tv Energy Secretary Rick Perry Testifies on Research Development CSPAN July 29, 2019 8:01am-11:00am EDT
and part of that reason is because of the research that is going on at our national labs. and i'm going to, again, ask paul to share with you, just because he's fresh out of seeing some of this and has to do with the battery storage. and the progress being made on battery storage is really fascinating. and i've always said that battery storage is the holy grail. if we're able to get to that point where we can use our renewables, solar and wind in particular to power these batteries that have long time storage, and what we're finding now is that the -- the elements
that are being used to create some of these batteries are not rare earth minerals and they're elements that we have right here in the united states, so we're going to be in control of our future substantially more on the battery storage -- if you just kind of give them a glimpse of what's going on here and i think that's pretty exciting stuff. >> so a couple of examples, the complex, r&d business, beyond lithium ion batteries that not only have tremendous improvements in performance the three to five times but made out of elements as the secretary said we don't have to source it from places we have more of a challenge. the second thing is an example that we did with the support of the committee is the recycling battery announcement we made at argon national lab where we announced the first research for recycling batteries, so the materials you are talking about that have to be potentially sourced from other places in the world, we're looking at with all these batteries being used and
the economy now, how we could re-use those rather than needing to source that from other locations. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> you mentioned on the electric grid and i think in 2017 you produced -- the doe produced a report on listing recommendations we should do to prepare for an emp attack. do you know of any progress that has been made? >> yes, sir. substantial amount of it. and april of this year, we -- doe issued cybersecurity for energy delivery systems research call to the federally funded research and development centers. and they're working exactly on what you're talking about there,
the resiliency, the reliability of the nation's energy infrastructure and they're looking at a host of different ways to, you know, we actually stood up an office we referred to as caesar cybersecurity and the emergency response that is headed up and so, again, thank you for the funding of that. i think it is very timely. and in the previous -- that i talk about this $35 million is going to be used for testing that can be used to verify and validate operational technology equipment, software, and there is also funding opportunity announcement that was released in the month prior, in march, to establish a cyber manufacturing institute, and that one is co-managed by our caesar office and eere to mitigate
cybersecurity threats. so there is a lot of movement in that space. the doe, our national lab and private sector partners are all engaged i think in a very constructive way to send a message to our citizens, to those that operate our electric and power systems that we're doing everything possible to protect them against both cyberthreats, physical threats, and national -- natural disasters as well. in florida, you know, your governor is about to do a -- an announcement on infrastructure resiliency and what have you. our two states have, you know, time to time we get more natural disasters than we would really like to have.
but how we build that infrastructure and how we develop that resiliency of the grid is very, very important. not just because the cyberside of this, you know, ten years ago we -- that wasn't a problem. it is today. >> thank you very much. mr. mcnerney. >> i want to thank the chair, thank the secretary for coming today. i worked at santa national laboratories in albuquerque, and live more labs outside of my district. i'm well aware of the quality and quantity of labs.
i encourage you to support those labs as much as you possibly can. secretary perry, do you believe research on climate science is needed or do you think climate science is settled? >> well, i think we're continuing to add to the body of science that is out there. >> we need to continue to work on that. what makes the doe labs uniquely qualified among the national science agencies to conduct research on climate? >> well, partly because we historically have been engaged in it. so when you go back and look at the history of climate science, doe and their scientists, they have been involved with it, there is a foeia out now, congressman, that is going to -- it is a selection the doe issued yesterday on climate modeling. and i think this is just another example of how doe's role in the predictive modeling of what is going on in the environment, these severe storms that we're seeing -- >> i know you're not
intentionally filibustering. >> no, i'm excited about what is going on -- >> i strongly urge you to continue to double down on climate research, including climate intervention research. we need those tools available. secretary perry, one way to make energy from renewable sources that are remote available to load centers across the country is to better connect them with the -- what we call interconnection seams. the national renewable energy laboratory completed a study on this, however the committee staff informed me that the release of the report that contains findings from this study has been delayed without explanation and the authors have been told not to discuss it publicly. are you aware that the limits have been placed on the authors in discussing results of this study publicly and whether the limits remain in place today?
>> i'm not. >> okay. so will you make commitment to make this publicly -- this report available? >> yes, sir. we'll circle back and find out where that originated from. and make it right. >> thank you, appreciate that. the doe canceled a $46 million funding opportunity announcement on solar r&d. just days before the winners were to be announced. can you or anyone on your staff explain why that was pulled at the last minute? >> we'll go research it sir and get back to you. >> i appreciate that. i appreciate your comments on artificial intelligence. mr. olson and i are co-chairs of
the artificial intelligence caucus and we're going to continue to pursue that subject with vigor. i know that national labs have a lot to offer on that. i urge you to keep the labs well funded, and keep the morale high at those labs by not threatening their funding year after year. with that, i'm going to yield back. >> thank you. >> i'll yield back the three minutes that the prior speaker took. >> thank you very much, mr. olson. >> i thank the chair. howdy, secretary perry. >> don't go over your time, pete. >> never my intention. i'll start with something very important to meadville, texas. a personal invitation from a young texas lady we both know and admire. her name is katie vossic. you met her president trump's first speech before congress.
she fell out of a live oak tree, broke her spine, has not walked for three years. as you see now, she's a fellow aggie. proud aggie. and she wants to thank you personally for meeting with her and inspiring her to get moving forward and going to college station. so on her behalf, maybe find some time to come down to meadville, texas, the jay cafe had the best chicken fried steak and pecan pie of all of texas. and maybe pop over to the power plant across the way. if you have time, come down and would love to have you come down. >> you don't even have it use the extra bait of chicken fried steak to get me there. >> thank you. a question, very important, sugarland, texas, involved the nnsa. as you know, the nnsa picks up some waste used by industry and then disposes of it. they send out to a site called
the waste isolation power plant, the wipp, radioactive 241 is needed for safe drilling. this is a known carcinogen. they pick up, they send is off for safe storage somewhere in america. but there is a very small amount of that mineral that is picked up by nnsa and can't be kept here because it came from foreign sources originally. it is identical feel. identical. we can't dispose of it because it came from another country. so we had the sites all across our country now, right now, sprinkled with this radioactive waste. one site, secretary perry is half a mile from my son's high school, ft. bend christian. in 2015, they had a small release of sesium 137.
workers took that home on their clothes. i would like to change the law to make sure we dispose of this carcinogen without regard where it came from. are you aware of this, and how can we help you to make this common sense dispose, dispose, dispose and not delay? dispose and not delay. >> yes, sir. we are familiar with this. and what i apologize for turning my back to you and asking a question. i wanted to make sure i was correct in the assumption that i was making that this is going to require a statutory change in which you just mentioned. and we will assist you any way we can from the standpoint of using science at the labs or what have you to back up because i agree with you, that these types of materials do need to be put in appropriate disposal places and so the idea that just because it was produced in a foreign country, versus the exact same element that is produced at a national labs reactor for these isotopes,
there is a host of these isotopes that we use in medical and obviously for the oil and gas industry, but we agree that the statute needs to be changed. it is the old land use act that prohibits any foreign produced elements of being placed in like the whip. we would support your effort there and anything we can do from a scientific standpoint to back that up, consider it available. >> it sounds look i have to call the ball, three down, clear to land. not our job, your job. you're on it. ai, we are the co-chairs of the house ai caucus. your video was awesome. it shows the potential future of ai. can you discuss ai's potential
for protecting our grid, protecting our pipeline, protecting our national labs. this is the future. how are you doing that? >> i can't do it briefly. it is just such a broad and -- but i think some time in the future, let me just leave it at this, i don't think there is a field that the government is participating in that has any more potential to have bigger impact on our citizens than artificial intelligence. the super computers that the department operates that we operate and we are -- our next level computers are going to be operating the computer coming online at argon over at mr. foster's district.
in 2021 will do a billion, billion transactions per second. that's the speed of which -- anywhere between -- i think it is up to 50 times faster than the computers we have today. it is fascinating work so ai, machine learning, coming with that. we're going to find answers to challenges that we had no idea we were going to be able to address in the very near future. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you very much. miss horn. >> thank you, madam chairwoman. mr. secretary, thank you for being here. i want to start off by framing this that issues of workforce development, stem, building our workforce of tomorrow as well as the cutting edge technology development are all very important, both to me and my district and clearly energy is a big issue in oklahoma as it is across the country. so i want to start with the funding.
