize members for opening statements and 

questions under the same procedures as in subcommittee hearings 

with one exception, and the chair invites the attention of the members to this. The chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee with primary jurisdiction will be recognized for a 3- 

minute opening statement. All other members will be recognized 

for a 1-minute opening statement. Members who are recognized for 

an opening statement and waive will have the opportunity for an 

additional minute during the first round of questions. 

The chair will recognize himself now for an opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

The chair first welcomes you back to the committee, Mr. Secretary, and we appreciate you taking time to appear before us to 

enlighten us on the Administration’s priorities for the Department 

of Energy. Much has been happening in the energy section in the 

years since you have last testified. The International Panel on Climate Change released several landmark reports that focused the 

world’s attention on the problems of climate change and the need 

for solutions. This committee spent a good deal of last year gathering information to prepare us to craft legislative solutions to the 

issue. 

2 

The members of the committee will be interested to hear about 

the Department’s efforts to address the problem and whether the 

Administration would be willing to participate with us in the 

crafting of an appropriate solution. The Congress recently passed 

an energy bill. It was signed by the President which included a 

landmark agreement on motor vehicle fuel economy as a substantial increase in the amount of bio-fuels that will be blended into the 

Nation’s gasoline pool to decrease our dependence on imported petroleum. The bill also contains several important provisions on energy efficiency and conservation for appliances and buildings. In 

addition to saving energy these will bring about a significant reduction in the amount of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere. 

As we have discussed before, Mr. Secretary, the department’s 

track record in meeting past efficiency deadlines is less than stellar. I recall from the 2005 Energy Bill which my good friend, Chairman Barton, led us so ably, the DOE missed a number of deadlines 

contained in that statute, and I hope that you will outline to the 

committee what steps the department will be taking to implement 

the bill we just passed, particularly the energy efficiency provisions, which I would note have been a source of considerable distress to the committee, particularly with regard to appliance questions. 

There are two management issues that I do wish to have you direct your attention to as well. The first is related to the Yucca 

Mountain project. The Omnibus Appropriation Bill that was recently signed into law contained a substantial cut for Yucca Mountain. To your credit, Mr. Secretary, you have once again proposed 

a higher amount of funding, and I commend you and support you 

in that. Given the funding shortfall you face this year, however, I 

am interested in knowing how you see the project proceeding and 

what this meager appropriation means in terms of your ability to 

submit a license to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by the end 

of the year. 

Second, this is a matter of great concern to me. DOE has requested $24 million to continue the initiatives for Proliferation Prevention Program, IPP, which aims to create commercial sector employment for Russian’s weapons scientists who were left unemployed following the collapse of the former Soviet Union. In the 

1990s this program may have helped prevent scientists’ migration 

to rogue nations, a commendable purpose. Since that time, however, the landscape has significantly changed. Russia is now thriving. It is the largest oil producer in the world and the second largest oil exporter after OPEC. Given their going reserves it is fair to 

ask whether we should continue supplementing the pay of Russian 

scientists, and if so why and how. In addition, IPP funds may have 

been badly misdirected. The Government Accountability Office, 

GAO, recently found that more than half of the scientists funded 

by the IPP program had no involvement with weapons. 

More importantly, and this is a matter of very special concern to 

the committee, it appears that U.S. taxpayers are funding Russian 

institutes that are working on nuclear projects in Iran including 

the Bushehr reactor. The chair notes the Administration says the 

Bushehr is a front for the nuclear ambitions of Iran and that a NoVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:42 Oct 07, 2010 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Q:\PRINT EDITOR-110\HEARINGS 110\110-86 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
3 

vember, 2007 national intelligence estimate on Iran’s nuclear intentions and capability states that Iranian entities are continuing 

to develop a range of technical capabilities that could be applied to 

producing nuclear weapons if a decision is made to do so. Does 

DOE support Russian institutes that are also working on the nuclear projects of Iran? This program was born, we all agree, with 

a noble purpose. I have no doubt that those who run this program 

do so with the best of intentions. 

However, as I have said before, there is often a thin line between 

the noble and the naive. Again, Mr. Secretary, thank you for your 

appearance here today. I look forward to your responses to our 

questions. The chair now recognizes my distinguished friend, the 

gentleman from Texas, Mr. Barton. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a formal statement for the record. I am just going to submit it and speak extemporaneously. 

Mr. DINGELL. Without objection. If it is the wish of the gentleman, that will be inserted in full form. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE BARTON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, we are always glad to 

have you here at the Energy and Commerce Committee. As you 

know, the agency that you are the Secretary of has a special place 

in my heart. I was a White House Fellow there. My son worked 

there until recently. And in 22 of the 24 years I have been in the 

Congress, I have focused on energy issues on this committee so I 

am always glad to have you, and we appreciate your service to the 

country, things that you tried to do to improve our energy security 

and our energy future of our great Nation. You are here specifically 

to talk about the budget of your agency. As we all know, you are 

responsible for the weapons programs for this country and those 

are a very high priority. You also have responsibility for our national laboratories. They are also a very high priority. 

In this new era of alternative energy there are several things in 

terms of the research areas that the department is responsible for, 

and we look forward to hearing about that. I am sure you are going 

to be asked by some of our colleagues about the situation with the 

FutureGen project, which I also have some questions about. I am 

not a big fan of the government telling the country what kind of 

energy sources and energy situations we have to do, so I did not 

vote for this Energy Bill which the President signed recently. I 

have always supported a voluntary market base policy instead of 

a mandatory policy. It is going to be interesting to me to see how 

we implement a policy where we tell the American people what 

kind of cars and trucks, if any, they get to drive, what kind of fuel, 

if they have a car or truck, they get to put in it, what kind of light 

fixtures they get to use in their homes, and even pre-empt state 

and local building codes in terms of any new construction so you 

may have some comments on that. 

I asked you out in the annex but somebody is going to ask you 

on the record how we are going to implement these alternative energy mandates when we don’t have the alternative energy in America. We have got some ethanol mandates that are supposed to be 

4 

me this spring that is just not there. And I know it is the EPA’s 

decision whether to grant a waiver, but you may have comments 

on that. And of course we are going to listen to what you say on 

the budget with special emphasis on the loan guarantees for our 

new nuclear power plants. You have worked very hard on that, and 

I think you got a fairly innovative solution to that so we will ask 

you about that. We are glad to have you here and it is going to be 

an interesting morning but we do appreciate your service to your 

country. 

Secretary BODMAN. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. DINGELL. The time of the gentleman has expired. The chair 

advises now just for the assistance of the members, perhaps for the 

assistance of the chair, the Clerk and the counsel are going to assist the chair in maintaining a list of members, and they will advise the chair on members recognition and in what order. The 

members who will be recognized first are those who are present 

when the committee is called to order, and they will be recognized 

in the order of their seniority on the full committee. Second, members who arrived after the committee was called to order, those 

members will be recognized in the order that they arrived at the 

hearing but after all members who were present when the chair 

called the committee to order. 

Now the chair recognizes now the—the chair is looking for the 

subcommittee chair, who would be first, but he is not here, so the 

chair will recognize then the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Upton, who is the ranking member of the subcommittee, 

for 3 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Mr. UPTON. I thank my chairman, and I also thank Mr. Boucher, 

chairman of the subcommittee, for holding this hearing today. As 

we look at the Department of Energy’s 2009 budget proposal—I 

also want to congratulate and welcome my good friend, Secretary 

Bodman, a gentleman that I have had the great pleasure of working with over the last couple of years. I recognize also that you visited our district in Southwest Michigan this last August, and I look 

forward to continuing that close relationship. Now I can guess that 

perhaps some of my colleagues will use their opening statements 

to question to address what this Administration is doing to address 

global climate change. 

I expect some may criticize the Department of Energy or the 

White House for lagging behind Europe or not doing enough to address global warming, and I would like to launch a pre-emptive 

strike by congratulating the Secretary for the great strides that 

DOE has taken in this area, and would note that from 2000 to 

2005 the EU’s CO2 emissions actually increased by 50 percent more 

in the United States. I believe that solutions can be found in technology. Increasing funding for R&D and providing incentives for 

the new investment have been responsible for our successes this 

year, and I think that that record of success and the failures in Europe prove that very same model. I am pleased to see that this 

budget continues down the road of continuing to increase R&D. A 

5 

realistic approach to insure that our Nation’s energy security and 

to meet our future demand must include substantial investments 

in nuclear and clean coal, and I applaud your requested increases 

in funding for both the nuclear energy programs, as well a clean 

coal technology. 

Nuclear energy accounts for over 70 percent of our 0 emissions 

power. It is not possible to cut our greenhouse gas emissions without increasing our supply of nuclear power, and additionally it is 

not prudent to turn our back on coal, and the budget recognizes 

those facts. And as this budget recognizes, it is imperative that we 

address nuclear fuel cycle issues including the 800-pound gorilla in 

the room, Yucca Mountain. We have been talking about a spent 

fuel repository at Yucca Mountain for years and years, and we 

have thrown billions of dollars at that problem. And while I support the funding in the budget for Yucca it is time for a change in 

strategy of our fuel cycle policies as well as funding. 

I was one of the original proponents for creating the Yucca repository, and I recognize that Yucca needs to be a component of our 

nuclear fuel policies but there is great promise as well in perhaps 

going back and readdressing the issue of recycling spent nuclear 

fuel. Through advanced recycling technologies that reduce the volume, heat, and toxicity of used nuclear fuels it is possible to separate the uranium from the used fuel to once again power commercial nuclear reactors, so I hope that we can perhaps look at that 

in the next year to readdress that. And, lastly, in conclusion as we 

debate an economic stimulus package to reignite our economy, we 

must not lose sight of the impact that energy plays in that effort. 

We will build on affordable energy as we move forward towards 

working on these incredibly complex issues. Let us all take note of 

the impact that energy has on American jobs in our economy. Mr. 

Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time which I see has expired. 

Mr. DINGELL. The chair recognizes now the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey, under the rules for 1 

minute. 

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to waive my opening 

statement and preserve it for questions. 

Mr. DINGELL. The gentleman waives his opening statement. The 

chair now recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Towns, for 

1 minute. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW 

YORK 

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank 

you and Ranking Member Barton for holding this very important 

hearing. With energy costs on the rise and increasing concerns 

about climate change and global warming, it is more important 

now than ever for us to work together in focusing on developing 

safe and clean energy alternatives, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and improving energy efficiency. One of my primary concerns 

is over the drastic cuts to funding of the Low Income Home Energy 

Assistance Program, which helped many residents in my district to 

pay their heating bills. It is imperative that we set aside bipartisan 

6 

differences in order to meet crucial energy goals and work together 

to develop an energy budget that reflects our priorities of increased 

energy efficiency, reduce reliance on foreign oil, and work towards 

a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. 

Again, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member Barton 

for bringing us together today and look forward to hearing from the 

witnesses. On that note, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. DINGELL. The chair thanks the distinguished gentleman 

from New York. The chair recognizes now our good friend and colleague, Mr. Shimkus, for 1 minute. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be focusing on 

FutureGen. In the 2003 State of the Union, President Bush laid 

out a goal of co-producing electricity and hydrogen from a coal-fired 

power plant that would produce near zero emissions. Mattoon, Illinois was selected as the best site for FutureGen. The State of Illinois and the town of Mattoon worked extremely hard only to be 

crushed recently when the DOE announced their plan to restructure FutureGen and to cut it up into a series of smaller projects. 

The cruelest hoax was the letter from you, Mr. Secretary, on November 30, 2007, saying that the DOE’s record of decision would 

be out by the end of 2007, yet the record of decision is nowhere in 

sight. 

My discussion with industry tells me this decision sets us back, 

not forward. I would like to submit the following thing for the 

record, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DINGELL. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Secretary Bodman’s letter to me and the Illinois 

delegation dated November 30, 2007, letters from the Governors of 

West Virginia, Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, Wyoming, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania in support of the FutureGen project, 50 

plus pieces of correspondence from myself and fellow members of 

Congress to the White House, Department of Energy, EPA appropriators, governors, and other discussions on FutureGen, and finally a newspaper article from the Journal Register in Mattoon, Illinois requesting donations from local citizens. I yield back, Mr. 

Chairman. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the record.] 

Mr. DINGELL. Without objection, so ordered. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shimkus follows:] 

7 


49406.003
8 


49406.004
9 


49406.005
10 

Mr. DINGELL. The chair recognizes now the gentleman from 

Texas, Mr. Green. Where is Mr. Green? The chair recognizes the 

distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado, Ms. DeGette, for 1 

minute. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Green appears at the conclusion 

of the hearing.] 

OPENING STATEMENT OF DIANA DEGETTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Mr. Secretary. I would like to spend my time this morning 

talking about the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL, 

which is located right outside my congressional district in Colorado. 

NREL is the world’s pre-eminent renewable energy and energy efficiency research facility and with oil prices approaching $100 a barrel, toxic greenhouse gas emissions increasing, and the mounting 

trade deficit exacerbated by our reliance on foreign oil, we would 

think that our Federal government would make it a priority to bolster the primary green energy research lab. Sadly, once again, the 

budget before us proposes to slash funding for NREL. When the 

Secretary appeared before this committee last year with the same 

recommended cuts the Secretary assured me that in fact these 

were not cuts. Fortunately, Congress injected about $100 million 

into NREL in February, ’07. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I was out at NREL last month. They are 

doing fabulous research with this money, and so I think rather 

than flat lining this budget we should increase the money so that 

we can have clean renewable energy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DINGELL. The chair thanks the distinguished gentlewoman. 

The chair recognizes now our good friend and colleague from Nebraska, Mr. Terry, for 1 minute. 

Mr. TERRY. I will waive my opening. 

