Skip to main content

Rick Perry
  Energy Sec. Rick Perry on Presidents 2020 Energy Dept. Budget Request  CSPAN  April 3, 2019 8:01pm-10:10pm EDT

8:01 pm
resolution of this issue. i want to ensure what people told us what we should do which is deliver brexit and do it in a way that's good for this country. >> order! washington journal live every day with news and policy issues that impact you, coming up thursday morning, north carolina democratic congressman david price will be with us to talk about his concerns over a lack of affordable housing, and then kentucky republican congressman andy burns talks about democratic proposals for a financial services tax. be sure to watch sea pen washington journal live at 7:00 eastern thursday morning, join the discussion. coming up tonight on c- span 3, energy secretary rick perry testifies on the fiscal year 2020 budget for his department. then a discussion on u.s. immigration policy. later, military officials testify on prosecuting
8:02 pm
military sex assaults. energy secretary rick perry testified before the senate energy and natural resources committee, about president trump's 2020 budget request for his department. issues discussed included emissions standards, the nation's strategic petroleum reserves, and ongoing research and development to destroying different types of energy in the nation's power grid. the hearing is just over two hours.
8:03 pm
good morning, everyone, the committee will come to order. we are here this morning to discuss the president's budget request for the department of energy for fiscal year 2020. mr. secretary, it is good to have you back in front of the committee again. we appreciate it. it seems like it's been a really quick year. at least maybe for me. i would imagine for you as well. so we're back with a conversation again about the budget and looking at the budget actually many parts of this look familiar to where we were last year. i am pleased to see the president's budget seeks to increase funding to address vulnerabilities in our electric infrastructure. ensuring the cybersecurity and resiliency of our nations grid is really a top priority for many of us here on this committee, so it's good, good to see your priorities here as
8:04 pm
well. these issues also fall squarely in our jurisdiction which is why we've devoted significant time to these challenges including in the area of electromagnetic pulses and geomagnetic disturbances. so again, it's good to see the department focused so keenly on them. i do appreciate many parts of this budget, there are other parts that i will disagree with, seems like we always get to the disc creating part of it rather than the things we do agree on. but there are significant areas. you are focused on the advanced nuclear, on the quantum information front, these are all matters that have come before our committee that we've enjoyed some success and moving them out, moving legislation out, these are certainly areas of support. we've been also talking a lot in this committee this year, about the issues of climate,
8:05 pm
what we can be doing to reduce emissions, more broadly. what we can do to enhance our efficiencies, to reduce costs of power generation, and really just be better environmental stewards. so i think as we talk about those opportunities moving forward, and we had a chance in the appropriations energy and water subcommittee last week, with chairman alexander who chairs that subcommittee, talking about his manhattan challenge for us if you will. but so much of what he has outlined in terms of ways that we can make an impact really lies squarely within the department of energy. so it is somewhat disappointing to see the budget request again putting programs that promote energy
8:06 pm
innovation and cutting science on the chopping block. i know many of my colleagues share this in the request to eliminate rpe, program that brings the private sector together with the national laboratories and the universities, to bridge the valley for emerging energy technologies. the budget request also eliminates both the weatherization assistance program and the state energy programs and i will get a little parochial here because these are so, so important to a state like mine. i do appreciate the efforts of the department to work with alaska native villages so that they and tribes across the country can access the tribal energy loan guarantee program. but i'm troubled that the budget request proposes to eliminate that program just as it's now getting off the ground. and these really, these are the types of programs that help alaskans as they are addressing the high energy prices. really the highest energy
8:07 pm
prices in the nation. and mr. secretary, when you were with me in the state, when we had an opportunity to go to kodiak and old harbor, you saw firsthand, how these challenges that we face i think, challenge us to be more innovative and to seize on some of the innovation opportunities that we are working to advance. you saw electric grid powered by nearly 100% renewable energy in kodiak and then you saw the first stages of a small hydro there at old harbor. and these are not only part of alaskans efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, they also reduce the high cost of diesel fuel which again you saw firsthand. so that residents can stay in their communities and open up new economic opportunities. it's communities like these spread all over our country that stand by ready to innovate and position to a cleaner energy future but they need, they need our help and they need the help of the department of energy. programs like those proposed
8:08 pm
for elimination and offices like the office of energy are vital to our future and our ability to move forward. we all know that we need to make responsible cuts to the budget, but we don't want to forget the critical role that innovation plays for us in helping to create jobs, boost economic growth, increase competitiveness and strengthen our long-term security. so upon initial review and without all the details of the budget, i do have some concerns about the proposals, i've outlined a couple but i also recognize that this is a starting place, this is where we begin the conversation about your priorities, about the president priorities and the priorities of those of us here. and that from here, it's incumbent on all of us to seek that common ground and areas for compromise so i look forward to our discussion and then moving forward after this. and again, mr. secretary, i appreciate a great deal your leadership and being here this morning.
8:09 pm
>> met in chairman, thank you again for gathering our committee today for this important hearing, i want to welcome my friend secretary perry. he and i have worked together a long time and, back in the good old days as being governor and it's a pleasure to welcome you and your third presentation hearing before the committee on secretary of energy, which i'm understanding you consider your coolest job? well, i'm happy to continue working with you as a new cool role as a ranking member so it's going to be exciting. the energy sector is undergoing rapid change, the grid is getting cleaner and more efficient and every day we have new cyber and resilient challenges to tackle. the conversation around climate change is center stage, conversation that we hear, myself and the chairman, chairwoman, has not shied away from in this committee. when i look at the administration's budget request, i was disappointed to see numbers that neither reflect the purported priorities of the department nor get us where we need to go
8:10 pm
in order to tackle carbon emissions. looking at top line the budget request proposes cutting non- national nuclear security, administration funding to the department of energy by over 25%. i think this proposal would limit the d.o.e. in a number of critical ways including its ability to maintain global leadership role in research and development. in my view the united states is a leader in energy production, has a unique and necessary role to play, in developing and commercializing innovative technology solutions for the climate problems that we are facing globally. international energy agency or the iea as we know it reported earlier this week that globally energy demand grew by 2.3% over the last year. and fossil fuels met a lot of that demand and we'll continue to her for some time. and that's going to be the story for the next few decades. in part because the average coal plant in asia is only 12 years old. the fact is that fossil fuels including coal will continue to be part of our energy mix. if we can agree on that, it's clear as day to me that the united states needs to put its
8:11 pm
money where its mouth is, and advanced solutions like carbon capture, storage and sequestration, it's what the experts are saying also. the doctor of the iea told the committee last month that cc u.s. may be the most critical technology we can invest in. so i'm working on legislation that will refocus the d.o.e. on coal and natural gas or de'anthony. my hope is that between the brilliant minds of d.o.e. and national labs in the private sector we can crack this nut sooner than later. i think we can all agree that this kind of innovation is necessary to ensure economic competitiveness, environmental responsibility, energy security and national security. and in addition we need to keep up the good work at the advanced research projects agency. energy or another critical part of ensuring u.s. leadership and advanced energy
8:12 pm
technologies is a tech race with china. then there's the loan program office which i'm very much concerned about. a program with high repayment rate, and that has made money for taxpayers. it is a perfect tool, perfect tool to promote public-private partnerships for innovative energy technology especially advanced fossil technology. i was very disappointed to see proposal to limit both of these valuable programs. when right now, we need to be fostering them. on the other hand, i was pleased to see the budget request included a significant 30% increase in funding for the office of cybersecurity, energy security, emergency responses, or csr for short. our folks are as possible for managing about a third of that funding and i'm also optimistic about what we can accomplish together this year on some of the tougher issues like nuclear waste storage and disposition. i look forward to working with you at the d.o.e. and chairwoman murkowski and our appropriations colleagues on that. i was also encouraged to hear
8:13 pm
that in your appropriations hearing last week, you expressed willingness to work with senator alexander on the are and d goals. i share his desire to increase funding and focus on the department on those technologies that will achieve emission reductions. i will introduce legislation of my own in the coming days and i look forward to working with you as well as senators alexander, chairwoman murkowski and other colleagues to get that across the finish line. i know that you share my desire to get the funding for d.o.e. right. and i look forward to working with you on that. so with that, secretary perry, thank you for joining us today and all you do at d.o.e. and for our country, and i look forward to hearing your presentation. >> thank you, senator manchin. secretary perry, it's a pleasure to have you back before the committee. we welcome your comments this morning and the opportunity to engage in a little bit of back and forth about his budget. so you may proceed. >> madam chair, thank you very
8:14 pm
much. ranking member mansion and the members of the committee, it's an honor to appear before you today to discuss the fy2020 budget request. for the department of energy. continues to be a great privilege and an honor to serve as the 14th secretary of energy. it's a very exciting time to be at the helm of the d.o.e. i look forward to working with each of you on passing a budget that invests in the nation's priorities, and energy and science, national security, while at the same time continuing our shared support of innovations that have led to america's world leading yet often overlooked progress in reducing energy related emissions. when i appeared before the committee last year, i committed to rebuild and restore our nation's security, to protect our critical electric grid, and energy
8:15 pm
infrastructure, from cyber threats, in particular. to improve the resilience and reliability of the nation's electricity system, to continue to seek a federal disposal solution for the nation's nuclear waste, to invest in early stage cutting edge research and development, and to advance our leadership in xo scale and quantum computing. i'm proud to report to you that since then, d.o.e. has advanced each of those goals. this budget request of $31.7 billion seeks to build upon that great progress by making strategic investment that yield the best return on investment for taxpayers that benefit our country in the years to come. this budget is a request by the american people through you, their representatives in
8:16 pm
congress, to secure america's future through energy independence, scientific innovation, and national security. as such, it represents a commitment from all of us at d.o.e. to honor the trust of our citizens with increased stewardship, accountability, commitment to excellence. this request supports the department's vast mission in a fiscally responsible way, it makes clear that success will be measured not by the dollars spent but by the results achieved on behalf of the american people. by investing in reliable, affordable energy, transformative innovation and national security, we are approaching the dawn of what i call the new american energy era, a time of energy abundance, security, and yes,
