tv Energy Secretary Rick Perry Testifies on FY 2018 Budget Request CSPAN June 23, 2017 9:16pm-11:00pm EDT
retaliation brings only further retaliation. an eye for an eye is often paid at high interest rates in our day and age. and at 6:30 recall reagan's 198 0e trip to berlin and the gate speech. >> he knew it was a great applaud line, and i knew it was authentic ronald reagan. but history as president obama said, has been hard. and of course we would never celebrate that famous speech if in fact the events of 1989 had not transpired the way they did. >> for our complete channel line up go to cspan.org. >> and now rick perry testifies before the natural resources
committee on president trump's proposed 2018 budget for the department and its agencies. this is an hour and 40 minutes. good morning, everyone. the committee will come to order. i apologize for the delayed start. hopefully we will have an opportunity to hear from the secretary and learn the president's views for the department of energy. secretary carry, i want to welcome you to your first hearing following your bipartisan confirmation in the senate. while it took us a bit longer than we hoped to get you in this role, we're glad to have you at
the helm. we look forward to helping you get a full complement of folks there at the budget department as well. the budget approach takes a different approach this year than we've seen in the past. this is portion of the department that falls outside the scope of our committee here. the administration has also requested robust fund frg the cleanup of nuclear waste left behind by our country's cold war legacy. the budget request proposes deep cuts to research and development for energy and science. it also proposes to phase-out innovative programs that have had demonstrated success. i understand what drove this proposal, but i'm also concerned by certain parts of it. the united states is the world leader in science and energy. we like it that way.
we want to keep it that way. and at the core of that is the work done at our national labs and universities by the men and women who dedicate their careers to further science. members on both side of this committee want to maintain and strengthen that leadership. so we want to be careful we don't get in the way of the good work or private role of the sector. but keep in mind many of us have found good opportunities where it makes sense to increase funding for rnd. i appreciate the need to find savings and balance the budget, but that can cannot come on the expense of science and invasion. the department should continue to push the lemts of science in order to ensure the next generation of energy technologies is developed here in this country. although, i do not support all the proposals in this budget request, i agree we do have some areas of agreement here. i also believe we can undertake
reforms at the department to save tax dollars. our loan program is a good champ of how that can work. my job to drive down the costs of prekmrlgs technologies to make energies more affordable, reliable, clean, diverse and secure. take you back to energy 20/20, those principles haven't changed. so secretary carrie, again, thank you for being here this morning. i hope to be able to host you up in the state soon. i know you've made similar statements to colleagues in the congress here. we look forward to hearing your priorities outlined before the committee this morning. and i'll turn to our ranking member. >> thank you, madam chair for hoeding this hearing. and welcome back, mr. secretary. the department of energy is a global leader in science and
technology with an unrivalled network of national lab toirds. it's also a key to our national security when it comes to nuclear and cyber threats. it would devastate emerging clean energy jobs in our economy. it would kill science and invasion and the jobs that doe supports. the budget would raise electricity rates in the northwest. i guarantee a number of people on this committee will not be supportive of that. it will undermine leadership in a sector that is posed to grow millions of jobs around the world. and more than $30 trillion will be invested in new renewable energy facilities between now and 2040. so we've heard a lot about the so-called energy dominance from this administration. i'd like to hear a lot less of
exporting commodities that even countries like china are starting to have a lot of blow back on and pledging more on how we're going to win the efficiency, advance technologies and things that consumers around the world are pledging commitment to. as this committee recently showed the cost of clean energy technology has dropped between 4% and 41% since 2008. i was excited to join the chair on a trip with where we saw how energy was helping businesses save dollars and how microgrids in alaska are looking for every advancement they can get in driving down the costs of energy. this is something that both democrat and republican administrations have supported. but president trump's budget is a break in that bipartisan tradition. it's an attempt to turn back the
clock on energy policy, i think, at the expense of the future. during your confirmation hearing you committed to protecting science, protecting the men and women who advocate for that science and advocating for a professional lab. but specifically this budget proepgss to eliminate rpe, which the advanced high potential, high impact advance technologies that are either too high to take on or advance to take on our nation. and the assistance program which provides crystal assistance to 50 states to help them. and the proposed cuts to the office of energy efficiency and renewable naerjs and 48% to the electricity liability. i guarantee you that's something
that everybody across the board here cares about. and a 17% cut in the office of science, which is the largest sponsor of science and physical science. this week you questioned the certainty of science behind the climate change. and during your confirmation hearing you said i'm going to protect all the science, whether it's related to climate or whatever aspects. so mr. secretary, with all due respect, i want to make sure that you and your office have all the information you need on science. your budget proposal slashes the biological and environmental research within the office of science, the office that supports climate research by 43%. and another troubling area is the important area for doe on energy infrastructure. our grid is under attackmism from 2012 to 2016 the number of reported incidents to u.s. infrastructure nor nan doubled. and according to "the washington post" story last week, russian
hackers have already shown interest in targeting u.s. energy and utility systems. so this threat to our grid is clearly growing. and this morning i along with 18 of my colleagues are sending a second let door the president reiterating the doe should readdress this threat to our infrastructure. nevertheless, your budget slashes the cyber funding by 30%. so i want to see a larger investment in this very, very critical area to our infrastructure. i'd like to mention i know my colleague from washington had a chance to talk to you about funding yesterday. and i'm incredibly disappointed to see the administration's approach to the hanford cleanup. it demonstrates a disregard for
had health and safety of the individuals who are working in our state. the trump administration needs to understand if we do not prioritize hanford funding and the safety and security, we are going to have security problems. these recent sthents are a wake up call for the administration. and that's why i'm working to ensure the resources are there for the public. now, i know i have probably have a little sheet of all the ideas and themes people have come up with in the past. we had secretary watson delay the treatment plan. for two years the clinton administration planned the prioritization of the plan to pay contractors. we saw secretary avidson try to cleanup the plan.
we had secretary muniz explore new ways. so all i'm saying that every energy secretary comes into office pressured, pressured more by some omb person who knows nothing about science trying to do cleanup on the cheap. i guarantee it can't be done. we have to remain resolute and committed. so i look forward to asking about that. but i know many of my colleagues both in the northwest on this committee and on the up proeperations committee will have a lot to say about hanford. thank you. >> it's good to have you before the committee. i will note that allison dune is with the secretary this morning. she is the acting chief and financial officer for doe. i understand you will not be providing testimony this morning, but thank you for being here with the secretary.
and miss secretary, with that if you would like to begin your remarks so that we can turn to questions. >> senator, thank you. and it's a privilege to be in front of you and the committee again. senator campwell, members of the committee it's an honor to be here to discuss president trump's fiscal year 2018 budget request. as each of you know it is a great privilege to serve as this 14th secretary of energy. as a former legislator i might add an appropriateerator as well and the governor, i am very respectful of the budget writing process and the importance of the work you've undertaken. i look forward to working with you to finalize a budget we can all be proud of and the service of the taxpayers of this country as well.