Mr. DINGELL. The gentleman waives. He will get his 1 minute 

later. The chair recognizes the distinguished gentleman from Florida, Mr. Stearns, for 1 minute. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CLIFF STEARNS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA 

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank you and 

Ranking Member Barton for putting this hearing on. It is always 

good to have the Secretary here to hear first hand. My only comment is I would like to give a positive note here. I want to commend him and the Administration. Their proposal to double the 

strategic petroleum reserve to 1.5 million barrels and to continue 

the advance energy initiative as part of an overall goal of reducing 

America’s dependence on foreign sources of energy through diversification of our Nation’s energy supply. I frankly think these initiatives combined with further research in a bio-mass and especially ethanol can help bolster America’s national security and economic development. 

Also, Mr. Secretary, I am concerned with the DOE’s announcement regarding a major restructuring of the FutureGen project, 

Mr. Shimkus had mentioned that earlier, which could possibly set 

11 

back this important initiative so I share with him my concern but 

I look forward to your testimony. 

Mr. DINGELL. The time of the gentleman has expired. The chair 

recognizes now the distinguished gentlewoman from California, Ms. 

Solis, for 1 minute. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HILDA L. SOLIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Ms. SOLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here this morning with us. In a time of economic 

downturn the Administration’s budget cuts is attempting in my 

opinion to go in the wrong direction. And I say that because while 

we are trying to assist many of our low income families in this 

tight situation where we see sky rocketing gas prices and electricity bills, I don’t see the kind of sensitivity that you would think 

you would see from this particular department. And I am very concerned because in California the costs of energy have gone up tremendously for many, many working families, and the result is that 

we continue to see in your proposal a reduction in weatherization 

programs, in the LIHEAP program, and also in the energy efficiency programs that you have offered in the past. 

And we did pass a major Energy Bill here through this committee and on the floor of the Congress that was signed into law, 

and my concern is that we provide not just hope but that we provide funding for many of the programs that will help continue to 

have our families with some better standard of living there but also 

to keep jobs in mind because many of the programs that you are 

proposing to cut will also impact those individuals who are on the 

verge of losing their jobs. In my district we have employment that 

goes up towards 7 percent and higher, and in many cases it is unreported. So I would just ask you to take another look and maybe 

we can work with you on a bipartisan effort to reach a better 

agreement on these proposed cuts. And I yield back the balance of 

my time. 

Mr. DINGELL. The chair thanks the distinguished gentlewoman. 

The chair recognizes now the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murphy, 1 minute. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TIM MURPHY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being 

here, Secretary Bodman. As you know, America’s energy demands 

are going to double by 2050 and we are going to need coal, clean 

coal, for energy security to meet those needs. I am pleased with the 

26 percent increase for clean coal research but let us keep in mind 

there are about 400 coal plants in the U.S. and many of them are 

old and need to have scrubbers and pollution equipment replaced 

so we are going to need to build about 800 new coal plants by 2050, 

400 to replace the old ones, 400 to meet the new demands. This is 

twice as many plants that have been built since the start of the industrial revolution, and this means starting in 2010 we are going 

to need to open up a new coal-fired power plant every 2-1/2 weeks. 

12 

I hope that this Administration and you will continue to push for 

the funding we desperately need to make sure we take the emissions out of coal. We have got to have zero emissions coal if we are 

going to meet our needs, if we are going to compete, if we are going 

to rebuild America and also let us keep our efforts for clean nuclear 

energy as well. 

While the rest of the world is doing mass amounts of pollution 

and beating us in so many areas of manufacturing, we have to 

make sure that our consumers and our employers are having their 

energy demands met in a clean and efficient way, and I thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DINGELL. The chair thanks the distinguished gentleman. The 

chair recognizes now the distinguished gentleman from Washington 

State, Mr. Inslee, for 1 minute. 

Mr. INSLEE. I will waive and reserve. 

Mr. DINGELL. The gentleman reserves. 

The chair recognizes now our good friend and colleague, Mr. 

Matheson, of Utah. 

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, I will also waive and reserve for 

later. 

Mr. DINGELL. The gentleman waives. 

The chair recognizes now the distinguished gentleman from 

Georgia, Mr. Barrow. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARROW, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA 

Mr. BARROW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here today. I am pleased to note that in the budget that has been submitted there is a proposed increase in the 

science budget of some 19 plus percent, and I appreciate that. I 

support that. I want to encourage your efforts in that area. I also 

note at the same time a proposed cut on the order of 27 percent 

in the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and it 

would help us in responding to that if you could give us some sort 

of explanation of what your thinking is. So I would ask your staff, 

if you would, please, to prepare us something in writing that would 

give us a statement of your reasons for that. It can be as long or 

as short as you want so long as it is comprehensive and gives us 

a good understanding of what your reasoning is. 

Also, back to the research. The Savannah River Ecology Lab is 

virtually the only lab that has been engaged in basic research for 

the last 50 years at either of our national energy parks, so what 

I want to do is I want to have an explanation from you all as to 

why it got totaled zeroed out. It will help us going into the upcoming appropriations process. If you call could give us a statement 

within the next week of what your reasoning was in zeroing out 

and defunding that part of that laboratory. Thank you. I yield 

back. 

Mr. DINGELL. The time of the gentleman has expired. The chair 

recognizes the distinguished gentlewoman from California, Ms. 

Capps, for 1 minute. 

13 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LOIS CAPPS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Ms. CAPPS. Thank you, Chairman Dingell. I have been evaluating this budget proposal, and as I have I can’t help but wonder 

exactly what the President’s priorities are. For example, the budget 

provided a prime opportunity for him to respond to our Nation’s energy priorities, but instead of investing in programs to increase the 

efficiency and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels it once again 

proposes to increase taxpayer giveaways to those kinds of industries we know to be dirty and dangerous like coal, oil, and nuclear. 

I am especially disappointed by the proposed 27 percent decrease 

from the current funding levels for the Office of Energy Efficiency 

and renewable energy and zeroing out the funding for weatherization assistance. I had hoped the President would have taken Congress’ strong support for increasing these programs last year to put 

forward an equally strong request but that does not appear to be 

the case. 

Myself, I think this is a huge mistake. Now is not the time to 

be rolling back investments and programs that make energy bills 

more affordable and create high wage jobs so I look forward to 

working with my colleagues over the coming months to make significant improvements to the department’s budget, and I appreciate 

again very much the chairman holding the hearing today and our 

Secretary for being before us. I hope it will allow us to refocus our 

priorities and talk about ways we can improve our energy policy. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DINGELL. The time of the gentlewoman has expired. The 

chair recognizes now our distinguished colleague, Mr. Butterfield, 

for 1 minute. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I 

too want to thank the Secretary for coming forward today and 

sharing with us your vision and your testimony. I have a very long 

opening statement, and 1 minute is not sufficient for me to do all 

that I need to do, and so— 

Mr. DINGELL. Without objection the whole statement will be inserted in the record. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Yes. That was going to be my request, Mr. 

Chairman. I am going to submit my statement for the record and 

simply say publicly that I am very disappointed with the weatherization decreases that we are experiencing and the LIHEAP decrease. That is unacceptable. I represent a poor district and my 

people are suffering. We need to revisit those reductions. I am 

going to submit my statement for the record. I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Butterfield appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. DINGELL. The time of the gentleman has expired. The chair 

recognizes now the distinguished gentleman from Maine, Mr. Allen, 

for 1 minute. 

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I will waive opening and reserve. 

Mr. DINGELL. The gentleman waives. 

The chair recognizes now our good friend and colleague from Illinois, Mr. Rush, for 1 minute. 

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I will waive and reserve. 

Mr. DINGELL. The gentleman waives. 

14 

The chair recognizes now the gentlewoman from Illinois, Ms. 

Schakowsky, for 1 minute. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to use 

my time to address the incredible decision last week by the Department of Energy to renege on its commitment to build and operate 

the world’s first coal-fueled near zero emissions power plant in 

Mattoon, Illinois. During his State of the Union address in 2003, 

the President announced his intention to build the FutureGen 

plant. As recently as November 30 this year this project remained 

on track. As Secretary Bodman wrote to my colleague, Representative Tim Johnson from Illinois, that the Department of Energy was 

committed to selecting a site by the ‘‘end of December, 2007.’’ On 

December 18, Mattoon, Illinois was officially awarded the 

FutureGen project. Over the last 5 years the City of Mattoon and 

the State of Illinois has worked tirelessly and spent millions of dollars to secure the FutureGen project. 

You can understand, Mr. Secretary, why my colleagues from the 

Illinois delegation and I were outraged to hear you tell us last 

week that the Department of Energy was going to renege on their 

agreement to build the plant at Mattoon. To be frank, the State of 

Illinois believes that a bait and switch plan has been pulled, and 

it is unbelievable that while the President was reiterating his commitment to invest in ‘‘new technologies that can produce coal 

power, that can produce power from coal with significantly lower 

carbon emissions’’ during last week’s State of the Union address 

you were acting to jettison FutureGen. The FutureGen plant in 

Mattoon represented the President’s commitment. You need to explain, Mr. Secretary, the Department of Energy’s 11th hour decision to abandon Mattoon, its citizens, and delay the FutureGen 

project indefinitely when the need for the technology is so clear. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. 

Mr. DINGELL. The time of the gentlewoman has expired. The 

chair recognizes our good friend and colleague from Louisiana, Mr. 

Melancon, for 1 minute. The gentleman waives. 

The chair inquires are there other members desiring recognition 

at this time? The chair hears none. The chair apologizes to Mr. Secretary for the time that it has taken us to complete these but it 

is the right of the members, and seeing that it is done fairly and 

properly is fairly hard for the chair but it also causes some burdens 

for you. With our thanks then, Mr. Secretary, you are welcome for 

such statement as you choose to give the committee. 

STATEMENT OF SAMUEL W. BODMAN, SECRETARY, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Secretary BODMAN. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Barton, members of the 

committee, I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to 

appear before you for what is now the fourth time. I think it is safe 

to say that the goals of the department as represented in the ’09 

budget are largely unchanged from our budget goals in previous 

years. This budget request provides us in my judgment the reVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:42 Oct 07, 2010 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Q:\PRINT EDITOR-110\HEARINGS 110\110-86 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
15 

sources that are needed to continue to move forward on our 5 central missions promoting and enhancing energy security, nuclear security, scientific discovery and innovation, environmental responsibility, and management excellence. Since 2001 this Administration 

has invested more than $180 billion in the Department of Energy 

and its programs. These investments have been used to address the 

growing demand for affordable, clean, and reliable energy. They 

have helped safeguard our national security and have enabled scientific research leading to significant improvements in the quality 

of life and the health of the American people. 

The department’s fiscal year 2009 request in the amount of $25 

billion was developed with the need to continue these activities in 

mind and to address the energy challenges that confront us daily. 

An investment of this size allows us to fulfill our central missions 

as well as advance the goals of the President’s American competitiveness initiative to insure U.S. technological competitiveness and 

economic security. It also allows us to continue our progress toward 

the goals of the President’s advanced energy initiative accelerating 

the research, development, and deployment of clean alternative energy technology. The Department of Energy is responsible for promoting America’s energy security. We encourage the development 

of reliable, clean, and affordable energy supplies, and we strengthen U.S. competitiveness by leading in innovation and scientific discovery. 

At the same time we continue to insure the security of the nuclear stockpile and we reclaim and restore the sites that are the 

Nation’s environmental legacy. All of this is done under a rubric of 

sound management consistent with the President’s management 

agenda to improve performance and accountability. This budget request also reflects our concerns about America’s energy future. The 

projected growth in energy demand is a major challenge for us all. 

It is a challenge that must be met with responsible action. Global 

demand will continue to grow. We cannot depend solely on hydrocarbons to meet it. This is a problem for all nations, energy producers, and consumers alike. I believe, therefore, that it is vital 

that the United States pursue policies that enhance global energy 

security, not just our own. We need new energy options, cleaner, 

more efficient technologies, and alternative fuels, and we just support fully the research and innovation necessary for their development. 

We must diversify our energy supplies, diversity our energy suppliers, and diversify established and secure additional energy supply routes. This budget document should also be viewed as a road 

map showing the future course of America’s energy security. This 

course will not in my judgment be an easy one but it is necessary. 

These efforts will require a sustained commitment on the part of 

government, strong private sector investment, and strategic collaboration between the government, the private sector, and the research community including academia. Our goal is to foster continued economic growth and promote a sustainable energy future. Mr. 

Chairman, I believe that the committee has a copy of my written 

statement, which I now ask be included in the record so that in the 

interest of time we may move to any questions that you or other 

16 

members of your committee may have about the department’s 

budget request. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. DINGELL. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bodman follows:] 

17 


49406.070
18 


49406.071
19 


49406.072
20 


49406.073
21 


49406.074
22 


49406.075
23 


49406.076
24 


49406.077
25 


49406.078
26 


49406.079
27 


49406.080
28 


49406.081
29 


49406.082
30 


49406.083
31 


49406.084
32 


49406.085
33 


49406.086
34 


49406.087
35 


49406.088
36 

Mr. DINGELL. Does that complete your presentation? 

Secretary BODMAN. Yes, it does, sir. 

Mr. DINGELL. We thank you. The chair is going to recognize 

members under the same rules that we did before commencing 

with our good friend from Texas, Mr. Barton. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Barton. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, last year we had a little bit of a tiff with the Administration 

over what a loan guarantee for the new nuclear power plants 

meant, what was 80 percent of 80 percent. As you remember the 

O&B, it said that 80 percent was really 80 percent of 80 percent, 

which is 64 percent, and simple people like me thought 64 percent 

wasn’t the same as 80 percent. We were kind of concerned about 

that. Could you explain what has happened and what the solution 

is and just what the status of that program is right now? 

Secretary BODMAN. Yes, Mr. Barton. We, first of all, had decided 

that 80 percent is the right number and that that is—— 

Mr. BARTON. That is a good step. 

Secretary BODMAN. That is the first step. Secondly, you may recall that we had over 100 applicants that submitted applications 

for loan guarantees. We have selected 16 of those and had meetings 

with each of the companies that are involved, and we expect applications to arrive some time during the next couple of months, some 

time in February and March. I would expect that we would start 

to see some loan guarantees issued during the balance of this year. 