8:17 pm
i will say, even independence. american energy independence that used to be a soundbite. but thanks to innovation, today, it is a reality. the departments were leaving science and technology enterprise generates the innovations we need to fill our mission. through support of our cutting- edge research at our 17 national labs. and i might add, over 300 universities many of them or i should say, a number of them in your home states, we are expanding the frontiers of scientific knowledge and accelerating the pace of discovery to address our greatest challenges. this past fall, i fulfilled a commitment to visit all 17 of our national labs, and get to witness firsthand the brilliant work that's performed by these dedicated individuals. and these labs have a rich
8:18 pm
history of science and innovation and together, they have bettered countless lives around the globe. i'm especially proud of the work the labs are doing in collaboration with others to harness the power of our world class supercomputers, to maintain america's leadership in high-performance computing, advanced exascale computing, and push for breakthroughs in artificial intelligence. to do so, this budget proposes investments in early-stage research and development, that will focus the intellectual pride of our scientists and engineers on the development of technologies that the private sector can convert into commercialized applications, to improve the lives and the security of all americans. this budget also requests significant funding to modernize the nuclear security
8:19 pm
enterprise. further, our nonproliferation efforts propel our nuclear navy at sea, as well as simply to power the fleet of the future. as we work to include america's nuclear energy industry in our all of the above strategy, we see great promise in next generation, advanced reactor technologies. in the coming weeks and months, i look forward to working with you, your colleagues and excellent staff, here, and congress on the specific programs mentioned in the testimony, and throughout the department. congress has an important role, and path forward. i met with many of you already. i look forward to befitting our partnership. on a final note, i would be remiss if i didn't take the opportunity to express my sincere gratitude to both of
8:20 pm
you, in particular, and the committee as a whole. for approving our four remaining nominees are senate confirmed key positions of leadership, nuclear energy, office of science, and my general counsel. thank you. i never thought i'd be sitting in front of a committee saying thank you for getting me a lawyer. but after 2 1/2 years, without a lawyer, thank you very much for doing that. so anyway, i look forward to working with you in this new, i said this earlier, this new american energy era. and you have my pledge that at d.o.e., we are going to continue to run the place efficiently, effectively, and
8:21 pm
to accomplish our mission- driven goals of advancing national security for the american people. so with that, madam chair, thank you for your time and your partnership as we go forward and certainly, joe, thank you, governor, 4-year- old friendship and look forward to continuing our work together. thank you. >> mr. secretary, thank you. so i know members have a host of different questions, so let me begin by asking a question that i raise in every committee that i'm privileged to serve on when i have a member of the cabinet in front of us. and this is the issue of the arctic. because we recognize perhaps not every day but i certainly recognize that we are an arctic nation, arctic nation because of my state but this is not alaska, this is not just alaska we're talking about, we are talking about the role that the united states of america plays with
8:22 pm
its other arctic partners, whether it is on issues of environment, or research, or development, or indigenous people's, or defense. this is a significant part of the globe, and i'm trying to make sure that from a government perspective we recognize that there is a role there. as you know, we had previously within the department, an arctic energy office, in the appropriations committee, we certainly moved to help advance that last year. my hope would be that that is something that within the department, there is some recognition or consideration of reopening that department of arctic energy office. we know that it's not just one office though, that can constitute a policy initiative.
8:23 pm
when you were up in the state and again i thank you for the visit that you made, shortly after you left, we had a conference, at the university of alaska fairbanks, we hosted the national lab day, we had many of the directors of our national labs, and it was a great reminder of the collaboration that goes on with our lives and our universities. that's certainly one way that we can help to facilitate and do more when it comes to shining the light on arctic issues. i raised last week at the appropriations hearing, the fact that, excuse me, we have only two indian energy office employees in the whole state of alaska. we'd like you to take a look at that. but can you give me, from the perspective of the department of energy, how you are prioritizing or recognizing the role that we play, in the
8:24 pm
arctic? >> senator, thank you. i think it's important to come and to put boots on the ground so to speak, to be there, to see what all is going on in a particular part of the country. being, from the relatively tropical part of the united states, and my history being in texas and what have you, although i had been to alaska a number of times both of them as an energy committee member back as a statehouse member, to be there with you, to go not only up on the north slope but also to go into the community old harbor and sit and talk to the burns family, about the challenges that they have there. and recognize that the united states is an arctic nation. and i think that's sometimes a very, important for us to recognize that the united
8:25 pm
states is an arctic nation. so the commitment to that region and to recognize the valuable resources that are encompassed in that area, and the unique challenges that that has. kevin foster, who runs our office of indian affairs, is very, very familiar with that area. and let's expand the conversation about the office up there and the personnel side of it. but i want to make sure that the people of alaska know that number 1, we understand the challenges and the uniqueness of it. but there are a lot of pieces of this puzzle if you will. the architecture of arctic is part of the d.o.e.'s mission. so developing those resources,
8:26 pm
the rare earth minerals that are in that area, and the innovation, you and i have talked about advanced reactors and how they can play a unique role up to and including micro reactors, out on the adac peninsula for defense needs out there and frankly, for the private sector needs, as well, we are going to assure you that the department, through its partners and its activities, will continue using those arctic energy resources in a very productive way. nettles, arctic energy office is going to continue to coordinate with academia and other government agencies to demonstrate the value of alaska's fossil fuel resources, as well as
8:27 pm
hopefully some of our nuclear obviously, what you're doing on wind that we saw in the battery storage side of this, and i will just make mention that i think in the last two years, this country has increased its solar energy production by 90%. and all of the above strategy which the arctic is going to play an important role, is not lost on us. >> well, i appreciate that and i'd love, i welcome further conversations about this specific, and again, my continued interest in and arctic energy office. recognizing that this goes far beyond just alaska but i know that you have been invited certainly by the arctic circle assembly. this is an annual gathering in iceland. those that are interested in all things arctic. but for you to speak to the level of innovation is something the conference that i have attended on numerous occasions i believe, senator king has joined as well, but something that you might want
8:28 pm
to consider. so i look forward to further discussions on that. let's go to senator manchin. >> i defer to the senator who has another pressing committee meeting. >> i appreciate the courtesy of my colleague and thank you to both of you. i welcome secretary perry, this is the third time you've been before the committee in terms of the budget. and while it's good to see you, i have to say that while you're talking about new america energy era, unfortunately what i see in the energy budget is a budget that gets programs that support american ingenuity. and our global preeminence in fields like advanced manufacturing, clean vehicle and energy technology, and cutting-edge research. i will say the exception to that, and i want to thank you for your continued support because this budget does include funding for what we
8:29 pm
call the frib project at michigan state, which i've talked about, where isotope beams, which will be the world's most powerful radioactive beam facility, and will advance new defense environmental, and medical technology, so i'm very appreciative that this project is continuing and the support is in here for that. but frankly, when i look at the rest of the budget, it's very concerning to me. i know that you said this is a starting point, for discussion. and that you are committed to working with us. but the budget is a clear statement about what the administration does and doesn't prioritize. and so what we have is an overwhelming, overwhelmingly prioritized budget on fossil fuels at the cost of clean energy. and advancing vehicle technologies, domestic manufacturing. when you look at the budget calling for the repeal of the
8:30 pm
tax incentives for electric vehicles, renewable energy, and energy efficiency, i'm really glad senator lamar alexander and i are putting in the bill, in the next few days, that would actually extend the cap so that we could have more consumer tax credits for electric vehicles, this budget does away with that, you cut the office of energy by 86%, advanced manufacturing by 75%, vehicle technology by 79%, eliminate arpa-e that you talked about earlier, 17, the advanced vehicle loan program, on and on and on, yet renewable energy, is the fastest growing source of u.s. electricity. and the future of transportation as we know. is an electric and alternative fuels, which we need to be working with, the industry, the private sector, to be able to help them to be able to get
8:31 pm
there. and then finally i have to underscore, that we have the disastrous effect of carbon pollution right in front of our face every single day now, the atmosphere heating up as a result of carbon pollution, and what is happening in the swings in snow and rain and drought and wind and fires in fact, we are now working on the disaster package that is a result of not tackling carbon pollution. so while i come from a state, i'm very proud to say that led the industrial revolution and we certainly benefited from the power of fossil fuels, we better be paying attention now, to what is happening here or our kids or grandkids frankly, are going to never forgive us what is going on. so given the clear market trends as well as what's happening here all around us, the science says we have 12
8:32 pm
years to curb our emissions to avoid catastrophic global warming. and the significant investments of our global competitors in clean energy led by china, why, then, is this administration proposing to do the exact opposite, really, take us backwards? i appreciate what you said, but the budget takes us backwards. and how will this benefit us going forward with what we need to do in terms of jobs, clean energy and tackling carbon pollution? >> senator, absolutely, one of the things that i talk about on a fairly regular basis is the progress that the united states is making. when you look at the emissions side of it, and i want to address directly your question about advanced manufacturing, and what we are doing at oak ridge and the work we're doing there. as a matter of fact i think it was last year, i drove up and down independence avenue, in a
8:33 pm
vehicle that was made out of carbon fiber that was hydrogen fueled, and that is the type of work that's coming out of our national labs. >> with all due respect, i want to say i know that's great. but you're not supporting the consumer tax credits to be able to allow people to purchase those vehicles until we get to a point where there's enough volume that the price comes down. so that people can purchase. and that is my concern because i agree with you. there is incredible technology that are going on. but the capacity to support their integration into the economy and for consumers having access is my concern. >> well, and again, one of the things that i will share with you as i did the last two times i was in front of this committee, is the good news for me is i was an appropriate or once upon a time and i've been a chief executive.
