tv Politics and Public Policy Today CSPAN March 8, 2016 3:00pm-5:01pm EST
and to clean up underneath the building is going to require a robotics approach, and we are developing it. but we feel to do it safely we're going to have to succeed in developing that technology. >> so, you think this is partly a timing issue about the technologist that's needed? >> yes. so, we're working on that but we need to develop a remote capability to be able to clean up the area underneath -- underneath the building. >> well, would you commit to sitting down with senator murray and i and discussing this issue -- >> sure. >> -- to remedy this? >> i'd be happy to. but in the spirit of trying to recognize physical realities and i know you are as well, and that was certainly part of the whole -- i think you indirectly alluded to it, the necessary redesign, phased approach to e the -- to the wtp. i mean, it was an example where
we just had to recognize the physical realities, the safety issues, the kricality challenges to change that approach which i think is going along well in terms of addressing the low-activity waste, but obviously as you know, we are still in litigation and discussions with ecology about the consent agreement. on the public meetings -- >> i'm over my time, and i want to respect my colleagues, so we can get answers in writing -- >> okay. >> -- on those other three from you, that would be so helpful. but if we have a second round you and i can talk about it, i'm sure, madam chair, we could have an entire meeting on hanford and i'm not sure that we probably shouldn't. i think our colleagues need to be very well aware of what the united states obligations are here. thank you. >> may i just -- add a comment, madam chair, on that? just to say that the -- yeah, just to say that this, again, is a case where if one sees -- if
members can go there and see what, for example, the waste treatment plant is about, it's kind of eye opening and one understands the challenge. >> thank you, madam chair, and thanks to senator cantwell. because you could have gone on and on. not that you do, but you could have. but i got to tell you, i found your comment just then very interesting. you said if members would just go and see the cleanup sites, you know, they would understand it. as you know i'm profoundly disappointed in the way you've handled the cleanup at piketon and the new technology, the uranium enrichment technology that you just pulled the plug on. and in the confirmation hearings where i supported you strongly, i asked you if you would come out and take a look at piketon. and i've asked you at every one of these hearings. and i think you would have a different perspective if you would come out and see it. and it's a -- not just a huge facility.
thousands of acres. but it's a -- the building alone acp is a $6 billion federal taxpayer initiative that you're pulling the plug on. and i just think it's -- it's really disappointing. and i wish i could talk to you today about energy efficiency, and i thank you for supporting the portman/shaheen legislation which is part of the broader mercowski/cantwell energy policy, modernization act that we expect to have on the floor next week. i wish i could thank you to you about the exciting new work that bill gates is doing with others on the early stage energy innovation fund and you talked about, but i got to talk to you about piketon. it is amazing to me that we are pulling the plug on the only american-owned source of enriched uranium which we need for nuclear power and we need for our nuclear navy and tridium for the nuclear arsenal which you acknowledged we have to have it and we need it for the nonproliferation efforts.
we scant can't go to other coun in the world and provide enriched uranium because we don't have a source because of the decision you just made. i will tell you 60 people lost their job this week. their last day at work will be tomorrow. the remaining 140 people will work themselves out of a job as they are forced to deconstruct our best technology, the best centrifuge technology that we have, that you have supported. you said it's the best technology and, you know, they're going to do analyst stuff and throw it into the desert. i think it's just wrong. and i think it's going to be very expensive for the taxpayers. you said in your own reports that we're going to need more low enriched uranium to produce tridium for the nuclear arsenal within ten years. and you've also told me or at least i've heard from other experts, maybe you even told me this specifically, you can counter me if you like, it would probably take a minimum of seven years to reconstruct what we have there now. you lose the supply chain and the workers and the expertise.
for those that follow this closely you have to have a lot of centrifuges lined up in order to have a train of sent centrif and we have it at piketon. and we're going to take down to oak ridge i guess a couple of centrifuges and do some research. it's a little like saying that we're going to test sort of a single computer chip to see if a laptop will function because you won't have the ability to test to train anymore. and regardless how you feel about nuclear energy, we need to have this capability. it's part of our national security. so, i would just ask you today, you know, you said you can find various sources of enriched uranium out there and sort of pull them together, stockpiles that are out there to be able to keep things going for the next ten years. and then you said you've identified some options that could extend that time late -- that timeline. you said they carried significant costs and risks associated with them. let's say that you can't find
those other sources after the first ten years. then you would have to reconstruct a centrifuge capability in the united states of america, not relying on the russians and others. how long would it take to rebuild that capability? >> well, thank you, senator. obviously we do have a disagreement here. but let me say a few things, if i may. number one, because i have been to the site and i've seen -- i've seen the buildings. >> when were you at the site? >> that was twice in the -- during the clinton years. >> during the clinton years. during these years to see what we're doing there now. i'm talking about a -- it was not there then. >> but, no, well, the building was there and there were centrifuges. >> but not the acp project. the acp project we just got back in the 2000s. >> well, there were acp -- >> yeah, but i want you to see is to talk to the workmen to see what we're doing and to see the
cleanup that we'll talk about in a second. >> i'd be happy to do that. >> you said that before. >> no, i have not said that before, but with all due respect -- >> yes, you have and you haven't come out. >> we can work on a schedule. >> that would be great. i'd love to do that. >> effectively, again, we are not pulling the plug on the technology. third, we absolutely still need a national security-based capability sometime probably in the next 20 years or so. if we had several billion dollars now we could start building that national security train. the current machines as we've discussed before will not be part of that. it's not like they are the beginning of it. they are not part of it. and the problem right now is that we have passed the useful -- the useful life of
that -- of that cluster. but we do need a national security train. and right now, i said it before, today certainly the only american technology that we have is the acp -- is the acp. >> is that project. >> yeah. >> let's talk for a second about the cleanup. as you know in 2008, president obama made all kind of commitments that he was going to clean it up. you yourself have made commitments and d.o.e. said they would accelerate the cleanup for the work to be done in 2024. this is for the old technology for those who don't have to follow it as closely as some of us do. the old technology is gone. it's just a matter of cleaning it up and the cleanup is incredibly important for the community, for the environmental impact and also for reindustrialization of the site. 2024. and the latest is because of the lack of funding from the administration which we have to fight for every year to put back into the appropriations process
because you underfund it every year. 2024. let me just ask you this quickly. because my time is getting -- is expiring and i apologize to my colleagues but this is important to me. we almost had 500 workers laid off just before christmas last year and we came in members of this committee and saved them. this year in your budget, okay, we'll put more funding into the cleanup to keep the people there, not meet the commitment you said before but at least keep the people. but you are using funds from the old corporation that you told us before not available and more than half of the cleanup you're proposing the new funding will come from this. tell us why you think that funding is currently available. where is the offset for it since it's mandatory spending? >> well, first of all, i don't believe i said it was unavailable. quite the contrary. we have three funds totally almost $5 billion which can be used for this -- >> the department's request in 2009 to 2015 to characterize the fund as, quote, unavailable, period. >> that was a -- that was a
decision taken. it's not like it's unavailable by statute or anything. it's mandatory funding. and we proposed an offset, a direct offset, which would be returning to the quarter mill per kilowatt hour from the -- from the users of the facility. this is the way it was. when that -- when that fee was discontinued and it was a higher fee when it was discontinued, the full cost of the d & d at the three sites was not understand. we now say it's probably, like, $22 billion. we now understand that. and so the current authorization is that the users pay for it. so, this -- be about a quarter mill per kilowatt hour, would
cover the offset for using the usec fund which an existing, authorized fund which has been sitting there. and frankly, back in 2000 there was an explicit action taken in the congress, frankly, senator mcconnell was the -- led that for explicitly recognizing the utility of the usec fund to address d & d costs so -- >> mr. secretary, i'll ask you to wrap up. >> i apologize to my colleagues. if you could, mr. secretary, please give us in writing what the authorization is and why you think it's available, previously you said it wasn't, and the offsets in more detail. >> we can send somebody up to talk to you, our cfo. >> senator warren. >> madam chair. thank you for being here, mr. secretary. for months the massive gas leak at porter ranch, california, spewed methane from an underground storage facility into the air. the leak was finally sealed a few weeks ago, but not before it
released the same amount of greenhouse gases as half a million cars driving for an entire year. it was the worst natural gas leak in history. the climate equivalent of the bp oil spill. but it is not the only leak. there are a huge number of gas some of which have been ignored for decades. in massachusetts more than 20,000 leaks have been identified. in the boston area alone, they spew about $90 million worth of methane into the air every year. massachusetts has decent information because state law requires utilities to report every gas leak. secretary monis, do we have any similar national reporting system in place to track all of the gas leaks and how much methane they're emitting? >> senator warren, well, first of all, of course, i think as
you know, the department of energy does not have that ability -- >> no, i understand, i'm not -- >> but fimsa does. my understanding is that fimsa requirements, although i do emphasize we could check with them and make sure we are giving you the correct information. that my understanding is that apart from unusual circumstances, leaks above 3 million cubic feet need to be reported to fimsa directly. to give you a scale, aliso canyon was 5 billion cubic feet. but as you say -- and we have been working on this directly for the last couple years. the leaks are not only in production or in that case in
>> i'm very concerned about the lack of information about natural gas leaks because it permits the problem to go on without being fixed. and i'm especially worried because it's not clear who's supposed to take charge of this problem. with porter ranch and with other underground storage facilities, federal regulators pass the buck to the state regulators. and in california we know that the state regulators then fell down on the job. the problem as you rightly point out is not limited just to these underground facilities. there are problems across the
entire natural gas transmission, distribution, and storage infrastructure. so, again, i know that this is not your agency's responsibility, secretary monis, but can you explain who exactly is responsible for overseeing america's natural gas infrastructure? >> well, again, for pipes in general moving gas and oil and other commodities, fimsa and department of transportation is the responsible. epa, then, also has responsibilities to the extent that it impacts air quality. >> and yet we have seen the federal regulators out in california just hand this over to the states. >> well, yes. the states and, of course, california has an extensive apparatus and i met with cec chairman wisenmiller yesterday. >> i'm concerned that the regulations here just aren't working. leaks occur sometimes large and dangerous ones and we're not doing enough to fix them.