It is going to take some time to work through it. Additionally, there 

will be—we had ignored work on nuclear power in the initial applications and now with the Congress’ generosity in providing for 

some $38 billion worth of loan guarantees, we will be in a position 

to issue, I would think, within let us say in the spring time a solicitation for both renewable energy and nuclear power, and we would 

be in a position if Congress allows us to extend the time frame over 

which we would have the monies available for loan guarantees. We 

are not asking for a change in the amount but merely—— 

Mr. BARTON. Is there a cap on any specific proposal? 

Secretary BODMAN. There is a cap. I think we have $18 billion worth that we are allowed to grant to utilities, $2 billion to the 

fraud end, if you will, of the operation, that is to say to the enrichment companies that are involved, and the balance, I believe, is renewable energy—— 

Mr. BARTON. Within a specific category if I am a company is 

there a limit on how much a company—— 

Secretary BODMAN. Oh, a company? 

Mr. BARTON [continuing]. A request can be for. 

Secretary BODMAN. No, but we will have to look at—we got $18 

billion, let us say for nuclear power. Nuclear power plants have become much more expensive. I think it unlikely that we are going 

to be able to offer the loan guarantees in the amount of 80 percent. 

If it is a $10 billion project that would mean you are going to have 

2, and I think it is going to be a tough decision to make so I would 

rather have 4 at 40 percent. 

Mr. BARTON. You zeroed out funding for oil and gas, R&D. I kind 

of understand that for the big companies but there is a section in 

the Energy Policy Act of 2005, I think it is Section 999, it may not 

37 

be but I think that is the section, it is for small projects and it is 

a guaranteed $50 million a year program. It is funded from money 

from the Federal royalty program. It is a loan program that people 

get a grant and have to repay it. The committee that is making 

these guarantees met in Houston last week, 32-1/2 percent of the 

program goes to things like hard to get natural gas, coal methane 

gas. It is a program that was proposed by a gentleman named Walter Mise in Clayburn, Texas, who just passed away. In fact, I was 

at his funeral last week. You zeroed it out last year. We put the 

money back in. 

Would you go back and take a look at that because we are not 

talking about funding Exxon Mobile. We are talking about loans to 

really small operators that go out and try to get primarily natural 

gas but some oil that is hard to get. And let me give you an example. In my district right now there is a natural gas play called the 

Barnett Shale. It is driven about 8,000 feet to 10,000 feet using 

horizontal drilling and hydraulic technology that didn’t exist 10 

years ago. That technology was partially funded by the Department 

of Energy in the last 20 years. That one field is going to produce 

three-quarters of a trillion cubic feet of natural gas this year. That 

is about 4 percent of domestic supply. It wouldn’t have been possible 10 or 15 years ago because that technology wasn’t in existence. And all of that field is small guys, little guys, so we are not 

talking about funding Exxon Mobil or Chevron. We are talking 

about a very small program. I am sure we are going to reinstitute 

it. I just ask you to take another look at it because long term it 

will have a pay-off and it will actually make money for the Treasury. 

Secretary BODMAN. I believe, Mr. Barton, that program which is 

there because of your interest and Mr. Hall’s interest and we are— 

that program I believe is the law of the land. 

Mr. BARTON. Well, it is the law but you got to fund it. 

Secretary BODMAN. Well, it is funded, I believe. 

Mr. BARTON. Okay. Well, I hope so. 

Secretary BODMAN. I believe it is funded. 

Mr. BARTON. My time is expired. I appreciate you being here, Mr. 

Secretary. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your courtesy. 

Mr. DINGELL. The chair thanks the gentleman. Mr. Bodman, I 

want to make three statements. Tell me which of them you disagree with. Do you agree that the Federal Scientific and Industrial 

Center for Nuclear Machine Building in Russia has been doing 

work on the Iran Bushehr reactor? Do you agree that the Scientific 

Research Institute of Measuring Systems has also been doing work 

on the Bushehr reactor in Iran, and do you agree that the department has approved funding and funding projects at these two institutes? 

Secretary BODMAN. Mr. Chairman— 

Mr. DINGELL. It is a very simple yes or no. 

Secretary BODMAN. Well, if I may, sir, I did receive a letter from 

you yesterday on this subject that you are aware of. 

Mr. DINGELL. Yes. 

Secretary BODMAN. So I wanted to acknowledge the fact that 

that was received. Secondly, I have not had time to fully investigate in the last 15 hours since I received the letter all of the 

38 

issues that are enumerated in your letter. But I have directed the 

principal deputy of the NNSA, Bill Ostendorff, to look into those 

questions and to report back to me and then he and I will report 

to you. I am told that the projects that are cited in the committee’s 

letter or any of the department’s scientific engagement projects are 

not enhancing the Iranian nuclear program. All the projects under 

the scientific engagement program in question are vetted through 

a very rigorous interagency effort and are fully consistent with U.S. 

law and policy. 

All of the contracts are of a pay for performance nature and that 

is to say once a product is achieved we then will pay the money. 

Regarding Bushehr, the U.S. has been in dialogue with Russia for 

many years relating to the proliferation issues associated with nuclear cooperation involving Iran. The reactor in Bushehr will be 

under IAEA safeguards. It is a commercial transaction, and Russia 

has agreed to long-term nuclear fuel supply program and a take 

back program. 

Mr. DINGELL. How, Mr. Secretary, do you then rhyme that statement with what the State Department said when they said this. 

Iran uses Bushehr as a cover and protection for obtaining sensitive 

technology to advance its nuclear weapons program. 

Secretary BODMAN. I have no doubt that there are inconsistencies in the statement. I will tell you what I believe to be true, 

and these are things that I have been told over the last 15 hours 

since I received your letter. 

Mr. DINGELL. Well, DOE has provided this committee with documents, has provided same to GAO, which has provided them to us 

which indicates that these projects at these institutes has been 

funded. Now you are aware of the fact that dollars are fungible, is 

that right? 

Secretary BODMAN. I am aware of the fact that dollars are fungible. 

Mr. DINGELL. You get dollars in Russia, and they can move the 

dollars around to suit their needs. Now let me ask you this question. Are these grants which you are making solely to the scientists 

or are they to the scientists and to the institute or are they for— 

is any part of them for overhead? 

Secretary BODMAN. They are contracts that are paid for performance, sir, so we pay for a product to be created by the scientist so 

we identify the scientist. For example, one of the— 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Secretary, you are being very helpful but understand I have 54 seconds left, and what I am trying to find out 

is when DOE gives contracts they give them for 2 purposes. One, 

to support the particular goal or objective of the contract, and, 2, 

to pay the overhead that is associated with it. Are they paying just 

the cost for a contract or are they paying in fact the contract—the 

overhead for the operation of the institute? 

Secretary BODMAN. I truly don’t know, Mr. Dingell. 

Mr. DINGELL. I think that is an important question. Mr. Secretary, we will be sending you other correspondence on this particular matter. I would like to have your comments about this in 

greater detail but I note that my time has expired and perhaps on 

the second time around I can recognize myself for further quesVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:42 Oct 07, 2010 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Q:\PRINT EDITOR-110\HEARINGS 110\110-86 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
39 

tions. The chair now recognizes the distinguished gentleman from 

Michigan, Mr. Upton, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. UPTON. I think my chairman. Mr. Secretary, I noted in my 

opening statement, I talked a little bit about nuclear power, and 

that nuclear reactions today generate 20 percent of America’s electricity, yet we know that our demand is going to grow by 50 percent by the year 2030. To maintain that 20 percent nuclear share 

is going to require that we are going to need to build perhaps as 

many as 45 or 50 new nuclear reactors by that time. Do you think 

that the funding in your budget that was submitted by the President this last week along with existing regulatory policies will 

allow us to reach that minimum level of 45 to 50 nuclear reactors 

by the year 2030? 

Secretary BODMAN. I believe that the effort that is anticipated by 

the budget that has been submitted will put us into a position to 

see nuclear power used not only in this country but throughout the 

world, and I am very hopeful about that. As to what will happen 

over the next 30 years, I would be foolish to try to estimate that 

or agree with the proposition so it would be—I hope that it will 

lead to that. I certainly think that your forecast is a reasonable one 

but I wouldn’t want to say that there is a linkage between this 

budget and that forecast. 

Mr. UPTON. I know that the level of funding for Yucca seemed 

to be a flat level in essence in ’09 the same as it what it was in 

’08 and in past years. Does the department support taking the nuclear waste fund for Yucca off budget, an issue that Mr. Towns and 

I on a bipartisan basis have introduced? 

Secretary BODMAN. Yeah, I think that the issue of the nuclear 

waste fund is a major challenge. What we are committed to do in 

the Energy Department is to get a license application that is scientifically sound filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

some time this year. 

Mr. UPTON. And that is the same time table that you referenced 

last year when you testified on the budget as well. 

Secretary BODMAN. I said last year that we were going to do it 

in the middle of the year in May-June, and I think that time table 

is going to be more questionable now because of the reduction we 

have for I think almost $500 million, and that has been reduced 

by $120 million so it is back to the 380 or so, and so we are now 

looking at what the implications of that are but I am hopeful that 

we will be successful in that endeavor. That is all I wanted to say 

about that. But in order to get a serious effort, in order to comply 

with the 2017 time frame that was when this budget was to have 

been completed, I think that is now off the table, the 2017 date, 

and we are going to have to start spending between $1 billion and 

$2 billion a year on Yucca Mountain if we are to be successful in 

accomplishing what needs to be accomplished, not $300 million or 

$400 million. 

Mr. UPTON. So taking the trust fund off budget would help us get 

to that goal. 

Secretary BODMAN. Yes, sir, it would. 

Mr. UPTON. Where are we in terms of re-examining the recycling 

of nuclear fuel, reprocessing nuclear fuel? What do we need to do 

here to try and help open up that debate again? 

40 

Secretary BODMAN. Well, the proposed budget which has got the advanced fuel cycle initiative of some $300 million, which is an increase of about $130 million over that which was a lot last year, 

that is where that is. That is where GNEP, the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, funding, that is what is intended to see the technical work done that would start. We have already filed an environmental impact statement about the prospects of putting a unit 

or research facility in any—I think there are 8 different communities that have applied for it so we are quite serious about it, and 

we hope that Congress agrees with our seriousness and the need 

for it. 

Mr. UPTON. My time is expiring so I will yield back. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I appreciate your service. 

Secretary BODMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. DINGELL. The time of the gentleman has expired. The chair 

recognizes now the distinguished gentleman from Michigan—rather 

from New York, Mr. Towns, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank 

you, Mr. Secretary, for coming up. As I travel around the country 

when I talk to seniors they are concerned about the heating bills, 

and many of them tell stories that they have to make a decision 

whether to buy their medicine or whether they buy food or whether 

they pay their heating bill. I notice that this budget has cut the 

Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program by 22 percent. How 

do you arrive at this number? 

Secretary BODMAN. First of all, sir, that is the LIHEAP proposal, 

I believe, the low income heating assistance plan. 

Mr. TOWNS. That is correct. 

Secretary BODMAN. That is in the Department of Health and 

Human Services, HHS, not in the Energy Department, so I can’t— 

I would be happy to defend anything that we are responsible for 

but that is not one of them. 

Mr. TOWNS. Let me ask you this. Are you willing to speak out 

against it? 

Secretary BODMAN. Well, I think that, look, there are issues related to all of the budgets. These are very tough times in terms of 

the pressures that are on the various secretaries to create budgets. 

I don’t happen to know what all the demands are in HHS so I can’t 

speak to that. But I can speak about the weatherization plan which 

has been zeroed out on our budget. It is a drop of, you mentioned 

22 percent, this is a drop of 100 percent that we are proposing that 

would affect low income residents. And the reason for that is that 

that plan has existed in what we call EERE, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy department, which is largely an applied research department. That is what they do. And it is something that 

they have had great success over the years of investing money so 

for every dollar that goes into weatherization it is a dollar that is 

not going into the creation of new codes for construction. 

It is a dollar that is not going into the support of new appliances 

or the so-called Energy Star program. So we do a lot of things that 

help low income people and these are much higher rates of return 

on the investment that we get by pointing it to work as I described. 

Mr. TOWNS. I think both are very important. Let me just move 

along. My time is running. I notice in the budget proposal that 

41 

there are also cuts in funding for renewable technology development of hydrogen, solar energy, and water power. Why? 

Secretary BODMAN. Well, the answers in each are different. Solar 

energy, the reduction is not a reduction over that which we asked 

for last year. We were blessed with the fact that Congress elected 

to give us more money last year than we asked for. So what we 

have asked for is an increase over that which we asked for last 

year which is I think a modest decrease over the amount that was 

this year. Water power, I think, is that one of your questions? 

Mr. TOWNS. Yes, water power. Yes, it is. 

Secretary BODMAN. Water power, we were granted I think $10 

million last year and we have put in—we still haven’t spent the 

money because it came in—it didn’t come in until the continuing 

resolution was passed, and we now have the $10 million and we 

will be spending that plus I think it is $3 million that we are asking for in the 2009 budget and so we will have $13 million spent 

on doing a survey of where the technology is and does it make 

sense for our department to move forward in that regard. 

Mr. TOWNS. It seems to me that we should continue researching 

safe and clean alternative fuel sources so that we may reduce dependence on foreign oil and of course— 

Secretary BODMAN. I agree with that, sir. 

Mr. TOWNS. You agree with that? 

Secretary BODMAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. TOWNS. I am happy that we agree on that, and I hope that 

you will also—I would like to talk further with you because I understand you are saying that it has—it is another department but 

your influence is still there and it could be helpful because I really 

think that what is happening with that—I just think low income 

people are just really, really being harmed in this budget, and I 

think that we should try to do whatever we can to fix it. So, Mr. 

Secretary, I thank you very much for coming, and I hope that you 

will join me on working on that. 

Secretary BODMAN. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. DINGELL. The time of the gentleman has expired. The chair 

recognizes now the distinguished gentleman from Illinois, Mr. 