8:34 pm
and i humorously say that my budget generally ended up as a pretty good doorstop when i was the governor of texas. and i'm not making any, i'm not making any comparables here, i'm just saying that i understand how this process works. and we are here to work with you, the members of this committee, to come up with a budget that prioritizes what's important. and we can quibble about maybe what the amounts are, but i think we do share, we have a shared interest in not only american technology leading and being sent around the world, whether it's carbon capture, utilization technology that could go to china and to india, to start making some real progress, american lng into the european, to push away from older inefficient, dirtier
8:35 pm
burning power plants, that the type of progress that we've seen in the united states. we had the greatest reduction in emissions in this country in the history according to the iea. so i think we're headed in the right direction. are we going as fast as some people want us to? probably not. but the d.o.e. and i are continued, our continued innovation in our national lab, senator, i think you're going to play a very important role as we go forward in that. and we'll commit obviously, to continue to work with you to find the ways that american technology, american innovation, american vehicles are leaving that charge to address the issue of emissions and obviously creating good paying jobs in the united states. >> thank you, and i would just say i think the budget would make a good doorstop. thank you. >> thank you. let's go to senator cassidy
8:36 pm
please. >> thank you. the iea director testified before the committee a few weeks ago telling us that carbon capture utilization and storage is the most critical technology we can do to lower emissions aside from maybe the continued use of more natural gas and renewables. and you've been commended for that, i appreciate that. but i guess as we are looking at this kind of nexus, if we're looking at carbon capture utilization and storage, i think most of the research has been with cole, yet natural gas is increasing amount of our feedstock for our grid. so to what degree is the research being done on ccus, being directed towards the increased use of natural gas on our grid? >> senator, we got a couple
8:37 pm
of, to be really specific, we got a couple of funding opportunities here, about $60 million, 30 million of that from some front end engineering, and design, on carbon capture systems, and then we've got foa that's out at this particular point in time for the same amount, $30 million. to continue the carbon storage assurance facility enterprise. and one of the first projects i went to not only observe but to officially open as secretary of energy, was just outside of houston, the petro project, it was a coal plant. taking 95% of the emissions out and then taking those emissions, shipping them some 75 miles away, to a crude oil field where it was used for
8:38 pm
tertiary recovery and had a pretty massive effect on that oil field. so the stories that are out there, and the real-life examples of this i think have a great role to play, not just in the united states but particularly getting outside of the u.s. >> i agree with that but what i understand is that for example, the oxygen content of natural gas emissions is higher, so that presents a different issue than if it's just cold. and that seems the btu per carbon footprint is so much better with natural gas than coal, that you actually have less co2 being spun off so that in itself presents challenges. >> correct. >> so to what degree is the research and yet we've seen that the percent of feedstock that natural gas represents in
8:39 pm
terms of generating electricity continue to climb. so i guess my question is, to what degree is the research being promoted by the department of energy recognizing that natural gas has its unique issues and that it is an increasing amount of the grid, so therefore the research needs to be specific for the natural gas product if you will? >> senator, let me get back with you with any specificity about what the department is doing. on the specific issue of what you asked about, on natural gas. >> i'm good with that. next, let's talk about strategic petroleum reserves. just your thoughts, obviously, we have increased production in the united states and we still have this large storage of oil. what are your thoughts since we are producing so much more, as to the continued need of and long term outlook for the aspr? >> senator, i think it's
8:40 pm
really a timely discussion to have about the strategic petroleum reserve, everyone around the table and hopefully most probably knows it was created right after the mid- '70s, and the oil and gas crisis that we had. in that period of time. it was put in place not only as a national security issue, but as a reserve in case of a major national disaster. we tapped into it a number of times are states having hurricanes, certainly after sandy. and having a national petroleum, a strategic petroleum reserve makes sense. now, the world has changed in the last 42 years since it was created. number 1, the united states now is the number 1 oil and gas producing country in the world. do we need that big of a reserve particularly with the
8:41 pm
growth of the pipeline infrastructure that we have, and the growth in that infrastructure that's going to occur over the next decade? i mean, we are going to see massive amounts of pipelines being built around the country that can be part of a reserve. we have a requirement internationally to keep a certain amount of crude available for our international partners. but i think you're absolutely correct in having a public dialogue about this, is the spro the right size, can you rent part of the, part of it out to the private sector for storage? it's all a part of it. i think it's time to renew the focus on this. and potentially certainly leave it up to you members of congress, but i think you'll get it right. but it's time to have this conversation about do we need to modernize the strategic petroleum reserve?
8:42 pm
>> i'm out of time but i will say that i've been interested as well in the benefit to the federal taxpayer of leasing out some of that excess space. >> yes, sir. >> would save a lot of future development. i yelled back, thank you. >> thank you. mr. secretary? >> thank you. and i know that certainly in this committee we focused on the need for that modernization to make sure that it was able to do what we expected and anticipated. i'm trying to remember when we got that report. thanks for bringing that question up. senator manchin? >> madam chairman, i also defer to senator hirono who has another pressing meeting. >> thank you very much, senator manchin. >> mr. secretary, it's not unexpected that an administration that does not acknowledge the science beyond global warming would come up with a budget that contains a commitment to supporting the fossil fuel industry, even if the budget cuts 23% from the fossil energy office. but when you look at the other cuts to the renewable energy
8:43 pm
side, either elimination of programs or cuts around the, 86%, this isn't really going in the right direction as far as i'm concerned. in the years since you testified, to this committee, california and mexico have joined hawaii in requiring the states to get 100% of their electricity from carbon free resources by 2045. but hawaii and other states need a federal partner to work with states and businesses to solve the challenges involved, in transitioning to 100% clean power. if congress provides more funding for renewable energy and energy efficiency, then what you put in the budget, will you commit to supporting the states' efforts to transition to 100% carbon free energy? >> senator, you know -- >> would be a good answer -- >> i'm sorry, i apologize, you go ahead. >> i would just like a yes answer from that, for you from that.
8:44 pm
i long for -- >> i know what your answer, what answer you're looking for. having been a former governor, you know i'm very supportive of states by and large making their own decisions about what direction they want to go. and i'm certainly going to respect that with those three states. texas may have a different idea about which direction they want to go, and i'm going to respect that as well. but let me just say that i'm going to follow the lead of this committee, from the standpoint of what you find as your funding priorities, we will take those dollars and we will spend them as efficiently and effectively as we can. and hopefully to you as a whole, will say, that we follow your direction. >> that sounds like if we give you more money on the renewable side that you will work with the states to enable them to get to their goals. that's what it sounds like to me. is that accurate? yes. okay.
8:45 pm
going onto arpa-e, arpa-e as you well know is an innovative research model at d.o.e. that has demonstrated remarkable success in a short lifespan. but once again, the administration is proposing eliminating, an idea congress has rejected in the past three years, will you commit to disbursing funds to halid djibril arpa-e projects within a reasonable time consistent with past practices and not with congressionally appropriated funds? mr. secretary? >> i'm sorry. i'm -- >> okay. >> i'm having a hard time hearing you, senator. i apologize. i know we are on arpa-e. >> yes. the administration wants to illuminate the program but there's already appropriate amounts in this program. my question to you is whether you would commit to disbursing the funds to eligible arpa-e projects within a reasonable time. >> yes. >> consistent with past practices. >> good. >> sorry.
8:46 pm
>> getting back to renewable energy, for the third time in a row the budget proposal goes in the wrong direction by slashing renewable energy and energy efficiency. this time with cuts of 2 billion or 85.6% from the levels set last year when republicans-controlled both chambers of congress. this year's budget for the energy efficiency includes 350 million that congress already gave eere last year but d.o.e. has not awarded at the time the budget was being put together late last year. but the eere office as congress intended has continued to allocate the funds to support energy efficiency and renewable energy research and development. so if congress, actually followed your recommendations, eere would not only face a drastically smaller budget, going forward, but would also
8:47 pm
have to cancel funding already announced to support renewable energy efficiency research and development. isn't that correct? actually have to cancel funding if we want along with your budget? >> senator, again, i kind of get the process here. and i'm, you know, this isn't a take it or leave it budget that we've obviously laid out here in front of you. and we are going to work with this committee, so i'm going to tell you that the dollars that we have been placing out in the field are making a difference now. we just, we just announced the largest solar funding opportunity in the history of the department. just this week. $130million in a new research and advanced early-stage solar technology.