in many cases it appears that regulators don't even know that they exist. and this issue seems especially critical right now because in many regions, including new england, big, new natural gas pipelines and other gas projects have been proposed. but until there's a clear accounting for the scope of the problems with the existing pipelines and storage facilities, until there are meaningful steps to repair those problems and safeguard our communities and our climate from the risks that they pose, it is hard to support building any more of them. so, that's it for me. thank you. >> thank you. thank you for your testimony. as a result, as you know, of the years-long drought on the colorado river along the basin there's been a significant reduction in hydropower generation. i understand that hoover dam has seen approximately about a 25%
reghuctiduction in power-genera capacity in 2000. falling from approximately over 2,000 megawatts to 1,500. these reductions clearly have implications for power users and the power marketing administrations. these are an important source, not just because of the power they provide but the load balancing functions as well. can you tell me what you are doing with your budget to address the planning in r&d and how to deal with -- we often look at just the water function, but the power function as well and what is d.o.e. doing to address that. >> senator, in our budget actually we are proposing more than tripling of our energy water program in fy-'17 to nearly -- i think nearly $100 million because we think the whole set of energy water
challenges is so important. one part of that is a new -- which may not be useful in arizona, but a new desal hub. but it also includes the energy water interactions for power. it includes wastewater treatment. and certainly not in the energy water program, but different from that, we support a lot of modeling about the implications of continuing warming on drought to understand those patterns so that we can then respond in a system way. but it's a very -- as you well know, extremely serious. >> thank you. in october a gao issued a report on an obligated balances analyzing where the balances
exist in certain agencies, the size of these balances and the opportunities for savings. among these findings gao noted the unobligated carryover balances for wapa exceeded the levels necessary to maintain certain activities and manage risk for those activities, for example, in 2014 the unobligated balance was about $92 million or $40 million more than the officials deemed necessary to avoid risk. what is d.o.e. doing to implement the recommendations that gao made with this budget request? >> senator, i'll have to look at that offline. i'm not aware of the unobligated balance issues at wapa specifically so i'll have to get back with you on that. >> there is continuing concern among the users about wapa and the lack of transparency there.
and how the funds are spent and obligated, and it's an issue that we've had for a while, and i would encourage you to look at that. >> if it would be helpful, certainly administrator mark gabriel we'd be happy to have him come in and meet with you, if that's helpful. >> it would be. and a related question, in the pma portion of the budget, wapa's seeking about 51 new ftes to among other things i think deal with cybersecurity challenges, you know, related to the grid. but southeastern and southwestern power administrations presumably have the same needs and have addressed those needs without the need for new ftes. can you also look in to see whether those requests are justified? >> we certainly will. i will note that wapa, the fact
is on the output side they do provide energy to pretty attractive price. and wapa is a much more complicated system than swapa and with all of the challenges, cyber, nerc requirements, drought, old infrastructure, renewal. so, they do have a major need -- >> i understand that. with 51 ftes as opposed to zero on the other side seems a little off. >> we'll look at that, thank you. >> i'd like to know as you look in to that whether this budget request relies on these aforementioned unobligated balances to cover those ftes or if that's where we -- what -- how they're doing that. >> okay. thank you. >> and the last note, unobligated balances we have to look very carefully because they are often vectored to specific projects but i don't know in this case. >> thank you.
>> thank you, madam chairen, and thank you for being here, again, mr. secretary. everybody is talking about all the hardships they have and senator portman was very adamant about the loss of jobs. i just want to verify some things first of all. the energy projections and basically in 2013 i think your energy projections at that time was -- or the accuracies were coal was about 39% of the energy being produced for the united states. gas, natural gas, is 27%. and it went nuclear was 19%, renewables was 13% and petroleum was 1%. you've got coal at 34%. expected to produce the energy the nation needs. up to 2040. gas goes up to 31%. nuclear goes down to 16%. and renewables come up to 18%
and petroleum stays about 1%. have those been changed any at all projections up through 2040 or do they seem to be fairly accurate do you think? >> i don't know if the latest eia reports have changed that, but on the ground things have certainly changed. so, last year 2015 i believe coal came slightly below that and natural gas slightly above that. certainly for -- at least for five months of the year natural gas had a higher market share than coal last year. i think nuclear hung closer to 19% for last year. but if you mean out to 2040, i'd have to go back and -- >> i'm just saying, so in that ballpark, let's say if coal was either at 34, 30, whatever it's going to be, in that 30 range. you all have -- >> i think i've seen some projections that would go lower, below 30. >> let me tell you what's happening, mr. chairman -- mr.
secretary, just to give you an idea. just a sketch of what's happening in the unbelievable damage that's been done to west virginia. just i'll give you just three counties. three of my most highest producing coal counties in southern west virginia. mingo county, logan county and boone county that's in our southern. that's where our highest qualities of coal come from, low sulfur, stoking coal. in 2009 the unemployment rate in mingo county was 4.9%. it's now 11.9%. in logan county it was 4.5%. it's now 10.7%. in boone county it was 4 .3%, and it's now 8.8%. in just between july, 2014, and july, 2015, in my state of west virginia we lost 19,000 jobs. 19,000 jobs and we're the only state losing population.
and it just seems, mr. secretary, this administration is so insensitive to the damage it's done economically without trying to help us transition. we're not arguing against technology. we're -- you know, renewables, we're for all that. but if you're going to be needing a base load of power that you've counted on for a long time and will count on for a longer period of time, then there has to be some support, you know, and some certainty. and i'll use this segues in to what -- you have -- i think you all requested cutting $240 million in deobligated funds. i think those deobligated funds are all coming from the summit power group texas clean energy project. and using that as part of your new -- going back into clean coal technology. only thing i would ask is if you all aren't going to commit to seeing these projects through to fruition, to see if carbon capture, sequestration can work
on commercial loads and you're pulling $240 million from the original grant of $450 million, you're cutting it over half. pulling money back. i don't know, then, you're asking people that they should be -- these tax credits, they have no idea. they can't get from the treasury department how much tax credits have been used, what's left, what they can count on. so, there's no certainty. and i think when you see they're not taking the guaranteed loans, again, so even though i know we're talking -- we talk and i know the administration has the appearance of wanting to do clean coal technology, nothing's happening. and i think you saw senator daines talking about basically what's happening around the world, more use of this coal. if the rest of the world is going to use the most abundant
energy supply they're using the same as we built our country on and we want them to follow suit, if they follow suit with what's happening in my state of west virginia, the economic damage that's been done, there's no way they're expected to follow that. and i think the technology's where we should be going. so, this is where i am. and that's the reason i'm there. and i'm just -- you know, i -- people lose 500 jobs at hertz, i understand that. try losing 19,000 jobs in a state the size of west virginia and go look at these people and you look at the families and schools -- we got schools closing, sir. i got teachers that are losing their jobs. there's no more kids in these schools. just unbelievable. it doesn't seem like you all are committed to -- i mean, it looks good on paper. but the 240 million project is directly pulled from a job and project you were working down in texas. >> if i may -- if i may respond, madam chairman.