Shimkus, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I am 

going to talk, hopefully get through 3 issues, FutureGen related, 

delay cost, and communication issues. First on delay, we need zero 

emission clean coal now. Everyone agrees with that. Your new plan 

is—it is felt that your new plan in rescoping will not speed up the 

process but will delay the process by conservatively 3 years based 

upon past performance on government, probably 4 to 5 years. How 

do you respond to this line of questioning that by rescoping we actually delay the onset of clean coal technology? 

Secretary BODMAN. I don’t believe that is the case. I believe that 

we are going to be in a position, Mr. Shimkus, to fund a variety 

of approaches. That is what the goal is. And we are in the process 

of doing a solicitation of interest among utilities, and we are hopeful that we will be in a position to fund, as I said, a variety of capture and sequestration efforts. Carbon capture and sequestration, 

CCS, is a requirement. I agree with you in terms of the use, the 

42 

more broad use of coal in America. That is why we have increased 

our R&D budget by a sizable amount of $650 million. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Secretary, if we can stay on the alliance of 

FutureGen and just the alliance proposal. I understand the answer. 

I would say in my discussions, and I am discussing with industry 

probably as much as the department is, there is not an immediate 

stampede to accept this rescoping of the project. I think a lot of 

problems is the carbon capture sequestration, the liability aspects. 

They are big concerns. And I think it is credible to say that what 

you are proposing is going to move us quicker. There are a lot of 

people that think it is going to delay us. 

I want to move to cost real quick. The alliance has countered 

with a response saying no new dollars over what was originally 

agreed to. The new hold up is debt financing at least from the energy. DOE clean coal projects routinely involve financing. It is common practice for commercial plants to be majority financed, often 

up to 80 percent financing. Why is the department balking at the 

alliance’s proposal to use highly limited financing as a tool to manage cash flow and to deal with project uncertainties? 

Secretary BODMAN. This budget which calls for or their proposal 

which calls for our equally sparing or sharing in the cost overruns 

which I believe will occur, and I believe they believe will occur. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. But would you accept the premise that DOE routinely allows financing on clean coal projects? Do you not— 

Secretary BODMAN. I do. I do acknowledge that. But this is a research project, sir. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I understand. That is where we agree to disagree 

and that is the problem with the proponents of moving forward as 

scoped versus Department of Energy and we need to get this on the 

record. Let me finish. I only have a minute and 16 seconds left. I 

want to talk about communication aspects, and you are fully aware 

these have been raised by many members of the Illinois delegation, 

and I think members of the Texas delegation would be raising the 

same concerns if Texas would have been sited. You know what I 

am talking about. Here is the letter of November 30, 2007, saying 

notice of the EIS availability was published in the Federal Register. We are working to complete the process and issue the record 

of decision. This was a mistake, Mr. Secretary, for you to sign this 

letter. 

Secretary BODMAN. I think that is probably right but I signed 

that letter at that time because I believed in the alliance and I believed that we had a deal with the alliance, and it turned out that 

we didn’t. Well, I have talked with both you all and the alliance, 

and you guys are as far apart of ever coming to a deal that I have 

ever seen two groups. I have seen Republicans and Democrats closer than DOE and the alliance. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The last thing has to do with the EIS, the environmental impact statement, and on the summary on page S-4 DOE 

proposes to provide—this is November, 2007. We are as close to 

any date of a publication right now to being timely as any Federal 

document that people will quote. And here in this document we are 

saying DOE proposes to provide financial assistance to the alliance 

to plan, design, construct, operate the FutureGen project. DOE has 

identified 4 reasonable alternative sites and will determine which 

43 

sites, if any, are acceptable to DOE to host a FutureGen project. 

Not projects, project, the 4 sites, and we know what they are. And 

this thing along with this, and I think 4 other comparable size documents cost Federal taxpayers about $10 million, and the question 

is for what? 

And this is also the communication problem. We have this out 

in November. Eleven days later the alliance wants to make an announcement. You guys say hold off. The people of Mattoon and all 

the other places are left high and dry. That is the emotional problem that we in Illinois have. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DINGELL. The time of the gentleman has expired. The chair 

recognizes now the distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado, Ms. 

DeGette, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First of all, 

Mr. Secretary, I want to make an apology and correction in my 

opening statement because in fact the agency’s budget is not flat 

lined but there is a 22.27 percent decrease in the budget over the 

congressional appropriation from last year. So it has not decreased 

from the Administration’s request but the congressional appropriation. And that is what I want to talk to you about today because 

it seems to me with this Nation’s new commitment to renewable 

energy and conservation we should really be making a renewed 

commitment to NREL. And as I said in my opening statement, I 

was just out there a few weeks ago and they are doing fabulous 

work. And so I would like to ask you is it true that in the fiscal 

year 2009 Department of Energy budget NREL funding is cut from 

the appropriation from Congress of $293 million to $228 million for 

fiscal year 2009. 

Secretary BODMAN. What is at work here is the fact that when 

we do a budget for any of our laboratories, but let us pick NREL, 

when we do a budget we budget for what we know will be spent 

in support of that laboratory. We then have other budget categories 

that within the EERE activity and those monies end up getting 

spent at NREL. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Well, you know, this is not exactly responsive to 

my question. 

Secretary BODMAN. Well, if I may, Congresswoman, in 2007 we 

had $171 million in the equivalent of what you are reading there 

and we ended up spending $314 million. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Right, but if you want to talk about the EERE 

budget which is one of the sources of funding for NREL— 

Secretary BODMAN. Right. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Now in your proposal this year it is being slashed 

from $1.72 billion to $1.26 billion, that particular account, so it is 

hard to see under the Administration’s budget how we are going 

to increase funding for NREL if you are cutting that budget by a 

figure of 27.1 percent. 

Secretary BODMAN. NREL had in 2008 in the LAMP table, which 

is what the equivalent of that figure of $165 million in 2008. This 

year it is $210 million. So we have seen a sizable increase. Last 

year we ended up with $277 million being spent at NREL, and so 

you and I are working at different figures. That is all I am telling 

you. 

44 

Ms. DEGETTE. But it seems to me what happens, and every year 

you have been here, Mr. Secretary, we talk about this, it seems to 

me what happens is the Administration requests a reduction or flat 

line and then Congress appropriates more so in the end then you 

can come back in and say, well, NREL had more but that is because Congress puts that money in. 

Secretary BODMAN. With all due respect, ma’am, it is not all due 

with respect to Congress. Some parts of it are for sure but also 

there are funds within EERE that get spent at NREL that are not 

located in that table in that figure. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Okay. Well, let us talk about a few of the other 

ones in the fiscal year 2009 budget. Let us talk about solar energy, 

which is cut 7.3 in the Administration’s budget. Hydrogen is cut 

30.7 percent. EERE facilities and infrastructure is cut 81.6 percent, 

and weatherization is eliminated altogether, but at the same time 

in the budget I see increases for funding for fossil energy research 

and development, increases for coal, increases for nuclear, and for 

department administration and public affairs a 1.32 percent increase. So I guess that is what some of us are concerned about in 

looking at the overall budget. It seems that the Administration is 

continuing with its traditional energy approach and relying on Congress to look at alternatives and renewables. Would you disagree 

with that statement? 

Secretary BODMAN. No, I would not, ma’am. With all due respect, there is an almost $470 million drop in EERE and that comes 

largely from 2 areas. One is $187 million in earmarks that were 

put in by Congress. Secondly, it is $223 million in the weatherization program and that is in combination of the vast bulk of the reduction in EERE. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Well, I know that my time has expired so someone 

else perhaps will ask you about the reduction in weatherization, 

but I can’t help but agree with you on the earmarks myself, and 

I yield back. 

Mr. DINGELL. The time of the gentlewoman has expired. The 

chair recognizes now the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Terry, for 

6 minutes. 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to make sure that 

I have read the budget right on that. Terraphon ethanol, that is 

still in there? 

Secretary BODMAN. The terraphon ethanol is geared to expire, I 

believe at the end of this year. And the Administration’s position 

on the terraphon ethanol is that we are prepared to talk with Congress about that as we move forward but it is not something that 

is in the budget, neither the subsidy nor the tariff. I guess the subsidy is but not the tariff. 

Mr. TERRY. Okay. 

Secretary BODMAN. The subsidy lasts through, I believe, the year 

2010, if I am not mistaken. But the tariff expires at the end of this 

calendar year. 

Mr. TERRY. Then just a cursory review of the budget. My friend 

from Colorado and I share some of the same concerns on research 

and development and renewable fuels. My emphasis has been more 

on the cellulosic ethanol portions of it. I was energized, enthusiastic with some of the words of the President during the State of 

45 

the Union when he challenged the appropriators in Congress to 

double the funding for renewable energy research and development. I look in the programs in the budget and some projects have 

increases, some have decreases, but it doesn’t look like your office 

wants additional funds for research and development. Can you help 

clarify or work me through where we are going to do the increased 

amount of research and development on renewables? 

Secretary BODMAN. The request that we have is about the same 

as the 2008 request. It is also a $100 million increase in the advanced energy initiative from the 2008 request so I mean it all depends on which aspects of this you look at. I can tell you that I 

do not view this as something that we are—I didn’t think I was 

going to have to come in here and defend against accusations that 

we were cutting research funding. That is not what this is involved 

with. The science budget calls for an increase from about $4 billion 

up to $4.7 billion. That is $700 million. It is a very sizable effort. 

Some of that will go to hydrogen. Some of that will go to carbon 

capture and sequestration. So it is moving in a whole variety of 

areas technically that I think one of the issues that we are trying 

to do is to integrate the science office much more carefully with the 

applied research efforts, and I think we have been successful in 

doing that, but the result is that when you look at the budget on 

a budgetary basis it does not appear that way because we don’t account for it that way. 

Mr. TERRY. You mentioned that in the budget research budget 

generically then some will go to hydrogen, for example. 

Secretary BODMAN. Yes. 

Mr. TERRY. Hydrogen is another area that I have spent a lot of 

time and effort trying to push down the road. Now I see from the 

budget though that we do have that it is planned to zero out the 

5-year hydrogen initiative. Is it a fair assumption on my part that 

you feel that the science has progressed far enough that now you 

are going to put your emphasis how to roll it out into the market? 

Secretary BODMAN. No. The focus is two-fold in the budget. First 

of all, my hydrogen initiative shows that we got $267 million that 

we are going to spend on hydrogen this year versus $280 last year, 

so pretty close to where it was. EERE shows a sizable reduction. 

Why? Because we are focusing in EERE on fuel cells and on hydrogen storage on board a vehicle, not on the vehicle technology aspects, so that is what that is, but we are seeing an increase in the 

science budget from $36 million last year to the request of $60 million, and that goes a long way to making up the difference but it 

is going to be focused on the science aspects of this as opposed to 

the engineering aspects or the vehicle technology aspects. 

Mr. TERRY. For example, what would be some of the science aspects so I can get my mind around it? 

Secretary BODMAN. Oh, I think it is going to be—I am now beyond my knowledge of this. 

Mr. TERRY. You can send your science person up to talk to me. 

Will you make sure that happens? 

Secretary BODMAN. We would be happy to do that but it is going 

to be studying the chemistry of various kinds of metal hydrides so 

that we will know how and why hydrogen gets absorbed in difVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:42 Oct 07, 2010 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Q:\PRINT EDITOR-110\HEARINGS 110\110-86 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
46 

ferent ways with different metals and so that will be the focus of 

it, and that is something that only a scientist can do. 

Mr. TERRY. I appreciate that, and my time has run out, so thank 

you, Mr. Secretary and Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DINGELL. The chair thanks the gentleman. The chair notes 

that the next of our colleagues to be recognized is the gentleman 

from Washington State, Mr. Inslee, will be recognized for 6 minutes. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, this is the climate change 

report of 2007, the synthesis report, a summary for policy makers. 

Have you read this document? 

Secretary BODMAN. I can’t tell you that I have, no. 

Mr. INSLEE. This is the pre-eminent scientific assessment of the 

condition of the planet Earth and the major challenge to its continued stability of our climate system upon which human life depends. 

I think it would be a really good idea if the United States Secretary 

of Energy was fully familiar with the science in this report. I will 

tell you why. 

Secretary BODMAN. I didn’t say I wasn’t familiar with the 

science. I don’t know what is in there. I haven’t read it. 

Mr. INSLEE. Well, I am here to urge you to read it because if you 

read it, I think you will conclude as I have that the United States 

under the current Administration is still taking the attitude of the 

ostrich rather than the attitude of the American eagle when it 

comes to the science of this report. If you read this report, you will 

conclude that there is overwhelming consensus in the scientific 

community that we are up against very, very significant danger in 

the plant, not just the earth but in fact we are in a planetary emergency, and we would expect the United States under those circumstances to lead the world in the technological development of 

the policies to deal with this problem. 

Secretary BODMAN. I believe we are doing that. 

Mr. INSLEE. Well, I don’t think you are, and I will tell you why. 

Secretary BODMAN. Well, I believe we are. 

Mr. INSLEE. Well, I am going to give you a chance to express 

your position. Let me express mine. 

Secretary BODMAN. Sure. 

Mr. INSLEE. Two weeks ago James Connaughton sat where you 

are, and I asked him to help lead the country in development of 

a cap and trade system that will put a legally binding limit on the 

amount of carbon dioxide going into the atmosphere and using the 

efficient use of the market to allocate that resource. He basically 

did this sort of shuffle that we have seen on occasion that refuse 

to give us that leadership. We now are talking on a bipartisan 

basis trying to develop a meaningful cap and trade system. 

Secretary BODMAN. Right. 

Mr. INSLEE. It is absolutely fundamental to the development of 

the technologies you and I know we have to develop to tame this 

beast. So given the science that you say you are familiar with and 

that is very clear in this report, given the fact that you Europe is 

moving in the cap and trade system, given the fact that we know 

that it works because we invented it here for sulfur dioxide. Why 

can’t your Administration help us on a bipartisan effort, come out 

47 

and say the President is going to help adopt a cap and trade system in a meaningful and practical sense? Why can’t you do that? 