8:48 pm
so i recognize the conflict between the budget that's laid out, but i know what reality is. and between 2016 and 2018, solar generation in this country increased by almost 90%. and we also saw wind energy this coming year surpassing hydro for the first time in history. so there's actually some pretty positive stories, senator, that's ongoing. and a substantial amount of that because of innovation that has come out of the department of energy, we are going to continue to doing that, and most importantly i think, for you, is that you appropriate these dollars, and we are going to spend them as
8:49 pm
efficiently and effectively as we can. to meet the directions that this committee and congress gives us. >> madam chair, there will be consequences if they have to cancel funding that's already been passed and announced by the d.o.e. i don't know that the department has figured out what the consequences would be but there will be some. thank you. >> just for the record, any program, any project that we have committed to, we've got to finish the funding for it. so that's, i'm pretty sure that statute. >> that's the way we want it to be. >> thank you, chairman and thank you, mr. secretary, for your time and testimony today and your service to the country. i appreciated the statement just made this is not a take it or leave it budget is i think what you said to senator hirono and you also talked about being able to work with congress with whatever is
8:50 pm
budgeted that congress passes the appropriations bills as you move forward that you will use those dollars appropriately and according to law. with that in mind, i think i wanted to highlight the national renewable energy laboratory in colorado, estimated at 2017 economic billion nationwide for colorado's economy, about 750 million of economic impact. obviously the office of energy, efficiency, renewable energy is a very important component for colorado and i think you have given me assurances through answers to others that you would like to execute the budget that we provide you so that we can continue to see these returns on venerable returns. >> yes, this budget actually includes an increase for and rails facilities that you speak of. >> we will continue to push on
8:51 pm
enrail. we visited their lab and we painted some solar panels, it was pretty incredible. congratulations on visiting all 17 national laboratories last year. we had a great employee visit with ben ralph and staff members in your testimony talked about the work that enrail does in the core research of these facilities. could you talk more about your plans for enrail plans for cyber security? >> that is obviously -- there are number of things to come together here. the innovation is coming out of labs like enrail with new technologies from the standpoint of painting on to the surface of the top of a vehicle for instance. a solar cell for lack of a better descriptive term.
8:52 pm
but the ai side of this, i think we have the potential to change the truly the world. in these labs and the work they do together, our high-performance computing, our axis scale computing, and hopefully very near in the future the quantum computing capacity. argon, we were up in oregon and a computer there that does 1 billion billion transactions per second. a quintillion. that is the power of what we're having the ability to do. a lot of answers to questions on issues like energy, omissions , on things that really affects
8:53 pm
us today. we will have the potential to get answers to those in the not- too-distant future and that is one of the exciting things about why focusing, and frankly, having the flexibility to move these dollars around in the doe budget is so important. >> in your testimony you touched on the importance of energy stores and advancing storage through the initiative, including the grid storage launchpad and supporting the research of the national lab system itself. i will not ask a question because i want to get to a different one, but i want to continue to work with you on increasing research and opportunities to decrease the cost of energy storage. that is important, the holy grail. and i wanted to talk about a bill i have introduced to extend the life of the grand junction disposal cell. this is a particular issue on the western slope.
8:54 pm
this is a tailings disposal citing grand junction, colorado, they can store 230,000 cubic yards of additional material and the reason this is important is from 1950 to 1966, mill tailings, which were predominantly sandy material, are available to private citizens and contractors who use them as fill material building roads and concrete and more in this area of colorado, so the radioactive mill tailings were then hold to more than 4000 private and commercial properties in the grand junction area and it was not till the federal government realized this is not a good idea it was hazardous to people's health. we created this disposal cell site. can you talk about what steps doe will have to take if the lifespan is not expanded by congress? >> current law, the site will stop receiving the material on september 30, 2023, and obviously unless reauthorized,
8:55 pm
by congress, this initial closure will have to begin as early as this year. so thank you for bringing it up. this is a timely issue. >> is a tailings that would not be properly risk disposed of that would remain a people's property. >> yes, and from a building construction standpoint, this could really be -- have a negative impact on sites. there are alternative location in utah and texas but this way speak about is really important for your part of the world. anyway, we stand ready to work with you. >> thank you, mr. secretary. >> thank you senator gardner. >> i will defer. i have a lot of busy people on my side. >> thank you both. secretary, i was watching the president speak about energy
8:56 pm
last week and i learned something new. he said if it doesn't blow you can forget about television for that night. and i thought given your experience as governor of texas where her contest such high levels of penetration of wind energy in particular, that you might have some expertise in how you manage all of those angry constituents when their tvs don't work. how did you pull that off? >> i did not have an issue with that. >> see headwind penetration levels well above 30% going on 40% and you did not have people calling up your office? >> you have to remember texas is a pretty big state, sir. >> you might want to share that perspective with the big boss in the white house. >> absolutely. >> we have a similar experience in mexico, not the same level of generation but we are going on two gigawatts is still growing and everybody's tvs seem to be working just fine.
8:57 pm
i want to ask you, i'm sure you are familiar with the nuclear enrichment facility that is just inside new mexico and new mexico texas border. they have been up and running since 2010 and there currently meeting more than a third of u.s. demand for utilities for enriched uranium utilities and why i bring this up is because in your budget, there is well over $100 million to demonstrate a domestic enrichment technology through a sole-source contract for what effectively already exists in the private sector. why should taxpayers be on the hook for a single dollar for something that is already up and running in the private sector? >> senator, i'll see if i can get this as simplistic as i can because for my purposes, it is
8:58 pm
relatively straightforward. the company i think you make reference to, and this is in your home state? >> urenco is in new mexico. >> writes, that company is not united states owned company and that is the real key here. we need a domestic supply of this high assay of uranium product if we are going to have a fuel for advanced reactors. i hope all of us are very much in favor of having these advanced reactors. >> why would you have that -- commercial reactors don't require that requirement. >> reactors all over the united states, how is it different if you have a small modular reactor that -- how is that different than all of the other second-generation nuclear generation technology? >> yes sir, and it has to do
8:59 pm
with the department of defense requirement to restore that market, so i think there is a clear understanding when you're talking about something as sensitive as a dod related type of reactor that you want that to -- >> are we talking about dod or private sector next-generation reactors? >> i'm talking about what they are doing with the advanced reactors and they may have a clear dod nexus. >> what does that look like? >> i'm not sure we can -- but it is clear? >> i don't know whether we can talk about it here. >> that is convenient.
9:00 pm
let me shift gears. >> i would invite you to sit down to one of our secure -- have a conversation about dod's requirements. >> i would be happy to do that. you were in houston and you said you had thrown a lot of jell-o at the wall trying to find some way to subsidize aging, uneconomical, coal generation. you had a study and you proposed a quarter and an emergency separation and although some gone by the wayside now. are we done trying to prop up generation that is no longer economical? >> you know, if the american people want to have one or two sources of energy and that is what they're going to rely upon and we have been blessed to have -- >> it seems like we have more sources of high reliability than we have ever had in our nations history, so isn't this a little bit of a solution in
9:01 pm
search of a problem? >> no sir, what i think is what's called leadership. it is about having a plan in place in case there are some things that happen. we could have the defense of this country on the cheap if you wanted. >> this is not about leadership. it is about picking winners or losers. >> the best i can tell, government pics winners and losers every day, sir. >> we have a wholesale market they can do that based on the private sector if we let it work. >> when the lights go out in dallas, texas, because you have not put the right mix in, i know who gets blamed for that and it is the leadership of your state or country and that is the point the president is making. we need and all of the above energy strategy in this country. you bet, we are blessed with the natural gas right now and we love it, the state of texas particularly likes that, but when you are blocking natural
9:02 pm
gas pipelines going to the northeast, when you are literally limiting in westchester county, new york, new gas hookups because of the limitations that states are making on that type, maybe it is time for us to have a conversation in this country. do we need to have a stable base load of energy? and those are things that are uninterruptible in the best i can tell, the only things that are uninterruptible are coal and nuclear and hydro. >> i will leave you with one last thing. there are many coal-fired generating stations operating well below 40% capacity factors and that is not sound like baseload to me. >> let's go to senator john barrasso. >> great to be with you again. you and i have discussed in the past and i will bring up again today, my opposition to the departments practice in the past of bartering excess uranium to fund the cleanup and decommissioning of the portsmouth diffusion plant.
9:03 pm
gao has repeatedly said that the birders are legal and birders have also contributed to record low uranium prices and put producers in wyoming and other states out of work. in 2018 u.s. uranium production was at its lowest level in the united states since 1950. last year i received your commitment to suspend the departments uranium barter because the departments practices were illegal and harmful to our domestic uranium producers. i asked mr. secretary, can you again commit to suspending the departments uranium barters and agree to working with congress to fully fund the portsmouth cleanup costs with congressional appropriations? >> senator john barrasso, i agree with you. i think i have use the term it is a pretty poor way to run a railroad. i still agree that congress needs to directly appropriate the money for portsmouth and get out of the barter business.
