tv 2019 Energy Budget Request CSPAN April 19, 2018 2:59pm-4:31pm EDT
liberation movement challenged long held assumptions about american womenhood transforming society. joining us to talk about women's rights in 1968 are debra star, former college president, and mon na chairman syndicated columnist and senior fellow at the ethics public policy center in washington d.c. she's also the author of the upcoming book, sex matters, how modern feminism lost touch with common sense. watch 1968 live sunday at 8:30 a.m. eastern on c-span washington journal and on american history tv on c-span3. energy secretary rick perry testified on president trump's 2019 budget request for his department before the senate energy and natural resources
committee. topics include energy infrastructure, modernization and cyber security. renewal clean energy technologies. national laboratory, emissions reductions and storage. this is about 90 minutes. >> good morning everybody. this committee will come to order. we are here today to discuss the president's budget request for the department of energy for fiscal year 2019. so we welcome to the committee secretary rick perry.
good to have you back in front of us. we look forward to your comments this morning. like last year, the request emphasizes funding for the national nuclear security administration, which falls outside of our jurisdiction. in addition the president's budget requests additional funding to clean up our nation's nuclear sietsd. i appreciate these proposals but the requests offsets them with cuts to a number of energy and science programs that enjoy strong bipartisan support. it also seeks to eliminate all funding for erp which is program that innovating pioneer work. and while we should be looking for place toss cut the budget, with you we should recognize innovation is critical to energy future. it adds jobs and adds to insecurity and increases competitiveness. we ned to if he cuss on maintaining our global leadership in science, research and development. and central to that mission are the hard working cyber
advertises andering nears at our national laboratories and universities. now although i do not support all of the proposals in this request, i believe that we will find many areas of interest and agreement. i believe it's time to look at reforms that can reduce the stove pipes at the department, and make better use of taxpayer dollars. i'm intrigued by the department's decision to create a new cyber security office and i look forward to seeing the remainder of the department's justifications which will need to be released as soon as possible. so again, secretary perry, i want to welcome you back before our committee. i'll note, as all members have previously been alerted that the secretary has a hard stop at 11:30 so you can head to the white house. i understand that you'll be taking up some hopefully nuclear related discussions. and we appreciate your time. so out of respect for our limited time of the committee, i'll end my opening remarks here and simply note that i look
forward to hosting you, mr. secretary, in alaska in the near future. senator cantwell. >> thank you, madam chair. the department of energy is global leader in science and technology with unrivalled network of national laboratories. it is also key to our national security. an important priority for doe is energy infrastructure security. and our infrastructure is under attack. itsds under cyber attack and need to do much more to protect it. russian has proven ability to disrupt the grid and last week president as has announced new sanctions. the homeland security and federal bureau of investigation characterized the activities as quote multi stage intrusion campaign by russian government cyber actors who got into the energy sector networks. the fbi and department of homeland secured state that since at least march 2016 russia has targeted government entities
in multiple u.s. critical infrastructure sectors including our energy and nuclear sectors. a year ago i called for a comprehensive assessmentment of cyberattacks to grid by russians and repeatedly asked the trump administration to tackle this urgent class and make sure we have assessment. if the fbi is not a siren for this admission, then i don't know what s i hope the belated response is first step in turning that around in being a r robust response to protect our infrastructure. at a hearing last week you appeared in the commerce economy and said you are not confident that the federal government has a broad strategy in place. maybe we can elaborate and talk about that in the q&a. but as we discussed in the hearing earlier this month, establishing a new doe cyber office with marginal increases is not a substitute for the serious investment and meaningful action that we need.