senator manchin, look, we all obviously feel very -- very, very much appreciate the social impacts of the kind of job losses. i do want to emphasize, first of all, we do have an administrationwide programs with regard to helping transition communities, the power plus plan, but i want to say specifically and, again, make an offer, you know, two years ago i brought in two excellent people to start up a jobs strategy council focusing on specifically jobs in energy. in this budget, by the way, i think it's gone so well, frankly, that we are proposing that that become a new budget line rather than collecting money from various offices. it's rather modest, but they've done a terrific job. they have gone to coal country.
in virginia, for example, be delighted to send them up to visit you in west virginia. >> virginia's never -- we love our southwest virginia coal min miners. they've never been considered -- you want coal country -- >> you consider it that was, like, a practice run. >> okay. >> but we'd be happy to do that for west virginia. but i have to say on the $240 million, we have to understand in the ccpi program there was a portfolio of major demonstration projects put out there. some have succeeded, are operating. some could not meet the financial closing criteria. so, the program -- and i want to emphasize the program decided that its optimum approach was to take that money and -- still, by the way, hoping that other things can happen to have those projects work.
which i can discuss offline -- >> we've got to -- >> if i can just follow one thing, sir, i'd love to sit down with you and you keep saying you're going to come, i know you're going to come to west virginia and i appreciate that. >> and i'm welcomed? >> you are welcomed. i want you to come. but the bottom line i want you to know this if the united states of america wants west virginia to do the heavy lifting we want to do it and if you're projecting through 2040 30% of it give us certainty so we can give you the energy need. don't keep beating the living crap out of us that's what's happening and the uncertainty is killing us, sir, and i'll end on that, thank you. >> thank you, senator manchin. i will tell you it hurts to hear that when a state is losing 19,000 jobs, losing an economy, losing really a source of family income for generations and generations and the response
from the administration is we're going to send you some job training folks to help out. boy, that's -- that's not the answer either. it's how we access our resources in a way that is responsible, that provides for the economy, for -- for a resource that we all need and, boy, it just -- know that my heart is with you. because the answer is not to send more job training or retraining programs. it's to figure out how we access our -- >> let us do our job. >> let us do our job. i've got to go to an appropriations committee and very quickly ask some questions. senator cassidy is next, and senator gardner will follow and senator capo after that, so senator gardner, you'll have the gavel in my absence. thank you. >> i associate with senator manchin's comments. family now on dependency which was formerly self-sufficient and able to send their kids to
better schools, et cetera. it's a result of government policy. that said, secretary monis, we've spoken before about the mox program. and congress in fiscal year 2016 gave clear direction that it wished the facility to continue to be developed. now, the current -- the president's budget calls for the termination of this facility in 2017 as well as a 90-day work stoppage at some point in the near future. now, congress just said we want it to happen. so, i see you shaking your head no. i hope i have this incorrect. i hope that there is some guarantee that the mox will continue to be developed and constructed in 2016 without any sort of work stoppage, cyberfercybe interference and procurement, et cetera. any thoughts on that? >> the construction is continuing as directed by congress. there's no surprise that we've been talking for -- about the
need for a lot more money for that project to work and the 90-day work stoppage is something that would happen in 2017 if the congress agrees with the change of direction. >> okay. there was a question about rebaselining the expensing. has that rebaselining been executed or planned on, et cetera? >> i'm a little bit -- you mean rebaselining of the project cost program? >> an updated performance baseline, instruct the d.o.e. in section 311934 had the fiscal year national defense authorization act d.o.e. was asked to submit in the 2017 budget request an updated performance baseline for the mox project. when can we expect the rebaselining to be complete? >> let me look into that, senator. certainly we have carried out a number of studies and baselines, but i'll see if we still owe a new rebaselining. i'm sorry, i'll look at that.
>> knowing you're the nuclear guy so this is an easy question for you, but it's one, when i read there's concern because i think there's a lot of interest in the administration to move this plutonium to new mexico. and dilute it somehow. what i've read is that -- and that new mexico facility has to be guaranteed for 10,000 years. what i've read is that the density of this plutonium is so great it would have to be diluted some 250 times or something such as that, exhausting the capacity of that facility and requiring it to be further -- to be further built out. that field is in the permian basin which is always being drilled for oil and there's aquifers flowing through. so the point of this article in "nature" was that moving the energy to new mexico as i gather the administration would like to do is fraught with -- we ain't
going to keep it safe for 10,000 years. i mean, we're fooling ourselves to say so because of the natural geologic processes and manmade processes. any dispute on that? you're the expert so that's why i ask. >> yes, sir. i do want to, first of all, start off by emphasizing we do have nearly five tons of the same kind of material already in whip and we have performed a neepa analysis, not for the full -- not for the full amount of plutonium being discussed here but for 13 tons, and, in fact, 6 tons from savannah river have been for some time already vectored as a preferred alternative to do to whip. there have been, first of all, the salt bed is almost by definition fairly and pretty stable because if there were substantial water flow it wouldn't be there. so, salt has always been viewed
as a very favorable medium. and finally, there has been a recent paper arguing about criticality or safety risks. we had sandia national laboratory look at that, and they find the paper to be without merit. >> got you. and lastly, there seems to be some confusion as to how complete mox is. i have here, let's see, two different government officials, one administrator clotz testifying to the senate armed services committee that it was over 60% complete, and then a year later the national nuclear security administration testifying 35% to 41% complete. how would we reconcile those two? can you give us an idea? >> first of all, let's distinguish two different things. one is -- and there has been a
lot of confusion about comparing apples and oranges. one point is that the -- the mox facility is only one piece of a bigger project that requires multiple facilities to do it. so, when the contractors, for example, you know, arriva, et cetera, are talking about it, they are talk iing about that o facility. even for that one facility there is substantial disagreement shall we say on the level of completion. they talk about 60 -- or two-thirds finished. we do not believe that that's the case. we believe that the cost even of that facility is many billions of dollars more than what the claim is. in that context, working with senator graham, now already i think two years ago we sat down with them. we worked through and offered a different contract structure in which part of it would be a fixed cost, for example, since
they were so confident about -- and they were almost done. well, let's just say that was not -- that was not accepted. >> let me investigate because i was told they would accept a fixed cost. they would accept going at risk. >> if i may -- if i may say, precisely what the discussion was, the definition of fixed cost they came back was fixed cost unless we go over by a lot and then you pay. it's -- it's the truth. >> then i'll go back and check. i have learned to say what i know what i've been told. thank you very much. >> thank you, senator cassidy, and thanks to the chair and the ranking member for holding this hearing today. mr. secretary, thank you for being here. i'll take my turn in the questions here i guess and then to senator capps. i want to thank you for being a taxpayer in colorado, i believe that's the correct. is that correct? >> that's correct. i'm supporting you. >> thank you very much. i want to talk a little bit about national renewable energy laboratory if we could and
cybersecurity. nrel is located in golden, colorado and the health of our national laboratories is critical to the work we're doing across the country and the work done at nrel is truly appreciated. it's the leader of clean technologies and know what it does and we're very proud of it. many of the technologies at nrel and others are sharing energy data and information through the cloud. while this is -- has allowed us to do some pretty amazing things and i've been through the wind power generation tunnels and modeling 3-d tunnels they have there it opens it to cybersecurity threats. we hear anecdotes at papers at committees about hackers being able to access smart refrigerators and electric vehicles and those things. those are anecdotes we can pick up. can you talk about the department's cybersecurity infrastructure and plans for investigating cyber protections and how our national laboratories could play a role? >> yes, thank you. first of all, let me say that we
have a crosscutting cyb cyber initiative which is proposed at something, like, 3 $30 million this year which is about a $10 million increase from last year. but we have -- and many other activities. just want to emphasize we do have three different cyber responsibilities. one is protecting our own kind of administrative information. second is our nuclear secrets and third is working with the energies, the private energy sector mostly because we have pmas but mostly private on cyber protection. first of all, the threats have been escalating. there's no question about that in recent years. the national laboratories are major, major resource here. we actually have i believe ten national laboratories which includes nrel in various aspects of a bigger cybersecurity program. from technology to kind of
systems analysis modeling to test beds where we can look at various attack vectors and address those. so, the labs are very, very critical. they -- they -- we have a cybercouncil i formed actually one of my first days at d.o.e. that cuts across things and the labs play a very important role that. the deputy chairs that. >> thank you for that. in terms of the cyber things we face, the u.n. passed some sanctions yesterday and a strong resolution and they did not include any cyber methods against north korea. are you aware of any recent attacks to our grid or energy infrastructure or perhaps to the nuclear side of your responsibilities directed out of or from north korea or china? >> i would just say that there are increasing probes of our
energy infrastructure from a variety of sources. >> and perhaps we could discuss that in a different setting. let me ask this another way. do you believe that china is living up to the terms of the agreement that it signed with the president last year in terms of its willingness to not hack for commercial purposes? >> again, i think that would be best discussed with probably others from the intelligence community at the moment. >> okay. thank you. and want to just -- brief answer if i could from you about energy savings performance contracts. i've tried to come up with a better bumper sticker name because that name takes up the entire bumper. are we on track, is the department on track to ensuring the president meets his 4 billion goal to save dollars through the use of energy savings performance contracts? >> well, so far we're at about the $2.5 billion mark. projects under -- in the pipeline would extend that to about $5.5 billion.