in my three and a half months as secretary of energy i've seen first-hand the impact of the leadership both domestically and internationally. i've traveled around the country, been to some of our states. and senator campwell, i intend to get to hanford asap likely this summer to look atthet, to talk to the men and women who are working there, visit with those brilliant individuals that are on sight that i happen to take a lot of faith in their knowledge of what's needed and how to address these issues that are driving their mission. so i look forward to being in a lot of your states over the course of the next months ahead. these labs truly are as you have all noted either today or in previous conversations are
national treasures. they're the future of innovation in this country. and i have been in absolute awe of the diverse scope of the department's mission and the consequential work that we are charged with undertaking. i've also traveled over seas representing the united states at the g7 meeting in rome and then in beijing for the clean invasion and had the opportunity to visit japan and meet with leaders ask stakeholders about the energy partnership that the u.s. and japan has. and on a very somber note, i toured the side of the fukushima disaster and saw first-hand the absolute monumental task they have before them. my trip to asia coincidently began on the day that president trump announced that we would
officially withdraw the united states from the paris agreement. i delivered his message to the world that even though the u.s. would be no longer part of the paris agreement, we are still the leader in clean energy technology. and we are committed to that mission. the department of energy does many things well. america has remained on the forefront of technology for over 40 years because of the amazing men and women at these labs. and you particularly understand this with the two you have in your state. they wake up every day knowing that they will make a real difference in the world. and i told them the first time i met with them that the greatest job i ever had was being the governor of texas. but after working here, i've come to realize the secretary of energy is officially the coolest job i've ever had, senator. under my leadership, our experts
at doe will continue their work for the benefit of every american and our allies alike. as secretary of energy i'm also a member of the national security council, this council supported by doe in its mission to keep our nation safe. president trump's fiscal year 2018 budget request provides $28 billion to advance our key missions and focuses on important investments including insuring the safety and effectiveness of our nuclear weapons arsenal, protecting our energy infrastructure from cyber attacks and other threats, achieving computing and focusing network on your national laboratories on early stage research and development. and my goals are straightforward. advance our nation's critical energy and rnd, strengthen our nuclear security, and fulfill our management commitment.
i just painted you a rather rosy picture. and while there is a lot of good news to report, there are other hard conversations we need to have as you're well aware. there are approximately 120 sites in 39 states that storing spent nuclear fuel or high level waste. in fact many members of this committee have waste in their states. we have a moral and a national security obligation to come up with a long-term solution, finding the safest repositories available. this is a tenseatisensitive top some, but we no longer can continue to kick the can down the road. as a former legislative approperator and governor, i understand how important following the rule of law is.
i've been instructed to move fords towards that gall. the president's budget requests $120 million to resume activity for the waste repository and to initiate a robust interm storage program. we also need to be good stewards to the taxpayer dollars. congress has spent $5 billion on the mock project which is way over budget with noened in sight and has a 2048 completion date. it could be used for other priorities like national cleanup of other sites. there are better, cheaper ways to dispose of plutonium. nagt we're using that process now. i look forward to having an
ongoing dialogue with many of you in the days to come. this proposal makes some difficult choices, but it is paramount we initiate our fudishiary responsible to the american taxpayer. dealing with the mission of the department by consolidating dupeications within our agents is in order. and it does in fact respect our taxpayers. he deserves credit for beginning this discussion of how we most widely spend our scarce federal dollars. as for me, this isn't my first rodeo. having been the governor of texas for 14 years, i managed under some pretty tight budget consequences. it wasn't all blue skies and smooth sailing. we had some substantial budget shortfalls duringthality period of time that i have governor. and we were able to budget successfully. and we faced limited resources
at times. and texas became a shining example of energy growth, economic growth, higher educational standards and important improvements to the environment. i will manage the same way at the department of energy. and we did that in my home state by working together. and that's one of the things that i want to really bring forward today is my intention of working with you. i understand this budgetary process. i understand it's the first step. but i am committed to working with you, each of you in the ways that you direct. i understand this process. i respect it, set clear goal, manage the best and it brightest achieve those goals, and spending scarce resources wisely. with your help i abelieve we can attain many of the positive outcomes that you expect you want to see the department of
energy is capable of delivering on behalf of the american people. so thank you again, chairman. and i look forward to attempting to answer your questions. >> thank you, mr. secretary. appreciate your enthusiasm for your new role. i'm sure that will get through every day, and somedays are easier than others. we all know that around here. let me start by questioning by rpe because i am a big fan of rpe. i recognize when we think about the department of energy and one of the cool things you get to do is help facilitate some of these great fabulous ideas that change the country, change the world. but as we all know, cool ideas that started in somebody's garage don't always end up making it through.
we talk a lot around this committee about the so-called valley of death with energy invasions. and good things happen, but they just can't make it to that point of commercialization. when i think of the role of rpe and how it has really helped to be that bridge, its investments have reportedly spurred nearly $2 billion on follow of on priebt sector funding. and this is exactly the type of thing we should be doing. so the question to you this morning to start things off, do you support the mission of rpe, and if so, if we eliminate where are we? where does that put the department of energy and that space you should be occupying which is to help really revolutionize and change the
world here? >> senator, you asked the perfect question. and i think from my perspective the results of being able to deliver the next big thing, if you will -- and when you think about the department of energy and other arpa types ofagy agencies like darpa for incidence and internet fracturing, was greatly assisted by the department of energy. as you shared extraordinary stories of technology and invasion that's come out-of-the department of energy, arpa e was created about a decade ago and was funded for the first time in '09. as i said, i understand this budgetary process, and i'm going to follow your lead when it comes to i know how the money is
appropriated, and i know how the instructions come. so if the result is we want to department of energy to be really focused on pushing these new ideas out, getting them to commercialization, i am incredibly supportive of that -- >> do you think that's a role of the department? >> i do. i think there is a real role to play on getting basic research funded, gas funding, to that to ppoint where you can commercialize it. we're going to argue about, senator franken, whether it's this much or this much or what have you. but i don't think we're going to have an argument about -- if you look at my history, as the governor of texas we helped create technology funds in that state that commercialized technologies that would have died in that valley of death as you referred to if that had not
been there. now, senator, we're going to have a discussion here and debate about what's the proper structure. is it in -- is it the arpa e structure? if that's what the congress decides, perry, this street chuckture we're going to have, you've got to make it work -- >> do you think it's not been structured in recent years? >> i think we've got to have an open discussion about is this the proper structure, is this the right way to deliver the result? and i've got a pretty good background of 14 years of managing a pretty big entity. and what i would ask you, senator, and each of you in both the personal and professional way is i hope you will trust me,
if you will, to manage this agency to deliver the results that you want. is it absolutely in this structure that we have today? i can't tell you yes or no. what i'm going to tell you is i'm going to work with you very closely. senator franken asked me this offstage, and i answered it yesterday as well when somebody said, you know, defend this budget. and i said, you know, the budget was written before i got here. it was written before the second day of march, the best i can tell. but my job to robustly defend that budget, and i'm going to. with that said, i highly respect this process. and this is the first step of this budgetary process. as a governor i put a lot of budgets forward. senator campwell, i never got
one back the way i sent it. so with that said, we're in a process. i respect that. i want you to know on the arpa side of things i will work dill jptly to deliver the results you expect, you demand, and the american people will salute and say well-done. >> well, i think you'll find at least among this committee there is good support for what comes out of arpa-e. so i'm hearing you're willing to work with us on that. i think that's important, but again you've got support here. >> thank you, madam, chair. i'd like to follow up. i know representative new house had a chance to talk to aabout pacific northwest lab. and i think when he talked about the potential of a thousand layoffs, you talked about a way to keep employment and
technology at a level that is needed in this country. so are you suggesting those hundreds of employees would not lose their jobs or -- i'm trying to understand where you're going because you're see involved in invasion. i would say they've been e-patterns in the fukushima cleanup and so i want to understand where you think is going. >> senator, there are a lot of numbers that have been thrown out as there's going to be this many people lose their jobs at the labs, this many people lose their jobs at the labs. and i'm not going to sit in front of you in the committee and tell you guarantee there's not going to be one person lose their job alt a lab. i'm not going to do that because that's not realistic. what is realistic is to tell you
that my priorities are going to be we get the job done at these labs. it really requires a lot of capable, smart individuals. weave a lot of flexible with our budget. i hope you will consider giving me even more flexible than maybe previous secretaries have to be able to manage those dollars the best way that we can, to keep those labs both functioning at the high level that area and to keep as many of those individuals employed that you're going to need. so i understand how to manage during some times that you have budgetary challenges. there may be some -- there may be some hard decisions that get made about whether or not this number of employees is the right amount or not. with the goal being using our
unexpended balance, using our flexibility for that not to be a challenge for our labs. >> look, i will give you this. you are thought the first energy secretary to come before this committee with the idea of changing things. but most of the time i think our committee and the appropriateerators have probably set those administrations straight because we have been the stewards of these concepts and prioritizations and continually focus on them as regional issues or as national issues. but i'm just curious, what area do you think we don't need innovation in? i mean in the context of these lab workers working on cybersecurity, cleanup, building efishiancy. are any of those areas you don't think we need to continue to innovate in? >> nope. >> okay, so none of those would be on the chopping block?