you told this committee earlier this year that it is cyber, one of your key priorities, so i hope that we will see meaningful action from this administration. we don't need rhetoric at this point. we need action. i want doe and the administration to be more aggressive. and hoip that we will get this assessment of where we are with our grid as a milestone to what we need to do moving forward. we do want to defend against what could be widespread blackouts and devastation to our economy and the other harmful security risks. i know you and i spent many of hours at our national laboratory in the northwest discussing many of these issues. so i know you know this very well. on other budget issues, obviously the department of science is -- the department of energy is a science and technology powerhouse. yet the president's proposed budget slashes many of doe
essential programs and i think would be devastating to our clean energy economy. it would kill science, innovation and doe jobs by making drastic cuts to energy efficiency and electricity and the budget would raise electricity rates in the pacific northwest by auctioning off them. these are mistakes and i would ask questions about them. the budget would undermine leadership and kill jobs as the chair noted at our thursday hearing for the first time china is pektsed to surpass the u.s. in total r and d expenditures. and an according to the international energy agency more than $30 trillion will be invested globally in new renewable energy facilities between now and 2040. so the cost of clean energy and energy efficiencies like solar, led and storage has dropped by 94% in 2008. and much that was driven by the
r&d of the department of energy. this is why we think this is so important to continue the science mission. the decreases in those technologies have helped consumers save money and have created jobs. and they have just in the energy efficiency and clean sector supported over 3 million u.s. jobs. so the success story is built on lots of doe work through our national labs like the pacific northwest laboratory in rich land, washington, and through many other laboratories across the country. president trump's budget also, i think, besides eliminating ar pa e, the state energy program, which provides funding to about 50 state prok jektsds, eliminates loan programs which leverage billions of dollars in energy infrastructure, draconian cuts to the research, 65% for the energy efficiency, and 59% for the electricity deliver
system. i could go on. but i have to get to hand ford, mr. secretary. i am dispointsed by the hanford cleanup. the trump proposal cuts hand ford by $230 million that was enacted. instead of the cut, they need increase of 200 million to keep workers safe. and even more complex in the budget cuts have been justified by saying, quote, the decrease from 2017, enacted levels reflect the dem lugs blue tonnian plant to slab on grade, end quote. so pfp is still standing and there is not heaven a date to resume dem lugs work at pfp and rightly so. but doe and contractors have been unable to protect the workers. and as you and i advice vvisited to look at that. so i think the president's
proposal comes up short. under this budget they would not be able to make progress. as you know, there is agreement milestone that has to be met. so we will look frd to asking you questions about this in our q&a. it's very important that we continue to make progress ton the largest nuclear waste clinup project in the world. it is thorny. it is challenging. but we need consistent investment. i trust you are not going over to veterans affairs. i hope that you are staying right here and making sure that hanford is cleaned up. thank you, mr. secretary. >> thank you, senator cantwell. mr. secretary, dan, welcome, if you would like to provide your comments to the committee, then we'll have an opportunity for our questions and your responses. welcome. >> chairman murkowski, thank you for your hospitality and commitment to service to this
country today to discuss the present fiscal budget request with the department of energy, and if i could let me say a quick thank you, chairman, and ranking member for allowing me to be able to depart at 11:30 today. i'll try to be brief and allow you the opportunity to ask the questions so that we can be productive today. obviously, it's a great privilege for me, and senator cantwell, just fyi, i'll be here, i'm not going anywhere. and it is an honor to serve as the 14th secretary of energy. >> well, you know my suggestion is that the energy secretary should be for life or until hand ford is cleaned up. so i'll be happy to apply that to you. i've asked that of every other one, so. >> yes, ma'am. we'll take that under
advisement. running this department requires a significant expertise, and that's one of the other things i want to thank you for is being able to get the nominees through this process in a very timely way, get them on the ground. and we've done that. i think we have now nine presidential appointments with senate confirmation that are on the ground and working. and thank you for that assistance. this budget request underscores the d oh e's commitment to stir towards accountability that is respectful to the american taxpayer. i hope our interaction ws you and the other congressional committees over the past year have under scored the commitment to service and to transparency. in total the doe leadership team appeared before congressional committees 23 times in 2017. and we are proud strong relationship we built with
congress, which brings me to a topic that i want to address. before getting into specifics, i am fully aware and i'm very displeased that some of this year's budget request documents were not released in a timely fashion. this is not how i operate. nor my staff for that matter. so let me just tell you that you all may be assured that we are going to continue to refine those processes and improve the transfer of information to you all. so when i first appeared before this committee last year, i committed doe to advancing several key objectives. i know that we needed to modernize our nuclear weapons ar ensal, continue to address the environmental legacy that the
cold war programs left us. further advance our domestic energy production. better protect our energy infrastructure. and accelerate our computing capacity. the fy 2019, $30.6 billion budget request for the department seeks to move us forward on these and other goals. our greatest duty eye is to protect our citizens and nuclear deterrence is a core part of the doe mission. this year we requested an 8.3% increase for that purpose to align ourselves with the president's nuclear posture review and the national security strategy. we are also focusing on addressing the environmental legacy left at the department sites which produce the materials that help us win a world war and to secure the