there are -- i believe it's 128 projects that are now -- right now expected to get across the finish line, and if you scale that from the projects that are done, we would get over the $4 billion mark. >> very good. if there's any assistance we can provide to help make that goal a reality -- >> i really appreciate the interest in that because i agree -- i think you agree with me and i agree with you that this is a critically important -- >> absolutely it is. and we've got good language in the energy bill that we're working on through that right now. hopefully we can get that passed. final question, there have been reports days prior to north korea's latest nuclear test that the administration was talking about a peace negotiation with north korea without any preconditions and that there were some talks, at least anecdotally, again, that iran nuclear deal kind of agreement might have been under consideration for north korea. were you a part of any discussions like that or any discussions with north korea's nuclear stockpile or ambitions? >> again, i think that would be a discussion you would have to have with the national security
council or the department of state. >> you're not involved in any kind of nuclear analysis or considerations of north korea's capabilities centrifuge? >> i apologizes were but i really cannot discuss these kind of internal discussions, but, again, if we meet on some of these other issues offline we could perhaps go into that in more detail. >> i'm trying to get if the administration is using department of energy's expertise to analyze any aspect of north -- >> let's just say historically -- historically certainly in all of the nuclear discussions with any country, including north korea, d.o.e. experts were always engaged to provide the -- provide technical support. >> thank you, mr. secretary, and senator capito, ranking members, do you take over at this point? >> i think you said it. >> thank you. >> thanks to both of you. and thank you, mr. secretary. i want to begin my remarks about associating myself with the senator from west virginia senator manchin. he's not exaggerating here. we are in a very -- and you and
i took the trip to alaska and we saw the same phenomenon in alaska that the chairman said. we're losing not just coal jobs, transportation jobs. equipment providers, manufacturers. it's a very pessimistic, des low state new pockets of poverty being created that are very, very difficult. i just want to associate myself with those remarks. the first question is about the energy labs. in the hearing last year we discussed -- you and i discussed some of the concerns that i had regarding the crennel report on the national labs, which does your -- and so my question is, does your budget request include a position concerning the d.o.e. lab commission's recommendations pertaining to nettles, separating nettles r&d and its program responsibilities? or in transitioning nettle to a
goco from a gogo? >> senator, no. we are not considering that. we are implementing most of the crennel recommendations, but not that one. secondly, a different thing but related is in the fossil energy budget, i believe it's a good step forward to more clearly identify the r&d and infrastructure budget lines at netl which were previously impossible to find. and i just would add that the director, grace mohanik, was really a driver of wanting that kind of structure to allow her to strengthen the r&d activities. >> i appreciate that. you segued nicely for me to my next question because as we were going through the budget and the fossil energy r&d accounts you've changed a lot of names and maybe this is as a result of what you just said, to more
clearly identify. but it's made it a little bit difficult for us to interpret where the money is, how much is in certain accounts and what that could mean. is the rational you gave previously is that the rationale for the change so you could more specifically -- >> we'll be able to see what the netl funding is and by the way it's gone up in this budget request with a particular piece driving it is in my view finally addressing the supercomputer upgrade needs at netl. >> okay. so, i guess what i would like to have is a commitment from you that the d.o.e. would work with me and my staff so we can more easily parse these new categories and understand them. >> sure. we'd be happy to go up there and walk through them line by line. >> appreciate that. appreciate that. my final question is we were in a meeting several months ago talking about the future of coal and the research and development and we talked about ccs and we talked about ccus. and if i'm misquoting you, you can correct me. but i believe -- well, the
impression that i had was that the future of coal really lies in the "u" part of that, the utilization area. and i guess what i'm wanting from you as a scientist and all the research that goes on at d.o.e. in terms of the utilization of carbon, where are we on a scale of one to ten in terms of the research? are we at a one? are we at a seven? are we getting closer? because this really i do believe if we're going to keep the energy mix with coal as a very vital part, we've got to figure out -- we can capture it. >> but you mean specifically on the "u." >> on the "u." >> what i would say is i would divide the "u" into two different areas. one is the most transparent "u" is enhanced oil recovery which is what's going on right now, et cetera. and that has been an essential component of the financial model used for current projects.
now, frankly, that's suffered with the steep decline in oil prices. >> right. >> because you don't get as much bang for the "u." >> is that technology at a nine, ten? it can be improved but -- >> as far as technology goes, we know how to do it. >> it's stuck. >> well, yes. in conventional so-called tertiary oil recovery, but there are some other ideas, for example, one of your colleagues on the comimittee, not here, senator hoven, i think is very enthusiastic about the idea of co2 stimulation of shale to enhance oil recovery. and there i think we still have some work to do. but then there are other ideas. we do have a small pilot project right now in texas involving cement factory. there have been various ideas about using co2 in essentially in building materials.
because that's something with big scale where you can get a lot of co2. but so far the costs have not -- still not low enough. >> right. >> and then there are more exotic ideas, which are, you know, potential not low enough. then there are more exotic ideas. very low scale in terms of maturity, such as using, say, sunlight, water, and co2 to produce a hydrocarbon fuel. there are lots of ideas and i think thistñ an area. >> i would encourage you to pursue that area.
thank you. >> thank you. senator hobon is here. i'm sure you thought you were off the hook. >> i already answered his questions. i just did. >> thank you, chairman garner. secretary moniz, it's good for you to be here. thanks for your trips to north dakota. we appreciate it very much i would like to focus on carbon capture technologies. it's not commercially viable in the market so how can they help our coal-fired electric companies and utilities actually implement carbon capture
technology that is economically and commercially viable? >> we have technologies that work and, of course, in the -- which you're referring to in terms of clean power plant, i would just noelt that what's require there had are partial captures, not the kind of 90% capture that we have used in our demonstration plans. as we go into the fy 17 budget, we have other novel approaches that may result in even substantially lower costs like chemical looping and oxicombustion. we're proposing smallish ten mega watts plants with these new
approaches. >> are those going to be ready in time to help the plants meet the clean power act? >> frankly, to me, it does not seem technologically, you know, risky. i think the issue on the cost side will be continuing to drag down the costs. chemical looping is beyond that in chemical maturity. >> what programs do you have to help do that? how are you helping these companies implement that technology? what can you do to help them? >> as i say, we are -- we want to go forward with pilot projects to demonstrate those
technologies. they would affect, let's say, efficiency of thermal plants like proposed increase for pilot project on super critical co2 and for advanced materials in extreme environments. >> the only plant that i know of that captures co2 and actually sequesters it, the company in north dakota which you've been to. and what i'm trying to figure out is how we help develop more of those project. the only way we're going to get the technology out there to do it is to have the r & d done. i get that it's technologically feasible. it's not commercially viable. we have to somehow drive that cost curve down or do more with enhanced oil recovery to create a revenue stream.