Secretary BODMAN. I will tell you why. I have been here 7 years, 

3 years in Commerce, 1 year in Treasury, 3 years in Energy. During that time I have been negotiating with the Chinese in one form 

or other about their exchange rates. You know how much progress 

we have made? About that much in terms of the exchange rates of 

the Chinese. I do not believe that we are going to be in a position 

until we get a buy-in by China, by India, by the developing world 

into with all of the major emitters. That is what the so-called MEM 

process is all about. And they have had 2 meetings so far, one here 

in Washington, and then in Honolulu. I am not sure where the 

next one is going to be. I think in Europe. And the goal here is to 

have all of the major emitters meet and agree on a plan that, if 

you will, parse out who will deal with this. But until that time for 

us to unilaterally agree to do something in my judgment is a mistake from a negotiating standpoint. 

Mr. INSLEE. So one person in a not very diplomatic statement at 

the last conference in Bali asked the United States to lead, follow 

or get out of the way. We are working on a cap and trade system 

that is not going to work for the Chinese. We did not wait for 

China to adopt democracy before we did in the United States. We 

are the world’s leaders and we are the people who have the technological ability to solve this problem. Now I want to ask the Administration to lead, follow or get out of the way. I am going to ask 

you today to tell us if we pass a cap and trade system on a bipartisan basis and it passes the House and U.S. Senate can you tell 

us the President is going to sign it or at least tell us today he 

hasn’t decided to veto it? 

Secretary BODMAN. I can’t tell you that. I have not talked with 

the President about it. 

Mr. INSLEE. You haven’t talked to the President about a cap and 

trade system? 

Secretary BODMAN. No. 

Mr. INSLEE. That is stunning to me. 

Secretary BODMAN. Well, I am telling you my view, and I tried 

to explain that to you, sir. I will say it again. I have spent 7 years 

negotiating with the Chinese about their exchange rates. There is 

no leverage in dealing with the Chinese. The only leverage we have 

is what we will be willing to do, and that has to be arrived at in 

a negotiation with them, with the Indians, and with other participants, I believe. That is what the President’s view is and that is 

certainly what my view is. 

Mr. INSLEE. Well, I have to tell you it is most disturbing while 

we are making progress here in Congress the Administration continues to keep its head in the sand on this issue. America wants 

to lead the world on this issue. I just tell you it is stunning to me 

that our Secretary of Energy has not talked to the President of the 

United States about how to fashion a cap and trade system. I encourage you to do so. We need your leadership. We want this to be 

a bipartisan effort, and I hope you will find a way to help us on 

that. Thank you. 

Mr. DINGELL. The time of the gentleman has expired. The chair 

has a quick announcement and then the chair is going to indicate 

48 

further business here. The chair notes that there are going to be 

a series of votes on the floor, 4 in number. First, previous question 

on H.R. 4137, College Opportunity and Affordability Act. Second, 

H.Res. 956, a rule providing for consideration of H.R. 4137. Then 

H.Con Res. 283 calling for peaceful resolution of the current election crisis in Kenya. The first vote will be 15 minutes. The second 

will be 5. The third will be 5. And then there will be an additional 

5-minute vote on H.R. 4848 to extend for one year the priority on 

application of certain limits to mental health benefits and for other 

purposes. The chair will plan on hearing from two of our colleagues. We will go then promptly to the Floor. The committee will 

reconvene at 1:00. At this time the chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Florida, Mr. Stearns, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Secretary, let us just 

separate China and India from this. Do you agree or disagree in 

principal with the idea of a cap and trade system? 

Secretary BODMAN. You know, the idea of a cap and trade system 

or a carbon tax or whatever it is is something that has been talked 

about. I have expressed my views until the White House decides 

to— 

Mr. STEARNS. No, I am just asking your view. 

Secretary BODMAN. I am not going to render an opinion. 

Mr. STEARNS. So you are saying as the Secretary of Energy, you 

have no opinion on cap and trade? 

Secretary BODMAN. That is correct. 

Mr. STEARNS. Okay. Are you familiar with the problems that the 

cap and trade has had in the European Union? 

Secretary BODMAN. Generally, yes. 

Mr. STEARNS. In fact, they suspended it because of fraud, corruption, and they are relooking at it. You are familiar with those backgrounds? 

Secretary BODMAN. Yes. 

Mr. STEARNS. Do you think any of that would be a concern if we 

adopted cap and trade in the United States? 

Secretary BODMAN. Of course. Of course. 

Mr. STEARNS. So what has happened in Europe could very likely 

occur in the United States with the same problems? 

Secretary BODMAN. Of course. Of course. 

Mr. STEARNS. With my opening statement talking about the strategic petroleum reserve expanding it, can you give me just briefly 

the long-term plan for the expansion of this reserve, the strategic 

petroleum reserve, just real briefly what the long-term plan is. 

Secretary BODMAN. Well, the current inventory is about 700 million barrels. That is about what we now have, and we are in the 

process of increasing that number up to the capacity of 727, which 

we hope to do this year. The existence of the strategic petroleum 

reserve is a matter of in my judgment of national security. We need 

it to protect this country in the event of a physical interruption in 

supply as we had with Katrina and Rita and we used it at that 

time. The President looked at that. We have about 58 days, I think, 

and if we are able to get up to the 727 that will be about 60 days 

of protection. We would like to have 90. And so that the increase 

of the capacity of this to a billion barrels is something that Congress has already signed off on. If we are successful in doing that, 

49 

that will get our coverage up to about 75 days. By going up to a 

billion and a half barrels which we would expect to be by the year 

2025 then we would be at about 90 days protection. 

Mr. STEARNS. When you do your projections and you look at this, 

what do you anticipate oil prices will be in 5 years? 

Secretary BODMAN. One of the advantages of this job, there 

aren’t many sir, but one of the advantages, I don’t make forecasts 

in terms of price. 

Mr. STEARNS. So you could not even project what it would be in 

2 years or 1 year? 

Secretary BODMAN. Well, I choose not to. That is not something 

that I have to do in this job. My job is to try to arrange for any 

work on a diversity of supplies, of roots, and of suppliers within 

each type of energy, and that is what I do. 

Mr. STEARNS. At the University of Florida researchers are developing a new innovative technology for the conversion of renewable 

biomass into fuels, and with the 15 million acres of forest land and 

10 million acres of farm land Florida has tremendous potential to 

become a national leader and producer of bio-energy. With the passage of the 36 million gallon renewable fuel mandate last year, Mr. 

Secretary, do you have any new updates for us on the status of the 

technology for cellulosic bio-fuel? As I understand it, by the year 

2012 a new law will demand over 15 billion gallons, 2 billion of 

which need to be advanced bio-fuel. The other question is are we 

on target at all for the 2012? 

Secretary BODMAN. Well, we are on target to try to accomplish 

the cost performance of cellulosic ethanol to cause that to become 

competitive with corn-based ethanol by the year 2012 so it not exactly is going to meet that criteria. With respect to the investments 

that we are making, we have made substantial investments in the 

new bio-energy centers that are located in Tennessee, in Wisconsin, 

and in California. Those are leading efforts to apply the science 

that has been developed by the bio-tech industry to the energy 

problem, and then in addition we have had sizable investments in 

new types of cellulosic ethanol, one of which is in Florida using citrus rinds as a feed stock and so we are optimistic. There is one in 

Florida using citrus rinds, one in Georgia using wood pulp, two in 

Iowa and Kansas that are using corn switch grass in Idaho and— 

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DINGELL. The chair apologizes. The chair asks unanimous— 

the chair has been informed Secretary Bodman must leave here at 

1:00. Mr. Secretary, we are trying to respect that, so we will reconvene then at 12:30. Ms. DeGette will preside over the committee. 

The chair has something else to do. The chair recognizes now the 

distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey, for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the chair. Secretary Bodman, are you familiar with the Markey-Cox nuclear export amendment to the 2005 

Energy Policy Act? 

Secretary BODMAN. No. 

Mr. MARKEY. The Cox-Markey amendment states that no nuclear 

materials and equipment or sensitive nuclear technology shall be 

exported or re-exported or transferred or re-transferred whether directly or indirectly, and no Federal agency shall issue any license 

50 

approval or authorization for the export or re-export or transfer or 

re-transfer whether directly or indirectly of these items or assistance to any country whose government has been identified by the 

Secretary of State as engaged in state sponsorship of terroristic activities. Earlier you told Mr. Dingell that you believe that the Energy Department’s contracts with these Russian nuclear institutes 

were in your words fully consistent with U.S. law and policy. 

Why wouldn’t funding a Russian nuclear institute that is working to build key components of Iran’s nuclear reactor in Bushehr 

be either a direct or indirect export transfer or re-transfer of nuclear technology or nuclear assistance to Iran? 

Secretary BODMAN. What I expressed to the chairman was that 

at the time that I received his letter yesterday, I have had whatever it is, 15 hours to try to work it, and I have asked the principal 

deputy administrator of the NNSA to go to work on the problem 

and to answer the questions in his letters. That is basically what 

I said. I said with respect to the Bushehr reactor, my understanding is that this is something that the President has spoken 

to President Putin about, that the proliferation issues have been 

discussed, and that that reactor remains under IAEA safeguards 

and this— 

Mr. MARKEY. Before this contract was entered into, did you make 

a determination as to whether or not it could be in violation of the 

Markey-Cox amendment which is the law of the United States barring nuclear assistance to countries that sponsor terrorism? 

Secretary BODMAN. I presume that they did but I did not personally so I cannot speak— 

Mr. MARKEY. So you do not know? 

Secretary BODMAN. That is correct. 

Mr. MARKEY. Will you give me your assurance personally that 

you will investigate the legality of this program and ascertain 

whether it is in fact a violation of the Markey-Cox amendment? 

Secretary BODMAN. I will certainly do that. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. I think there is a very disturbing possibility that it is in fact in violation of the law. Let me ask a second 

question. Mr. Secretary, would you agree that the weatherization 

assistance program which President—which the Bush Administration fiscal year 2009 budget would zero out is the country’s longest 

running and perhaps most successful energy efficiency program? 

Secretary BODMAN. I don’t know the answer to that. 

Mr. MARKEY. Well, your own department on its web site until 2 

days ago said that the weatherization program is the country’s 

longest running and perhaps most successful energy efficiency program. 

Secretary BODMAN. Okay. 

Mr. MARKEY. Then, Mr. Secretary, the Bush Administration zeroed out the money for the weatherization program. 

Secretary BODMAN. Yes. 

Mr. MARKEY. And then yesterday deleted the text from the Department of Energy web site that said that it is the country’s longest running and perhaps most successful energy efficiency program. 

So, Mr. Secretary, why would you cut out the funding for your most 

successful program? 

51 

Secretary BODMAN. For the reasons that I mentioned that this 

program is carried out in EERE who have all sorts of increases in 

research funding and energy efficiency work and Energy Star work 

that have higher rates of return on the investment that goes into 

it. 

Mr. MARKEY. Your own analysis makes clear that this program 

is your top program, and I just think that once again it shows that 

the Bush Administration is sacrificing the long-term energy efficiency opportunities that our country has for short-term budgetary 

purposes. It is just not still well understood inside the Bush Administration how much energy will be saved if we make the investment now. Let me ask one final question, and that is on the question of television set efficiency. You probably now that new high 

definition television sets can consume as much power as a refrigerator, and the department has yet to develop a minimum energy 

efficiency standard this year for televisions. When can we expect 

the Department of Energy to propose energy standards in this 

area? 

Secretary BODMAN. I have no idea, Congressman, but I will be 

happy to take that question for the record and respond to you. 

Mr. MARKEY. Millions of new, highly inefficient television sets, 

these new huge sets that men go out and buy so they can see the 

Super Bowl, so they can see the NCAA basketball tournament now 

consume as much electricity as a refrigerator. Would you support 

the efforts underway in states like California and Massachusetts to 

issue minimum energy efficiency standards for televisions in the 

absence of no national standards in the Bush Administration? 

Secretary BODMAN. I don’t know. I mean I will be happy to respond to that rather than doing something on the spur of the moment. I would be happy to respond as I have said to you across the 

board on this issue. 

Mr. MARKEY. You should expect me to continue to press you on 

this television set issue, and to insist that California and Massachusetts be allowed to act if you are not going to make a decision 

on it. 

Secretary BODMAN. I understand. 

Mr. MARKEY. I thank you. This hearing is in recess until the 

aforementioned 12:30 reconvening of the committee. Thank you, 

Mr. Secretary. 

[Recess.] 

Ms. DEGETTE. [Presiding] The committee will come to order. The 

chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murphy, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Secretary Bodman, for being here. I appreciate all the work you have 

done to help our country, but as you know there is much that 

needs to be done in the area of energy. I want to ask you specifically about some things related to oil. A couple months ago the report came out the U.S. trade deficit had surged by 9.3 percent to 

$63.12 billion, which was the highest in many years. They attributed that to a large extent on the price of oil saying it was an economic drag and saying that at that same time imports from China 

declined and imports from Europe declined because of the condition 

of the dollar and other issues there. I wonder if you could comment 

52 

to the extent that we continue to increase our dependence upon foreign oil, your comments on—I know the President recently was in 

Saudi Arabia and there it seemed to me made an appeal for more 

oil production, and yet in this country we have placed off limits or 

in effect embargoed our oil off the Atlantic Coast, The Gulf Coast, 

the Pacific Coast, the western states and Alaska, and my sense is 

that if we had more oil in the pipelines coming from our country 

and to do that in an environmentally responsible way following our 

laws that we would not have this same issue on our economy. I 

wonder if you could comment about those issues of our access to 

oil and its impact on our economy. 

Secretary BODMAN. Well, it is a big problem. I would say certainly if we had—were to exploit our own reserves in a better fashion than we have heretofore, we would have more oil. We would be 

able to get the benefits to this country to our citizens. We would 

also it seems to me affect the world price so that it would start to 

reduce pressure on price around the world, and it would incidentally, if I may say, it would make the job of the energy Secretary 

a lot easier because we have a—every time I start it is always a 

discussion of oil price and OPEC and what the issues are so anything we can do to do that, the President has spoken to it, I have 

spoken to it, so whether it is Anwar or whether it is drilling offshore in Alaska, whether we got an embargo on the West Coast, 

we got an embargo on the East Coast, the only place that seemingly want to drill or will drill is in the Gulf of Mexico, and it is 

a real problem. 