i think we have to have a conversation about the role of technology development. and in its ten year history, they have funded high risk, high reward energy innovation projects that create cleaner energy and economic growth. the important thing about that of the 145 projects that have been supported by rpe, they have attracted $2.9 billion in follow on funding, follow on private sector funding and 76 of these projects have gone on to form new companies. i say that to ask in the proposed budget, it basically zeros out rpe. in the balance of public private partnerships, we're looking at the cutting edge development of government investment leading to follow on actual companies and economic growth and development. what are you doing as secretary of energy to communicate the clear successes that this program has had to the president and his budget team? >> mostly sitting in front of
committees like this, defending what rpe has historically done. i will continue to do that. i recognize it from time to time we're not always on the same page as the hymn book. and this is one of those. >> i hope you raised that. it is such an important way to encourage that economic growth and development by investing in cutting edge. now, turning for a moment to cybersecurity and manufacturing, which are also topics that are critical and i'm -- i think we need to talk about, the manufacturing usa program, you probably know, a network of advanced manufacturing technology areas that have the goal of establishing american leadership and manufacturing. and with respect to cybersecurity, which is absolutely critical in high tech manufacturing, the manufacturing times digital or mdx, a program funded by the department of defense is focused on improving cybersecurity and digital manufacturing and that is their focus and on march 26th of this year, your department announced
a $70 million award for cybersecurity for a new manufacturing usa institute. my question is why the duplication of effort in those projects which are basically the same and have you encouraged your staff and the doe to work with the dod because this is very important but in terms of streamlining our programs and not duplicating effort, why the duplication here? >> may i ask paul dabbar to weigh in here a second? i think he may be able to enlighten up a little better than me telling you. >> we work with undersecretary griffin in charge of research at dod quite a bit and our other peers at nasa and nsf and the others. we each focus on different areas to be direct dod focuses on lethality applications.
the department of energy is more about energy and science. and so there is different applications for different aspects. dod, for example, does not focus on cybersecurity for the grid. they focus on cybersecurity for what they do. so there is a lot of similarities, a lot of overlap and their lab research and our lab research, but there is some very practical points of research that are different, hard to fully get into here today. >> so, just a quick follow-up on that. did you coordinate with the dod to build the scope of this program to not overlap or overlapping of the manufacturing? because it is a whole new institute, that's my question. it is a whole new institute. are there not other ways this could be coordinated? >> for this particular institute
i'm not certain if there was a discussion, specifically with undersecretary griffin's scope. but we do it all the time with him, across quantum, around ai, around hypersonics. this particular one i can't answer. we can follow up with you on that. >> i would appreciate that. and i yield back the balance. thank you, madam chair. >> thank you very much. mr. gonzalez. >> thank you, madam chair. and secretary perry for being here today. one of the challenges i think we always face in this committee is connecting our basic research, which i think is absolutely critical to the future of our nation, to every day constituent issues and things that folks on the ground are feeling on a day to day basis. and kind of with that in mind, especially when we're talking about things like quantum
computing and ai and big data, these are important buzzwords, how do we connect it to the day to day. and one of the big issues across our country and in my district is the issue of veteran suicides. the number that has been most widely circulated is 20 veteran suicides a day. i know that the doe and the va have engaged in a partnership to solve just that with the use of some of our technology. my colleague mr. norman has introduced legislation to reauthorize that partnership. and i guess i would like to just turn it over to you, just to hear from your perspective how is the partnership working, what are you working on specifically with respect to the va. and how can we do even better? >> thank you. thank you for your serious passion about this issue. probably every one of us in here, this isn't just about veterans, this is about our kids, about our colleagues, it is about the citizens of this country and you and i talked about this, congressman mcnerney talked about it, the importance of what we potentially have in
front of us now because of the breakthroughs that we're seeing in the partnerships that are being created between historically disparate agencies of government. nobody ever thought doe was supposed to be involved in traumatic brain injury or pts -- post traumatic stress or cte and what we are showing people is that we have a real role to play in this. we may have one of the most important roles to play because of that computing capacity that we have. and the ability for us to partner with the va in the sense of working with the va. the data that they have and they know they can trust us, no offense to maybe some of the private sector folks who have big computers and what have you, but i'm pretty sure that the va and those veterans know that they can trust the department of
energy not to allow this information to be used for some other purpose. so we are going to continue to look for ways to -- you all have funded a line-item at the doe now if i'm correct in that. and to -- this program is funding -- it is a partnership. if i may. university of california san francisco, dr. jeffrey manly out there, finding some just really big breakthroughs dealing with brain science. so this is important work. >> fantastic. and as you may also be aware, i recently joined my colleagues on this committee to introduce the bipartisan securing american science and technology act which is designed to improve our ability to protect federally funded research from espionage, cyberattack and theft. i think it is a huge issue. we'll invest in our technology.
we want to make darn sure that nobody is here stealing it. and so i applaud your efforts on the talent program and, again, i was hoping you could provide an update on what the policy is and how you see it evolving going forward. >> the first thing we just -- as the secretary mentioned, his opening was to ban people working in the national lab complex to work for foreign talent programs from china, russia, north korea, iran and so we'll be giving people who are currently employed in the live complex working for the chinese state as being co-hired. that's no longer going to be allowed and they have to mack a decision of working for them or working for us. by the way, this is very consistent with the cutting edge universities where a lot of universities around this country are beginning to realize this say conflict of interest for them.
so we're very consistent with what the university systems are looking at. the second thing that we're looking at is whether we should be developing a list of technologies that we're developing in the national labs and whether that list should be included, before we do any work with anyone from the four countries, we have an extra review. this would not be a -- this would be an extra review for key technology like quantum, new generation of batteries and so on. >> fantastic. my final comment, i would encourage to think -- i think of the innovation space, there is a funding component and talent component and other components, but not only should we be about making sure that folks aren't playing for both sides, but how do we attract even more great talent here to the u.s.? and with that, i yield back. >> the chairman yields back. the chairman recognizes himself for five minutes. thank you for joining us this morning. the agency has many daunting challenges before and very timely. great to have you here. every year the epa publishes data on economy wide greenhouse
gas emissions. in 2017 the transportation secretary was the highest emitting sector, but not too far behind it at 22% of u.s. emissions was industry. emissions are expected to grow in the near term. many industrial processes are considered to be difficult to decarbonize. despite over one half of our economy's climate emissions coming from transportation and manufacturing, r & d spending is from the electricity sector. these are critical and worthy investments. i believe doe must support innovation and cleaner energy, not just cleaner electricity. will you agree that doe can help to develop cost competitive technologies that reduce the again house gas emissions out there. while ensuring that domestic energy intensive manufacturers continue to be leaders in innovation and remain globally
competitive. >> yes, sir. and i think our labs are engaged in some of those efforts as well. the nonpoint source pollution issue, while i was the governor of texas, i had the opportunity to work with and put into place some programs, did it exactly that, big fleet, engines, for instance, the terp program, congressman weber, if you'll remember, that was a reduction in emissions from old inefficient fleet type engines and we gave a tax credit and, again, this wasn't on the innovation and the technology side, which is what dod does, but it is a -- maybe it is an
idea that those of you in congress could take a look at from the standpoint, give us some incentives to states, to implement programs like this. but we will continue to look for ways to -- i'm really proud of what the us has done from the standpoint of leading emissions. a lot of that is because of -- >> we were swinging back up. >> but i think that's a -- most of my folks at the department tell me that is a temporary bump back up and, again, as we transition, i think it is important for us to go, where i can go sell american lng into the european theater, remove old inefficient coal burning plants for cleaner burning lng, that's good all the way around. if i can get the indians and the chinese to recognize that, we'll be making some progress in the world. >> do that at the common table.
there are many technology options we can explore to decarbonize manufacturing. this includes co-generation, combined heat and power and waste heat to power, which can greatly improve energy efficiency at our industrial facilities. mr. secretary, is supporting greater adoption of co-generation a priority for the department? >> i don't know whether i put it as a priority. it is one of the areas we care about. just like over in congressman weber's district there is a -- i think in your district, the petro nova facility is. it is in mr. holeson, but innovation and technology is the key to, you know, again, i don't want to back track here, but 15 years ago, they told us we found all the energy resources we had in this country and they were wrong because innovators in technology and i will suggest that the innovation and
technology is going to be found through the artificial intelligence and the machine learning that we have the power to control at the department of energy because of the funding by this committee. >> co-generation is critical. will that solve challenges with process emissions. other advancements may be necessary. and i understand that the office of fossil energy has done substantive work in developing this technology. and while ccs is not yet cost effective in power generation, i believe it will be necessary for certain industrial applications. what will you do to encourage collaborations to leverage existing resource and programs to ensure that ccs for industrial purposes are being given proper consideration? >> i have made that one a priority. the clean energy ministerial, we got cces put in as a priority at a global level, at the clean energy ministerial that was initially held in china in this last year in vancouver.