this is where you've got to help do it. you've got to help these companies do it because of the cost. this is your basic r & d function, translating into commercialization of new technologies. >> i would add, of course, there are other aspects besides the technology rdd & d. as you well know, the $8.5 billion fossil loan program for projects. i would add something that i think is very important and maybe merits enhanced discussion is administration proposal for both investment tax credits for carbon capture and sequestration in that proposal in the fy17 budget. not in the doe budget, but treasury. >> i think that will be the key in terms of we've got to find ways to develop this technology
and deploy it in terms of making it commercially viable and economically viable. not just technologically viable. and that that has to match up with the regulatory environment. >> well, we'll continue to drive the cost down, as with all the low carbon technologies. it's all a question of -- innovating, deploying and driving the cost down. >> allen cycle that we're working on. i don't know if you are aware of it. that is exactly the kind of thing we're talking about and would appreciate d.o.e. participation and assistance in that cycle project. >> i understand it involves a super critical co2 element at least. >> exactly. >> the demonstration we are also funding. but perhaps there needs to be a briefing of our fossil energy people on what it is. i'm not familiar with it. >> we have utility companies working on it, state of north
dakota is working with them. state of north dakota is willing to put resources into it. and we would want to partner with d.o.e. as well. >> okay. >> thank you. >> i think a technology briefing would be the first step. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator. secretary, i'm going to ask another few final questions and then turn it to senator cantwell. i've got yet another hearing i have to race off to. i apologize, again, for jumping up and down. so, back to definitional issues, as i raised in my first round, clean energy. clean is referenced frequently in the budget response, in terms of r & d innovation and goals. within d.o.e.'s definition, do you include hydropower? >> i certainly do. >> i know you do. for purposes of making sure that everything meets these criteria and eligibility, are we
defining -- as you know, in our energy bill, energy policy, modernization act, we define hydropower as clean energy, or renewable energies. >> yeah. and it's in our renewable energy portfolio. >> okay. so, you consider hydroto be clean then, in that sense? >> yeah. it's explicitly part of our portfolio. >> good. we want it to be explicitly part of that. the strategic petroleum reserve, can you give us any updates in terms of the drawdowns that were mandate mandated? are you facing any challenges on this? are you on track? where are we? tlch there was going to be an update we were going to be expecting this spring. where are we with strategic petroleum reserve? >> i don't anticipate any draw downs this year in terms of the
fast act. on the modernization, the report is due in may. we are trying to axccelerate tht as best we can, and to have that accompanied by a budget amendment that would start us moving on the modernization. >> that would be some time this summer? >> may is our target date to get it before the congress as soon as possible. >> small modular reactors and advanced nuclear. you've spoken often about the necessity of including nuclear energy in the portfolio of clean energy technology. absolutely agree. you also spoke about the development and deployment of small modular reactors.
as we are seeing this smr licensing come to a close and hopefully this first full application is submitted for license, kind of looking forward, what's next here? will the d.o.e. strategy be to support further license work for light water smrs through a similar large competitive public/private partnership or is more focus going to be placed on advanced reactor technologies? how do you see this playing forward now? >> i think it's important that we work across the board. nuclear power plant simulation hub, which is located at oak ridge with others involved including idaho lab and others, north carolina state university,
m.i.t. then when you go to smrs, light water but novel design. and there we think we're on track. frankly, i would say i'm disappointed that, unfortunately, we had to end the other that we supported. they made a corporate decision to stretch it out to beyond our time horizon. i'm still interested in more of that. third, we gave recently two awards to companies who had c
consortia, pebble bed reactors and molten salt reactors. we're working on evolutionary current reactors, smrs and advance cycles. >> so $28.2 million. on the one hand, you're saying we're moving forward in a way that you feel relatively confident but the budget is -- >> we just gave $80 million -- up to $80 million to get those two new advanced concepts going. >> okay. >> this year, frankly, fy17 budget in balancing things out, s smr, surely protecting the smr was important and, secondly, really trying to launch -- well, we did launch this year -- we are launching now, but to pick up the whole consent base process for the back end.
>> right. right. >> that remains extremely important to us. and we hope the fy17 money, especially on interim storage, we'll be able to move to community grants for those places that have serious interest. >> of course, we've been working with you on that, along with senator alexander and senator feinstein. we look forward to continuing that i want to bring to your attention a request for the record on the d.o.e.'s participation on the oil supply agreement. we'll be asking more information on that. i wish i could take more time with you. >> i will be in israel in early april and that will be one of the topics of discussion. >> i'll look forward. maybe we can get an update. thank you for your commitment for taking the time to come to beth el. it meant a lot to a lot of
people. senator cantwell, if you can, wrap us up. and thank you and good luck in your other post of energy and water. mr. secretary, thank you for your time this morning. i just want to follow up on my first round on a couple of those issues on defense waste. what are the next steps we need to do? >> all the elements of the back end, storage facilities, both pilot and large, disposal. we're going through a three-fais phase process this year. and the hope is that in the first quarter of fy17, we would be able to start direct
discussion with community states. >> if you would look at that, that would be appreciated. secondly, we need a permanent funding and partner source between d.o.e. and d.o.i. on the new historic national park. >> yes. so, on the park, we are moving forward. yeah, there's no explicit budget line in fy17 for d.o.e. but we have the funds to keep moving towards making available the sites. at hanford, we have one major site open to the public. but going forward -- >> you're saying the funds exist within your budget? >> for this year. for this year. however, after that, i would be very surprised if we didn't need to come for -- or someone come
for explicit funding for the maintenance and upgrade for the public of certain facilities at the three sites. but for this year, we'll be covered. >> this is what -- do you mean in fy17? >> fy17, using 16 and 17. >> for 17 we'll be covered. that's what i wanted to understand. thank you for that. we look forward to working with you on the details of that. i wanted to bring up a couple of other issues. one, you know, i know that the department of energy has been involved in so many issues as it relates to where we're going on renewable energy. we have a facility in moses lake, washington, the only commercially operating plant in the world to employ technology that use about 10% of the energy costs to produce more pure product than just about any place, in competing with
polysilicone. we're in a trade dispute currently. if this trade dispute is not resolved soon, they'll be forced to lay off approximately 400 workers. we cannot not only lose this site in our state but also the technology that we are able to produce there as it relates to polysilicon. i want to get the department's to advocate on behalf of producers and how to resolve this trade dispute with china. perhaps the advanced manufacturing office could take an interest in looking at the supply chain and helping give comments to the administration on this. >> okay. i would like to learn more about the specifics, pursue that. it's certainly an important area. i would be happy to talk to our trade rep, mike froman, and understand better what the trade situation is.
i'm afraid i'm just not up to speed on that. >> i guess the importance of bringing it up this morning, and asking for your engagement is the issue of the supply chain and getting people to understand. i'm a firm believer when it comes to all of these energy sectors of our expertise, i see it, obviously, in aviation. if you have the supply chain, you'll have the job. >> right. >> so if we have the supply chain, whether it's in solar or wind, if we have truly a strong supply chain, we will have jobs in the u.s. >> i might add, as you well know, it's along the supply chain that you may find the highest margin opportunities also. not having them caught in basically what has been a panel dispute between u.s. and china, and the retaliation then on the supply chain is what we're
facing. would appreciate your input. that would be so helpful. the smart building budget, as i mentioned, very excited that the -- where the budget is but also in our energy bill we're moving, section 1014, smart building accelerator, paving the way for smarter buildings, innovative technologies and we have everything from the bullet center to the brooks corporate most probably efficient hospital in the world. how does the budget proposal allow for evaluation of what's working in current smart buildings in both public and privately-owned facilities? you increase in the advance r & d building of technologies. i see a 44% increase in the building technology's office. i want to understand how that's going to focus on this
particular effort of smart buildings. >> well, the building technology's office program will look at smart buildings, obviously very, very critical. and also it's the issue of linking the building from behind the meter to the distribution system, which is where new services can come in. that's very important. another point i would make, which is not directly relevant so much to like individual homes, but to bigger, say, commercial facilities is something like the better building's challenge, which is not doing the r & d, but taking advantage of opportunities to get building efficiency. a core part of that is the promulgation of best practice. that's the requirement to be part of the program. so that's actually also -- frankly, even though it's not an
r & d investment, it's been extremely effective, i think. but buildings -- >> d.o.e.'s leadership in helping define that? >> yeah. we have a convening role. then the companies make pledges, which is a minimum of 20% energy reduction by 2020. some reached that in three or four years and have doubled down. but then part of that, frankly, they get a bit of a branding. but a requirement to share best practices so that we can help promulgate that and bring the best practices, technologies to bear. >> thank you. and last question i want to wrap up with is last year i requested a joint d.o.t., d.o.e. study on crude oil characteristics and the volatility, making sure we're setting the proper standard. it was frustrating to find that our agency didn't believe they had the power to regulate here.
can you give us an update on the crude by rail study being jointly conducted? >> yes. >> d.o.t. cooperating and doing its share? >> yes. no, it's being absolutely cost shared. and i think it's on track for 2017, the initial date. everyone would like it to be faster. but they'll be going into a physical combustion test regime and some time in 2017. i haven't -- to be honest, i haven't checked very recently. i can do that. 2017 was always the target year for the completion of the study. >> and this is about volatility? >> it's about volatility. yes. understanding what are the important parameters, et cetera, but also going into combustion tests to really understand accident scenarios and the like. >> thank you, mr. secretary. you've been generous with your time. >> i might just add one factoid.