Mr. MURPHY. And much of that is further away. I understand 

Cuba is drilling from our coast. Thank you for that input. I share 

your concern about the drag it has on our economy and we keep 

saying no to that and yet we have to power our cars, and we are 

investing so much money now. It is affecting our economy, and 

money that is going overseas instead of being invested here. What 

I would like to see us do it in smarter transportation systems, and 

if we are even going to have the money for more efficient automobiles we are not going to have that if we are sending our money 

over to the countries. 

If I could shift now to the issue of coal. I mentioned in my opening statement about the demands for energy in this country doubling by 2050. And I said I was pleased that you are offering to 

put more money into research and development and clean coal. I 

do want to ask you though will that be enough and what do we 

need to engage in a long-term commitment to move us really towards cracking the code on clean coal zero emissions coal technology in order to meet our needs for the future. 

Secretary BODMAN. Well, we have $648 million in the budget for 

research and development of coal. That is a big increase. I think 

that is the biggest number in 25 years and so it is a major undertaking. There are all a manner of different approaches to it but in 

significant measure that money will go to the carbon capture and 

sequestration program, not in its entirety, not all $650 million but 

well over $400 or $500 million of it will eventually end up in that 

area. In order to use coal in my judgment we have to capture and 

sequester the carbon dioxide that gets created when coal gets 

burned. That is an issue. And so we have to find a way to resolve 

53 

the problem and in my view that is what we are aiming to do, and 

we are doing everything that I know how to do and more than that 

to try to solve this problem. 

Mr. MURPHY. I want to thank you. I really think that is one of 

the environmental and economic challenges of our time. I know the 

jobs of hundreds of thousands, millions of Americans, depend— 

Secretary BODMAN. I think that is right. Fifty percent of our electricity comes from coal as you well know and we are going to need 

it. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you so much, sir. I yield back. Thank you. 

Ms. DEGETTE. The gentleman’s time has expired. The gentleman 

from Utah is recognized for 6 minutes. 

Mr. MATHESON. Thank you, Madam Chair. Welcome again, Secretary Bodman, before our committee. We were talking just before 

we started, you guessed I might ask you a question about the 

tailings pile so you anticipate well. It is an issue near and dear to 

me and my constituents in Utah but also to the many millions of 

downstream users along the Colorado River in Arizona, Nevada, 

and California as well, and I actually got a picture of where the 

tailings pile is with the Colorado River going right by it, 16 million 

tons of radioactive tailings. Over the years many sites have been 

cleaned up. This is the biggest and ends up being sort of the last 

one in the queue for clean-up. And last year when we were talking 

here before this committee questions came up about the schedule 

for doing this, and you had indicated it could very well be extended 

out for a long period of time. That wasn’t necessarily what some 

of us liked to hear and subsequent to that hearing and in the past 

year Congress has now passed in the defense authorization bill language that calls for a completion date to move the tailings by the 

end of the year 2019. 

That was signed into law by the President as part of the 2008 

defense bill. Do you think that with Congress kind of encouraging 

you and that signed into law, is this a date that the DOE thinks 

is going to be achievable to make? 

Secretary BODMAN. Based on what I now know, the answer is no. 

We are in the stages of doing engineering and work on it that will 

enable us to, if you will, base line the project and get a better sense 

of it. But based on the funding restrictions that we have placed on 

that we are looking at something that is going to be 2025 or later. 

Mr. MATHESON. And that is obviously something I didn’t want to 

hear because we did pass this law here. 

Secretary BODMAN. I know you didn’t want to hear it. I thought 

I told the truth and— 

Mr. MATHESON. And I appreciate that. I am trying to figure out 

when the DOE completed its decision it said this would take somewhere from 7 to 10 years and so that is I guess what also causes 

the frustration is we are dragging this thing out over a lot longer 

time frame than your own record of decision had indicated. I do 

know your folks in the field are talking about viewing this act of 

Congress as a soft date, and I do think we need to keep talking 

about this because I do think we want that to be done by 2019. 

Secretary BODMAN. I certainly recognize your zeal about that 

subject, sir. 

54 

Mr. MATHESON. Not just my zeal. As I said, I got a lot of members of Congress in a bipartisan way in the down river states who 

don’t understand why it has taken so long. It seems like every step 

of the process is taking longer, and I would encourage you to take 

a look at what is going on in your field office because I do not understand why it is one delay after another after another. I don’t 

think it is just funding. I really don’t. I think this has taken far 

too long even for the preliminary engineering and preliminary 

stages that have been pursued so far. It is not happening on a 

timely basis out there in the field. 

Secretary BODMAN. I would be happy to look at it, sir. 

Mr. MATHESON. If you believe that the budget doesn’t allow for 

moving ahead on this, is that because there are other projects of 

greater priority for the existing budget? 

Secretary BODMAN. Yes. 

Mr. MATHESON. Could you maybe articulate what those would be 

within this—and I just mean within this clean-up and remediation— 

Secretary BODMAN. It is about 1 billion 9. It is almost I think 7 

or 8 of the entire budget of the Energy Department is at Hanford, 

and there there is concern about the presence of heavy metals as 

well as nuclear materials in the ground water so that has a very 

high priority. The work at Savannah River has a high priority. The 

work at parts of Oak Ridge has a priority. Areas where we have 

so-called D&D which is decommissioning and destruction of a 

building that tends to have a lesser priority just because those 

buildings, they are unsightly to look at but they don’t have a big 

impact on the environment. 

Mr. MATHESON. So Congress provides additional money in that 

fund. I want to make sure that in your view is the primary variable 

that is delaying this because my concern is I see a lot of foot dragging, I don’t know why, for other reasons, I am just moving along 

where money at the front end is not really the problem. So I am 

going to work my best here in Congress to make sure we appropriate the right amount of money in this area to get this thing 

done. But my concern is that, and I would suggest you do need to 

review what is going on within your field office to find out why this 

is taking so long. 

Let me raise one other issue in the brief time I have got left. The 

record of decision suggests that this should be moved by rail, and 

yet I understand the DOE’s field office is talking about possibly 

changing the way they transport this. And I don’t expect you to be 

in the weeds on this issue but I want to make sure this change if 

it is going to be considered does not delay the project or if there 

is going to be a change, we ought to go ahead and make the change 

but I would encourage you to—if you could maybe get back to me 

on that about how that issue is going to be considered and what 

hopefully is a time limit because—and let me just finish this 

thought and then you can respond, discussion about reopening the 

record of decision. That discussion has been going on for over a 

year. And if we are going to reopen it, let us reopen it. Let us not 

talk about it for more than a year and not reopen it. Let us make 

a decision and let us move on because this is the example I have 

been talking about. 

55 

I feel like everything just gets slow walked. Everything seems to 

get slow walked here and a lot of us are feeling frustration about 

that. 

Secretary BODMAN. I am unfamiliar with whether it is rail or 

moved on I guess roads which would be the alternative, truck it, 

and so I will respond and do it for the record with you personally. 

Mr. MATHESON. Okay. I really appreciate that. Madam Chair, I 

see my time has expired. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hall, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HALL. Madam Chairman, I thank you. Mr. Secretary, I am 

one of your admirers. I respect you and I thank you for leaving the 

highly successful business world and coming here and giving us 

your time. 

Secretary BODMAN. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. HALL. And now you expect me to knock you around a little 

but I am not even going to do that. I thank former Chairman Barton who visited with you about the ultra deep water. I just want 

to get some input into the record on this. I know what your position is. I know what the Administration’s position is. I know what 

you need to do, and I respect it, and I am not offended by it. I am 

kind of like the farmer was toward the boll weevil. He didn’t hate 

him. He just didn’t like the way he made his living. I have got to 

talk about the ultra deep water and the unconventional natural gas 

and other petroleum research fund. And as you know, the ultra 

deep water and unconventional natural gas and other petroleum 

research fund created by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 has been 

scheduled, and is funded from mandatory Federal revenues from oil 

and gas leases, and I understand that consistent with fiscal year 

2007, fiscal year 2008 budget requests it has been funded, right? 

Secretary BODMAN. That is correct. 

Mr. HALL. And fiscal year 2009 budget proposal to repeal the 

program through a legislative proposal. 

Secretary BODMAN. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. HALL. And I would like to say that I don’t understand the 

President’s position on this. I am not real comfortable in the position of opposing his wishes on that but I have to do that. And I 

want to read into the record if we can ask these things like a question, will the R&D program increase domestic energy supply, and 

that is very important to the American people and to you and to 

this Congress and to the President. But the answer to that is EI 

estimates that an earlier version of the program would result in a 

20 percent increase in natural gas supplies by 2025 with a steady 

increase in production between now and then. 

In addition, between 2009 and 2025 lower 48 offshore oil production would be over 850 billion barrels higher if this program is implemented. And it goes on down to who supports the research, and 

you know the strongest supporters of the research have been research universities, small producers that produce most of the offshore, on shore natural gas and who have not terrible big research 

capabilities or infrastructure for it. Usually the little guys find it 

and the big guys buy it. And actually this program asks the question are major oil companies the biggest beneficiaries which has 

been said, and it is just not true. Is this a subsidy for big oil? I 

56 

am asking is Halliburton getting the money? Does Exxon get the 

money? I think the program is clear that it would level the R&D 

playing field which is currently controlled by very few companies 

putting the technology in to the hands of thousands of producers 

and technology firms. What are the environmental implications for 

natural gas exploration and production goes along with this. There 

are positive environmental benefits to increasing our use of natural 

gas. 

Natural gas is clean, efficient fuel. Increased natural gas usage 

will have a positive impact on the environment. And finally I guess 

I would ask you to assure me that the Administration will comply 

with the schedules and intent of the law as you see the law, and 

you have done that. 

Secretary BODMAN. As long as the program remains the law of 

the land we will do our best to fund it and execute it, sir. 

Mr. HALL. And I am not talking down to anybody but I read to 

one of your assistants that came here about six months ago, I 

think, when maybe Representative Markey had a bill to knock it 

out at the request of the Administration that the law stipulates 

that the Secretary shall provide funding, not that the Secretary 

may do so, and you have complied with that. I read that shall to 

him 7 times. I am not going to do that to you. 

Secretary BODMAN. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. HALL. If and when the effort to repeal fails, which I think 

it is going to do, and fails through the legislative process for the 

second time officially and other methods to counter the congressional matter that we voted on here that we passed through the 

House, passed the Senate, the President signed it. I had the pleasure, Joe Barton and I did, of riding west with him to sign the bill, 

stood right behind him. He did say that all I wanted to go out there 

for was to get some free coffee on Air Force One but what he didn’t 

know was I had 6 of his coffee mugs in my briefcase at that time. 

But I have high regard, high respect for the President. I differ 

with him on this. And I just hope since it has been signed into law 

this with drilling on Anwar, off the coast of Florida, and other 

places we ought to be drilling that we can do that for the greatest 

good for the greatest number. Thank you for your good work. 

Secretary BODMAN. Thank you, sir. I appreciate your help. 

Ms. DEGETTE. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Engel, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Mr. Secretary, welcome. My colleagues have asked some excellent questions on instituting a cap and trade system for greenhouse gas emission, on nuclear waste storage at Yucca Mountain, on the proposed termination of the weatherization program, all questions that in my view 

haven’t received adequate answers. We are very concerned about 

them, and we are disappointed with the approach that the Administration is taking in all of these matters. But instead of trying to 

push further on these topics since you have been asked these questions, I would like to ask something a little different. I would like 

to talk about something that we did do on a bipartisan basis which 

I think when Congress works on a bipartisan basis we always do 

our best. 

57 

Last year we showed a commitment to addressing our Nation’s 

dependence on oil by passing the Energy Independence and Security Act, which was signed into law in December of 2007. I am wondering, Mr. Secretary, if you could provide me with an update to 

the extent possible and whatever you can’t do now, I would be 

happy to take it in writing later on, on the implementation of certain important programs that I advocated for in that act when this 

committee was putting it together. Among the items that I am particularly interested in are the hybrid electric vehicle program and 

some other advanced drive technologies, the renewable fuel standard, and the U.S./Israel Energy Cooperation Program. 

The Energy Independence and Security Act included provisions 

from H.R. 670, the Drive Act, which I introduced last January 

along with Representative Kingston. Again, we did it in a bipartisan fashion. We had nearly 100 bipartisan co-sponsors, and I believe and he believes that the provisions might change how and 

what we drive in the future. In particular, it requires the establishment of a grant program for plug-in electric drive vehicles, the promotion of more affordable batteries, and the development of an 

education program for our high schools and colleges to train more 

engineers and scientists that specialize in electric drive technologies. It also includes the U.S./Israel Energy Cooperation Program, which Representative Sherman originally introduced as a 

stand-alone bill, and then I introduced as an amendment to the 

main House energy bill. 

This requires the establishment of a grant program to fund joint 

ventures between American and Israeli businesses, academic institutions, and non-profit agencies to promote the development of 

clean alternative fuels and more energy efficient technologies. I just 

recently learned that Israel is going to be a laboratory for cars, 

electric driven cars, and I am particularly interested in that as a 

way of weaning us off of foreign oil, and I look forward to seeing 

how that works. In addition, I advocated for a renewable fuel 

standard whereby a percentage of our Nation’s fuel supply will be 

provided by domestic reduction of bio-fuels. I have been in Brazil 

and I have seen how successful they have been with this there and 

obviously this provides a pathway for reduced consumer fuel price 

increase, energy security, and growth in our Nation’s factories and 

farms. 

The law requires, Mr. Secretary, that you as the Secretary of Energy enter an arrangement with the National Academy of Sciences 

to assess the impact and effectiveness of the renewable fuel standards, so I am wondering if you could provide me to the extent possible with an update on the status of these programs. Thank you. 