peace. last year, we promised to focus on that obligation. and this year we are requesting additional funds to do so. i know the department's environmental management program is a high priority for this committee, especially for those of you like ranking member cantwell, with a major project in her state. my visit to hanford last year helped shape my commitment to that just cause. we also have a duty to advance a fundamental mission of our department, that's america energy independence. and thanks to u.s. ingenuity and innovation we are on the cups of realizing this objective. for the first time since the 1970s. in the coming years, we will produce enough energy from all of our abundant fuels, not only to meet our own needs, but our friends, our allies, and our
partners as well as we export to them. just last year, we became a net exporter of natural gas. today we are exporting l and g to 27 nations on five continents. and because technology is also making our energy cleaner, we can pursue all of the above policy that will efficiently develop and use all of america's energy resources. innovation can grow our economy and protect our environment. we drive further energy innovations, i should say, to drive those energy innovations, we are requesting continued funding of our funding program offices as well as research in fossil fuels and nuclear power including advanced modular reactors. now, if we have a duty to advance energy production, we also have duty to ensure our energy is delivered without interruption. that's why last year i promised to step up our efforts to
protect and maintain america infrastructure in the face of all hazards. devastation caused by the 2017 hurricanes and impact to the electricity sector highlighted the importance of improving grid reliability and resilience. this committee has significant interests in our hurricane relief restoration efforts and i thank you for your continued support there. but we also have to have defense for cyber security. so this year cyber security as well as the agencies cyber defenses. we are establishing a new office of cyber security, energy security, and emergency response. it's called caesar. led by new assistant secretary. since much of our latest greatest technology break throughs from energy have come through the work of our great national laboratories, we need to ensure their funding as well. i could speak extensively about some of the great work they are
doing, but today i'll only mention two. our effort to accelerate exo scale computer systems to keep the u.s. at forefront is extremely important, therefore, a 31% increase in that line item. this will have positive implications on everything from artificial intelligence to some of the great work we are doing to improve the health of our veterans. senator murkowski in my first year i vitsed nine national labs with four more coming up at the end of this month. i've also vitsed whip, the national -- excuse me, the nevada national security site. pan tex, y 12, the kansas city security complex, mac narry dam and hanford. in a few weeks look at being in your home state and joining you there in alaska. wherever i go, there is one thing that is made ha abundantly clear to me. those who work for the department of energy are
dedicated, they are patriotic and committed to serving the american people. in the end, it is you, the people's elected representatives who will decide how best to allocate the resources of our hard working taxpayers. my commitment to each of you, on this committee, is that we will do our best to use these resources wisely and in the pursuit of the vital goals that i outlined. and i thank you. and i'll do my best to answer your questions. >> very good. thank you, mr. secretary. before i begin my questions, senator heller has asked that a letter that he has provide today the committee be part of the record. so we will include that. and you will see a copy of that as well, mr. secretary. senator cantwell has mentioned in some detail here the cyber security issue and the joint alert from department of homeland security and the fbi
regarding russian government cyber actors and how they have targeted critical infrastructure here in this country, including our electric and generation sources. know that i share senator cantwell's concern on this. i want to make sure the doe is cooperating with dhs and the fbi with implementation of action in response to this. but, also, to make sure that doe is taking the lead as the sector specific agency. and mr. secretary you and i had a conversation yesterday just about making sure that doe which does have this legislatively designated authority as the lead in the energy sector when it comes to cyber, that again that continues. so i'd like you to speak
specifically to that with regards to doe's role. and then i have one more quick quell for you. >> yes, ma'am. senator, thank you. just we work very closely with the department of homeland secured. there is clear bifurcation, if you will, of our responsibilities, and certainly the department of energy. we are the sector specific agency that partners with the energy sector to ensure infrastructure security and resilience and coordinate response and recovery. this seizure office that we make too that we are standing up here is our response to the clear challenges that the sector has relative to these sometimes nonstate players or state
players coming in and attacking not peta, that attack last year that the russian government was involved with. there has been ransom ware that's been there. wanna cry was the code name for it that we have seen. the formation of the seizure, this office, if you will, enhances the sector specific agency for the energy sector and better positions the department to address emerging threats and natural disasters and support the department's expanded national security responsibilities. the reporting relationship to the under secretary of energy will ensure the importance and the direct pipeline of information, if you will, back
to the secretary of energy. and i think this placement is very important to bridge the gap between science and technology development and the operators and impla mentors focused on securing our systems. so there is a clear role that doe plays on cyber. we are committed to being as technically advanced as possible, and it's the reason that we request the funding. and the reason we have structured the agency, or not the agency, but the department as such, to clearly send the message that this is important and that we are going to fund it as such. >> let me ask you, mr.