you may know that, actually, in the last year, oil movements by rail have gone down 19%. >> i think there was some recent indication that they're about to go back up, though. to me, this is -- you know, every city in our state is impacted by this. and we're proud to be a pacific state and see the growing benefits of asian markets. and we just invested in a national freight strategy and prioritizing the movement of freight but we have got to have safety standards on the volatility of these products moving through. not just our -- we had another derailment issue, propane/ethanol issue. we have to make sure the public is going to be safe, setting the standard and making sure that the agencies who regulate that do their job. we're happy that the d.o.e. has
the president will be hosting the canadian leader at a state dinner thursday. u.s./canadian relations with political reporters live later today at 5:30 eastern on c-span. a special focus today on michigan and mississippi. join us, beginning at 8:00 pm eastern on c-span. candidate speeches and viewer reaction, taking you on the road to the white house on c-span, c-span radio and c-span.org. now a latino public affairs
forum, analyzing the impact of the latino electorate on the 2016 election. panel on republican strategies to attract latino voters. american university hosted this event. we're ready to begin if people can get settled in. i'd like to welcome everybody -- if i can get people's attention, i'd like to welcome everybody to the second annual latino public affairs forum here at american university. i'm director for the center of
latin america and latino studies here. i'm delighted we're again convening this forum with the center for congressional and presidential studies. director jim thorbor will say a couple of words of welcome in a moment. our two centers are committed to fostering state of the art research on topics that fit within our mandate. latin-american and latino studies and congressional and presidential studies in the case of ccps. just as importantly we are committed to communicating the results of that work beyond academe. we draw not only on expertise of the eu faculty and knowledge from program ticker ins of other american university. we have scholars from other campuses as well as think tanks and consulting firms, advocacy groups. each year the forum focuses on a specific topic in public affairs which seems to be especially
timely for latino communities in the united states and for understanding how latinos impact the broader landscape of public affairs. we actually launched this in 2014 but we weren't yet calling it the annual forum. so technically the first annual forum was in 2015, and this is the 2016 annual -- the second annual forum, although for some of you who have been coming for several years, if you're puzzled as to why we call it the second annual, that's the explanation. in 2014 we focused on immigration policy. last year having made it an annual undertaking we focused on
latinos in the republican party. and that topic remains today as important as we had anticipated a year ago and i'm sure that it will come up over the course of this afternoon. but today our topic is the impact of lat flows on the 2016 election. an additional way we might frame that topic is the impact of 2016 election on latino communities, political identities and behaviors. and beyond that, the impacts of latinos on the longer term configuration of american party system and the american political landscape. i think these are questions that we'll have plenty of opportunity to discuss over the day. i want to thank all of our panelists for agreeing to take part. i want to thank you, the
audience, from taking time from busy schedules to join us. i also want to extend special thanks to my colleague professor rob albro. rob really took the leadership in pulling this together and both in the design and then the logistics with support of others on the staff of the center for latin american and latino studies. i'm very grateful to all of them. we're going to organize this -- the afternoon in three sessions. the first two panels moderated by jim and matthew respectively will cover the republican primaries and the democrat party's effort to sustain its advantage with latino voters. we're interested here in both how latinos will affect the outcome of the primaries and the general election but also how the primary campaigns of both parties may influence latino political behavior over the long term. as most of you know, jim is director of the center for congressional and presidential
studies. he's also a university prove for in the department of government at au. his contributions to the study of american politics and institutions are many. i won't try to list them all but i'll simply call your attention to his recently published book, "american gridlock, the sources, character and impact of political polarization." the second panel will be moderated by matthew wright, my colleague in the department of government. he directs our graduate program in political science. he conducts research on a wide range of issues in american political behavior, including on questions of ethnic and racial diversity and public opinion about diversity, immigration and related issues. i will moderate a third panel on what we've labeled wild cards in swing states. the program description hints a bit at what we see as wild cards. rather than sketch those now, i'll leave you in suspension and address that in the afternoon. it may well be that over the course of the afternoon and in
our discussions, additional wild cards come to the fore and we will have time to discuss these. before turning it over to jim for a word of welcome and to introduce the first panel, let me say that we want this to be an opportunity both for panelists to share their ideas with you, but also to have questions and answers and discussion, and we'll be able to do that in each of the sessions. again, welcome, and thank you very much. >> thank you, eric. welcome, everyone, and welcome to c-span. we're going to have millions watch this at 3:00 a.m. in the morning when they don't have anything to do. sorry, c-span, but that happens when you run them at various times. we get a lot of e-mails at 3:00, 4:00 a.m. sometimes about our programs. i've covered a lot of them. it is a pleasure to work with you, eric, and your staff has been a terrific job. we've got great panelists here. we do have forums where we bring together academics, journalists and professionals in the field, campaign professionals, pollsters, and we have that today. fair balance between democrats
and republicans and the views between the two parties. but let me put this forum, this contest in context, generally. as you know, 27 million -- there are 27 million eligible hispanic voters in america. 12% of the electorate. they are going to make a significant impact upon this election as they have in the past. there are 600,000 latino voters added to the voting rolls each year. the question is whether they turn out or not. this is especially important in places like texas, california, new mexico, florida, nevada, north carolina, even in virginia
where there's 9% of the population are latinos. if you look at the breakdown of the previous presidential elections, latinos made -- had a significant impact. obama took 71% of the latino vote that was 44% more than romney in 2012. 2008, he took 67% of the latino vote which was 36% more than mccain. kerry, he took 18% more hispanics at 58 with bush 31%. bush, george w. bush did better with hispanic voters than any other republican candidate. this year we had planned this to come just before the super primary tomorrow. i think after the super primary, we'll know a lot more about whether trump has it or not. whether he -- whether it's going to be a clean sweep. we'll know certainly more about cruz and rubio. rubio has to take 20% in some of
these states. looks like he may not do that. we'll get into that later. the panels that we have, the way we're going to run this panel, the first panel is that we're going to have very short statements about five minutes at the beginning, an overview related to the republican primary and some questions that i'm going to outline here. then we're going to go into sort of a fluid q&a and the panel with people not interrupting but people commenting on the questions. then we'll go to the audience. the audience is full of people who really know this. students, academics, journalists. we want to have many questions from the audience. so the first panel is focused on what in the world is the republicans going to do in terms
of the strategy to bring in latino voters? we've got some experts here that can talk about that. what is the strategy of the republican party? what are the effects of the republican discourse and positions during the primary process? here we're talking about trump and the wall. can a republican candidate improve on the historically small proportion of hispanic voters, as i said before? is the latino background or cuban background, cultural background, of cruz and rubio very meaningful this year for latino voters? is the heritage relevant and
what are the stands of latino voters on immigration? and their reaction to the republican party, but also the democratic party and the deportations by obama. will that have an impact on the primaries and this vote. now we have three outstanding people to talk about. glen, in the middle, president of public opinion strategists. he's very loyal to american university. that's not why we have him here. he's pos is the primary, in my opinion, republican pollster in america and he is focused empirically on the latino vote and he'll be able to speak about that. to my immediate left is mary martinez. she's the director of the republican state leadership committee. she's been involved in trying to recruit more latinos to work -- to run, to try to get people registered and turned out. she has worked for years on
voter engagement and outreach strategies to women in latino politics. she's right at the center of what must be somewhat frustrating right now for it the leading candidate at this point in terms of what you are trying to do. david carroll was a professor here at american university. we'll leave it at that -- no. we miss you, david. academic units and universities are like baseball teams. and a baseball team somewhere out in the suburbs, way out there, university of maryland, i will never forgive you, david, because you are doing such good
work about parties and american politics, but more specifically today you know about demographics and the parties and about the latino voters and party. so let me begin by asking narrowly to start, if that's okay with the panelists, for a few remarks. then we'll go to glen and we'll end with david, if that's okay. all right? thank you very much. >> well, thank you, james. and thank you, american university, for having me on this panel. this is an incredibly important topic. i many myself latina, of course. and i am the executive director of the future majority project which is an initiative to identify, recruit, training and
mentor women and minority candidates from all diverse communities. i've been in this role for about three years. the project has been enormously successful. over the past couple cycles, the republican state committee has recruited hundreds of women and minority candidates. we have been helpful in electing 72 candidates, new candidates of all diverse ethnicities, over 250 new women for state level office, lot of times these folks, it is the first time they are running for office. we're engaging with the caucuses in the states to identify the best candidates that represent their districts and their communities and they're winning. they're winning many sometimes in states where we haven't had wins before. we're able to to flip the majority with many of these candidates. they have been the key targets in the key states and we've also created a number of firsts as a result. in 2015 we helped elect the very first latina to serve in the mississippi legislature. we helped to elect the very first cuban-american in the
virginia house. we also helped elect folks like the only african-american female lieutenant governor in the country. we also helped the only latina lieutenant governor in the country. we're creating a lot of firsts. we've been able to flip majorities in colorado, new mexico, maintaining majorities in arizona. we're playing offense in washington, oregon, minnesota, and these are places where the latino community is either emerging, established, or about to emerge in a very big way. and the republican party in the state has been very engaged to try to find the best candidates and to have them represent the republican party. we've seen a really interesting trend as a result of these elections. this trend may be familiar to some of you. if you're watching the primaries, in iowa, for example, the vast majority, about 60% of the republicans electorate chose a minority candidate. so combined, ted cruz, marco rubio and ben carson received 60% of the vote in iowa. that's not really known as a diverse state though their demographics are rapidly changing as well. we're seeing a wave of new faces representing the party.