senator, everything is going to be analyzed. and again, i'm not going to tell you publicly or privately there's not an employee that's going to lose their job in the process. i'm going to manage it, and i'm going to manage it in a very well way. but nothing that you said is not an important part of what the department of energy does. can we do it better? i think we can. can we do it more efish antly? i think we can. and i'm not just talking from a political standpoint. >> thank you. >> i've done that before. >> i want to ask you about workering safety at hanford. i know we have a few minutes here, but all of these issues are critically important to our state and very much at the forefront of what's concerning. what specific steps are you taking with worker safety. and will you look at this air tank issue for us? the workers at various sites have come up with what they
think are more workable solutions that are being implemented at dough on other locations to help the workers continue to do the cleanup they need but to be safe and secure on their air systems. >> senator, one of the things i want to in a global way just share with you. one of the first videos i sent out agency-wise was about worker safety, about our commitment to it. about if they see, if workers see an issue, that they should never fear that they cannot report that back to the secretary of energy all the way up if that's what's required. and i think that was an important message we sent out there. our commitment to the safety of these workers. we're going to continue to find ways to implement programs
whether it's -- your side may be the biggest challenge this country's got hanford. >> no, hanford is the largest waste nuclear cleanup site in the entire world, and that is why you cannot do it on the cheap. >> there's a difference between doing it on the cheap and doing it as efficiently as you can. and want to have that conversation with you. >> can't wait. thank you. >> senator flake. >> thank you, mr. secretary. good to see you again. >> thank you, sir. >> during the confirmation process we discussed issues they've had with the western power association. the effective delivery of hidropower in the rest of the west is very important to urban and rural customers alieks. and as the chairman of the
subcommittee i see our over sight role in improving the efficiency and transparency at wapa. they deserve to know how their money deserve to know how their money is spent and to know it is spent wisely and for the intended purposeain know wapa is staffed with a lot of good people but a string of past fraudulent spending has cast a shadow over the agency's finances. fraudulent spending of rate payer money has been recently recorded by arizona television stations and by newspapers. this march d.o.e. inspector general reported a list of actions taken by wapa to address concerns over fraudulent or improper spending in the government's purchase card program. now however, the d.o.e. report did not, quote, determine the effectiveness of corrective actions in addressing the identified weakness,s, unquote.
and last week it came to my attention on several instances in sworn testimony this spring a senior wapa official said that problems with the government's purchase card program have not been adequately fixed. now it is troubling to see that there is disagreement at the highest level of wapa over whether sufficient safeguards are in place to stop this from happening again. my question for you is, obviously it is unacceptable what we've seen, the investigation, news stories, hearings, audits, after all of that, there could still be waste and fraud and abuse at wapa. do you agree that that is an untenable situation. >> yes. and -- and if i may just resound on that -- we at this particular point in time, after the i.g. investigation, are unaware of
any current fraud or waste or abuse for that matter at wapa. it is unacceptable. we hopefully will send that message loud and clear that the i.g. inspection did that as well. number one that we're watching and we're paying attention. if -- if from your perspective and the individual that you make reference to, if you think that there is continued investigative effort that needs to come from d.o.e., could we have that conversation and go forward from there. because it is just unacceptable, sir. and in any time those kind of activities occur, people lose faith in government and i came to this job to be of assistance,
to help and i hope i can be. >> well thank you. and i think what would be helpful is to follow up with the i.g. at d.o.e. to ensure that procedures are put in place so this can't happen again. >> yes, sir. >> and some believe they are not in the i.g. -- their report is saying that it did not determine the effectiveness of corrective actions in addressing the identified weaknesses so obviously they need to do that and if you could request of the i.g. to ensure that money from the fraudulent and improper purchases has been recovered. >> yes, sir. >> okay. thank you. with regard to just in the minute i have left, research dop at d.o.e. obviously the budget makes some tough choices. time of tight budgets. we have to make -- prioritize this kind of spending. i'm exploring a bipartisan effort to help d.o.e. identify
some specific clean energy goals in the area of advanced nuclear reactor technology and grid scale storage which intermittent power coming on increasingly particularly in the west than we've got to have clean base load power. this puts pressure on nuclear power that wasn't there before. we have got to make sure that research done at d.o.e. could help us into the next generation of nuclear and also grid scale storage to take advantage of intermittent sourcing. >> yes. and i'll just quickly, i happen to think and senator murkowski have had this discussion, small reactors and the work that has been done and the work that will be done i happen to think is one of the areas where we need to spend some substantial time and resources on and in our national labs, inl in particular is
working on that. we have the private sector that we help fund, new scale that is out now, moving toward commercialization. and so i think we're making some good progress. not fast enough to suit me and not broad enough to suit me. >> thank you. >> thank you. senator he hiv nrich. >> thank you, madam chair. it is great to see you, and i want to thank you for your trip to new mexico and think it meant a lot of folks at whip and at los alamos and i know sandy is looking forward to get to connect with you at some point as well and i think one thing you've heard from multiple perspectives this morning is the importance of safety and in my conversations with you, i want to thank you for your commitment to that because whether it is los alamos, whip, hanford all of these places, worker safety has to be number one. as you know, los alamos, which i believe you visited in may, has
long been the nation's center of excellence on plutonium research and is it correct that this budget for fy-18, the request maintains los alamos central role in the plutonium mission and it is your intent to stay on schedule and meet the statutory requirements for production. >> yes. >> that is good to hear. is it also your intention that los alamos continue into the future to fill that important mission for the nation as was approved by the nuclear weapons council? >> yes, sir. >> and just one more thing on this front, can you assure they ma you will make the final decision on additional plutonium facilities based solely on strictly objective criteria, things like cost, schedule, compliance with your mission requirements? >> yes. >> great. i want to ask you something that isn't strictly a budget-related
item but it is certainly timely and incredibly important from a an economy perspective. as you know wind generation in texas has taken off over the last few years and now accounts for about 23% of power generation for the electric reliability council of texas, ercot as you probably know it. further they believe that close to 100% of the new electricity generation added to texas over the next ten years is likely to be wind or solar. do you agree with ercot's technical assessment that they could accommodate such high penetration levels of renewable energy? >> i'm -- i'm going to be cautious about answering that with divinity. we're in the process of doing a grid study now. >> that is why i bring it up. >> that i think will give a better certainly more in depth answer that i could just off the