so we're making not just progress here in the united states, we're seeing some global saluting of the flag by our partners around the globe. >> i would suggest it needs to be applied to industrial emissions. with that, i have exhausted my time and i will now recognize representative baird for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chair, thank you, mr. secretary, for being here. we do appreciate the research funding that you mentioned in your initial comments. your department has an office of science which funds the bioenergy research centers and they conduct coordinated research in support of developing a viable and sustainable domestic biofuel and bioproducts industry from dedicated bioenergy crops. so each vrc is led by a doe
national laboratory or leading a u.s. research university and staffed by multiple disciplinary stake holders in science, engineering and industry. so as a scientist and former, i support the biofuels and bioproducts industry. and i'm particularly interested in the research and development that can diversify these industries and that helps them to produce more products while lowering costs and reducing the environmental impact. my question is what do you see in physical year 2020 and beyond to support bioenergy research centers and to expand their important research? >> mr. baird, we are very supportive of these bioenergy research centers and each of them are led by doe lab. or top university in partnership. they're designed to lay out scientific ground work for new biobased economy. and i'll give you an example,
maybe someone in your district, the following senators are selected, based on an open competition. great lakes bioresearch center, that's up in madison, and they're partnering with michigan state. there is another oak ridge national lab, another one at berkeley national lab, there is a center for bioenergy and bioproducts innovation and that's at the university of illinois urbana at champagne. so i think there has been over 2500 peer review publications out of that, a thousand plus invention disclosures that came out of it from your return on
investment, i think it has been pretty good, sir. >> i have one other question. that deals with looking at another area. now my colleague, mr. gonzalez, made reference to the veterans administration. i recently co-sponsored legislation with representative west to prioritize opioid research. would you mind elaborating again on what kind of role you think the doe might play in helping the federal health care agencies including the veterans administration? to better understand the opioid crisis.
>> the good news is we're making some good progress. back mid-2000s, ' being the governor of texas, i had an opportunity to go to brooks army medical center more regular than i like to be going to young men and women who are burned and then at that particular point in time we saw our federal government being rather liberal. in the dispensing of opioids and, you know, half a dozen years later we figure out we basically created a whole generation of young people who are dependent on these things
and we started pulling back from. and this is probably three or four years ago. they had decreased by 90% the amount of opioids they were giving to young people coming in and dealing -- coming up with some different ways to deal with it. with that said, we still got a real opioid crisis in this country. we think it may be genetically driven. the super computers and our ability to do genetic testing of some of these populations out there, and, again, doing it in a way that the people know that this information is going to be safe and secure, department of energy will play a very vital role in being a partner working
with nih, working with the va, working with some of our private sector partners and our university systems to, i think we will find a solution to the opioid epidemic we have in this country and we'll -- this will happen, my projection is this will happen sooner rather than later. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, madam chair. thank you, secretary perry. i want to tell you how much i enjoyed being able -- having the privilege of escorting you around the two crown jewels of the national laboratory system, argon national laboratory and -- and i think there was a slide that was going to be put up here in a moment. if we can bring the screen down, please. this is one of the many hats i wear as co-chair, we plan to be visiting all 17 of the national laboratories and leading as large a congressional delegation as i can corral. we're going to be heading to the new mexico national labs los alamos, sandia, white sands and the trinity test site where the first nuclear weapon was
detonated about 75 years ago now. the northwest one in the bay area where they will be hosts of a visit to the bay area labs, livermore. i'll be hosting the illinois lab, a visit to the illinois labs at argon national lab that i represent and which, by the way, one of the things that they have done at their light source is to use them to directly image the molecules that are involved in opioid receptors in the brain. this research allows us to directly image the molecules involved in opioid addiction. one of the wonderful things that are often not talked about. and the lab where i worked for
23 years before i got into this insane business. we're also -- later on, congressman ed perlmutter will host a visit to the denver area and western labs. and also the two republican co-chairs will be hosting visits to oak ridge and savannah by chuck fleischmann. we already had our first visit to which -- where chairman lamb has invited us to go see metal. i understand why you enjoyed visiting the 17 labs. it is essential that the entire congress recognizes the importance of these. any opportunity for paul dabbar or you to join these, you're more than welcome. in my remaining time, i would like to discuss the issue of low
and high enriched uranium. this comes in many guises. you mentioned the work, we signed a letter where the navy was trying to discourage congress from pursuing something that is pursued for white a while now, to encourage the navy to use -- to look at the possibility of using low enriched uranium and propulsion reactors. just would like to emphasize the reason that 30 nobel prize winners have signed a lettered indicating the minimization of enriched uranium. there is a reason we don't test nuclear weapons. if we did, our nuclear arsenal would be safer, cheaper, more secure, more reliable. if the rest of the world
followed us in that example, it would be a national security disaster. the situation is identical for low enriched and high enriched uranium. if we start using high enriched uranium in applications where it is not strictly needed and the rest of the world follows us, the things that they have the right to do under the nonproliferation treaty it will be a disaster for nonproliferation and national security because any country that has a reactor worth of high enriched uranium has everything they need in terms of fissile material to make multiple nuclear weapons. we worked as a country for 40 years minimizing the use of this and we will continue to engage with you to make sure every time we have the option that we choose the safe one and not weapons grade. we communicated on this and we'll be continuing. i have a grand total of 23 seconds left. i guess i just want to see how you view after having visited,
you completed the 17 labs, what are the -- what are the things you would like to get done organizationally that will really improve their effectiveness? >> let me add, i don't know if i would make any changes to the structure that we have. i think these labs -- i got some pretty good advice from former secretary, former governor of new mexico bill richardson. he said, perry, don't mess with the national labs. and that frankly is some pretty good advice. i would like to invite all of you to come out to your neck of the woods in october of this year for an ex-lab event that we have in which we bring in the private sector that are partnering with the national labs on a host of different areas.
fascinating stuff. and, again, we don't have time for me to put on my cheerleader hat and talk about these national labs, but whether you got one in your district or not, if you have the opportunity to go to a nation april lab, please do it. it is some of the most brilliant capable men and women making, i think, more difference in america than any single group of people in this country. >> thank you. you've been a wonderful ambassador to science. thank you so much. >> let me just say, the timeliness of that ex-lab event and argon in october is on artificial intelligence. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, madam chair, thank you mr. secretary for being here this morning. mr. secretary, approximately 25% of my district in ohio is rural. for my constituents to access the quality education in
science, technology, engineering, mathematics is critical. many of the job openings that cannot be filled in rural ohio stem focused. as secretary of energy, what are you doing this year and what will be done in fiscal year 2020 to ensure that the department's stem outreach and engagement activities reach the rural communities? >> one of the areas we're focused is the doe office of economic impact and diversity. and the program is created to expand the participation of individuals who historically may not have had the same opportunities. i can speak a little bit of historically to this. i grew up in a place, my high school, well, my school, grades one through 12, had 115 kids. i could have learned how to use
a slide rule and done a little better in organic chemistry and i would have ended up being a veterinarian. organic chemistry changed my life. enough of my personal travails. the point is that a lot of these rural communities don't have -- have historically had access to some of the science technology, engineering and math programs that children really need to be successful in this program is exactly focused on that. undersecretary of science paul dabbar and our chief commercialization officer are currently working with our national labs, again, and the university of chicago, to do a round table this summer to explore some pathways and continue to harness these kids with this technology. and we're -- i'm pretty excited, we got a program called making
nuclear cool again at the department. we're reaching out and helping to, again, when i was going to college, being a nuclear engineer was a pretty cool thing. it lost a lot of its shine if you will, so, again, whether it is small modern reactors, whether it is the microreactors we're talking about, bringing the nuclear energy interest back into that area and preparing young people to be the scientists and technicians wear going to need, going to require the stem programs and rural america absolutely does not need to be overlooked any longer. >> thank you very much for that answer. my final question is i'm honored to be the lead republican co-sponsor of congresswoman stevens bill, the american manufacturing leadership act,
the bill passed on this committee last month and underscores my support for making strategic investments in advance manufacturing, r&d. mr. secretary, if this bipartisan session was enacted and the department had the ability to open an additional center of manufacturing innovation, what manufacturing challenges would you look to research? >> there is a host of areas that advance manufacturing is making, housing. you think about secretary carson actually had on the mall, i think within last 30 days some manufactured housing and, you know, we talked about where i'm from a, manufactured housing, that's not the case anymore. because of our added manufacturing processes that we have today, we're able to build
some housing that is highly efficient, that is cheaper. advance manufacturing and places that you don't historically think about, automotives, we're literally building a nuclear reactor and the parts for the nuclear reactor out of additive manufacturing. it is stunning the progress being made in that arena. advanced manufacturing office is, you know, obviously got our attention and it is another of those priorities that we have. >> thank you very much. thank you, madam chair. >> thank you very much. >> mr. secretary, thank you for being here. d.o.e. has robust programs that
have helped demonstrate carbon capture technology. ethanol plant, hydrogen production facility, on a coal firepower plant, but we're enjoying this explosion of natural gas, the shale gas revolution. what is d.o.e. doing for carbon capture on natural gas plants and on other things like cement manufacturing? >> yes, sir. as i said, i won't rehash this again, but we focused on -- one of the first projects i went to as secretary was the petro nova plant outside of houston, i think in ft. bend county. and we're 90 plus percent of the emissions are captured. they're then sent over to be used in an enhanced oil recovery process and oil field i think 80 miles away outside of victoria, texas. >> what kind of plant is petro nova? >> it is a coal-powered plant.