secretary, the same question that i ask every other cabinet member when they are reporting to us on the budget. and this is related to the arctic chblt this is ar-- and ts is not just issue to me. but administration fails to appreciate the opportunities, challenges that the arctic presents. and so i ask the same question effectively. what is contained in your budget request that is specific to arctic-related activity and how you view the department's mission and role, effectively, in the arctic? >> senator, i think it's good news for you, i've been there before, i've been on the north slope. i have visited that part of the
state as appropriator, when i was in the texas legislature, and even before that time spent in your state taken in the grandeur and beauty and diversity of that state. i think it's very important to have people with eyes on, situational awareness, if you will, of the state, of the need. one of the reasons i'm going with you is i'm going to see some things i've never seen before. whether it's micro grids, importance of micro grids, whether having a conversation on small reactors, is there a role they could play in a state as diverse as thinly populated, if you will, as your state. the idea that a transmission system as we have in the continental 48 states is going
to work in alaska is a myth. it can't. it's going to take some unique -- it's going to take some unique ways to address challenges that the arctic has. we are committed to that. our national labs. the office of electricity. we are going to be working with you and a commitment to you to be very open to the innovation and technology that can serve the people of alaska in hopefully a way they've never seen before. >> i appreciate that. my time is up. i'll just note, not only for you, mr. secretary, but for the other colleagues on the committee, that alaska is hosting the national lab day the end of may, which will be an opportunity to not only have national ads understand what it holds but vice-versa. thank you. senator cantwell.
>> thank you. mr. secretary, on hanford, the cleanup budget you've made some assumptions about the pla tune um plant that i think the assessment is off in cutting 230 million out of that. will you go back and review those assessments as it relates to the blue tune um finishing plant and live up to the agreement? make sure you as are you making the budget that you'll live up to making the milestones in that? >> yes, ma'am. i think it's very important for us. as you said, in your opening remarks, that there are some real changes there. and going out there and spending the time, my deputy secretary spending multiple trips to the area, and others, i think was really important for an edification process for us to understand just the complexity,
the breadth of the mission there. and i am committed to finding the solutions. >>en a living up to the tri party agreement? >> yes, absolutely. >> great. on the p and l side we saw some great technology, whether that was in cyber, smart grid. >> battery zbls batteries. thank you. you remembered. good. >> yes, ma'am. >> all right. so why cut this area of the budget? i'm not the only one here representing national laboratories, right. >> absolutely. >> okay. >> and i hope, and i lay on the table a history of being a manager of a rather large enterprise, as governor of the state of texas, was appropriator, and an agency head in that state as well. so the experience that i bring just because there is a reduction of a line item doesn't necessarily mean that there is going to be a reduction in
results. and i hope there is some comfort that what we are doing is prioritizing in these national labs. are we going to be able to fund every line item the way the line items were funded back prior to the 2018 proposed budget? probably not. but that doesn't necessarily mean that the results that we'll have out of those national labs are any less consequential. >> well, i'm not sure i agree with that. but i hope you are right. and i definitely want science to be a bigger priority within this administration. but let me turn to cyber for a second. because you were i think at a house committee, i'm not sure if this was before the commerce committee with members of the cabinet, but you were not confident that they had a broad