top of my head today. so if i could -- if i could punt this to the first week in july, we should be getting that finalized. you obviously and members will have access to that as we talk about it. but my -- you know my history with wind and my history with having a very broad portfolio and i bring that to the department of energy. nothing has changed from that perspective. >> i raise it marginally because ercot is managing dramatically high levels of renewables than most states in the nation and looking at what they've been able to do is instructive for whether or not we have a problem anywhere else. >> yes, sir. and i would remind folks that texas has a substantial base load energy production as well. and that is probably where we're going to be getting down into
the weeds on this, senator. is that what is the percentage of base load, whether it comes from fossil fuels, either from coal or natural gas or from nuclear, that could -- that maintain that base load and obviously having solar and wind as part of your over all mix, we think is a good -- i think, let me put it that way, is a very good thing. >> i don't actually remember base load being a term when i was studying engineering because we've always had a situation where, for maintenance purposes, you taken tire facilities offline. so just like solar doesn't work at night, also coal fire and natural gas fired facilities get taken offline in their entirety in many cases. so i think we ought to be looking at reliability and on being able to manage the grid effectively for that reliability as opposed to saying this is
good and that is bad. >> absolutely. the sense of making sure that you have enough energy sources that are going to be reliable and stable and economical, that is what the public wants. i mean, you and the engineers and myself will all have a great discussion about some intricacies here but the american people want to know when they flip that switch on, when it is 117 degrees in las vegas as it was two days ago, that that air-conditioning is working. >> might be something to this global warming thing after all. thank you, secretary. >> thank you, senator. senator barrasso. >> thank you. thanks for being here today. and i want to talk about things in the budget request. the budget request includes steep cuts to the fossil energy research and development program. that is the program that includes cash on capture and storage research which the department proposes to cut by more than 80%. so i am concerned that these
proposed cuts conflict with what the president has said in terms of his goals to bring back coal jobs and to increase coal production. in 2005 coal accounted for half of the u.s. power generation and this past year it declined to about 30%. so i think we have to reverse this decline in order to maintain a reliable and resilient electric grid. i think it is critical that we have all of the energy sources. there are emerging technologies like carbon capture and storage that have the potential to reverse the coal decline and reducing emissions. i think achieving the commercialization of the technology is going to protect the environment and ensure that coal plants remain in service and competitive in energy markets. so could i just ask you to visit a little bit what the assurances that you could give us and give me that the department's budget request is sufficient to support the development and the commercialization of the clean coal technologies. >> excuse me, sir. as i said earlier, maybe before
you stepped in, that i'm going to do my best to vigorously defend this budget. again, it was written before i got here. but with that said, i understand this budgeting process and prioritizing parts of it that may on the face of this budget look like there has been massive cuts over here, i hope we'll have the back and forth and management. budget where we prioritize some things and we found them and we get good results. ccus is one of those. on our trip to china, at the clean energy minniisterial, we were able to get them in a international way to put that carbon capture utilization and sequestration issue at the forefront of the clean
ministerial to have that conversation internationally and i think that is good not only for the environment, i think it is good for american technology, as you know one of my first acts as secretary of energy was to go to the petro nova plant right outside of houston, the world's largest sequestration coal capture and it is a fascinating -- we had this conversation with zal galley who is the price prime ear in china. they are interested in this technology. i think we're doing what not only the american people, but this congress wants us to do, as a country and that is to promote these technologies that are coming out -- in this case d.o.e. and a lot of the cases, and the private sector, working together.
so i'm committed to promoting that technology. committed to this all of the above approach which the carbon capture side of coal utilization is very important. we're -- we're going to use it. and we're going to use it wisely and we're going to use it in a way that effects our environment and in a positive way and in a way that effects our economy in a positive way. >> one other thing, the department's budget proposals includes a significant cut to the office of electric delivery and energy reliability. and that's the program that is responsible for research and development to improve grid reliability and security. in terms of attacks. i know you talked about in your prepared remarks and among the most critical missions of the department is to develop the science and technology that will assure americans of a resilient electric grid and energy infrastructure. we all agree. so according to the north american electric reliability corporation report last year, in terms of cyber and physical security threats to the grid,
they say they continue to increase. becoming even more serious. we're hearing it all across the country and not just to the electric grid, but all at components. i'm concerned that less research and development for this innovative work could place our nation's grid at risk to these threats. so i just -- if you could spend a little bit of time talking about how we could make sure that the security is there for the grid for the future. >> yes, sir. i'm deeply aware of the president's executive order. the department of homeland security, the department of energy taking the lead on cyber security. even before that was done, we had stood up three of the national labs in what is referred to as the cyber core to be working on it. it is a priority. when i had the -- all of the lab directors in, that was one of the things that they heard that we were going to spend the resources, wore going to spend the focus and have the result of
being able to deliver to the private sector and to the government the challenges and the fixes, if you will, and we're working on that diligently. and we will -- i'm committing to you, senator, that that is a top tier priority at the department of energy and i suggest to you, again, that those labs have the capability, i.n.l. has its own grid out there where they could go and break things an invest it if you will and duplicate what we're seeing. so i'm -- i'm concerned about it, as an american citizen, i am confident that the department of energy has the intellect, the capability, and i will suggest to you the funding to do what the president and you as members of congress expect us to
deliver. >> thank you, mr. secretary. thank you, madam chairman. >> thank you. senator franken. >> thank you, madam chair. welcome back to the committee. secretary perry, i don't envy your position. you seem to be a defense counsel for someone charged with murder and you seem to be saying i know he's guilty, but i'm going to give him a robust defense. so you're doing a great job. >> [ inaudible ]. >> two days ago, the american innovation counsel, a group of ten current and retired corporate leaders, including norman augustine, former ceo of lockheed martin and bill gates released a report about the importance of federal investment in energy search and
development. the group recommends vastly increased funding for arpa-e, from 300 million to a billion dollars a year and increasing federal investment for advanced energy innovation to two and a half times the total amount for the energy research proposed in your budget. secretary perry, the paparaz -- president's budget is anti-innovation and does the exact opposite of what the innovation council recommends and it absolutely guts private investment and research including slashing energy and research programs by $3.1 billion and cutting renewable energy and energy efficiency research by nearly 70%. and again, on arpa-e. >> the president's budget completely eliminates them. you say the budget was written