>> so those are -- those -- we're not building new ones, we're closing the old ones down. what are we doing with the natural gas plants? >> paul, you want to take a -- >> mr. -- take a -- >> so this is actually one of the most exciting things that we're doing. >> paul, if i could feocus on te secretary. thanks. >> if you don't know, mr. secretary, i'll move on. >> here's what i'm interested, i'm interested in trying to pass on information the best i can to you. if i don't have the most timely, i'd like to use paul because he gets out into that area more than i do. >> but we have greater access to paul. we can do it for the record. we only get you -- >> i hope you've got good access to me. all you got to do is call. >> well, i do. the national academy has pointed out that we need negative emissi emissions technology, pulling c carbon out of the air, out of the ocean. how has the national academy's been received by the department
of energy? >> let me give you a little statement that i found really interesting. fati baro is the head of international energy agency in paris. i don't know there's anybody i've been dealing with that has a better handle on, that's nonpolitical. he just looks at the facts. he says if we eliminate 100% of the passenger cars running on gasoline today, transition every one of them to electric, we would still need 81% of the oil and gas production that is occurring in the world to be able to continue on developing, manufacturing, running our fleet engines and what have you. so we know we've got -- we got some real challenges here from the standpoint of how are we going to deal with, you know, there are folks that are talking about completely switching over their fleets to renewables, and that -- you know, i'm not going
to argue. >> can i interrupt? i asked about pulling carbon out of the atmosphere and the oceans? is d.o.e. working on this? >> there's some oregon state projects going on on the ocean side of it correct? is my understanding. >> maybe we'll follow up with paul later. >> you mentioned a number of times about artificial intelligence and your excitement about machine learning. what questions is the department of energy attempting to answer with machine learning? >> you don't have enough time to get the answer to for me or anybody else sitting here. it's across the board. it's things as interesting as concussions and we've historically been taught that there are three levels of concussion mild, or excuse me, there's mild, moderate, and severe. and because of the work that's been done at the university of california san francisco with the program that we're involved with, their department of neuroscience, dr. jeffrey manly will tell you there's 28, and
that's because of artificial intelligence and machine learning on these super computers we're running at the department. so i mean, that's just in a very slender area of brain science. when you -- >> so you're using artificial intelligence to solve problems across the board, not specifically department of energy questions. >> right, and i hope -- >> the department of energy is a resource rather than energy questions that are arising? >> right. but they're energy questions that are arising that we're being able to find solutions to because of this massive amount of data that we're able to crunch, if you will, and give us answers to questions that before we just didn't have the time and the computing capacity to get to. >> and my time is up, but i appreciate perhaps through the undersecretary answers to the questions about carbon capture. thank you very much, i yield back. >> thank you very much, mr. walsh. >> thank you, madame chairwoman and thank you mr. secretary for
your leadership. look, i think that what's going on in the energy revolution in the united states of america is one of the great news stories and maybe the news story of the 21st century from the exports reaching 10 million barrels a day to export of l and g and shifting that entire industry, and then as a combat veteran, which my colleagues have heard me say on this committee, i can't tell you how many veterans -- how many wounded warriors we have in walter reed, how many we've lost hauling diesel fuel crossed exposed supply lines getting ied'd when many of those outposts and many portions of our military can and should be existing on renewables. so one of the things that i'm most excited about is solar, and where florida is going with solar, one of many my first visits was to a solar site
that's built by florida power and light, and its drive to have 30 million panels by 2030 with ten gigawatts of electricity. i'm proud to say florida has eclipsed california now in q1 of 2019 with the most solar power installations, for number one in the country for new panels, and in the next five years should be number one across the board, so i think the sunshine state is living up to its name. my question, mr. secretary is how do you see the department really sustaining the private sector growth and as a conservative, i love it that it's the private sector leading the charge on this, but obviously it's a state issue and governor desantis has been a real leader. how do you see the department continuing to really embolden and empower the private sector and particularly in solar, but
renewables at large? >> well, i look at our role from the standpoint of continuing to fund the opportunities to have public/private partnerships, the commercialization of innovation and technology that's coming out of our national labs, for instance. i think a governor and a legislature in a particular state would be wise to look at ways for that to -- give incentives to companies to risk their capital, working with their universities, for instance, which is where by and large your states innovation and technology will come are from. looking for ways to partner up with the d.o.e. we have the trifecta, if you will of the state, the federal, and the local working together on some of these projects. and a great example of this, florida power just announced 491
mega watt utility battery. i mean, that's massive. we're talking -- and so with what you're doing -- >> exciting. >> with solar, and by the way, for the record solar just bypassed hydro or was it -- isn't that right? solar just bypassed hydro as a total deliverer of power in this country. i mean, you know, the wind, the solar side of things are really making some good progress, and battery storage is, i think, the -- as we talked about earlier, the holy grail of this -- >> mr. secretary just in the interests of time, i'm glad that you mentioned resiliency. again, my predecessor in this seat, now governor desantis has announced the chief science officer and is going to announce a chief resiliency officer. if there's anything i hear about from constituents it's traffic
and flooding. i've joined the national flood coalition. where do you see -- i know you mentioned a bit earlier, where do you see the department's help and resiliency issues? and just in the interest of time, if i could ask you to submit the records, d.o.d. has 63 labs and i'd be interested for the record how you coordinate. that's a lot of activity, and we need to spend those dollars efficiently and just how you coordinate and then also expanding the scope of rpe and i think if we get into some other areas like nuclear waste disposal and other things that it may be more palatable across the board in terms of funding that organization. >> yeah. and so let me back up here and just a hit a few of the highlights of what you talked about. i think coordinating between agencies is really important and
one of the ways to do that is actually to show up and to know what other agencies are doing, rather than just kind of staying siloed in your own. i'm going to darpa tomorrow to talk to them about some of the things they'ring ie doing, some the ways we can partner with them, and quite frankly to make sure they're not duplicating some things. i think paul did a pretty good job earlier to talk about, we kind of got different missions, d.o.d. and d.o.e., but to make sure that we're not -- and the resiliency side of what, you know, we talked about, seizure is really important in that. we are the agency that has the responsibility for the reliability in the electrical sector. that's to make sure that the lights come on and it's protected, that is the d.o.e.'s responsibilities. other agencies have some areas of -- that kind of come in on the fringes, but d.o.e., that's
their baby, making sure that we have that reliability, that resiliency in the electrical grid. so we're doing everything that we can, using those computers to model, and let me finish up by saying that the modeling side of what d.o.e. is doing on the environment is going to pay, i think, some great dividends to your states, those states with the low lying areas that are seeing flooding occurring, seeing the effect of this changing climate that we live in, and so, you know, i think these are some important goals and roles of which d.o.e.'s -- >> thank you, mr. secretary, i'm on armed services as well, so i certainly appreciate that coordination, and madame chair i yield my time. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, madame chair and thank you secretary governor perry for being with us today. it's always good to see you. it's no secret i'm really excited about solar energy as is
my colleague representative waltz to help our nation and world transition to a clean energy economy. unfortunately the administration proposed cuts to the solar office of more than 70%, and justified those cuts by saying that the office is conducting activities that can and should be carried out by the private sector. last year, however, the administration established tariffs on solar cells, which supply the majority of u.s. solar companies. these tariffs have arguably raised prices, slowed the industry to a degree, and made it harder for solar companies to invest in their own research and development activities. and notably two companies the tariffs were intended to help soniva and solar world are now out of business as of just this month. did the administration consult with solar developers, to your knowledge, about their ability to invest in research development, and demonstration
under the financial constraints of the tariffs? >> carson crist, i have no information that either acknowledging that or i have no -- i have no knowledge about any correspondence between those companies and the administration. >> okay. thank you, did you ever consult with others in the administration such as maybe the trade representative about how tariffs could negatively impact the ability of solar companies to invest in research and development? >> not necessarily just solar companies, but there have been a number of companies that i've had conversations with that i did share with ambassador lighthizer the challenges that the -- that the tariffs as proposed were going to have on these u.s.-based companies, and frankly have had some, you know,
success in being able to, you know, one of the things i do, one of my jobs as a governor, you know, is to get people together, and to open up some doors. i think it's wise for us to be able to say hey, look, here's a constituent that i've got that's having some challenges with what you're proposing and would you talk to him, and i've had some success in being able to put them together. i don't know because those -- you know, we don't have a deal yet with the chinese with specificity. >> right. >> i think it's important for us to -- you know, they need to hear from people who are on the ground who see the challenges, the decisions that we make in government have on them. >> wonderful. do you think tariffs are more effective way to protect these companies than sustained federal investment in research and development? >> you're starting to get a little bit out of my area of
expertise, governor. >> all right. very well. well, i will yield the balance of my time and thank you for being here again. >> yes, sir, thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. marshal. >> thank you so much chairwoman and mr. secretary, again, welcome, and i just want to start by saying what a great country we live in. i'm so proud that our carbon emissions today, a nice steady downward trend since 2003, and i think that's mainly due to conservation and innovation. if i could take our time to lock in on agriculture and rural america for a second. as i look at the big picture, transportation creates about 29% of this country's carbon emissio emissions, industry about a fourth, and agriculture about 9%, so we feed this entire country and only produce about 9% of carbon emission, and we're still able to transport another fourth of our products out of the country with that in mind.