9:04 pm
>> the arena plays such a vital role in maintaining america's national security it powers nearly 1/4 of the u.s. navy's fleet and keeps the lights on around 20% of american homes and businesses, state owned and state subsidized uranium producers in russia, cousin stan and his pakistan, they're using unfair trade practices to flood the u.s. with eurasia stem and to the detriment of producers across the country based on industry projections for 2019, american uranium producers estimate that they will supply less than 1% of american nuclear fuel. if this trend can dish continues we are likely to find ourselves wholly reliant on foreign suppliers of this critical element. last july the department of commerce launched a sectioned to 32 investigation into whether uranium imports threaten to impair u.s. national security. investigator secretary ross will soon be developing that
9:05 pm
investigation to the present. mr. secretary, do you believe that maintaining uranium production in the united states is critical to our national security? >> yes, sir. the point i was making to senator heinrich. >> have you and your staff urged the department of congress to take meaningful action to address russia and classic stands unfair trade practices? >> we tried. we tried to relate to all government and the industry continues to play in our country as well as our key challenges we have and it is a very vital sector and whether the infrastructure of the nuclear energy side of things, the market valuation perspectives, that occurs, and keeping that is a stable and viable entity is important in a
9:06 pm
number of areas, not just on the civil nuclear side, but also on our ability to keep a trained workforce and a supply line on our ability to keep this country free with our nuclear enterprise. >> is we're here discussing this upstairs, i'm sharing a hearing of the environmental public committee where we are visiting with the nuclear regulatory commission, all five members. the issue you just raised about the importance of a stable workforce is key to our agenda that we are discussing as well come upstairs. >> do you know if you or anyone on your staff is had a chance to speak with the department of commerce with regard to our concerns with section 232 and where they are coming? >> yes we have any appropriate ways. >> thank you, carbon capture, using that carbon, storing it and using it prospectively productively, these are
9:07 pm
potentials we have to reduce carbon emissions while allowing for the use of affordable abundant sources of energy such as coal. if we can commercialize these technologies, we can protect the environment, we can ensure that coal plants remain in service and competitive in energy markets. a recent report noted the increase and the construction of coal generation facilities in china. last year chinese coal-fired fired plants under construction increased 12%. it is important we import deploy effective carbon capture technologies for use by growing economies. i appreciate your department support of carbon capture utilization sequestration technologies. mr. secretary, can i count on your continued support of the development and deployment of these carbon capture utilization sequestration technologies in the next fiscal year? >> yes, sir. prior to coming and we talked about projects that we are
9:08 pm
funding now and there was a full $80 million that is gone out to carbon storage. assurance facility enterprise. another 30 million on the front- end, engineering and design of carbon capture systems. not only do you have that commitment, we are sending dollars out the door to do that, as well. >> thank you mr. secretary. >> senator joe manchin. >> first of all i want to thank you secretary for being here as always. the doctor at iea, international energy agency, the head of that, basically talked about carbon capture sequestration. everyone has a different opinion whether we should have it or not and it will be used for some time because the age of the plants.
9:09 pm
they will not timeout and age anytime soon. we are decreasing our amount of dependency on fossils, we see that, and we are increasing our demand for natural gas. my state of west virginia, like texas, we have an ocean of energy under us so we are blessed both ways. with that carbon capture sequestration, if you want to d carbon want to help the planet you better find a way to capture carbon so we're looking at a moonshot type of mentality. what type of a cost is a? we have different types of costs. people say we should have a carbon fee and that will fix the problem. a fee that goes to dividends and dispersed out among the populace does not fix the carbon problem. if you care about the climate and you want to fix it you better find out -- you are just a limiting -- using fossils will not work around the world. if we eliminated the use of
9:10 pm
fossil energy in the u.s., it will make a blip on the radar screen compared to what asia is doing for the next 30 or 40 years. we need to come to that reality. are you committed, you have the same feeling and you talk to the doctor about what is going on, the 2.3% increase has all been about fossils. an increase in the demand of energy and meeting the demand has been through fossils. more than anything else. and other parts of the world were most of the demand is coming from. >> senator, we have the department agreed by large with your assessment. i think by 2040 , 70% of the energy developed in the world will still come from fossil fuels. america has always been the place renovation has come from and unless we kneecap ourselves by taking our ability to create
9:11 pm
the wealth that pays for the renovation, american innovation will continue to be where people look, or retake and push out our ideas. when we are working with our indian friends , i was in india last year we talk to them about our technology going over there. both -- lng, all of those. the project we went and looked at and market town, west virginia, on the coal-fired plants. healy plant. the low emission plant there. pulverizing the cool and incredibly clean technology, that is what the world needs to see. we need to be able to deliver that type of technology and
9:12 pm
there may be some projects going on at different places around the world. i don't see it. as germany is transitioning away from both nuclear power and shutting down coal plants, that was their goal, they have actually increased their omissions. while the united states is lowering their omissions. we are lowering emissions partly because of innovation, partly because of our transition to lng. we can help the world get their butt if we put ourselves in a competitive disadvantage from an economic standpoint we will not -- >> i'm saying if you really want to fix the problem the way we did with the clean air act of the 1980s and 90s, when a people were omitting the particulates responsible for
9:13 pm
cleaning up and fixing new technology. for every one dollar of a carbon fee that is been recommended that will produce 5 million. they are saying a 40 dollar fee is -- i don't know what it will take for moonshot to get people sooner than later but we have to do something to fix this, not exasperates the problem. really quick commune i talked about the category five hurricane coming up the houston channel what he could do to devastate our energy production . most of it is in that core door. eunice talked also about the potential for having diversification in the mid- atlantic region we have an abundance of propane and gas coming from marsalis and utica. rogers is coming on strong. to ensure we have redundancy built-in to our natural gas
9:14 pm
liquid sector are you looking at advancing that is fast as you can to have this backup? how does a plea to national security? >> it is not happening as fast as i would like to see it because there is extraordinary potential in those four states in the appalachian region, ohio, sitting on top of utica and on top of the marsalis -- >> we have a deeper one, too. i think it is shell that is building a big cracker plant just north of you. ptt has a plant that is still waiting on their final investigation to be made but i think that will happen. >> the story we talked about, we have to keep that product
9:15 pm
and have other countries coming on so hard and strong, speaking of russia and china, that want to buy every ounce of athena propane, taking it out of the jurisdiction of the united states. >> adding value to the gas, the job secreted, and great points about having a duplication of effort part print in case there is a hurricane five up the houston ship channel you have an alternative. this is a win for america. this is about american energy security, about american jobs, and i hope we collectively, democrats republicans, congress, both look at this and see it is the type of infrastructure we need to build. >> we need your help, thank you. >> senator steve daines. >> want to thank you for your comments commonsense balanced approach as we think about america's portfolio going forward.
9:16 pm
i want to look at the budget for the fossil energy research development. your budget called for 24% reduction in that budget. this office funded a groundbreaking petro noble plant in texas and i want to complement texas being a great example of all of the above energy state and what you did there. more recently congress has previously funded this office in a significant way and hope we can do that again. i want to make sure the money is spent where it is needed most. the coal strip power plant in montana is one of the largest coal-fired plants west of the mississippi. it is one of the largest economic drivers in montana and it is very well-suited for doe investments. over 2000 megawatts of power, 350 highly paid workers there,
9:17 pm
and a payroll $52 million, 104 million paid at stickel local taxes, that is a big number and we look to the revenue streams from the state of montana and we noticed this winter we had a really cold february and an unusually cold march. it was 40 below one morning, monday morning in march, i was trying to fly back to washington and the deicing fluid doesn't work when it gets to 25 below or colder we were sitting for two and half hours to have a temperature warm up to -25. it was interesting to see what happened on the grid in montana when we were hitting this cold snap. i can tell you without certainty if we did not have the coaster powerplant there because the wind power had stopped at -23 because of issues with the composite structural challenges, they shut them down at -23 or colder. it was a coal-fired plant that
9:18 pm
kept the lights on for montana during that cold snap. the challenge, if we lose coal strip, baseload power, we risk hard-working jobs, the boilermakers have, minors, other laborers, who call her beautiful state home and mrs. secretary we are a state that still relies on hard-working montanans were moms and dads can go down to walmart and purchase an elk tag over the county for 20 bucks. the youth tag is a box if you're 14 years old. it is something all montanans love to do and we want to preserve that. it is not just a rich and famous, they're locking up our state for a balanced approach to natural resources. 40% of the power flows to washington state and governor ainslie continues to put politics between high-paying jobs in my state, high-paying jobs on indian reservation, and affordable baseload electricity . he is pressuring owners to get away from carrying coal-
9:19 pm
fired electricity as if electrons knew the difference. while i realize the texans are using power from petronella, coal strip is still very similar. the plant received over $190 million in doe and like petronella it is located near and you are field and will require pipeline construction for carbon capture to offset economic cost. while we are making strides in improving the carbon capture like the section 45 q tax credit i believe the future of this plant demands more investment from your department. with that as background i would like to get your thoughts on what you're doing to protect coal plants like coal strip, it's baseload, jobs, tax revenue, it is a franchise for montana. let me say the 2020 budget that is laid out in front of you is not at a level that would support a commercial scale operation for coal strip. as
9:20 pm
you mentioned, it is similar to petronella. petranova received 190 million in stimulus funding from doe and that was a $1 billion project which means the partners found in 80% cost share. we recently released an foa for carbon capturing powerplants. it is a $30 million for fy 19 that was directed by congress and certainly could be of interest. it is a ministrations policy for us to, for doe, to be focused in the early stage on research and development opportunities, particularly where there is potential for them to be commercialized and the technology to be demonstrated. i think you know our commitment
9:21 pm
to the technology. i think more importantly, let me say, you are absolutely correct we have to have a portfolio that is broad in this country. if we just make decisions about the economics, you know, there are cheaper ways to deliver energy in the country. right now we are blessed with an abundance of natural gas. thank god we got that, but you never want to have that phone call the comes in and says, we have people that are losing their lives and part of the state because we weren't willing to pay for a diversity to make sure we had an all of the above energy strategy. it would be like saying we're going to keep america free but we don't need x numbers of
9:22 pm
hundreds of thousands of soldiers, we can do it with this many. we really don't need -- let's just have 100 ship navy because you know, that is cheaper and we can use these dollars for something else. you can keep america free for some period of time on the cheap, but i'm not willing to bet the future of this country on it. and i hope the people of this country are willing to say we are going to have an energy strategy, national security strategy in this country, that is just based on cost. thank you, my follow-up is can i get your commitment to work with me on ways to accelerate the doe investment at coaster? >> yes, sir. >> thank you, senator catherine cortez masto. >> i guess you know what i'm going to talk to about. let me ask you this.