before you were confirmed. and you said that today. but you do support this administration's budget cuts? >> senator, i'm going to do everything i can to deliver to the american people within the bounds of the budget that you write. and again, i understand and support, respect this process. >> okay. of course. >> is arpa e a good thing -- the results a good thing. yes. is arpa-e, the holy grail of how it needs to be structured, i would suggest to you maybe not. >> well let's talk about some of these things. when -- during your confirmation hearing you talked about how the federal government helped in developing technology central to hydraulic fracturing. if we talk about base load,
natural gas, really important, right? >> i will suggest to you that there are -- as it nuclear, as it clean coal. >> so that would be a yes. now the most successful one fifth of arma-e have raised $1.5 billion in private funding and launched in 56 new countries -- companies, new companies. that is -- that is $1.8 billion is much more than arpa-e has expended during the first years of the funding. this whole idea that there isn't a role and i'm not going to make you defend it, because i just want to say, it is the whole idea that the valley -- that the government's job isn't to take things through the valley of death, is wrong. and it is just that is the government's job in the certain
technologies. and we need to do that. we tried in the '80s, the government cut energy funding by 52%. do you know what happened to private research investment then? >> no, sir. >> well, they fell by 40%. private industry doesn't fill in in these kinds of -- these kind of emerging technologies when the government doesn't do it. the government increases and what it does -- it incentivized private industry to jump in. so industry -- well actually industry cut energy research by 79%. when over all r&d expenditures
were cut. so let me turn to climate change. because that is what -- oh, i'm out of time. i did wait a while here. because of the health care thing for you guys today. >> [ inaudible ]. >> okay. >> i can i start. >> i guess you could. [ laughter ] >> go ahead. >> i think we'll go to senator manchin, but we'll have a second round. >> thank you so very much chairman, madam chairman. secretary perry, good to see you back here. you were here in january 19th and at that time we talked and we had a very good conversation and you committed that when i asked would you come to west virginia and you are coming to west virginia july 7th and to see all of the advances we've made in clean coal technology and i appreciate that and you are person of your word.
and i thank you. >> yes, sir. >> and i remember, secretary, when we were governed together in 2005. i never forgot this, we were sitting in a southern governor's association meeting if you recall. >> yes, sir. >> katrina was getting ready to hit and i asked you at that time, i said, rick is this hurricane going to have any effect on you and you sold i've been told by my weather people that it is going to miss us. it might have missed but you got hit directly. >> but the results did not miss us and you have over a quarter of a million people to your state looking for refuge and you took them in. >> and this is off subject and this is important about working together and this is the republican governor of texas and a democratic governor and i got a call from the governor of louisiana then and she said can you handle -- or she said could you handle 25,000 people. and i said send them.
and about 125,000 later i'm on the phone to him saying, hey, joe, can you send some aircraft to help us move some people because we had another hurricane that came in and moved all of these people -- >> another one came right behind. >> yes, sir. and had it not been for joe manchin and the people of west virginia and the national guard of west virginia, we would have had some real slinging and i will never forget that, sir. thank you. >> and i think that is the way we're supposed to do here too. that is the way we should do it in congress and senate and the chairman and i work along those lines. but we sent six c-130s and 1200 troops. and we worked well together. with that being said, i want to thank you again and your coming and we're looking forward to your visits and the capitol is looking forward to your visit and we will entertain you in a bipartisan way. so with that, let me say thank you. let me go to the thing we're concerned about. i understand the grid
reliability and resilience that you have undertaken has drawn some criticism. i don't know why you would draw criticism from finding out how secure the grid system is and what it takes to energize this grid system, as being former governors we're on the same page, best to be left alone, we should be collaborating with the federal government because we have to make sure this thing doesn't collapse on us. and the study fits into that collaboration column. in west virginia, our existing installed capacity over 90% coal and we've eliminated all of the old plants with scrubbers and boilers, bag houses and we're looking for the new technology. i believe that the department of energy is taking a good look at this issue, of how coal should play a part in our national defense and i thank you for that. it is not about one fuel type over another. it is how do we energize and secure the grid. so could you please comment on
why you believe the study is so important and basically focus on ensuring the reliability that the country depending on. i think you said when it is 115 degrees and you flip the switch, they want something to work. >> yes, sir, senator it is very much -- i'm so glad that we got tasked with this grid reliability because i think it is important for us to have this conversation. i think all of us would love to see blue skies and filtclean air everywhere in the world. >> we're talking about base load. that runs 24/7 uninterrupted and if you have 60 days of coal there, you will feed it and nuclear gives you that and gas is coming on strong. >> and senator i'll mention this in passing. yesterday there were places
where they had brown-outs or black-outs in the western states. i saw this on the news. i'm not reporting it as guaranteed fact. but we know when there is that kind of stress on our grid system, that we feed to be prepared for that. and so it is so important that we economically and from a national security standpoint have these multiple sources of energy that will be there when we need it, when it is called on. having 60 days of coal on the ground, i happen to think is important. having nuclear plants that are functioning and being able to move the waste off site of those so that that industry knows that there is going to be a future for them is important. i think the natural gas that we have been blessed to be able to
retrieve now is an incredibly important part of that and our wind and solar energy and our hydro, all of those collectively are part of a portfolio that we've got to protect and making sure that our grid is -- when it is stressed to its highest levels, we'll till be able to keep that air-conditioning running in a place that temperatures are reaching 120 degrees outdoors. i don't want to take that call that a family has been put in distress or even died because we didn't do our work to make sure that there is a base load of energy to take care of the needs that this country has 24/7, 365 days out of the year. >> i think it is one of the most important studies and i thank you because it is imperative that we figure out how to keep the grids alive and energy
flowing so i want to thank you very much mr. secretary. >> thank you, senator manchin. senator daines. >> thank you, madam chair. mr. secretary. good to see you. >> yes, sir, thank you, sir. >> as you know, montana is a incredible state phone for fly fishing and elk hunting and the yellowstone national park and we are an energy state and we have more recoverable coal than any state in the united states and in montana we trike a pretty good balance. one that believes in the importance of developing our natural resources because without doing that we don't have jobs, low cost and affordable and reliable energy sources. tax revenues for a school and our teachers. at the same time, we work to protect our environment. as montanans, may we always be a state where that mom or dad could go down to walmart and buy their elk tag and that we don't become a state where only the rich and famous could afford to live there.