Secretary BODMAN. Well, we have done in my judgment a great 

deal of work on bio-fuels, on nuclear power plants, on all sorts of 

efforts on solar power, on wind power, renewable energy, as well 

as on nuclear power, all of which to get back to the first point you 

made affect global climate change, and they are effectively reducing 

the carbon foot print of this country. And I believe the research 

work that we are doing is leading us in that direction. As to work 

with the National Academy of Sciences, I don’t know what happened in all that but I would be happy to give you a response on 

that for the record, sir. 

58 

Mr. HALL. Thank you. I know the law also provides you with 18 

months, I believe it is, for the implementation of these projects so 

I would assume that some of these may be just starting up and 

much hasn’t happened yet. But if you could provide me written testimony with any of this, I would appreciate it. 

Secretary BODMAN. I would be happy to do that. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Ms. DEGETTE. The gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. Schakowsky, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Mr. Secretary, there is so much to ask about but this question which focuses on FutureGen also focuses, I think, on the need for sense of 

urgency to move, to move ahead. And we were all set to move 

ahead in Illinois, and I look now at the final site selection report 

by the FutureGen alliance, this was December 18 when Illinois was 

announced, the alliance believes the Mattoon site provides many 

clear advantages and minimal disadvantages and then lists them, 

legal issues, the geologic conditions and sequestration. For example, the Mattoon site would have the smallest CO2 foot print of all 

the candidate sites. The Mattoon sites provides unfettered access 

to world class monitoring program. The potential for environmental 

impacts is low, offers significant coal transportation cost advantages. 

Illinois has enacted meaningful CO2 storage legislation, et cetera. 

That is why in that unpleasant meeting that we had in Senator 

Durbin’s office last week, and maybe I came late, I don’t know if 

Bud Albright said this really offensive statement in that meeting 

when he said that the government isn’t interested in building 

Disneyland in some swamp in Illinois, which first of all was geologically incorrect. There is no swamp in Mattoon. And I know that 

he has apologized but I believe it reflects an incredible attitude on 

the fact that he would actually say that. Maybe there is some explanation that he was vice president of Federal Affairs for Reliant 

Energy which is based in Texas and lost out to Illinois for 

FutureGen. But that kind of comment, I am not sure it renders 

him fit to serve in our Department of Energy, and I know that the 

senator and others suggested that you rethink his employment. 

Here is my question. If we are to move forward quickly, which 

I think we need to do, on clean coal technologies it took a year for 

us to do the environmental impact statement in Illinois, which was 

pretty record time, and now I am trying to understand how a time 

table even would be met of December, 2008, which put this whole 

thing off another year which I think is extremely unfortunate. You 

know, there would be need to do other environmental impact statements, right? 

Secretary BODMAN. Yes, there would. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. So do you see the December, 2008 as a reasonable time table? 

Secretary BODMAN. I think it is certainly a reasonable time table 

if we take advantage of the environmental impact work that has 

been done on the other 4 sites, on Mattoon and the other 3 sites. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I don’t understand what that means. How 

would that affect— 

59 

Secretary BODMAN. What we are doing is the idea of FutureGen, 

and I know that this is not pleasant for you to hear but I will say 

it anyway, that the goal here is to try to accelerate the develop of 

CCS technology which in my view is the technology that is going 

to tell the tale as to how and whether coal gets used— 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Obviously we completely agree on that. 

Secretary BODMAN. I am sorry? 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Obviously we completely agree on that. That 

is why we work so hard in Illinois. 

Secretary BODMAN. The issue, therefore, is to try to limit the cost 

to the U.S. taxpayer and to accomplish this in 2 or 3 or 4 different 

locations. We don’t know how much because I haven’t figured 

that—we have not yet established— 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. That is exactly my point that you haven’t figured out where those would be. When did you decide that Mattoon 

would be a bad idea and that you were going to scrap that program? 

Secretary BODMAN. I can’t give you an exact date, Madam, but 

I can tell you that the issues related to—when I signed the letter 

that Congressman Shimkus— 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. The November 30 letter. 

Secretary BODMAN. Whenever that was, around December 1, 

when I signed that letter I was operating under the impression 

that I had a deal with the alliance, and it turned out I did not have 

a deal with the alliance and so that was—I made an error in signing that letter. I agree with that but that was the issue. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Okay, but this was a 5-year effort. 

Secretary BODMAN. I understand. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Let me ask one further question. The criticism 

of it being too costly now, in our examination of those cost figures 

it appears to us that the increase in costs if not entirely, almost 

entirely due to DOE’s project delays and the ensuing construction 

inflationary pressures resulting from those delays, that it is the 

cost of inflation that made the project in your estimation unreasonable, is that true? 

Secretary BODMAN. The cost increase is certainly on account of 

inflation. I think that the cost increase in the future has yet to be 

told, and the big worry is not just about what the cost increase has 

been which is a doubling is to whether it is going to double again, 

and that is the issue. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Exactly. And the longer we wait to do this we 

are going to see these costs go up. We are extremely disappointed, 

insulted by this decision, and I think it is not just about Illinois 

and Mattoon, it is about moving ahead with this technology. Thank 

you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. DEGETTE. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I first ask unanimous consent that my opening statement be made part of the 

record. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stupak follows:] 

60 

STATEMENT OF HON. BART STUPAK

Mr. Secretary, I appreciate your appearing in the Committee today. 

The past two weeks, Congress has been working on an economic stimulus bill. 

While this legislation will provide some economic relief, it does not address a major 

cause of our economic problems - high energy prices. 

Over the past several years, Americans have paid record prices to fill up their 

cars and heat their homes. From industry to agriculture, businesses continue to 

struggle with high energy prices as well. 

Unfortunately, rather than addressing the problems of high energy prices, the Department of Energy’s budget makes significant cuts and even eliminates several important programs that help diversify our energy sources and help Americans cope 

with high prices. 

This budget drastically cuts Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy programs 

by $467 million. That’s a 27 percent cut, which will significantly slow the development of alternative fuels and technologies to improve energy efficiency. 

Despite Congressional opposition to past cuts, the Weatherization Assistance program is completely eliminated from the budget, in an attempt to end a vital program that helps families reduce their energy bills by improving their homes’ energy 

efficiency. 

The Administration also continues to buy oil to double the Strategic Petroleum 

Reserve, driving up demand when prices are already very high. As we learned during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, increasing the Strategic Petroleum Reserve will 

not keep prices down during an emergency if we do not have the capacity to refine 

this crude oil. 

These misguided policies continue to place the burden of high energy prices on 

lower-income Americans and small businesses. 

If we are serious about turning around our nation’s economy, we should be doing 

a better job of promoting alternative energy sources such as wind, solar, and geothermal, which not only create jobs but will help ease high energy costs for families 

and businesses. We should be encouraging the development of energy efficient technologies that will help reduce our energy use and lower our energy bills. And we 

should pass my legislation, the PUMP Act, to provide oversight to energy markets 

and reduce the cost of crude oil by as much as $30 a barrel. 

Mr. Secretary, the American people deserve solutions that help them, not policies 

that favor the energy sources of the past. 

I look forward to your testimony. 

Mr. STUPAK. And therefore do I get an extra minute since I didn’t 

give it? 

Ms. DEGETTE. Because the gentleman was not present when the 

gavel came down, that answer is no, but I will give the gentleman 

a little comity if the Secretary will. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, welcome. As you know, 

and has been alluded to in this hearing here this morning that Mr. 

Dingell and I wrote to you because we believe DOE is funding Russian nuclear institutes who are working on commercial nuclear 

projects such as the $1 billion contract to build a nuclear power 

plant in Iran. DOE is also funding various projects under the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership in Russia including ones involving 

reprocessing technology. In fact, as chair of O&I we had a hearing 

on this on January 23, and we asked a number of questions. Can 

you assure us today that DOE funds are not subsidizing directly 

or indirectly scientists or overheads at Russian institutes that are 

working on the Bushehr reactor in Iran? 

Secretary BODMAN. Congressman, as I told the chairman 3 hours 

ago or so, I received a letter yesterday from the chairman. I have 

not had time to fully investigate matters but I have directed the 

principal deputy, Bill Ostendorff, who is the principal deputy administrator of NNSA, to look into the questions that have been 

61 

raised and to report back to me shortly, and I will then report to 

the chairman— 

Mr. STUPAK. Well, our concern was we asked that question on 

January 23, 15 days ago. We did not receive an answer so that is 

why we had to write to you. I understand it has only been 15 hours 

or whatever you said earlier, but our investigation shows that that 

is actually in fact what is happening. 

Secretary BODMAN. I am told that the project cited in the committee’s letter or any of the department’s scientific engagements or 

projects are not contributing to the Iranian nuclear program. That 

is what I am told. 

Mr. STUPAK. I would respectfully request you get that verified because GO and others sort of lead us to believe just the opposite. 

Secretary BODMAN. I understand that, and that is exactly— 

Mr. STUPAK. Let me ask you this. 

Secretary BODMAN. Sir, if I could just— 

Mr. STUPAK. Sure. Sure. 

Secretary BODMAN. That is what I am doing and so— 

Mr. STUPAK. We asked your chief deputy January 23, it is sort 

of a sensitive issue, and we are still waiting for answers. The DOE 

people who were in charge of this program. 

Secretary BODMAN. Chief deputy, sir. 

Mr. STUPAK. The guy who is head of GNEP from DOE was here. 

Let me ask you this question. What specific safeguards are in place 

in the GNEP program to prevent the diversion of U.S. supplied nuclear technology after we send it to Russia? 

Secretary BODMAN. Anything in Bushehr, for example, has got 

IEAE safeguards. 

Mr. STUPAK. I am talking about these institutes, U.S./Russia institutes. There is one in Moscow and there is one in the Ukraine. 

So what safeguards are in place as part of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership to prevent the diversion of U.S. supplied technology? 

Secretary BODMAN. I don’t have an answer to that, sir, but I will 

get one. 

Mr. STUPAK. Well, I asked regarding safeguards because our 

hearing showed that there is no agreement between U.S. and Russia so no agreement of cooperation that this technology won’t be 

shared outside that institute, and we are very concerned about it. 

Secretary BODMAN. The program is called GIPP— 

Mr. STUPAK. GNEP, Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. 

Secretary BODMAN. The statute that authorizes us to or authorizes GIPP describes DOE responsibilities with respect to both commercial and non-commercial projects. All GIPP-related projects 

support fundamental, non-proliferation objectives of the United 

States. Whether they address the deployment of proliferation resistance fuel cycles or advanced safeguards, technologies or assistance, that is what they do. They are part— 

Mr. STUPAK. I agree that is the mission statement, but what has 

this Administration done to make sure that policy, that technology 

has not been transferred? If we don’t even have a cooperative 

agreement between the U.S. and Russia in this area, how do you 

prevent that transfer of technology? 

Secretary BODMAN. I will get you an answer. 

62 

Mr. STUPAK. Very good. Let me ask you this question. I asked 

you this a year ago, still waiting for an answer. When you were 

here last time, we talked about the Administration’s plans to double the size of the strategic petroleum reserve and the effect it had 

on crude oil prices under New York Mercantile Exchange. When I 

asked you about it, you said, and I am quoting now, ‘‘You have 

markets that are in the hands of human beings. Human beings are 

essentially emotional souls.’’ You went on to say there are substantial swings in the market place. We see that. Here we are back 

here a year later. Oil is around $100 a barrel, and during the last 

year when I asked you, I suggested you take a look at our legislation, the PUMP Act, H.R.594, which would improve government 

oversight of these oil future markets so we don’t have these wild 

unwarranted swings in the market. 

You did a good job of recognizing the problem last year. You said 

you would look at my legislation. Have you looked at the PUMP 

Act, and are you prepared to give us a position on the PUMP Act 

to prevent the unfair manipulation of prices in the oil futures markets? 

Secretary BODMAN. No, I am not, sir. I am here to tell you that 

the supply and demand for oil has favored the suppliers and not 

the demanders, not the consumers, ever since I was here a year 

ago, that those who have looked at the markets and looked at the 

question of whether speculators are affecting the price tell me that 

the answer is no. 

Mr. STUPAK. We had a hearing on that on December 12, and ex- perts told us, yes, we could reduce the price of barrels of oil by $20 

or $30 if we take this speculation out especially on the dark market 

called the Intercontinental Exchange or the ICE market. So we 

have legislation, and whether you agree with me or not in our theory, at least I would have hoped that a year later you could have 

at least looked at our legislation and commented on it as you had 

promised a year ago. 

Secretary BODMAN. Had I been told to get ready to comment on 

your legislation for this hearing, sir, I would have done so but I 

would— 

Mr. STUPAK. Well, I had asked you a year ago. I would hope 

there would have been better follow through with the Department 

of Energy. 

Secretary BODMAN. I can’t say anything more than I don’t know. 

Mr. STUPAK. Would you look at our legislation and get back to 

us? 

Secretary BODMAN. I will look at your legislation and get back 

to you. 

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you. 

Ms. DEGETTE. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Chairman DeGette. Mr. Secretary— 

Secretary BODMAN. Hello, Congressman. How are you, sir? 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Just fine. Welcome to the Hill. I am very sorry 

that I missed your opening statement. The tornado touched down 

in my district and we had 7 deaths down there, and I just got back. 

But I am glad you are here, and I did want to take this opportunity 

to bring up an issue that you and I have discussed before with SenVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:42 Oct 07, 2010 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Q:\PRINT EDITOR-110\HEARINGS 110\110-86 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
63 

ator McConnell and others, and that relates to this legislation that 

I had introduced regarding the reprocessing of the waste tailings 

at the Paducah plant. And we know that it is a complicated issue, 

and it is not clear to everyone on precisely what can be done. But 

many of us agree that there are a lot of positives in this legislation, 

particularly the cleaning up of these waste tailings and with uranium prices increasing. We have been—as you know, we have introduced the legislation. My office and I particularly have been 

talking to Chairman Boucher and Fred Upton and others about the 

possibility of doing a hearing in the energy subcommittee on the 

legislation so that everyone will have an opportunity to express 

their concerns or whatever. 