9:23 pm
in the president's budget he requested 160 million to restart licensing activities for the proposed nuclear waste repository which would ultimately bring high-level nuclear waste into nevada. >> okay. >> let me give you some time -- >> no, no. >> for purposes of the state of nevada we have been -- we have been united, it is not safe for the storage in nevada and the concern we all have is the end run around the science. let me ask you this because i think it is still happening. on march 21, 2019, the safety board sent you a report saying they are concerned the department of energy has not adequately addressed the seismic hazards for the defense assembly facility at the nevada national security site and that a seismically induced high explosive violent reaction could result in unmitigated
9:24 pm
those consequences to the public. predominantly the report states that doe has not evaluated the impact of the increased seismic hazard on safety-related structures credited to protect public health and safety during a seismic event at the nevada national security site, in fact, the most recent u.s. geological survey taken in this area lists the region to be a moderate to high seismic hazard . so my question to you is have you taken these seismic hazard reports and consideration as you continue to push to open yucca mountain? >> let me respond to your first observation, which is the letter that you make reference to. we certainly appreciate their input related to the need update , the seismic analysis for the systems and equipment that supports nuclear explosive operations at the device
9:25 pm
assembly facility. >> you incorporated some analysis into this seismic activity report that is coming in. we have everything today coming into the university of reno to show it is moderate to high seismic activity? are you incorporating that into your rihanna sis for opening your yucca mountain? >> i feel quite certain we would senator. >> you would or you would not have yet? >> we would. >> i would like to know specifically what you are incorporating into your analysis. if you could share that with me that would be helpful. the next question is you may not know this but a handful of red flag exercises are held at nellis air force base, which is over the nevada test and training range. that is in close proximity to yucca mountain. the purpose is to give our servicemembers realistic training with real hardware and ammunition. even former air force secretary heather wilson has stated the transportation of nuclear waste near the range could impact testing and training. you think
9:26 pm
it is safe to store waste nearby, even with a threat that air jordans or any other mishap near yucca mountain could have an externally negative impact on a republic? >> i think it is safe, senator. as a matter of fact, what i would like to do -- >> could i see your analysis rather than your opinion. >> you could come out. a >> i have been there. i would like to see her analysis as to why you think this a safe when the secretary of the air force does not. not only have i been there for the red flag exercises, i have been to yucca mountain and been to those facilities. >> you have been to the device -- what we're talking about is the -- so that we are clear about what we're talking about, the nevada site is a massively big piece of land. >> i don't have much time but you don't have to tell me that. i grew up in las vegas and have
9:27 pm
family and friends work out there. >> so my question to you is would like to sit down and go through this with you and show you why it is not safe and there are concerns about the safety there. i'm running out of time but let me ask you this. october 20, 2010, president trump told a reno new station regarding yucca mountain and i quote "i think you should do things where people want them to happen so i would be very inclined to be against it, and we will be looking at it very seriously over the next few weeks." i agree with the people of nevada who do not want yucca mountain to be a long-term permanent repository. so my question to you does president trump no longer agree with the people of nevada when he expressed his opposition to yucca mountain? >> senator, what i think we'll have to recognize here is that yucca mountain is the law and i'm going to follow the law. the president is going to follow the law and his opinion of whether or not people of
9:28 pm
nevada like it or not does not have anything to do with what the statute says and the statute says that we are to continue with the licensing process and we are continuing for the nuclear regulatory commission to make the decision on whether or not this is a safe site or not. it is not an issue of what someone thinks or what someone -- >> let me ask you this, because i hear you say that constantly even though the previous ministration took a different path towards that and the blue ribbon panel which is been disregarded by this administration bellamy follow- up because you say this constantly, you are just following the law. i want to take a moment with respect to this issue. etiquette is important for people to know that this law was not born out of a rational decision making. it was intentionally created to do an end run around the science, establish compromise, public participation and was
9:29 pm
created intentionally to disregard nevada at the expense of other states. and very briefly, 1982, the nuclear waste policy act directed doe to study many sites and ultimately constructed and ultimately to construct two repositories the first in the west and one in the east. it limited the amount of the waste the west repository would keep to ensure the western location would not be the sole facility. by 1990 a second repository site was to be named amongst a short list of five other identified locations however, dio's list of sites for the second repository drew intense opposition from all of the affected states and in 1986 the regular ministration announced a hold to work on a second repository. and when confronted with intense political pressure and high costs, conquers past the end of upa amendment in 1987 which not only canceled the second repository program it nullified the creation of a storage, temperate storage facility that was supposed to be placed in tennessee, till
9:30 pm
after licensing of the final repository and statutorily designated yucca mountain as the site. mr. secretary, this is historical context and is key and shows extreme political influence was used to scapegoat the state of nevada. all i'm asking is for some reasonable people to come to the table to address this issue and recognize that scientifically this is not safe for nevada. we need a safe site for everyone -- not use nevada as a scapegoat. thank you. i appreciate it. >> i will wrap it up by saying i hope you and i make the parameter for reasonable people and i will work with you in any way that i can and again, want to offer you the opportunity to come out to the letter and n ss with me and let's continue the conversation and put boots on the ground at the site. >> thank you madam chairman.
9:31 pm
mr. secretary, i want to ask you about two matters, primarily bonneville. just a quick matter on hanford where the senator will narrowing. in hampton, you are looking at taking a high-level radioactive waste which is the worst stuff, and calling it something less hazardous. and so there is a name change and you are adding budget cuts to it. we have two bad things going on up there. senator maria cantwell will get into the details but i would like to ask for purposes of my first point, the question, but i would like you to provide the committee, particularly senator maria cantwell an explanation of how the types of budget cuts you are proposing in addition to this reclassification operation are going to let you
9:32 pm
achieve the milestones at the tri-party agreement. yes or no. will you get me an answer within 10 days on that? >> yes sir. >> secondly, bonneville. you will want a private you all want to privatize bonneville. i want to give you an opportunity for some candor. you and i have had plenty of debt differences but i have always found you to be candid when i ask you about these kinds of issues and a little bit ago one of your management and budget people who and and handles energy issue says trump will still propose auctioning off bonneville to the highest bidder. this steals from a very man woman and child in the pacific northwest, our ratepayers, and is particularly bad for the rural areas, in other words maria cantwell and myself and portland's , the cities have a
9:33 pm
lot of opportunities but the rural areas are just going to be hammered. privatizing bonneville would just amount to garden-variety robbery for families of the northwest, particularly the ones walking in economic tightrope, balancing a food bill against a fuel bill and that against the rents bill and they are already stretched very thin without the administration trying to raise their monthly utility bills. so i would like to give you an opportunity for that kind of candor we have been able to achieve a little bit from time to time in the office and give you the chance to take this colossally bad idea off the table this morning. privatizing bonneville. i would like to walk out of here and say, something meaningful has been achieved this morning for the people that i have the honor to represent in the united states
9:34 pm
senate, particularly in the rural areas. i'm heading home for the break, you have town hall meetings in these rural areas, mr. secretary, privatizing bonneville kids everybody in the northwest. steel from the families, but for the rural areas, hits them like a wrecking ball. it just clubbers them. so can we for purposes of this morning, can we take this colossally bad idea to privatize bonneville off the table with a little bit of perry candor and you will tell us we don't have to have people up in arms and those rural communities i will be visiting here shortly? >> i will be as candid as i can, senator. i will try to replicate my answer from previous questions on this and my past visits to
9:35 pm
the hill. my position relative to having been an appropriate or and having been a chief executive and how these budget processes work is still the same. i will suggest to you that this line item will end up like it has ended up in every previous -- >> freeze-frame right there. in your mind, is it ending up on the cutting room floor? >> senator, i know how this process works and the budget process is going to be decided by those of you sitting on that side of the dais. i'm sitting on the side. i'm going to do what you tell me to do. you will make the decision on whether or not -- i am sure
9:36 pm
there are number of places on our budget that you and i may not agree 100% or even 50%, but you are going to make a decision about where the appropriations are going to be. >> i'm over my time. we are going to make sure it ends up on the cutting room floor and i just hope you won't be trying to revive it after we do. thank you, madam chair. >> thank you, senator king? >> inky man. thank you madam chairman. you have a very tough job coming in to a hearing like this defending a budget that i think has real problems. i think first, and this goes to senator wyden. you have answered this several times, but i want to make sure it is absolutely clear. will you commit to diligently and responsibly administering
9:37 pm
the budget that is passed for your department by congress? >> yes, sir. and i hope the activities and our work we have done together is a good reflection of that over the last two years. >> actually checked on that impression is that is the case. you have pursued and funded those programs that were authorized and appropriated by congress, even though they weren't in the original budget, to take it your commitment is you will continue that policy. >> i respect the process, sir. >> thank you. there are some good things in the budget and i think there are things that should be recognized. one is an initiative on energy storage and this is one of the most important energy issues that faces this country and i'm a little concerned, i don't have much detail, but i hope you can supply for the record a little more background about what that intention is, what the funding level will be,
9:38 pm
because i think that is a very important initiative. the caesar initiative i understand will have an increase, the cyber office, the senator talked about carbon capture and that is important. my concern, and i think you understand this, basically you set a couple of things today that indicate you do, when we cut r&d, would become the kind of basic research the really only the permit of energy can do because it is too early stage for the private sector, we are really hurting this country's future. i wrote on a couple of things you said. pretty positive stories due to innovations coming out of department of energy programs, yes. so let's not cut the programs that have created those positive stories. the other thing you said was america has always been the place renovation comes from.