and one of the ways to do that is to ensure that we keep developing our natural resources responsibly. coal, oil, gas, they are important to the economy and we also balance out a large amount of hydroelectric power and some wind. we have large deputies of coal. we have critical minerals which we develop responsibly and safely and i do believe we could bring this montana balance on a national scale. i think filter technology will play an important role in that going forward. global energy is slated to grow and so is the need for coal and i do believe as we think about the longer term here, we need to lead in this important technology development. i want to talk for a moment about energy exports, mr. secretary. i was struck by some data that i saw and in fact at an energy summit that i put on in billings, montana, last year, we took a look at the big picture,
the long-term. and their projections about what will happen between now and 2050 globally. and every projection is simple, it is a projection but it was from the u.s. chamber, reliable and good source of information, they tell us that global population will increase by about 1.6 billion people between now and 2050. they also told us that energy demand is going to increase about 85% between now and 2050. and with the growth in global energy demand, with the u.s. now playing a larger role in supplying europe and east asia with coal and liquid natural gas, how do you see the department's budget supporting energy exports? because i think -- i've heard you say it. you said it is not about energy
independence, it is about global energy dominance and i completely agree. i think it is so strategic from an economic view point going forward. but also from a national security view point. and the world security. >> yes, sir. secretary. >> thank you, senator daines. and spending some time up in montana this last year, i was struck by two things. one, just the natural beauty of the tate. it is extraordinary. i understand why some folks from my part of the world want to spend their summers up there. >> and spend their money too. >> yes, sir. but the other thing, the fact that really hit me and i didn't understand initially was that montana is 49th in the nation in wages. and one of the reasons is because of the attack that we have seen historically on that form of energy and coal and also the timber industry that
regulations and generally speaking these are government regulations and federal government regulations that have really impacted your state in a very negative way. the president trump has clearly given us instructions, whether it is myself or all of us, secretary zinke, and putting regulations in place that absolutely take care of our beautiful resources that we have but also keep in mind the men and women, whether they are tribal members or whether they are the citizens of coal strip, that we understand that rules and regulations that we're going to be making. being able to sell that coal, i had the president of ukraine in the office on monday, por chenko and i were talking about u.s. coal being able to be delivered to ukraine so they don't have to rely upon the -- the pressures from russia at this particular point in time. president -- or excuse me, prime
minister modi is in town soon to talk to the president and i can assure that country is going to be the most populous country in the world in the very near future. their electricity demand is going to be monumental. we could be a part of that. american l&g and american coal and american technology and it is that ccus that i was talking to, the vice premier of china about, and our being able to deliver that, america, i don't think, has had a greater opportunity in our history to be able to play a powerful role in securing our national defense, making sure economically that we are a massive player in the global market place, and have an impact on the environment. because the way texas drove down its emissions back in the 2000s was partly transferring away
from the older inefficient power plants to natural gas and american l&g could help do that. so we have an extraordinary opportunity, senator, and i hope that the d.o.e. and i know -- i feel confident that we will, working with you, find those strategies of which we could put in place to promote american energy, american technology, and strengthen our security and our economy. >> secretary, thank you, i'm out of time. but i want to thank you for your support in that area. your vision. and i will tell you when the vice president pence came out to montana, several weeks ago, he met secretary zinke in billings, i flew out with the vice president from d.c., and the very first place that he went as vice president, his first visit to montana as vice president, we jumped in the suburban and we drove out to the crow indian reservation to the west moreland
and we rode horseback up to tour the mine and the jobs for indian country are critical. if they lose the jobs there, the unemployment rate goes to 80%. >> unacceptable. >> yes. >> thank you. >> senator cortez masto. >> thank you. secretary perry welcome back to the committee. when you were nomminitied for secretary of energy we had a frank and serious conversation about my grave concerns about citing nuclear waste at yucca mountain. and since that time, you called me ahead of time to tell me you were going there but since that trip you went from touting the importance of state sovereignty to a full throated support for depositing the nation's waste in nevada against the will of my state, undermining the state representation of nuclear waste and what has prompted such a change it your view point. >> senator, i with all due
respect, disagree with your analysis of my position. nothing has really changed. i think it is wise for us to have a very open conversation with this country about the moral obligation that we have as a people. there is statutory requirements for us to move this waste. there are multiple options about where that waste could go, as i clarified yesterday, there is no plan in place to -- to put that in a particular place at this particular point in time. but i think we need to be looking at all of our options and having an open and a productive conversation about how -- i don't think it is -- it's wise for us to continue to leave high level waste, spent
rods in pools, not unlike what they had at fukushima and particularly that over in california is the ring of fire. it is geologically, you could have an event that is not unlike what they had in fukushima. >> secretary perry, i appreciate that and i received your comments but let's talk about yucca mountain. i don't disagree we need a long-term plan but the concern that i have and many in our tate have is specifically when it comes to yucca mountain because your predecessor, secretary moonies and the dch o.e., they were steadfast in the position that the youka mountain program was unworkable and the department concurred with the recommendation from the blue ribbon commission on america's nuclear future that a phased adaptive consent-based citing process is the best approach to gain the public trust and confidence needed to site nuclear waste facilities and let me say this. you previously stated that you want to have a good working relationship with as many governors as you can. and i could tell you, as you
well know, that governor sandoval is incredibly concerned about not only your talk and discussion on yucca mountain but doubling down on talk about interim storage at the nevada national security site. and in fact, let me say this, western governor's association which includes your predecessor in texas recently passed a policy resolution which states that a nuclear waste facility should not be located within a boundary of of any western state or u.s. flag island without the written consent of that governor or territory. that is all that nevada is asking for. is consent based citing which your predecessor, the secretary and the blue ribbon panel have agreed that is what should occur and that is what we're asking to do. so why is that such a difficult concept. why is that something that you think should not occur and in fact this yucca mountain process should go forward and interim storage which is a whole new conversation that we haven't heard before at the nevada
national security -- i'm confused. >> let me help with the last issue that you brought up, senator, as i can. and i was making reference to an article that was by a nevada state senator that he pitched that out as an idea. i think about a may 14, 2017 article that i picked up, that was what i -- >> and i appreciate that and that is not something we'll support. >> but senator i'm going to -- >> let me say this -- [ overlapping speakers ] >> we're looking for commitment that you are looking for at least the science to prove that it is safe. i mean, even your deputy secretary dan broulet comments when he was here in his nomination hearing that if the science is not there that we would not support the project. if you can't get behind consent based citing which is what all states should be looking for
then at least look at science and commit if the science is not there and it is not workable, then we should not store nuclear waste for spent nuclear waste at youka mountain. could you commit to that. >> sure. i think it is important for us to do two things, pay attention to the science, and also to the rule of law. >> thank you. i appreciate that. >> thank you, senator cortez-masto. and secretary perry, just so you do know, i have been asked to submit as part of the committee record here today a letter that senator cantwell and i received as the chairman and ranking member from the colleague of senator cortez-master, senator heller also from nevada with a request specific to the department about repository costs in previous studies and a request for new cost studies on
geological disposal and repositivor i so this is included as part of the record. i believe that you may have already received it or are in the process of receiving it but he's asked for that request and i have -- i have complied with that. senator king. >> thank you, madam chair. mr. secretary, i don't envy you today because you've been sent us here to defend thein defensible. this budget is perhaps the worst budget for any agency that i've seen in 12 years in public life in terms of course ponding to national -- corresponding to national priorities. it is amazing. you made a statement in your opening statement when you first appeared in your confirmation hearing and you said when it comes to climate change i'm committed to making decisions on sound science that take into account the economic impact. this is not a sound science budget. this is a nonscience budget. you are cutting the very areas where the science which we need to make good policy decisions are going to be examined. earlier today you said the u.s.,
this is a direct quote, the u.s. is the leader in clean energy technology and we are committed to this mission. the budget doesn't say that. arpa-e, essentially limited and you are cutting the information agency 3.5% which provides information about our country's energy situation. energy efficiency, 69.6% cut. office of science, 17%. those are the national labs. and by the way, there are 56,000 people that work for the national labs. the budget i'm quite confident is largely personnel. so a 17% cut in a 56,000 person agency is about 9500 people. now there are probably other areas to cut but to come here and try to tell us you are about sound science when you are cutting these very -- the very department, the very portions of your essential agencies that are going to give us the science, it is just -- it doesn't pass the straight face test, mr.