brush in place as it relates to cyber security. but my concern is that we still don't have an assessment. we don't have a risk assessment. so if we don't have the risk assessment, how do we know what we are really budgeting towards? now, you took one step at it, which i think given everything that's happened, 10% increase is not where we need to be. i have called for doubling. but i could see where i am wildly underfunding what is one of the most serious threats to us as a nation right now. so what can we do to get this theta assessment done by these agencies? and i think i mentioned when i hear my my colleagues homeland security the military sit at the very table you sit at and tell them, yes, this is a real
threat, a real problem, but doe has to fix it. and then here you are sitting with a 10% increase and no theta assessment. so what can we do to get both a better understanding of our real risks and accurate budget increase to fund what is critical, critical to our national security? >> senator cantwell, thank you for recognizing the challenge that we have. it is very real. it is ever changing. and, again, i don't want to belabor this point of a 10% increase being less than what you think is appropriate for this, that's why we have these hearings is to discuss these areas of conflict when it comes to you believe it needs to be more, i believe it needs to be a
bit more myself. but the fact is we are spending some dollars in other areas in our budget that are going to have real concrete effect on cyber. and i'll give you an example. in exo scale computering. in our ability to be able to manage massive amounts of data is going to be, i think, tantamount to our success in combatting the cyber attack that is are going on. that amount of money has been increased by 31%. so it's not just in that line item on standing up for cyber. >> senator, do you believe that we need a risk assessment of the nation? >> do i? >> do we need a risk assessment of this problem? >> i think that's going on as we speak. we have three different areas in doe focused on cyber that has been meeting and having these conversations before.
coordination and conversation is ongoing, senator. >> i am sure that all of us, either in a secure room or publicly, would like to see the government's risk assessment. i hope you agree they need one. i don't think we've gotten it yet. so i hope you can help us get one. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator cantwell. >> senator cassidy. >> thank you. how are you? >> fine. >> last year they did the small scale access act of 2017 which gives greater access to lick phied natural gas. doe will make announcement last september. this bill, just to plut a plug in it, benefits american workers, american economy, american geopolitics and lowers greenhouse gas emissions. so objections somehow this would raise domestic natural gas prices. but according to the ci arks world fact book, the entire energy demand all kraib nations
combined is 1.2% of the u.s. of the given that only small projects are able to benefit from the legislation in 1.2%, low energy demand, what do you think will be the impact of this legislation on u.s. natural gas prices? >> in a simple statement, i would suggest it would be m miniscule even if identifiable with all. >> and how doi this would impact the energy markets targeting in the car ribbean and other marke? >> i think being able to get away from ineffective fuels in terms of cost and to the environment, being able to bring that l and g into play in those markets would be good. >> the members of this committee
are concerned and speak to them about global greenhouse gas emissions. so if we are replacing high sulfur, highly viscous venezuela crude as energy source with i would prefer natural gas from louisiana, but you would probably prefer texas, u.s. natural gas, what would that do for that. >> >> yes, sir, texas gas does burn cleaner, that's true, identified that. in all seriously, we saw a major transition from older, in efficient plnts in my home states in the 2000s gas plant. and we saw the sulfur die objection yied down by 60% emissions. nitric oxide down by 50%. >> that's not using venezuela crude. >> that's correct. >> you are using something cleaner than that. >> that's correct.