in my adult lifetime we're doubling the agriculture production. we're using less water but still over the last decade, agriculture's had a smaller carbon footprint, so i'm really proud of that. what is the d.o.e. doing to help promote conservation, promote innovation? so even though we're improving, agriculture wants to keep improving. how can we keep working together? what can we do to put wind beneath your sail? >> i think there's a couple of areas that i would mention just that i've seen, again, in my travels through the national labs and keep in mind, one of my prior jobs in the state of texas would be the agriculture commissioner for eight years, so -- and i grew up on a farm, and my mom still lives on that farm, so there's -- there's this real personal connection back to rural lifestyle, rural values, and certainly the great contribution that agriculture
and those rural communities make to america. with that said, in the additive manufacturing side is one of the areas where i think we have some great potential to continue to be developing more efficient equipment, both from a weight and a strength standpoint that these national labs, the work that's being done at oak ridge national lab, their additive manufacturing facility there is pretty fascinating. i made mention of secretary carson having some manufactured housing, additive manufacturing housing shown on the mall here within the last 30 days. he also had a vehicle. it was a cobra, a shelby cobra that was built by the national labs and so the agricultural
community can be served, i think, well in the additive manufacturing side with some of the work that we're doing. also, at the sandia national lab, and this is sandia national lab in california at livermore, the work they're doing on fir efficiency on diesel engine combustion and the emissions side of it. again, you don't think about the department of energy and agricultu agriculture, that's not the first thing that comes to mind. idaho national lab, i'll finish with this, the work that they're doing on biofuels and some of the real progress they're making there. there's three examples of a place where the department of energy is, i think, making some positive impact on the agricultural/rural communities. >> great. let's talk about rural america for a second and the challenges,
the improvements battery storage, like texas, kansas has a large wind energy production, about 35% of our electricity is generated from wind, was recently in johnson city, kansas, our largest solar farm, we are breaking ground on it recently. what i learned is despite originally intending to buy those solar panels from china that already as president trump predicted, they've removed that supply chain of solar panels to other countries, and therefore able to pull this project off, so it's exciting, but one of the challenges is when we have battery storage for one or two people in a mile stretch, a dead end road is a little different than battery storage for big cities. can you speak a little bit about what the d.o.e.'s doing for battery storage, and how that technology is improving. what do you see the future looks like? >> i mention ed a little earlier
with what's happening in florida, a lot of that technology came from work that's been done at a national lab, p&l and some of the work they're doing on battery storage. we're -- you know, there's new grid storage, launch pad that's occurring at d.o.e. that's going to accelerate material development, testing, having some independent evaluation of battery materials, battery systems. i think i asked paul to talk a little bit about some of the elements in these batteries that are not rare earth minerals that are going to be very effective for us and that we don't have quite -- well, we don't have the concern about where those materials going to be coming from, if they're developed in the united states. so validating this material
capability, accelerating new technologies, and obviously collabora collaborating, collaboration both with the d.o.e. and the labs out there and the private sector. and the states have a role to play in this as well. >> of course. one of the things i always remind people, when they think about texas, they always think about you all are big oil and gas producing state, which we are, but we also became the number one wind energy producing state while i was the governor of the state because we wanted to have a diverse portfolio, and so the wind energy side of what occurred in texas, i remind my friends in europe on a regular basis ms. fletcher, when i go over there that texas produces more of its energy percentage wise than what the european union does. that's a good thing. >> thank you and i yield back. >> thank you very much, ms. weston. >> thank you madame chairwoman
and thank you secretary perry for joining us here today. earlier this month your department moved a political appointee into the position of deputy assistant secretary for energy efficiency within d.o.e. do you know the name of this individual? >> i can just tell you, mr. secretary, it's fitzsimmons. >> does that sound familiar? >> yes. >> can you tell me anything about his qualifications for this job? >> as a regular practice, i don't talk about personnel issues in the public. >> very good, and i'll just share with you some of what i've learned in the public domain about mr. fitzsimmons. he graduated from george washington university in 2012 with a degree in political science, and he spent the next four years in a variety of junior roles at fossil fuel energy advocacy groups including
the american energy alliance. now, i was surprised to learn -- but you may not be -- that in 2015, while mr. fitzsimmons was there, the american energy alliance called for congress to eliminate the office of energy efficiency, the very office he now leads. were you aware of that? >> no, ma'am, but here's what i am aware of. >> no, that's -- that was my question. now, you know -- you know about the office of energy -- >> this is going to be good. you should let me go, but i'm not going to do it now. >> fair enough. you do know about the office of energy efficiency. it has hundreds of full-time staff. it supports thousands of national lab employees. it's the lead federal agency for energy efficiency policy, programs and research, which include advanced manufacturing, building, federal energy management, and low income weatherization, right? i mean, that's what it does. now, by way of contrast, with regard to qualifications, the
previous deputy assistant secretary for energy efficiency kathleen hogan serve instead that role for a decade. prior to that she served at epa as a division director. she received a presidential rank award. was inducted into the energy efficiency hall of fame for the u.s. energy association and was a contributor to the nobel peace prize awarded to the intergovernmental panel on climate change. she has a ph.d. from the department of geography and environmental engineering at johns hopkins university, and her predecessor served at d.o.e. as a technology leader for nearly 20 years before rising to the rank of deputy assistant secretary. now, as i understand it, mr. fitzsimmons is the first ever political appointee to serve in that role, and he is by far the youngest. can you tell me why you chose to fill the position with a political appointee instead of a career technologist? >> i'm going to pass on talking about personnel issues. >> okay. well, i understand that mr.