secretary. i like you. you and i were governed together but i think you've been sent on a suicide mission here and i want you to go back and tell the people that are pushing you to do this, i can't do it. it is not responsible. if you could find a question in there, you're welcome to it. >> i was looking for it, sir. >> well i wan to know, how do you justify these giant cuts and don't tell me about reorganization. you cut something by 69% and say you're going to find efficiencies. >> governor, here is what i would tell you. is that if we're going to continue to do everything like we've always done it, then we're going to probably continue to get the same result. i hope what i can tell you is that i understand this budgeting process. i respect it. and i bring a rather substantial management history of running big things and doing them in a fairly substantial way,
sometimes we had the money that most agency heads thought that we needed and sometimes we didn't. but i hope we can agree that this is a good starting point. >> no, it is not a good starting point. it is a terrible starting point. 69 part 69.6% is not a good starting point. i meet you in the middle and it is still not adequate. >> and we'll meet in the middle and that is the only thing i could tell you, and it is awful. electricity deliverable reliable, 48% cut. are you aware that our grid is incredibly vulnerable right now to tack. >> probably more so than most people. >> well then how in the world could you allow people to say you are going to cut the department that works on energy reliability and delivery. that is the grid, by almost 50%.
>> senator again, i go back to if we get some flexibility in our budgeting, i feel pretty confident we'll be able to protect the grid because that is not the only place that we're doing any grid work. by a substantial margin. there is substantial places in our national labs, whether it is inl or other places where we are doing work to protect the grid. >> that is the national security concern and i want to follow up with you on that and if there are other places and move money around but cutting money for the reliability of the grid right now is -- is a national security threat. it is a -- and i serve on other committees around here that deal with this issue. it is a serious national security threat. i guess, as you have pointed out and said several times there is a process and you understand congress and the president proposed congress disposes -- here is the question though. if and when, and i believe it is only a question of when, congress restores a lot of these
funds, will you administer them as intended by congress and will you staff adequately to meet those needs? will you -- will you administer and implement the budget that congress passes? >> to best of my ability, i'm going to follow the rule of law, sir. >> thank you. >> thank you, madam chair. >> thank you, senator king. we'll have an opportunity for another round of questions. i know senator hoeven is ho hopping to make it back. i want to talk about you about the office of indian development and cost reductions for tribes and in alaska natives. this is a tough area to cut in
my view. we have a situation in alaska, we've got half of the tribes in the country and a lot of opportunities in the energy space when it comes to -- to our native people. we have doubled the staffing in the office of indian energy in alaska. we now have two d.o.e. folks, two permanent employees in the state. we're working with secretary mon iz because we had one person who have h been running things for a period of years. he promised that we might be able to see as many as three, we're up to two. but the reality is that we have had lack of adequate and consistent d.o.e. staffing
within our state. and i'm not -- i'm not going to suggest to you that you need to be on a highering spree here. but i do want to make sure again that our needs are met. so office of indian energy and in my view is one of those areas where you have high need and important priority, we need to make sure that not only resources are there, but -- but those to help effectuate the initiatives are in place. so the question to you at this time is whether you -- whether you think that there are some opportunities within office of indian energy to -- to do more with sharing of the -- not sharing of the funds, but
distributing these funds through different grant programs, what are we going to do to make sure that the role of the office of indian energy is not diminished? and i would ask you to speak to the issue of the staffing that we have tried to make a priority in this state and where you see that that might go. and i'm actually glad that senator franken has rejoined the committee now because this is something that we have talking about often, is that within the office of indian energy, there is good opportunity there and senator hoeven appreciates that well and so i think you have three of us interested in this budget category. >> senator, if i might. i'll try to be as brief as i can on this. as matter of fact, this is just a new -- it was released today. >> i like that you are using new technology instead of paper. >> yes, ma'am.
the office of indian energy policy and programs announced today that it is selected 13 tribal energy projects to receive funding of $7.8 million. and i'm not going to delve into it any more. but we're making some progress on that. and we will work very closely with you and senator hoeven and franken both as you both have tribal interest in your states and in this program. so -- >> well, i appreciate that and it is always nice to hear news of grants. but again, i would like to know that we've got some sustainability -- >> staffing -- >> -- and that comes with staffing. and as you know, we have a really big state and we don't need to go into the alaska-texas comparison and we're two and a half times of the size of texas
and we've got one guy. >> i was given that code, texas on the side of alaska with the adage size matters. >> i'm glad that we have connected here. so this is good. this is good. i'm going to defer to senator franken and then senator hoeven so they have a chance to ask a second question. >> well senator hoeven is chairman of indian affairs and he has signed on along with others on the lope guarantee program for indian energy. and i'm glad to hear there is $7.8 million and there is more money in the loan guarantee program, also for indian projects, i think that is a good thing. i want to ask you about climate change. secretary perry, at your confirmation hearing you acknowledged that the climate is changing. but on monday you were asked on
cnbc, do you believe co2 which is the primary control knob for the temperature of the earth and for climate and you answered no. so if the climate is changing and if you disagree that co2 is the primary driver, what do you think is driving the change? >> yes, sir. and i'll finish the rest of that interview for the public. that may -- excuse me. that may not have gotten as much coverage as we maying that i did not think that co2 was the primary knob that changes it. i don't. i think there are some other nationally occurring events, the warming and the cooling of our -- of our ocean waters and some other activities that occur. i also said in the next breath that man's impact does, in fact, have an impact on the climate.
and the question is, what is going to be the economic impact for this country? and i referred yesterday to -- and a hearing in front of the appropriations -- senate appropriations that even individual as celebrated from the standpoint of his capabilities, the undersecretary of energy under the previous administration steven coons, he said that the science isn't settled yet and i asked the committee and i'll ask you, don't you think it is okay to have this conversation about the science of climate change. and why don't we have a -- a red team approach and sit down -- get the politicians out of the room and let the scientists and
listen to what they have to say about it. i'm pretty comfortable that -- you know -- what is wrong with being a skeptic, i think about something that we're talking about that is going to have a massive impact on the american economy. >> well you said this thing about -- you told senator coons we need a red team and blue team excise to establish climate change. it's my understanding that in a red team, blue team exercise, the blue team makes an argument and the red team tries to knock it down. and then the through team then refines their argument and then they go back and forth until con sense us is reached. but that is exactly how science works. including science -- climate science. researchers collect data and make arguments, peer reviewers poke holes in the argument and researchers respond and it goes back and forth until consensus is reached.