so the point is we know you can see emission reductions and substantial editions when you transition away from older plants and plants using -- we can get into a whole discussion about north he's being forced to use some pretty ineffective fuels because they do not allow the transport of natural gas across some of those states. >> let me ask you something else. texas was a leader in wind power, probably is the leader in wind power. >> still is, yes, sir. >> one thing we've noted is that using more natural gas because you can have your start youp plant in background work, that actually enabled expansion of renewables by converting your base load, if you will, to natural gas. any comments on that. >> >> knowno, sir, you are corr >> we saw .8 increase for everyone unit of one if you will
increase of that. >> yes. >> so, anyway, so just to kind of explore that with you. thank you. one more thing that is a concern. there is a max plant being built in south carolina, i won't ask you to comment on this too much, except there was an order for a kind of contractor collaborative process to rebaseline that order 413 point b from the department of energy. and i'm not sure that that has been updated in this collaborative process. so can i have your commitment just to review that and get back to us on that process? >> yes, sir. >> he'd appreciate that. >> i yield back. thank you. >> thank you, senator. senator i guess cortez masto. >> thank you. secretary perry, yesterday i sent you letter update on
restarted yucca mountains licensing. it's important that my constituents have an accurate accounting of what expenditures are being made in regards to yucca mountain absence of that. would you commit to giving this letter attention and quick response in the next two weeks? >> i literally have it in my hand this morning. and i'm going to review it and give you as timely a response as possible. >> thank you. >> thank you. your budget recommends spending 120 million to bring high level nuclear waste to nevada. prior to your confirmation you were asked about yucca mountain and you stated to this committee in writing, quote, i cannot costs associated with yucca project but i am committed learning moran helping resolve this national problem. i want to focus on your first part of your answer which is imto go costs. with regard to costs are you aware total system lierks cycle
cost assessment for yucca mountain? >> i am not. >> let me tell you it was 2008, mo are than a decade ago. are you aware of the detailed estimates this report included on the total costs for yucca mountain? >> i'm not. >> okay. in $2,007 about 96 billion and not been adjusted for inflation. are you aware this report also indicates that department of nrk will need $13.5 billion again in 2007, and ten years just to obtain a construction authorization and license from the nuclear regulatory commission? >> i take your word for it, senator. >> thank you. one of the many yet to it be an addressed concerns regarding engineering safety and costs pertains to doe design for tie tarn um drip shields that are supposed to sit over each of the thousands of waste canisters in yuck yeah mountain underground tunnels to keep out corroding water. no plan has been designed to
design these structures and no pay which determined which is crucial the amount of material required has said to exhaust the nation's supply of titanium. and no plan has been made on how to install the shields. this unacceptable state of affairs was detailed by former victor ka lynn ski in the bulletin atomic journal 2014. has any consideration like this been made? >> senator, i would tell you that in the decade that's passed since that report that you are making reference to, that a lot of technology has changed. and i don't want to -- >> has department of energy done a consideration or analysis based 0en that to put costs associated with it? >> no. >> okay. and if you are going to make a budget request to restart licensing for a facility that requires such expensive innovative engineering, wouldn't it be more appropriate to lay all of these considerations before congress before asking for more money?
>> i think what we are asking, senator, is that these dollars are for the licensing side that nrc is working on. and for our operational side of it just to cover the cost of that. it's not to be looking at the structural issues that are flofd that may or may not be timely. >> in that regard does the department of energy feel confident in the licensing or would it need to submit new application for changes? >> i think we would be going forward with the licensing process as the law requires us to. and i think -- >> is the initial cost associated with it? >> not that i'm aware of. >> wto environmental statements for the project require any updates? >> i would suggest it probably would. >> does the department of energy even have a final design for the facility? >> flo. >> so why should congress agree to appropriate any funds without
answers to any of these questions? >> well, i think this issue has been on the table for a long time. and congress funds a number of things without having a final plan done. so this is nothing out of the ordinary. this is basically -- >> i appreciate that comment. but i disagree. i am sitting here in congress and i want a final plan. >> i want to know how the money is being spent and analysis. i think it's irresponsible to ask for that information and it's your job to provide that information. so i'm looking forward in the future, if we are going to down this path and we've had this conversation before, i think you need to come up with concrete answers and assessment and costs affiliated with t for many things that are happening right now, department of energy, and i disagree with some of the comments you've made, and have concerns and echo some of the concerns of my colleagues with respect to the budget cuts that are occurring and being
requested for the department of energy. and impact it's going to have in nevada as well. thank you. i notice my time is up. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you, ma dom chair. secretary thanks for coming back. aults good to see you. as you and i have talked, i'm against the portsmouth plant. we talked about that. and that is not something that you or this administration gun. and we talked about the need to get rid of it because they said the bar tells are illegal. also record low uranium prices and put you're rain um workers in y- as well as states producing out of work. last year u.s. production was lowest level since 1950. and we are on the cups of losing our ability to produce our own nuclear fuel. so the administration i think in terms of our own national security cannot let that happen. so can you commit to ending these barters, funding the cost
of cleanup, decommissioning services at portsmouth exclusively with the appropriate appropriations? >> senator, thank you. privilege to be back here in front of you. and as you and i have had conversations both privately and as i stated publicly, i think this uranium bordering process has to be on my list as poorly designed policies i've ever come across since becoming secretary of energy. it pits two important objectives against each other and doesn't serve either one very well. and personally i with like to see it stopped completely. we realize what the challenge is. our efforts should be focused on letting the uranium marketplace work as it should while continuing without disruption important work that's taken place at the portsmouth side.