fitzsimmons is serving in an acting role, can you tell us when you expect to fill that position on a permanent basis? >> i can't. >> okay. well, when you do, i hope that you find somebody with the experience and gravitas to lead the nation's best scientists and engineers. i want to talk about some of the budget proposals from the administration. this year the administration's budget request proposes massive cuts to renewable energy across the board with cuts higher than 70% for both wind and solar offices. if these cuts were to take place, can you tell me approximately how many lab employees would lose their jobs? >> i would have to go back and -- i think trying to play the hypothesis game of if you do
this, then what's this budget look like is kind of a west of my time and your time frankly. >> would you agree that cutting the budget by 70% will cause some of the lab employees to lose their jobs? >> what i'd tell you is that i think, you know, cutting the -- you can make the statement that cutting the budget by 100% would cause some people to lose their job but that's not the reality that's going to happen in this committee. you look back historically at what this committee's done, and here's what's more important is that i understand how to manage an agency. i had the opportunity to manage a fairly big entity for 14 years as the governor of the state of texas, and i also respect the appropriations process, and the appropriate ters are going to - >> madame chair, reclaiming my time if i may. i understand what the secretary -- mr. secretary what you're saying about the budget and appropriations process, but what i would ask that you keep
in mind is that even when these proposed cuts are rejected by congress, that you understand that these promzed cuts have severe impacts on lab employees and the morale within those labs that you have spoken so highly of. thank you, and i yield back my . thank you, and i yield back my of. thank you, and i yield back my time. >> thank you very much, ms. fletcher. >> thank you chairwoman johnson for holding this hearing. thank you secretary perry for testifying before our committee today. as a native houstonian and a texan and now the representative for texas's seventh congressional district in houston where i represent the energy corridor, i appreciate all of the above energy approach that you've talked about this morning and that you embraced as the governor of our state and these innovative policies have led texas to being really the leader in renewable energy. people are indeed surprised when i tell them that texas has --
produces the most wind energy of any state in the union, more than three times the next leading stalea leading state, and i give credit to your policies for that every time i talk about it because i really think that it is important what we're doing in terms of diversifying our portfolio and talking about research. and so for that there are a couple of budget priorities i do want to talk about and get your perspective on this morning. the department of energy has worked on carbon dioxide removal technologies and the intergovernmental panel that we've talked about this morning as well recommends carbon capture as being a critical piece in our path forward in combatting climate change, so where d.o.e. has worked on technologies like direct air capture and development through fossil energy, the office of energy efficiency and renewable energies and the office of science we've seen some of the major successes from that in the petra nova plant that you
referenced earlier in your testimony. in addition, there is also the -- in response to congresswoman beyer's question, gas technologies as well as coal, so there's a lot of that happening, but from the budget priorities it's not clear whether the department of energy will continue to support this promising technology. can you talk a little bit about what the department of energy plans to do going forward when it comes to carbon capture technology? >> i can give it to you the short version is we're going to continue to support it, continue to be a priority. capture center in alabama, and that's going to be validating new technologies that are out there and some transformational technologies, taking it from the
bench to lab scale. a key priority to all of this is going to be continuing to reduce the cost of the technology so that you can get this broad deployment of these technologies. one of the things we try to do and the reason congresswoman fletcher, we put in -- and i ask and was successful in getting into the clean energy ministerial carbon capture utilization sequestration technologies in a global way because, you know, one of our roles, i think, american technology is how the world in a lot of cases gets transformed, and if we can take this type of technology, if we can continue to improve it where it's a commercial scale and get our friends in india and in china to
take this technology and to implement it, then we really start having commercial scale impact on the environment. so one of the reasons this is, you know, we continue to really push this is because of its applications globally and so i'm -- i can assure you that it's going to continue to stay a priori priority at the agency. >> it was concerning to me that the fiscal year 2020 budget proposal which i understand is just a proposal, but it had a 65% reduction in ccus, and my understanding is that some of the rationale at least presented is that this would be a place where industry could better commercialize the technology. my understanding at this point is that while certainly we use it for enhanced oil recovery, generally ccus is not commercially viable, and so i guess the question i have for you in front of this committee
is what do you suggest that we do here to chart the path forward for ccus and give you the tools that you need to continue that research at d.o.e.? >> yeah, i tend to agree with your observation that it's going to still continue to require our d.o.e.'s engagement from the standpoint of expending some funds on innovation and technology, and this national carbon capture center in alabama is a great example of that. there's still work to be done, so -- and if i could correct the record just on one thing that i said earlier, and i made mention that -- that solar producing more energy than hydro. it's actually wind energy. i should have known better being from texas. >> thank you. >> i just -- for the record. >> thank you, secretary perry,
and with that i see i've exceeded my time, so i will yield back madame -- or mr. chairman. >> the chair now recognizes mr. sherman for five minutes. >> mr. secretary half a million people live within just ten miles of the santa susanna field nuclear laboratory. your department signed the correct -- the consent order for corrective action in 2007, and the administrative orders on consent in 2010 with the california department of toxic substance control. the latter required full cleanup of the site by 2017, so in 2010 your department agreed to full cleanup by 2017, but to date no meaningful cleanup has occurred at all, so you're supposed to be completed by 2017, you haven't
started by 2019. will you come to the san fernando valley and explain to people when this site will be fully cleaned up? >> mr. sherman, i would be more than happy to accompany you and try to explain -- i'll do my best to explain what happened the seven years before i got here and why there wasn't any progress made on that, but i don't know if i -- i don't know if i'll be successful in -- >> i look forward to joining you in the san fernando valley, and i thank you for making that comment for the record. countries that are friends live by the nonproliferation treaty if they signed it. iran and north korea have gone toward a nuclear program without
the additional protocol with the iaea, and we have saudi arabia, which claims to be our friend, but at least when it comes to nuclear matters seems to be acting like a rogue state. the south korean firm, korea electric power corporation is talking to the -- to saudi arabia about a large nuclear power construction project. that project -- the south korea nuclear project is based on american technology. can you state for the record the administration's position on whether this south korean firm would need to see a 1, 2, 3 greet between the united states and saudi arabia to sell large nuclear reactors to saudi arabia?
>> what i think we would be helpful here is if people understand part 810 -- >> i'm going to get a part 810 question but the first question is south korea free to build large nuclear plants in saudi arabia using american technology -- >> here would be my answer is it would be no because they would require a part a 10 before they could go into a -- because that is u.s. technology. >> i think they'd also need a 1, 2, 3 agreement, but i agree with you it is u.s. technology. can you commit that the administration won't enter into a nuclear cooperation agreement with saudi arabia unless saudi arabia signs the additional protocol? this has been our bargaining position on these since the 1990s. >> yes, sir. that has been our position in all of our conversations that we
have had with the kingdom of saudi arabia. >> good answer. the atomic energy act, section 303, requires that you keep congress fully and currently informed on subject matters relating to atomic energy. you have issued at least seven part a10 authorizations to allow u.s. companies to discuss and submit documents to saudi arabia seeking their business. it took my office about six months to get a copy of these part 810s. can you promise to provide the 810 authorizations in the future if they relate to saudi arabia to both this committee and the foreign affairs committee promptly? >> yes, sir, and let me just -- the caveat on that mr. sherman, would be unless the company
deems them to be pro priprietar information. i don't know all the specific details, but every bit of information that is publicly disclosable you can bet -- >> well, i would hope that you keep in mind members of congress are trusted. >> yes, sir. >> with the most secret information of our intelligence and defense agencies. if i'm not going to reveal what i know from the cia, i think westinghouse can trust me. with that i thank you for your answers. good answers, thank you. >> thank you. >> the chair recognizes mr. pearl miter for five minutes. >> thanks for your testimony, thank you for your stamina. we're getting to the end of the line here. first thing, mr. secretary, 2033, okay? i hold this bumper sticker up at a lot of hearings. the undersecretary is familiar with this. this is when the orbits of mars
and earth are the closest for decades, and we've been talking about getting our astronauts to mars by 2033, and with your interest and your work with nasa on potentially nuclear propulsion as part of the ability to get our astronauts there, i just want to enroll you in getting our astronauts to mars by 2033, and i want you to work with mr. briden stein on that. you don't have to answer it. i'm just wanting to enroll all of you in this measure. >> i want to answer it, though. >> all right. >> buzz aldrin will wear me out if we don't get ourselves to mars as soon as we can. >> all right, thank you. i'm glad to hear that. all right. number two, dr. foster, who is up here talking about argon and illinois and all that stuff, he is one of the most biased cochairs in favor of his state that any of us could ever have. and as you know and i appreciate the visits that you all have
made out to the national renewable energy lab, which is in my district and obviously very proud of that, and i think some of the words you've used, i think we've got to really take heart and i'm going to lay into you guys a little bit because you used words like brilliant, capab capable, outstanding staff. you're scientists, your technicians, your engineers second to none in the world, okay, and you as the chief executive, you as the lieutenant, the cfo here, you've got a staff that's fantastic, and if you were back as governor of texas and you say to that staff, you know what? i'm going to cut your budget by 85%, that's what you guys mean to me. i mean, when you say that, it hurts, and so ms. lofgrin and you had an interesting conversation. you said i'm going to look to congress to help me on this, but i'm going to say to you mr. secretary, we look to you.