we feel that this is an important project to not just help to diversify legislatures now but to also build a diverse bench of candidates for the future. for example, marco rubio started in the -- as west miami commissioner and he was the first hispanic speaker of the house. we find that building these candidates at the state level really helps to build the party from the ground ln up. it's been enormously successful in helping us win. not just win the regular non-hispanic and non-diverse voters but winning with women and other minority communities in the states where we are active. >> i'm sure you've got recent data on that. we'd like to find out what
you're doing to improve turnout and mobilization and how it is going. >> sure. thank you, jim. i'm always excited to come to american university. 31 years ago i graduate -- i know, looks like it was longer, but 31 years ago i graduated from au and have tried to be supportive of the programs here ever since. and i appreciate it every time that dr. thurber or somebody associated with the school extends and invitation. i also have come to as many basketball games as i can this year. that's not a reflection on the team, that's more just a reflection on my schedule, not so much. but one of the reasons i am especially thrilled to be here today is that 31 years ago in the winter i took a short-term three-week class called campaign management institute run by wilma goldstein who became my
mentor and steered me into my current occupation. despite my skepticism, i did not want to be a pollster. but she is here today. just want to give a shout out to wilma. thank you, wilma. [ applause ] >> wilma -- i was very reluctant. wilma is definitely one of the key mentors at a key juncture in my life. i've always appreciated it and i'm excited to see her view today. it did make it up on the screen. according to the exit poll -- i know other numbers are floating around. jim used different ones for 2004, but this year is what republicans have gotten in both presidential an non-presidential election years of the latino vote since 2000, and what percent they have made up of the electorate. if you look with the any time that the republicans have gotten 35% or more of the latino vote, they have tended to win those
elections. any time they've gotten less than 35%, they have lost those elections. including, as jim pointed out, just 27% for mitt romney in 2012 which is also when the hispanic vote was the largest of the electorate this century. it's not going down. it's going to go up. 2014, only 8% of the voters were latinos. that is not something that is likely to be replicated in 2016. so when you look at what some of the republican candidates have been saying -- and jim raised the "what is the strategy of the republican party when it comes to the hispanic voters." i would just say -- just bear with me for a minute. pretend you are a 7-year-old and kind of make your hand into a gun and point your finger at your foot and shoot yourself in the foot. that's what we're doing. republicans -- those who are attacking latinos are bad at math because they're not understanding that they're
becoming bigger part of the electorate. just to underscore that -- you look at the exit polls by ethnicity for both 2014 and 2012. and again, the white electorate was 72% in 2012. went up to 75% in 2014. that's not going to reoccur in 2016. if anything, it is more likely ! to be 70% and republicans get 6 out of 10 approximately of the white vote. get 10% to 6% of the african-american vote. we're seeing a big fluctuation. one is with asians. just 3% of asian-americans are just 3% of the electorate. it is the latino vote where it really makes a difference. in 2014 republicans won by getting over 35% of the vote at 36%. in 2012, as we mentioned, just 27%. just in case people are
confused, going lower is a bad thing. going higher is a good thing. that's one of the things i learned in campaign management here at au. when the line goes up, that's good. when it goes down, that's bad. let me just show you one last chart before i turn it over to david who apparently spent some time at au before ending up at maryland. again, you look at the winning coalition by ethnicity. latinos are 11% of the electorate. republicans need to win 39% -- they get 60% of the white vote and whites are only 70% of the electorate. 10% of african-americans, 40% of the asians, 45% of "other" which are diverse is up groups that don't really -- without adding up together to just 3%. where you look at where we have to improve the most it is with latinos and asians. in terms of a contribution to our victory, in a two-way race latinos are the most important
subgroup. the idea of attacking them just kind of runs counter to winning elections. >> thank you very much. david? >> thank you. it's great to be back here at au with my former colleagues. there couldn't be a more timely topic. when talking about republican party and latinos, i think of myself like admiral stockdale if people are old in you have to remember the perot debate, what am i, what am i doing here? i'm not in either of those two groups but i am a political scientist and a student of political parties and party coalitions. so i think maybe then i might still have something to contribute and that will hopefully be some perspective. i'm sure we'll talk more about it in response to questions,
but -- we'll leave this conversation here and go live now to capitol hill for white house council of economic advisors chair jason furman as sometimes they can build on the base they have. so, ronald reagan took the republican party, which has been since the time of lincoln basically a business overnighted party and helped bring in social conservatives who cared about things like abortion and gun rights. when we talk about republican efforts to attract latino voters, i'm going to remind you of a story from a nonlatino part of the country in northern new england. guy from a car from out of town gets lost, sees an old farmer and says can you tell me how to
get -- northern new hampshire, maybe, how to get to boston. the guy said you can't get there from here. that's the story of the republican party right now. the base that they have built since 1964 will not allow them to really reach out effectively to latino voters. 1964, barry goldwater runs, saying let's hunt where the ducks are. it's not all specific to latinos. to the extent that the party now, as we see in the trump phenomenon, has a lot of voters. that's a result of a lot of actions by a lot of republican leaders over decades, attracting this clientele. now they are strained by it. goldwater, the opposition,
ronald reagan attacks on welfare queens and strapping young bucks on welfare. george h.w. bush, willee horton campaign. two years later. again, that is not specific to latinos. certainly they're part of that. it was embraced by leaders of the national republican party. the big exception is the bush administration, the second president bush. i think sincerely abandoned affirmative action, had am
people of color, more diverse but ultimately he failed to reovernight the party n 2007 he did push hard for immigration reform. core constituency wanted but by then the base of the party that had been built rejected this. primarily the failure was because of congress. scholars, include iing matt per, here today, co-authors have certainly shown large element of racial feeling and concern about immigrants that animates the tea party. we saw this donald trump on the national stage five years ago, going around, asking to see president obama's birth certificate.
not pushed back by republicans at the time. republican national committee in the 2012 campaign and in the 2008 campaign. initially the front-runner. for a long time, had to promise he would build a border fence, able to come back n 2012, rick perry was supposed to be a major challenge from the right to mitt romney. he actually was hurt greatly by his position, more moderate on immigration, an issue where romney was able to get to the right of perry, unusually. so, that's more background. after they lose the 2012 election, in which romney has talked about self deportation, the republican national committee commissioned a report. and they said that they had to go a different way. this is when the gang of eight
remerges in the senate, and there's a bipartisan attempt to pass immigration bill. again, it fails chiefly because of republicans in the house. eric cantor lost his primary. the house majority leader lost his primary for renomination in a shocking development. and people who look closely at that race think immigration, what's part of that? cantor was seen by the base of the republican party to be too soft on the immigration issue. of course, a very unusual figure. he is inheriting a lot of support that is a result of leaders over many decades. a lot of republican leaders sincerely want to move in
another direction but are now constrained by the base we have. exit polls from the primaries and caucuses we've had so far, it's really interesting. an insurgent candidate doesn't do so well with party identifiers but better with independents. that's the story with bernie sanders this time. hillary clinton dominates among democratic identifiers, the story of barack obama, senator mccain against george w. bush, he won the independents. bush won the republicans. if we look at trump, he's doing about as well among a republican identifiers and independents in these contests. a vote that's already there. and it's been in the republican party a long time. the last thing i will say is that in the short term, republicans can still win. i'm not predicting that this year with donald trump. but in the '60s, when the african-american vote was growing because of the voting
rights act, republicans, the party of lincoln, decided to go another way. and alienating limited block support hoping to get white southern votes. and in the short and medium term that worked for them. even if a segment of the electorate is growing, there's more than one way to slice a pie. there's more than one way to get to 50%. if they had different policies -- again i'm not predicting success for him. you can't just say one segment of the electorate has grown and, therefore, they are the key to victory. there are different ways to get to a majority. in any event, republicans that do want to target latino voters, they're very constrained by the base that has been built over many years in their party. thank
thanks. >> thank you. yes, let's applaud. [ applause ] nary and glenn, in particular, when you look at these data and you do every day, what is to be done to bring more latino voters in the republican party, especially when you have a candidate like trump that seems to be alienating that? glenn, let's start with you. >> senate candidates, you've got five to seven that are in competitive situation, five toss-ups. in states where the latino vote is in a significant vote, what advice do you give them? run away from the candidate?