And I am assuming that from the way that you discussed this 

with us in the past that you will probably be supportive of that, 

not be opposed to it, I would assume. 

Secretary BODMAN. Having a hearing? 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Yeah. 

Secretary BODMAN. I certainly would not oppose having a hearing. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, we are going to try to proceed with that 

because we do think there are a lot of positive things about this 

legislation, and I just wanted to raise that issue with you and look 

forward to continue working with you on that and others. 

Secretary BODMAN. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you. 

Secretary BODMAN. I appreciate it. 

Ms. DEGETTE. The gentleman yield back. The chair wishes to 

thank the Secretary for his time today and for answering the committee members’ questions, and announce that this concludes the 

hearing on the Department of Energy’s fiscal year 2009 budget proposal. 

Secretary BODMAN. Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 1:15 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. GENE GREEN

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Secretary Bodman. 

I want to commend DOE’s strong commitment to basic science research as well 

as to nuclear energy programs that can reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. 

However, the budget misses several opportunities. 

First, I share my colleagues’ frustration with the cut to the Weatherization Assistance Program which helps improve the living conditions of our most vulnerable citizens. 

Second, DOE’s initiative to double the capacity of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve 

is not in our best interest when markets are tight and prices are touching inflationadjusted highs. 

Third, I am concerned with the attempt to phase-out research into oil and gas 

technology development that could help our nation recover more domestic energy 

while increasing environmental mitigation. 

Finally, I am concerned the loan guarantee program may be too prescriptive and 

not provide enough time for project implementation. 

My District has mountains of petroleum coke that, if gasified, could reduce our 

dependence on foreign supplies of energy. 

While eligible for loans under EPACT05, these projects may not meet the narrowly defined targets set by Congress in the FY2008 omnibus. 

Thank you Mr. Secretary, and I look forward to your testimony. 

64 

STATEMENT OF HON. G.K. BUTTERFIELD

Good morning Mr. Bodman. I wanted to start off on a positive note and express 

my support for the Administration’s proposed increase in funding for biomass and 

biorefinery Research and Development. Despite my many objections to the recently 

passed Renewable Fuels Standard and its over reliance upon corn-ethanol as a feedstock, the 13% recommended increase from last year’s funding level will help advance the development of the cellulosic biofuels that will eventually replace cornethanol as the country’s primary renewable transportation fuel. North Carolina is 

celebrating the opening of our new Biofuels Research Center and they hope to play 

a pivotal role in helping validate the viability of advanced biofuels. I also applaud 

the recommended 3.8% increase for vehicle technologies Research and Development 

because we are at the cusp of realizing the promise of fuel-cell technology. 

Despite seeing some promise I must also convey my complete dismay with the 

proposed elimination of the weatherization assistance program as well as the 22% 

decrease in LIHEAP funding. For the life of me, I cannot understand how the Administration can expect average Americans to cope with significant increases in energy costs and an economy on the brink of recession while simultaneously pulling 

the rug from up under them. 

Despite receiving roughly $10 million for weatherization, North Carolina has put 

the money to good use assisting 3,500 households improve the energy efficiency in 

their homes and reduce their home heating and cooling costs. With the overwhelming majority of families being 150% below the poverty level, saving $300 a 

year through lower utility rates helps people put food on the table. I am acutely 

aware of how this program impacts people in my District given the fact that it’s the 

15th poorest District in Congress. Completely defunding the program is a non-starter and it is a moral imperative that we do better for Americans. 

I’m equally shocked by the proposed 22% decrease in LIHEAP funding, never 

mind the fact that I already have serious concerns with the outmoded funding formula we use at the expense of southern states. That is an argument for another 

time but the problem still exists and it only seems to worsen each year. In 2007, 

North Carolinians received $3 million less than the previous year despite record 

drought and heat this past summer. Of the 490,000 North Carolina households eligible for LIHEAP last year, only 51% received any assistance at all. And under the 

proposed reductions, North Carolina would deplete it’s LIHEAP funding well before 

the peak summer season leaving many families unable to cover the costs of their 

electricity bills. 

With this being the Administration’s last year in office, I was hopeful it would 

show the same level of commitment to the American people as it has shown for the 

people of Iraq. These proposed funding levels for weatherization assistance and 

LIHEAP take this country in the wrong direction but I look forward to working together to get this country back on track. Thank you and I look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TAMMY BALDWIN

I regret that I was unable to attend the hearing on the Department of Energy’s 

FY09 budget due to the serious snowfall we received in Wisconsin. However, below 

are my remarks I would have made had I been present. 

In this year’s State of the Union, President Bush did something nearly unprecedented during his Presidency. He actually spent time addressing the United States’ 

commitment to confronting climate change. His comments - I’d say written in about 

a paragraph or two - showed a progression in the Administration’s attention on the 

issue. For years, there wasn’t so much as a mention of the need to tackle our nation’s greenhouse gas emissions. Then last year, we finally heard an acknowledgment from the Administration that global warming must be taken seriously. And 

now, in his final year in office, we learn that the Administration supports efforts 

to slow, stop, and eventually reverse the growth of greenhouse gases. 

But, as in recent years, our excitement that the President will lead our nation 

and the world in confronting global climate change quickly ends when the President’s budget is released. 

Once again, the FY09 budget calls for increases in funding for controversial programs addressing nuclear energy and coal. At the same time, the budget proposes 

to cut energy efficiency and renewable programs by 28%. Clearly, this Administration’s priorities are misplaced.and it makes me wonder whether the President’s comVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:42 Oct 07, 2010 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Q:\PRINT EDITOR-110\HEARINGS 110\110-86 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
65 

ments at this point are mere lip service until a new Administration, one that is committed to solving global warming and saving our planet, takes over next year. 

Just as troubling is the Administration’s attempt to gut our nation’s highly successful weatherization program. This program not only makes homes more energy 

efficient, but it also produces jobs and provides families with much needed spending 

money that would otherwise be spent on soaring energy bills. 

In my home state of Wisconsin, where we are experiencing an especially cold and 

snowy winter, these funds are critical to decreasing residential electric and gas costs 

and improving conservation and efficiency. I am eager to hear from Secretary 

Bodman how the Administration plans to make up for this substantial loss of funding that my constituents so desperately need. 

In the interest of forging some common ground, let’s end on a happy note and 

thank the Administration for devoting funding to two science programs that are significant to the University of Wisconsin - Madison: first, the increase in funds for 

fusion energy sciences, which will allow UW to sustain its leadership in plasma 

science and electrical energy technology without greenhouse gas emissions. And second, the increased funds for the bioenergy research centers, one of which is led by 

the University of Wisconsin - Madison, and allows us to accelerate basic research 

in the development of cellulosic ethanol and other biofuels. These funds are much 

appreciated, but their impact is going to be minimal under this larger budget with 

misplaced priorities and a lack of global leadership. I can only hope that Congress 

will be able to correct many of the shortcomings highlighted here today. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I look forward to hearing from the Secretary. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ANNA G. ESHOO

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing and thank you, Secretary 

Bodman, for testifying today about the Department of Energy’s budget request for 

the 2009 fiscal year. 

The Department of Energy has a critical role to play in some very challenging 

questions currently before us, most importantly our efforts to ensure our energy security and mitigating global warming. 

This is an exciting time for the energy market. I think that it’s safe to say that 

in 10 years our energy industry will look very different than it does today. Researchers are making great strides towards harnessing energy derived from the sun, 

water, wind, plants, and the earth. As you know, much of this research is taking 

place in my Congressional District. What will power our cars in the future: Electricity, fuel cells, solar panels, cellulosic biofuels, or new resources? There are many 

exciting possibilities. The Department of Energy and the vital research that it funds 

is central to developing these solutions. 

While the Department of Energy oversees an incredible range of important research programs, we are also faced with tight budgetary constraints, requiring us 

to make some difficult choices. 

In my district, the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) has been a leading 

physics research facility for more than 45 years and made substantial contributions 

to science, producing three Nobel Prizes in Physics and one in Chemistry. While we 

have worked to make substantial increases in the federal science budget, it’s unfortunate that the President’s inflexibility and refusal to compromise on the overall 

budgetary number came at such a price to important elements of the Office of 

Science budget. As a result, SLAC has had to lay off employees due to budget shortfalls from last year’s appropriations process. 

We can’t allow this to happen at a time when we are so concerned with maintaining American competitiveness and lead the world in energy research. I’m pleased, 

therefore, to see increases in funding for both High Energy Physics and Basic Energy Sciences and I’m hopeful that we will make up for any damage done by the 

2008 budget shortfall. I encourage the Administration to send a supplemental request that would staunch some of the cuts that SLAC, FermiLab, and other national 

labs face. 

The budget calls for an increase of more than $130 million, or 26 percent, for coal 

research and development. This is a substantial new investment in fossil energy 

which seems to have come at the expense of additional investment in renewable energy sources that hold greater promise for clean, sustainable sources of energy. 

In contrast to the sharp increase in the coal program, the budget request for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) is almost flat relative to the FY08 

request. Within EERE, I see a $12.3 million cut from the solar energy program. Can 

we really afford to subject a resource as abundant as the sun to a 7% budget cut? 

66 

Are we committing our nation’s energy future to coal? Is this the Administration’s 

vision? 

Last year a group of researchers announced the development of a new solar power 

cell that is over 40% efficient, more than twice the output of what is now available 

commercially. These kinds of discoveries merit further investment. We need to identify national priorities and invest in them consistently, year after year, to ensure 

that we make forward progress rather than ramping up a program that will then 

be scaled back if funding gets tighter. 

Again, thank you, Mr. Secretary for being here today. I look forward to our discussion of these issues and the DOE’s priorities for the coming year. 

67 


49406.006
68 


49406.007
69 


49406.008
70 


49406.009
71 


49406.010
72 


49406.011
73 


49406.012
74 


49406.013
75 


49406.014
76 


49406.015
77 


49406.016
78 


49406.017
79 


49406.018
80 


49406.019
81 


49406.020
82 


49406.021
83 


49406.022
84 


49406.023
85 


49406.024
86 


49406.025
87 


49406.026
88 


49406.027
89 


49406.028
90 


49406.029
91 


49406.030
92 


49406.031
93 


49406.032
94 


49406.033
95 


49406.034
96 


49406.035
97 


49406.036
98 


49406.037
99 


49406.038
100 


49406.039
101 


49406.040
102 


49406.041
103 


49406.042
104 


49406.043
105 


49406.044
106 


49406.045
107 


49406.046
108 


49406.047
109 


49406.048
110 


49406.049
111 


49406.050
112 


49406.051
113 


49406.052
114 


49406.053
115 


49406.054
116 


49406.055
117 


49406.056
118 


49406.057
119 


49406.058
120 


49406.059
121 


49406.060
122 


49406.061
123 


49406.062
124 


49406.063
125 


49406.064
126 


49406.065
127 


49406.066
128 


49406.067
129 


49406.068
130 


49406.069
131 


49406.001
132 


49406.002
133 


49406.089
134 


49406.090
135 


49406.091
136 


49406.092
137 


49406.093
138 


49406.094
139 


49406.095
140 


49406.096
141 


49406.097
142 


49406.098
143 


49406.099
144 


49406.100
145 


49406.101
146 


49406.102
147 


49406.103
148 


49406.104
149 


49406.105
150 


49406.106
151 


49406.107
152 


49406.108
153 


49406.109
154 


49406.110
155 


49406.111
156 


49406.112
157 


49406.113
158 


49406.114
159 


49406.115
160 


49406.116
161 


49406.117
162 


49406.118
163 


49406.119
164 


49406.120
165 


49406.121
166 


49406.122
167 


49406.123
168 


49406.124
169 


49406.125
170 


49406.126
171 


49406.127
172 


49406.128
173 


49406.129
174 


49406.130
175 


49406.131
176 


49406.132
177 


49406.133
178 


49406.134
179 


49406.135
180 


49406.136
181 


49406.137
182 


49406.138
183 


49406.139
184 


49406.140
185 


49406.141
186 


49406.142
187 


49406.143
188 


49406.144
189 


49406.145
190 


49406.146
191 


49406.147
192 


49406.148
193 


49406.149
194 


49406.150
195 


49406.151
196 


49406.152
197 


49406.153
198 


49406.154
199 


49406.155
200 


49406.156
201 


49406.157
202 


49406.158
203 


49406.159
204 


49406.160
205 


49406.161
206 


49406.162
207 


49406.163
208 


49406.164
209 


49406.165
210 


49406.166
211 


49406.167
212 


49406.168
213 


49406.169
214 


49406.170
215 


49406.171
216 


49406.172
217 


49406.173
218 


49406.174
219 


49406.175
220 


49406.176
221 


49406.177
222 


49406.178
223 


49406.179
224 


49406.180
225 


49406.181
226 


49406.182
227 


49406.183
228 


49406.184
229 


49406.185
230 


49406.186
231 


49406.187
232 


49406.188
233 


49406.189
234 


49406.190
235 


49406.191
236 


49406.192
237 


49406.193
238 


49406.194
239 


49406.195
240 


49406.196
241 


49406.197
242 


49406.198
243 


49406.199
244 


49406.200
245 


49406.201
246 


49406.202
247 


49406.203
248 


49406.204
249 


49406.205
250 


49406.206
251 


49406.207
252 


49406.208
253 


49406.209
254 


49406.210
255 


49406.211
256 


49406.212
257 


49406.213
258 


49406.214
259 


49406.215
260 


49406.216
261 


49406.217
262 


49406.218
263 


49406.219
264 


49406.220
265 


49406.221
266 


49406.222
267 


49406.223
268 


49406.224
269 


49406.225
270 


49406.226
271 


49406.227
272 


49406.228
273 


49406.229
274 


49406.230
275 


49406.231
276 


49406.232
277 


49406.233
278 


49406.234
279 


49406.235
280 


49406.236
281 


49406.237
282 


49406.238
283 


49406.239
284 


49406.240
285 


49406.241
286 


49406.242
287 


49406.243
288 


49406.244
289 


49406.245
290 


49406.246
291 


49406.247
292 

Æ 


49406.248