we depend on you to defend your department. so i'm going to just ask you, what are the dynamics that lead to something like an 85% cut to the energy efficiency and renewable energy portfolio? >> i'll give it back to you like i did -- or i think i did -- >> remember, last year you and the undersecretary and i talked about these budget cuts, which last year were pretty draconian. i said, look, you know, administration to administration you can kind of push a priority, but you don't gut the rest of it. and you said, no, we don't want to do that, but again, it happened. >> but i don't think -- that's not the budget, and we have a budget that's already been approved, and that's not what the budget is. i know what the omb said.
i go back -- >> i guess my dynamics between you and omb how does it really work? they come in with these budgets, they say this is what it's going to be. you have okay but i guess we're going to have to work with congress. >> pretty much. i ain't going to lie to you. listen, i don't write that budget. when i was the governor of the state of texas, i had a budget, and it would go over to the legislature and i knew what it would turn out to be, and that was a doorstop. >> all right. >> that's how omb's budget -- >> no, i appreciate this conversation. so as the head of the department, when omb comes back with these numbers that really aren't realistics that a that a to change dramatically in congress, what do you say to the staff? doesn't matter? we're going to go to congress and we'll see what they do? >> pretty much. >> all right, all right. okay, so that's enough of that. look -- >> listen, it's their -- this is their prerogative. i understand how the process works. i don't get spun up and -- >> but i don't want your staff to get spun up. that's the point.
>> i don't think they do. >> all right. >> i don't think the national lab folks, they know where i stand on this. they have heard me not only in word but in deed -- >> and we've seen that, we've seen that, and i appreciate that because you have defended and stood up for the national renewable energy lab and these other labs. >> and will continue to. >> and i appreciate that. all right, last thing, that laboratory enrel has something similar to somebody else mentioned what we call the co-laboratory, which is the lab colorado university, colorado state, the school of mines, conoco used to be part of that group. i think they still may be. you know, as a way to provide the best minds towards, you know, advancing science and advancing the commercial use of some of these new technologies, so i just wanted to put that out there, that we've been doing that for a while. >> and that's interesting. it's some of these types of
innovative solutions, options, is how i look at managing d.o.e., you know. listen, omb has their job. they do their job. i get that, but it's coming up with some of these solutions using the private sector, using some university resources and what have you to find the, you know, find a way to manage these to get us to the point where we can have a solution. >> all right, thank you gentlemen and i yield back my time. >> thank you, the chair will now recognize himself for five minutes. thank you so much for coming, secretary perry. really appreciate it. earlier this week, we have received reports of the department of agriculture was actively working to bury peer-reveed scientific reports on the impacts of climate change in the agricultural sector, and the -- there's a significant
problem, this administration has some discomfort around objective truth, but as it comes to climate change, this is a real concern because if we are essentially going to reject the scientific method and our processes, we are going to put not just the american people but our entire species at risk, so my question to you mr. secretary, which is a real simple one, and i don't think you'll need your notes for this. are you personally aware of any steps that your department is taking to suppress reports that discuss climate change or its effects? >> no, as a matter of fact we just announced today a -- >> i've got number of questions, so i'm delighted to hear that. that's terrific. can i have your commitment that if you become aware of any of those efforts you will exert your leadership role to make sure it doesn't happen? >> sure. >> terrific. i am -- i'm delighted to hear that. i'm delighted to hear in your opening testimony that you accept that man made climate change is real and something we have to deal with. i like to point out to people
that in the 100,000 years or so that our species has existed, 50% of all the co 2 we have ever emitted was since 1980. that was the year nolan ryan signed with the houston astros. that's in our collective memory, and the scale of that change is meaningful. as we warm the climate, the average temperature goes up by a few degrees but the number of extreme events increases dramatically. you mentioned that in your testimony as well. i know you're personally aware of this in houston. i think presumably you would agree that there's been a significant increase in the number of extreme weather events? >> yeah. >> and would you agree that those are caused by global warming? >> i'm not sure i can -- >> would you agree that weather is a bell curve, and as you move the average on the bell curve you increase the tails by a much greater percent than the middle. >> i'm not going to -- those are
your words, not mine. listen, i think sitting here trying to -- >> i'm asking you to opine on basic statistics. if you're not comfortable with basic statistics i'll move on. >> here's what i'm not comfortable with -- >> i will stipulate -- >> i'm comfortable the department of energy is doing some fascinating work on predictive modeling, and i hope you would be supportive of that rather than sitting here trying to go back and forth about do you believe this, do you believe that, is look at what we're doing -- >> secretary i'm -- >> what we're doing is making some real progress on giving predictive real science-based evidence to this committee and to the citizens of this country. >> secretary, perry if i may. i agree, i think the department of energy is awesome. and i'm going to echo mr. pearl miter, you run a $12 billion agency that does fantastic work. the weatherization budget is zeroed out. what i need as a citizen and i think what we need as a congress is for you to exercise leadership to defend those budgets and priorities, even
when the administration doesn't, because it is clear that omb and the president are not supporting that. i want to shift to something that i think we may have a whole lot of agreement on. i am delighted to hear you describe energy storage as the holy grail of energy. we've got this fantastic improvement in your state and elsewhere of resources that need storage to balance that load. it's why one of the first major bills i introduced when i got here was the bipartisan promoting grid storage act, which would create cross cutting d.o.e. pramograms to help the public and private sector derisk and deploy those new storage technologies. your budget to it credit increases the energy storage r&d supported by the office of electricity by 5%. that's about $2.5 million. it reduces spending in the renewable energies vehicle technologies program by 79% or
$270 million, so that is a net drop of -- let's round it off, $270 million in funding for energy storage that i think from your testimony and sort of where i come from, we agree. can you help me understand and this committee understand why if energy storage is indeed the holy grail of technology we have a budget that drastically defunds our commitment to deploy the energy storage that we need to keep our grid resilient in the mix of changing resources we have? >> in a broad sense what i would tell you is that the cross cutting technologies, i mean, just because we don't fund at the same level as we have historically or that you've seen in previous line items doesn't mean that there's not ongoing technology moving something forward. for instance, i would suggest to
you that in some of the electric vehicle side of things, we've spent the dollars to get us to the point where we need to be with those, and we don't need to be, you know, spending more dollars going forward in that that we've already, you know, moved to a place where we're comfortable. >> but i'm talking about in aga aggregate total spending, your budget would suggest we don't need r&d anymore given a 79% cut. >> not necessarily. what i'm saying is we have the ability to manage those dollars in a way where the priorities are. are the -- are the priorities on the electric vehicle place they were four years ago? no, because we've matured. >> given the comments just made that it sounded like you were -- you felt like the omb budget was just something, but we're going to fix that?
we agree that energy storage is the holy grail. i think we agree that the budget doesn't meet that goal. what would you like to see congress do to develop a budget that's actually going to deploy energy storage at the scale we need? i think the budget that we've got is appropriate to get us to the place that we need to be -- >> across the board? >> yeah. across the board. the budget that's already been approved. >> the omb budget? >> no, the budget that this -- the 19. >> i yield back my time. >> thank you mr. chairman. secretary perry, my colleague mr. sherman a few minutes ago gauged with you about the santa susanna field lab. we are neighbors and so i want to second what he stated given that many of my constituents are impacted by this site as well, which is just outside of my district, and although operations at the site ceased in 2006, it remains extremely toxic
with chemical and radioactive contamination. i'm deeply disappointed along with my constituents with the lack of action and transparency the d.o.e. has shown over the last decade. the d.o.e. and nasa signed an administrative order of consent ordering that d.o.e. and nasa take responsibility for their pollutants and contaminants at the field lab and do a full cleanup which was supposed to be completed in 2017 and clearly has not been, and in fact, nearly nothing of progress has happened. so can you speak more specifically about your plans of action for the complete cleanup of this site and how long it will take? >> i can -- let me give you the for the record here. the department as you said signed an administrative order of consent with california to clean up the background cleanup at the site, and the preferred
alternative in the feis is not in the aoc cleanup for the following reasons. there are various factors that are included in making a recommendation for preferred alternative. these include considering the final land use of the site as open space and the ecological and cultural impacts of any cleanup option. additionally, studies performed after signing the aoc identified less contamination than previously projected. when considering the factors with potential effects at the -- at the site, the preferred alternative would be the best option for the site to be cleaned in a way that ensures it will be protective of human health and the environment while avoiding unnecessary damage to the cultural and ecological resources present at the site. the final decision will be fully protective of human health and the environment. >> i understand that. so what's the progress in terms of the preferred alternative? is there a negotiation that needs to happen?