>> first of all, i have not wrapped my head around or willing to concede that trump will be the nominee. it's certainly looking more likely each primary. some will say i'm unrealistic to say it won't be him. >> a bunch of people will take bets on that one. >> probably not at his casino, since it failed. don't give bill clinton a blank check. that's what you're more likely to see, if donald trump is the nominee, don't give hillary clinton a blank check. for the huge problems that he has with the american public, that he has earned, you know, he has a 50% negative polling, the worst by far of any major candidate leading the primary in an open seat or even as a
challenger in modern polling history. the second highest negatives, hillary clinton at 48%. highest to date before that was michael dukakis right before the november election in '88. so, she has huge problems as well, which is real -- it's a challenge because you see the opportunity where she can be defeated. it's hard to see a candidate with 58, 59% negatives being the one to do that. given his statements, he's having trouble straightening out his negatives. i think you'll see a message of we need balance. don't give hillary clinton, because you don't trust her, don't give her a blank check.
>> what do you think? what are you doing to bring in more latino voters? >> i actually work for the republican state leadership committee. we focus on helping to elect latino and other diverse, women candidates. but oit's no secret the rnc put it together to be able to be on the ground and recruit, you know, managers of different states, volunteers to really engage the hispanic community in the political process and to engage the republican party and thus far the initiative has been an enormous success. i was a part of one of the first classes of this type of work in 2012. i worked for the hispanic vote as a director for the republican national committee in that -- in north carolina during that time. and during that time, you know, we didn't win the general election but we won north krari carolina for romney and largely because we increased the hispanic voter, you know,
percentage for the republicans in that state, so now they've been doing this kind of initiative which is a very successful strategy around the clock 24/7 and have invested according to the rnc's numbers $10 million into this project. future majority project has recruited $11 million into new candidates so we have new faces in the party. the new sort of test ground for this type of initiative that the republican national committee has put together is 2014, as glen has shown we received 36% of the hispanic vote which ultimately led to the elections of very swing senate states like colorado for corey gardner or florida for rick scott and most notably in texas greg abbott won 44% of the hispanic vote, you know, quite significant and larger than his predecessor before him. i feel like this initiative if you look at the actual numbers seems to be working very hard to engage the hispanic community. i mean, i'm obviously a result
of the hispanic community i grew up in a majority hispanic area and i can tell you hispanics are not monolithic. we have to understand that the u.s. is not monolithic. i've been to over 35 states recruiting candidates and i can tell you a republican from arkansas is not the same as one from washington and not the same as one from oregon and similar to a hispanic. a hispanic that grew up in southern california is not the same as one that grew up on the border in texas or in miami where i grew up. it is a very different culture and it's a very different country. i think one of the things that excites me about the hispanic community particularly in this country is that 85% of hispanics already living in the u.s. are citizens or are in the process of becoming citizens. you know, so we tend to particularly in mainstream media focus on these smaller percentage of hispanics which are maybe undocumented or not citizens or permanent residents but any combination of that is still significantly less than
the majority of us which are in addition to being non -- not monolithic because we live all over the country, have all sorts of opinions on things from all different backgrounds and have all manner of perspectives just like any other american. we also largely focus on other issues which are not related to immigration because immigration is not a direct part of our lives. i think for many hispanic families you obviously know somebody who has been affected by immigration and it's an importa important topic. and there are other issues that resonate with hispanics like the economy, like education and health care what and what we are seeing in the states versus some of the federal races is that in many states we're being very successful in reaching hispanic voters and having them vote for the republican on the ticket because at the state level we focus on the local issues and the more direct issues affecting the constituency. on that front when we recruit candidates that reflect the
community, that reflect the emerging leaders in the state and when we have good campaigns and we do good work for the people, we find that we win. >> thank you. david, i know you're not in the business of giving advice to parties as to what they should do, but to follow-up on this question, what does the republican party have to do to bring in minorities generally and latinos specifically into the party? >> well, i agree with what ernie just said that latinos are diverse. that's true of lots of communities. i mean, the african-american community is diverse and on issues there's a lot of disagreement, for example, african-americans are not all pro-choice or pro-same-sex marriage and so on but still overwhelmingly democratic. i think that i really don't -- i think that the candidate recruitment efforts that were just being discussed i think in the long term that is important. because when they want to have candidates for higher offices, this is the farm team where --
from which those candidates emerge, so i do think that that is valuable. but i really don't -- i think in the short term what i would say and, of course, a republican probably wouldn't say this and so i can say this because i'm neutral in this respect, is i actually think the republicans have to lose. they have to lose some more elections. parties it's painful for parties to change. people like to do what they've been doing. most of the elected officials have been elected doing the same old thing. the constituencies that are responsive to have already the policies that they prefer. the parties have changed. if we look historically in america and other countries it's a response to repeated defeat. bill clinton and the new democrats and the dlc emerged after landslide defeats. they -- democrats lost three presidential elections overwhelmingly in the 1980s and bill clinton was the response to that. in britain the labor party had
to lose four elections including one they really should have won based on the economy and then they got to tony blair and the conservative party in britain recently the same story with david cameron after three big defeats to blare. republicans have owon congressional elections recently. it's true they lost to barack obama but they can explain 2008 away because of the economic collapse and 2012 was actually a close election. romney did better than mccain. certainly obama's victory wasn't overwhelming. so, i think given the constraints that the base has placed on them, they are not going to be able to break free from that until they can clearly make the argument to their own people that what we're doing is really not working and for that to be overwhelmingly clear i think they have to lose some more. so, they have to lose to hillary clinton and they probably have to lose the senate and that would be a good start in terms of reform. >> thank you. the last question for me and
then we'll go to the audience. can you tell us a little bit more about turnout. turnout by latinos nationally over time but also state -- a few states that are key to the next election especially in the -- in the battleground states. if you don't have specific answers for that, that's okay. we can go on. >> sure. >> yeah. i think -- that one's really loud and i'm already loud so -- >> you're fine. >> yeah, i think -- i think turnout historically increases among the latino community year to year and i think that just makes sense because if you just look at the demographic data you have 800,000 hispanics turning 18 every year, and they are eligible to vote and, you know, a certain percentage get registered and they are active, et cetera. so, i think turnout for the latino community does increase cycle to cycle and year to year and that's natural if you look
at demographic trends. if you look at particular states that i find is to be the most interesting thing, because right now more or less 50% of the hispanic community lives in california and texas, with another good percentage living in florida, in new york or illinois. but what we have seen at least from the last census is that a significant amount of hispanics have actually moved to other states particularly the midwest, the deep south, the pacific northwest, et cetera. it's a combination of both intrastate migration if you will and just the process of hispanics turning voting age every year, you know, so i think turnout will increase but then turnout in every particular state will fluctuate because of those demographic trends. a lot of times when you have a hispanic community that is moving into another state particularly in a not typically heavily hispanic state, say, the case of iowa and illinois, right? iowa has seen a significant
amount of hispanic voters increase. of course, it's still relatively small but you see a really large percent increase, you know, and you say, well, why is this happening. i iowa is not necessarily a border state, and a significant amount of hispanic families have left illinois in the past couple years we would argue due to high taxes and better -- they find better education possibilities in iowa, maybe an opportunity to start a business where they can't in illinois so now you have hispanics families that may traditionally vote democrat moving to illinois -- i mean, to iowa. when i worked in north carolina i found just as the nonhispanic population a significant amount of folks there registered to vote had come from the northeast, they'd come from connecticut or new jersey or new york or maybe they came from florida or other states, you know, and they moved to north carolina. it was a better climate for them and now they're voting in north carolina. you're seeing the same thing in arizona, right?
arizona has increased its hispanic voter share year to year and a good part of that increase in the percentage is because you're moving from california. so, i think when you're analyzing hispanic turnout in general you're going to find an increase in hispanic turnout. but when you're analyzing it state by state, it really depends on the demographic changes of the hispanic community in that particular state and i think that's what's going to be an interesting thing to look for in 2016. >> what does your organization do, what is it doing now besides candidate recruitment with mobilization of voters? >> what we've seen in general in terms of mobilization of voters is that republican enthusiasm if you will is really high. it's actually much higher than it is for the democrats. that's going to be very interesting for 2016. that's going to be interesting for the presidential or that's going to be interesting particularly for the races that our committee focuses on which is the downballot races. republican enthusiasm is upan