9:39 pm
as you well know, the fracking revolution, which is a great energy innovation, came out of funding from the department of energy research and development fund. i understand you are constrained by the budget that the administration wants to submit, but please don't diminish your commitment to those r&d programs. that is where the future of this country hanks of the balance and i understand the new initiatives and their importance but that r&d is important and i'm sure you recognize that. >> yes, sir. we we do and although it back to my days as a chief executive in texas creating offices that did just that. one of the things we have done here, recognizing we have parameters in the budget that we have, is to be able to do some cross cutting work if you will, creating a chief
9:40 pm
commercialization office at the department to be able to oversee these projects, and technology transfer side of this, and in my remarks, senator, i hope i don't get judged and i hope the agency does not get judged just on the amount of money that we spend on line item on the results we get from that. listen, i'm not pollyanna here, i understand your concerns about particular line items and the reductions that are there, but i hope you see in our performance from the last two years whether it is on the renewable side of things, which folks are concerned about. will you be funding these types of programs. if you are seeing those types of efforts that you are seeing the commitment to all the above energy strategy whether it is [indiscernible]
9:41 pm
-- >> my problem is not -- you can make adjustments in your talking but adjustments but in the office of energy efficiency and renewable energy, essentially an 85% cut is not a trim. when i put my rat in your trap i expect him to lose his tail, but not behind his ears. and that kind of cut is -- it just does not bear out. that is the area that i hope we can work out. budgets are policy. and essentially one of the things this budget says is we're not really interested in r&d and the future of those investments, except in certain areas. so i hope to go back to the very beginning that you will be diligent and fully responsive to the mandates of this congress in terms of what the programs are, how they will be
9:42 pm
funded, and how they should be administered. >> we will, sir. >> centre maria cantwell. >> thank you. i'm letting you get to your tab. >> i'm there. >> this hearing is interesting this morning because obviously you're responding to this overall budget and many of my colleagues have different viewpoints on the presidents proposed budget and -- skillful ex-governor, now secretary of energy, coming here telling us don't worry, i get it. like you guys are going to write a budget and you're going to have your day. i guess the challenge with all of that is i think we live in a new world where getting consensus is the best way to move forward. i did
9:43 pm
not quite that, somebody else did. basically in an economy where there is so much innovation and information, those people move ahead where they get around the table and get consensus around that science and information and the reason why i'm asking you that is because when the people out at hanford did the budget and said this is what it takes to comply with the tri- party agreement, they came up with numbers that the administration is ignoring. so i'm just trying to understand if we're going to move forward on science and information, how can we have our own people out at hanford come up with a number. i think the river protection compliance budget was 1.8 billion and the presidents budget proposal only has 1.4 point the richland office compliance budget was
9:44 pm
1.3 in the presidents budget came up with 708 point so the people on the ground were working for you are putting numbers on the table and then the ministration or someone is making a decision that is different than that, these are the people who have to meet the milestones of compliance. i know you have heard me say many times here and truly believe it, i'm ready for an energy secretary for life or until hanford is cleaned up. why? because i think every single energy secretary gets in your slot, they basically have to deal with the white house, and they look at the hanford budget and i think oh my gosh, it's in the billions of dollars. we can't possibly do that. i can come up with a better way and i can figure out how to get it done and i guarantee you every one of those energy secretaries in the white houses have been thwarted. because it is the largest cleanup site in the entire world. the complexity is off the chart.
9:45 pm
that is what it is going to take to live up to our responsibility. having people scrub the numbers in the local community and submit them and i'm just asking the same questions a lot of my colleagues are asking, how do we get around the table and get consensus on numbers we all believe in as opposed to this continued back and forth. i get it, i get what you're saying. you are skillful at saying it. you're skillful at saying yeah, i get it. congress will end up writing this budget. but in the meantime, we have a legal document the tri-party agreement that we have to live up to. we ask the people in the community what is a take and their numbers are very very different than what you and the white house are proposing, so i'm just asking how do we get on the same page here. >> center, you bring up a really interesting comment by the way, i'm not going to be secretary of energy for life. >> that was a softball.
9:46 pm
>> here's what really concerns me. we went back and the previous administration to the best i can tell did not give you or this committee or this congress or the previous seven or eight years worth of congresses the updated numbers on what hanford was going to cost. we just got those for you and those are stunning numbers. so my . senator, is and you got every right to be really upset that you have not been given the right numbers on what this is really going to cost. >> i think the local community did. i am saying the administration is now saying they don't believe that is what it takes to meet compliance. and so unlike my colleagues, i'm not exactly here with an
9:47 pm
emphatic voice because i know the voice of experience. i have sat here with energy secretary after energy secretary and i do know the outcome. i know the outcome and i know that in the end we will prevail, but what i don't like about this is we've got to get on the same page because i guarantee you hanford is never going to be done on the cheap. never. it's not. just because my times expired and want to use everybody's. on the quantum issue, if you could just think about this, obviously the chinese competition is so great. i think we authorized 1.2 billion and your budget has money for one center. we were just out in seattle with some of your team on a conference on this and the one thing that struck me was if you want to keep competitive, there are various aspects of quantum. there is chemistry and algorithm side, the material side. i'm just saying i don't know if you can do our competitive
9:48 pm
aspect on quantum with just one center of excellence and i hope as this committee envisioned we would have many centers of excellence that delia would think about and go back to what it is going to take for us to catch up. >> i think you are correct senator. >> thank you. >> thank you centre maria cantwell. i know with the push we have made here in the committee on quantum and the priorities you are making, i understand there is more that is coming out for research on computing software out of the department of energy. i don't know if you have any updates you want to share but know that that is something we certainly support. >> we were just at argonne three weeks ago, basically announcing the computer that will be named aurora and i think i mentioned to the
9:49 pm
committee, the speed of that is 1 billion billion acts per second and gets us -- that is the first xo scale computer in 2021. it comes on board in 2021. the u.s. has the number one fastest, number two fastest outed orange livermore and when this computer comes on board, it will take that number one spots. so with all that said, if we think for a moment that the chinese have taken a pass here, we are very mistaken. we will need to be spending substantial amounts of money and watching our technology very closely as they try to
9:50 pm
collect it and use it to get back in the lead in xo scale and route to quantum computing. >> mr. secretary, in the lead en route to quantum computing. >> mr. secretary, i know you have repeated numerous times throughout the course of this morning's hearing that you know how this budget process works, that we on the committee have a very significant role in helping further define legislative priorities not only on this committee but in the other committee, which several of us serve on, on appropriations for energy and water and helping to facilitate that. so i do hope that you have heard very clearly some of the priorities that have been outlined here. >> indeed. >> whether it is senator cantwell's effort on the cleanup
9:51 pm
at hanford, something that she has repeated year after year after year, whether it is the need to ensure that arpe-e continues to do its good work. the efforts within the office of energy efficiency and renewable energy, there's good, strong support here for that. support for the national labs. i have just introduced, along with many on this committee, legislation that relates to nuclear and our advanced nuclear power. this is our nela bill. we're certainly hoping that within the department we'll have many of your fine team helping us as we seek to regain leadership, world global leadership when it comes to nuclear technologies and really that nuclear workforce. i mentioned in my opening the
9:52 pm
weatherization and the state programs again as priorities. indian energy, many have mentioned energy storage. the quantum initiative, the nuclear waste policy. so i think your folks and you have clearly heard where some of our priorities are in this area and know that we will continue to work with you to help advance that. senator manchin? >> i know senator king has one more too. i just want to clarify. the budget that we have in front of us is one that needs to be worked, as you know. both bipartisan, democrats and republicans, have concerns. you've been great to work. we all acknowledge that. you will continue because right now the signal being sent from this budget is, as i think senator king will mention also, that it gives him a lot of concern, consternation, whether it be the low-hanging fruit is energy efficiency.