what are we looking at in terms of something being able to -- i mean, no cleanup really has started right, so even a preferred alternative i would like to see some action towards -- and i'm wondering if you can speak to that. >> may i get undersecretary dubard to share with you? >> the environmental impact statement was completed by us and sorry we can't comment what happened in a previously leadership team. we completed that. we submitted that to the state, and we're working with the state on the actual specifics of what would make sense given that environmental impact statement. we look forward to working with the state of california on that. >> thank you, so i know that you mentioned to mr. sherman or my colleague that you might visit our region and speak about this with our constituents and i look forward to discussing those plans further. >> be happy to. >> i know that the other piece that has been somewhat confusing to our region is the level of resources that have been allocated to cleanup, and i do recognize that this happened before your administration, but can you explain how the department decides to distribute
the funds between nuclear cleanup sites? >> well, i think we go through a process of being -- when you look at the history of this country, when you look at hanford, for instance, when you look at the manhattan project and all of the cleanup that we have a massive amount of work to be done in the future, so, you know, we prioritize it as best we can, and i think do a relatively passable job of my bet is you think they probably need to spend a little bit more money in the san fernando valley. >> i'm guessing everybody wants more money to be spent. >> i'm pretty sure that the senators from washington state have the same observation that
there's not enough money spent in the hanford side to suit them. >> i do think it would be worth us taking a better look at how these decisions are made, maybe the metrics and how we can just better understand that and explain it back to our constituents as well. i do commend the department or restarting the lodos radiation program. really quick, i know i don't have a lot of time left, but i want to turn to freedom gas and renewables, and secretary perry last month you rehe's leasted an announcement the department would be expanding to spread freedom gas to other countries. while i applaud the desire to increase the economic competitiveness of the u.s. to other countries, i'm concerned that the majority of the time is spent advocating for coal and natur natural gas as opposed to renewable sources. so i'm wondering if you can just talk about how -- how those other sources of energy, whether it's solar, wind, hydro power
and geothermal are going to be included in these plans in terms of export? >> again, i remind people of my history with wind. there is not an elected official in the country, not a governor, not a president, no one who has a record that is any more productive when it comes to a renewable, in this case wind, than i had as the governor of the state of texas, so -- and we continue to promote them and talk about them. we do an all of the above impact, but let me get with specificity to l and g and why you may -- or it may appear to a lot of folks you spend an i inordinate amount of time pro moating liquefied natural gas. i think it's a clean burning
fuel that every molecule of lng that we can get into the market dis pla displacing old or inefficient coal burning plants in europe, for instance s a win for the climate. and i'm going to continue doing that because i think the idea that, you know, not only is it in our best interests from a geopolitical standpoint, it's also in the climate's best interests and i think it's in the world's best interests. we promote an all of the above approach. we by and large don't try to pick winners from losers. we try to explain to people why the technology may be better for them to go one way or the other, but by and large, we stick with an all of the above approach, and if it can come from the united states and be united states friendly, technology wise or resource wise, then i think that's -- that's good for us. >> i know i'm out of time and i want to thank you, and i yield
back. >> thank you, i'll now recognize mr. lipinski for five minutes. >> thank you, thank you secretary for being here, for your testimony. you talked about high performance computing, the importance of it. you were at the national lab a couple of months ago for an announcement on the aurora commuter so thank you for coming out there. in the -- just last week in the house energy and water appropriations bill, i introduced amendment. we passed the amendment to provide additional funding for the argon leadership computing facility personnel, to hopefully speed the process of this computer. can you elaborate on the potential of exoscale computing
and the ramifications if we fall behind as we are racing china on this. >> yeah. i think the -- i think the most -- the simplest way that i tell people about what's going on with exo scale and quantum computing is this, who gets to quantum first wins, and i know that's -- that may be so simplistic but it's really true, and the work that we're doing getting us to exoscale, obviously that aurora computer at argon is one of the first steps, i think the next one is out at berkeley, and getting us to exoscale, and that's doing as i said earlier a billion, billion transactions per second. then the next step is quantum, and at that particular point in
time, and for the u.s. to get to that first, it's going to impact everything across the board because the board because the artificial intelligence, the machine learning and managing that much data is kind of the name of the game. >> thank you. i appreciate your support and we need to continue to support it and provide the funding that's necessary to move this forward. i want to move on to artificial intelligence efforts, the d.o.e. has many efforts going on as well as other federal agencies also do. i know that the administration has taken steps to improve coordination of ai, but i think coordination efforts could be improved. earlier this year i inintrodu i growing artificial intelligence to ensure a coordinating entity.
can you describe how ai efforts are integrated across d.o.e. as well as coordinated with other federal agencies and how it might benefit from additional coordination? >> your question is pretty timely. i mentioned this a little earlier, but tomorrow i'm going to -- i'm doing a tour of darpa we're talking about the cooperation between dod and d.o.e. and defense advance research agency over there. so they are very focused on ai. in a lot of cases as understand secretary barr said they have a different mission than d.o.e. does, but we compliment each other and what we want to do is make sure that we're not duplicating, that we are, in fact, complimenting that there's some synergy that comes out of the dollars that we're spending,
dealing with artificial intelligence and how we combine those. nuclear security is part of this. the electric grid security is part of this. all of these areas, cyber securi security. you know, models for the thing that i mentioned with mr. carson earlier about the predictive models that d.o.e. is going into so we can better predict what's going to happen with these severe storms. these computers, this artificial intelligence that's going to be managed with these computers, with this predictive models, these are examples where we stand up in front of our constituents and say listen this is where your tax dollars are being spend and here's some good return on that investment that you're having. self-driving cars, i mean, this list goes on and on.
>> i think actually argonne is the cutting-edge of your topic. let me quickly comment. historically people look at ai as data capture. argonne is much farther down the road on this and this deals to your exact point which deals with coordination. using ai to learn first principles at physics, at chemistry, biology and materials. for ai to ally to research on first principles science is where ai is going. so i think your bill is very important. and about coordination, what they are doing in argonne i think is very much at the cutting-edge because this just isn't about advanced computing and rick stevens at argonne. they showed up here and laid out the head of materials and
commemorate industry from argonne, the head of the light source for imaging and the head of computing and they are developing a holistic cycle of research based on first principles of using ai to drive first principles of physics and of materials and then using the imaging machine at argonne as all one organized entity particularly for research. this is actually where research is going. >> i just want to just for the record, i will ask you because my time super, if you can give more information about the funding opportunity announcement for fiscal year '20 about the two or more multiple disciplinary quantum research centers. i want to find out more about that and something i'm very interested in and something that argonne is very interested in. >> yes, sir. we'll get it and get it in the record and let me finish by
saying october, this coming october, there will be an x lab event at argonne and it's focused on artificial intelligence. hope you'll be there. >> thank you. yield back. >> before we bring the hearing to a close i want to thank secretary perry for coming to testify before the committee today. the record will remain open for two weeks for additional statements from members and any questions the committee may be asked of the witness. the witness is excused and the hearing is adjourned. e
discussion on building an all-volunteer force after vietnam and look at u.s. policy changes after the war. watch american history tv tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 3. tonight on c-span, vaping and the youth nicotine epidemic. congress is investigating the issues. we start at 8:00 p.m. with opponents of vaping. >> kids do not associate vaping and juuling is like kleenex or band aids and there have been articles written about this and studies written about this. i know. my son and i have commented on those stories. kids think they are juuling, they don't think they are vaping or using e cigarettes. >> at 9:50 eastern the ceo of juul labs a manufacturer of e cigarettes. >> we don't want any underage
consumers using this product. we need to work together to make sure no underage consumers use this product. it's terrible for our business, terrible for public health, terrible for our reputation. none of this is good stuff. >> watch tonight on c-span, online at c-span.org or listen wherever you are with the free c-span radio app. a house subcommittee recently held a hearing to examine ethics and recusal laws in the federal courts and whether the supreme court should have a formal code of conduct. this is an hour and 35 minutes. subcommittee will come to order without objection the chair is authorized to declare a recess of the subco