every peer review climate steady goes through the red team, blue team treatment. and then thousands of studies are gathered into report and those reports themselves go through rigorous red team and blue team. and this is -- that is the scientistic process. and you're not the first to do red team blue team. the c -- the koch brothers hired -- and it was called the best project and much to the chagrin of their funders, the skeptical scientists found that mainstream climate science is correct. a quote dr. richard mueller, call me a converted skeptic. this is in 2013 or 14. last year, following intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, i could conclude that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming
were correct. i'm not now going to step further, humans are entirely the cause. if you say this is caused by the warming of the oceans, the ocean -- the reason the ocean is warming is because they absorb water -- water absorb the heat. that is why sea level is rising. because when -- when the water heats it expands. and also because of the melting of the ice caps. this is not -- there is no peer reviewed study that doesn't say this is happening. and the biggest proponent of this is our military. and they and in their quadrennial review say this is the biggest threat to our world, the time for red team -- i'm sorry, that is what we do every day. that is what scientists do every day. and 100% of peer reviewed
scientists have a consensus. and that is that this is happening. >> senator, you said something that caught my attention in your remarks, that the person who had become a skeptic, that converted skeptic. >> uh-huh. >> and you said he made the statement that global warming was 100% due to human activity. >> uh-huh. >> i don't believe that. 100%? of that global warming? i don't buy it. >> well -- >> thank you, senator franken. >> i would just like to -- to respond to that. that was someone hired by the koch brothers. >> everybody has hired somebody that has got something wrong from time to time. but to stand up and say that 100% of global warming is because of human activity i think on its face is justin defensible. >> we're probably not going to
resolve that here today so let's go to senator hoeven. >> and hence we should have a red team approach to this again. >> okay, never mind. >> thank you. >> one of the things, mr. secretary, good to see you again. one of the things that we talked about at our energy and water appropriations hearing was how we could do carbon capture sequestration and actually senator franken, one of the -- before he was -- he is gone. what we did talk about and you were on board were the probable ec -- projects underway and helping do and new technology is improving energy and improving environmental stewardship. and there is one question that i did want to follow you up on and that didn't get asked is that our energy and environmental center at the university which i referred to yesterday in which we're going to get you out to visit, look forward to do
thatting and seeing what they are doing. they have contracts and cooperative agreements, agreements with the department of energy, with your office of . so energy and environmental research center at the university of north dakota has koomti cooperative agreements with your office of fossil edge and doe. under those cooperative agreements they're doing actually this development of carbon storage -- both the capture and the storage. it is a big regional project. it covers a huge area out there where they're actually putting co2 down hole, in some cases it is -- it is just storing. >> yes, sir. >> interestingly enough, we're not only doing that for the fossil industry, we actually have an ethanol -- we have ethanol plants out there. >> yes. >> and one of our ethanol plants now -- because we put the legal and regulatory structure in
place to actually store co2 from class six wells, so just store it. not for secondary recovery, but we have that legal and regulatory framework which we basically developed from the iodgc. i think you were chairman of the iogcc and i was chairman several times so we developed that model of legislation we passed in north dakota. so that regulatory framework is in place. epa just gave us primacy on the ability to regulate it. not only are we working with fossil industry to store it and get secondary recovery, we actually have an ethanol plant capturing the co2 out of their process and they're going to store, too. it won't be for recovery, just sequestration. so we're doing it on the renewable side, too. these are the kind of cooperative agreements we have with d.o.e., and my request to you is would you ask your office of fossil energy to expedite the
grant funding, because or guys have grant funding under those cooperative agreements and they're being held up on their projects right now because that grant funding -- the share -- and it is shared between state of north dakota, private enterprise and your office, but we're waiting on your peels of it. >> yes, sir. senators, is it your understanding of this that the delay has been because of a review process that was going on at d.o.e.? >> these are agreements are in place. the agreement is there, it is just that they're waiting on that funding for the ongoing projects. i'm not sure why it is -- >> i'll find out. >> thank you, sir. >> we'll be back in contact. >> appreciate it. and when i see senator franken i will tell him we're working hard on these carbon capture projects. >> yes, sir. >> thanks again. >> thank you, senator. secretary, have you been very good, i think we would keep you
until quarter of 1:00. again, i apologize for the late start and appreciate your indulgence going over here, your responses to many. as it gets warmer here in washington d.c. though, you need to know that this alaska girl longs for the arctic and i start thinking about arctic all the time, what are we doing here in the congress, what are we doing in the administration to really take that leadership role that i think the united states should as an arctic nation. we discussed at the confirmation hearing and prior to that this is a focus of mine, and i don't really see much in the budget here that will help us build out that -- that energy -- or that arctic energy vision. so i would like to know that if there is something special in here that you want to point my attention to, i'm happy to look at it. but know that it is something
that i would like to sit down with you and your team. i know that your team is a little bit skinny right now. we're going to help you with that, but really want to try to make sure that there is an understanding that within the department of energy we think that you can play a very, very key role in so many of the initiatives as we work on our arctic global leadership. thank you. >> senator, the one thing that i would just reiterate with you, i think we've mentioned it here, to you and the committee, the room behind the committee prior to coming in, is my great belief and faith and hope that small modular reactors, the work that is being done in the private sector, the work that we will be doing to advance that in the next generation, if you will, is
i think one of the ways that we can address the arctic, the real challenges that you have of not having a widespread grid. this vast area of land where the population is thin in places, and being able to deliver a source of energy to them that is practical, that is economical and that is stable will be a goal that i look forward to working with you. >> well, i so agree. i think there are multiple applications where you might not think that nuclear would be a fit for alaska. everybody thinks of it as great fossil producing state, and we certainly have that in abundance, as we do our renewables, whether it is the wind, the solar, the geothermal. the senator noted in her opening
statement we had an opportunity to go to cordoba to conduct a field hearing of the committee focused on micro grids. we are pioneering micro grids in alaska that the rest of the world is paying attention to. we have a lot to offer and, again, these are areas that you might not think about it in the areas of arctic discussion. there is clearly a role. if you are looking for incubators, we can provide that. i have a renewable energy fair i would like to invite you to in mid-august in the interior of alaska. doesn't get anymore beautiful than that. if you want to just get a slight preview on some of the innovation that goes on, i have a grow tower in my front reception room in my office here in the hart building where we're growing lettuce. so i'm here to tell you that
people don't think we can grow anything in the cold and the dark and we're proving that a little bit of ingenuity can -- so i look forward to working with you. >> i look forward to coming up and spending time in the great state of alaska. >> we look forward to welcoming you. thank you for being here. we stand adjourned.
c-span.org. live senate coverage next week on c-span 2, online at c-span.org and on the free c-span radio app. c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979 c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. on thursday house homeland security committee chair michael mccall of texas and homeland security secretary john kelly discuss the threats confronting dhs. it took place at a capitol hill national security forum. this is 35 minutes. >> well, good morning and welcome to the first capitol hill national security forum. today's panel a