9:53 pm
that's a low-hanging fruit. i've had thousands of homes in west virginia benefit, 200 jobs associated with it. they think that's going away. i want to make sure that we reassure this is a program in process and work. you will continue ministering what you have until you have a direction from congress of how that spending will work out in your budget process. so there's no need for alarm right now should we send that signal that all is well and stable and we're on course? >> yes, sir. i would suggest that -- i hope we're sending the same signal that we sent a year ago. >> yeah. >> that, you know, sometimes you -- sometimes you support a particular line item with a lot more zeal than you do another one. >> i got it. >> that was very politically correct. >> more importantly, we are going to be open to, you know,
9:54 pm
all the members as they lay out their concerns about the budget. and at the end of the process, we will take your directions and with as efficient and as responsible way as we can, is to deliver on that. obviously staying within the statutory requirements of the law. >> we appreciate that. senator hoeven, we're just wrapping up. but senator king, if you wanted to have a final comment, and then we'll let senator hoeven wrap. >> thank you, madam chair. just a quick suggestion on quantum. i sit on a couple of other committees dealing with national security. there are lots of people in the united states government working on quantum. the intelligence agencies, the defense department. i have a suggestion. you might convene a quantum
9:55 pm
council to be sure that there is a high level of coordination so we're not duplicating because this is expensive and important work. so to the extent you can appoint yourself quantum czar to bring together the -- >> i appreciate your confidence. there may be somebody maybe even substantially better to do that. but i'm pretty good about getting people together. >> well, you understand the point. >> absolutely. >> you can perform a convening function, and i think it's important because this is a major initiative of the united states government that's taking place, i know, in three or four or five different places and probably others. i hope you can look into that. >> we have three national labs that focus on that now. but there are other people, nsa, drd, all the other agencies government out there. >> let's get them in the same room occasionally a quarter perhaps to talk about what are you doing, what are you doing. >> thank you. thank you, madam chair.
9:56 pm
>> senator king, i think the quantum initiative legislation that we passed has some of what you are talking about. i don't think it designates a quantum czar, though, so we'll have to go back and take a look at that. but senator hoeven, we've had a good exchange with the secretary here. >> thank you, madam chairman. i appreciate it. governor, good to see you. you're looking well. >> how's mikey? >> doing good. how's anita? >> she's -- she's really good. thank you. >> yeah. good to see you. thanks for all you're doing. you know, this time of year, it starts to get pretty warm in the virginia, d.c. area and it gets pretty hot down in texas. but a nice, cool place to go this time of year where they just have great weather as well as fabulous people is my home state of north dakota. >> i thought this was another invitation to the arctic. i just teed him up for that. >> exactly. we have a great chairman, thinks the right way about things. so on your way up to alaska,
9:57 pm
you'd want to stop in north dakota. and we had you out there, and of course you did a great job. you saw some of the things we're doing out there, but we didn't get you over to grand forks and the energy and environmental research center, which you need to see because they're doing amazing stuff. and it's something that is near and dear to what you've worked on for a long time, and that's carbon capture and sequestration. so i've worked on the appropriations side to make sure that we have research funding, and on this carbon capture and sequestration piece, both for fossil fuels, but also on the renewable side. and so we have projects going on out there, project tundra, where, you know, we're capturing it off the coal-fired electric plants, and we've got, like you down in texas, we've got the latest technology in the coal field. but we actually have to start capturing and see questering it
9:58 pm
and commercial viability is the key. which is why it-- and then we ao have ethanol plants that want to capture co2 and put it down hole as well so they can meet some of the low carbon requirements on the west coast and that kind of thing for renewable fuel. so we'd love -- the first question is can we get you out there to take a look at this stuff and anything else you want? we're chasing texas hard. we're up to 1.4 million barrels a day right now. >> i talked to governor bergham yesterday about some projects that we can talk about offline. you guys some amazing potential there and an all of the above energy strategy which takes the associated gas that's actually restricting some of your crude
9:59 pm
production now and finding a way to get that sent to the, you know, most likely the west coast. then you put your ccus into that field. you get the associated gas off. you get the secondary and tertiary push from the cc -- you know, the emissions off of that carbon capture. i mean the energy production in north dakota can be stunningly powerful for the united states. >> well, it's an economic win. it's an environmental win, and it's a national security win. but we've got to get to commercial viability for the carbon -- technologically, we can do it. but we've got to get these projects going, and i want to commend you. you just announced your regional initiative, $20 million for that project. that's something we put in appropriations. you announced the criteria so
10:00 pm
that folks can come forth and start utilizing it. then the other one is the carbon safe program, regional carbon sequestration, rcsp partnership. so both project tundra, which is a group of the latest, greatest coal-fired electric plants in the state of north dakota, and university of north dakota, eerc, are working on that. so we're not coming to you and saying, hey, fund this. we're coming to you and saying be our partner. we're a microcosm of what the country sees as a whole where we've got to get traditional fossil fuel energy working with the renewable world together. and so these programs are involved both biofuel and ethanol as well as the oil and gas. so it's the kind of thing where if we can get it done, it's an economic win. it's an environmental win. it's a national security win. and it's the same thing that our
10:01 pm
country is doing on a macro level. we're trying to crack that code. same thing with hydraulic fracturing. we cracked the code on hydraulic fracturing. same thing in texas, right. but we need you out there because we've been talking about carbon capture and storage, but we're not at commercial viability. when we get commercial viability we'll have cracked the code not just for here but -- >> around the world. >> exactly. we need you out there. we need you to help us with these -- we need to help take that next step from the r&d to commercial viability. this is right in your wheelhouse, so we need your help with it. >> you just mentioned two projects that we're working on. we funded one of them. we're funding the other one. we've got a foa out on it. so i think we're headed in the right direction. more importantly, we'll follow your lead, sir. >> yeah. and obviously we've been working with our chairman and others.
10:02 pm
then we've just got to find a way. you know, whether you want traditional energy or renewable energy, we have got to have transportation. we have to have pipelines. we have to have transmission line. we have to have l & g facilities. we've got to build this stuff, and it's not just stronger or better environmentally. it's safer. you know, we're taking -- we're replacing old infrastructure with the latest, greatest, safest infrastructure. it's a safety issue too. >> madam chair, i would be remiss if i didn't remind you that exactly what senator hoeven's talking about and getting a full contingent on furk, that will come through your committee. thank you for all the work you've done to get our members, but i don't think there's anything more important in light of what you talk about on infrastructure than get a fully functioning federal energy
10:03 pm
regulatory commission and getting those permits done and letting americans get to work and get this product to the world market. >> so you'll come? >> yes, sir. >> thank you, and thanks for all you're doing, your leadership. >> it's still the coolest job i've ever had, sir. >> well, you're the right guy to do it. >> not the best one, but the coolest. >> i know what the best one was. >> yeah, i know. same one you had. >> secretary perry, thank you. thank you for being here. thank you for, as senator wyden would put it, your perry candor, which is appreciated. i understand that sometimes defending the budgets at a time when everybody is looking to make sure that we're making necessary cuts and sometimes very, very hard cuts, that sometimes specific provisions are really hard to defend, and
10:04 pm
yet that is your job. so you have been deft this morning, and i appreciate that. >> thank you. >> but i fully appreciate, again, your reminder to us that you know the drill around here. >> yeah. >> and we look forward to working directly with you, directly with your team to help accomplish some of the goals and really significant initiatives where we feel that we can make a difference when it comes to this new energy reality that we've been blessed with here in this country. so thank you for your time and your leadership. >> thank you, madam chair. >> with that, we stand adjourned.
10:05 pm
10:06 pm
>> you know we do good and thorough work product around here. >> do you think it will be combined into one big package? >> not necessarily so. i mean we've done that before, but we could do -- you know, for instance, we got nela out there. that's kind of the arctic piece. we could do other more discrete pieces as well and package them together. there's no -- there's no recipe for how we're going to package it. >> okay. cool. thanks.exis.
10:07 pm
. . c-span's washington journal live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up thursday morning, north carolina democratic congressman david price will be with us to talk about his concerns over a lack of affordable housing. and then kentucky republican congressman andy barr talks about democratic proposals for a financial services tax. be sure to watch credit span's washington journal live at 7:00 eastern thursday morning. join the discussion. here's a look at our live coverage on thursday. the house is in at 9:00 a.m. to finish work on the violence against women act. members will also consider a senate-passed resolution to end u.s. military involvement in yemen civil war. that's live on c-span. on c-span2, pentagon officials testify in front of a house armed services subcommittee about mismanagement of military
10:08 pm
family housing programs. that's followed by the senate returning at 11:00 a.m. eastern to debate and vote on the confirmation of roy altman to be a u.s. district judge for the southern district of florida. after that, they also consider whether to move forward with the nomination of markka lab rhea to be head of the federal housing finance agency. and on c-span3, health and human services sk alex azar talks about the president's 2020 budget request for hhs before a senate appropriations subcommittee. that gets under way at 10:00 a.m. eastern. this week on q & a, historian douglas brinkley talks about his book "american moonshot: john f. kennedy and the great space race". >> what fdr did well was beyond social security and things, but fdr built the tva, grand cooley dam. and eisenhower had the highway
10:09 pm
system. kennedy's thinking, what's my administration's big public works thing? and what i admire is he picked the right number, technology. the computer chip, we think of it today, gets developed in the late 1950s. modern aviation starts kicking in. by the time -- when jack kennedy runs in 1960, there are no computer science classes at universities. by the time he's killed in dallas, there are computer sciences classes everywhere. air travel is replacing automobile and train travel in many ways. i mean people are flying more and more. hub airports being developed all across the country. so it was the jet age, the space age, and kennedy grabbed onto it and made that the cornerstone of the new frontier. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q & a. next, a look at the impact of federal immigration laws on states and localities. the bipartisan policy center