so given the needed funding is past 2018 omnibus, i would be pleased to announce the suspension of the border program in 2018. and 20 19d decide on fiscal year 2019 budget. and i'm certainly committed to working with congress on that. so i hope we can extend ending the border beyond this fiscal year working together to fully fund our environmental management cleanup through the appropriations process. >> thank you, mr. secretary. i'm going to move to one other area. in your testimony you express support four advancing america coal industry through coal technologies. the department proposes in budget, however, to cut funding for carbon capture utilization and storage, research and development by about 80%. i think now is not the time to cut this funding for carbon
capture utilization storage, expanded use of these technologies will help us protects our environment, support the continued use of america's abundant fossil resources that we have. so just over a month ago i worked with bipartisan group of colleagues to pass legislation extending and expanding tax credits for carbon capture utilization sequestration. we should i believe build on success of this legislation by maintaining a robust research and development program to support the expanded development of this technology. so what assurances can you give me that the department's budget request is sufficient to support this development commercialization of clean coal technologies? >> senator, as i said earlier to senator cantwell, just because there is a reduction in a particular line item doesn't mean that the results that we'll be having are not appropriate. and our commitment to carbon
capture utilization storage is very strong. we went to china last year to clean energy, we got ccus placed into the list of different technologies that they are going to be funding and working on in a worldwide way. we were in the uae with substantial fossil fuel developers and promoting carbon capture utilization in that arena as well. so not only is the agency committed to continuing to fund, but also in our national labs to use their substantial technology and innovation to come up with new techniques, new avenues to be able to use coal in a way that is not only appropriate to
the environment but that's also from an economic standpoint very pleasing. >> well, thank you very much. i have some additional questions i'll submit in writing. thank you. >> thank you, senator brass sew. >> senator duckworth. >> thank you, ma dom chair woman. secretary perry when we met during your confirmation process you promised me would you visit both aragon and labs in illinois and i want to thank you for following through with your commitment in visiting both of those labs. and although i don't agree with all aspects of the budget the administration is proposing, i amle happy to see that the work that aragon and labs are leading like exo scale computing are actually priorities for the administration. secretary perry i want to thank you you and your team to working with our office to bipartisan legislation working on with senators graham and bennett to help veterans secure good jobs in clean energy. our nation has experienced clean
renewable energy. today solar energy is fastest growing in u.s. and quickly becoming a dominant form of energy. in addition, rapid innovations and technology in unlocking additional forms of low carbon emission energy options. and i believe there is tremendous opportunity for our veterans to find careers in these energy sectors. will you support passing my bill at this conference to create innovative department of energy program that will promote the hiring of veterans in the clean energy industry? >> senator, i think you know probably as well as anyone in this room, my commitment to our veterans. and in a multitude of ways we look for ways to bring them into the workforce. because you and i both know that they already have matured beyond their years. they are already trained up in a lot of different areas that we don't have to retrain them or to
give them initial training. so we are supportive of all programs that help employ those that we have made a commitment to because they served in this country sacrificial way. >> thank you. i was also please ds to see under your leadership they are pro tore tiesing research in medicine. there appears to be several applications in our military community, including helping to prevent suicide, and heart disaster and treating some forms of cancer. could you please provide recommendations on how congress can better support the work of doe and on national laboratories in advancing precision medicine research and development? >> we will. and let me just say in a broadway that we already have in our national labs working on some of the nuclear medicine and
obviously down in i think jefferson particle lab, some science that's going on that has the ability to really improve our -- the scientific side of the health community in using nuclear medicine there. but one thing that i would invite you to do, senator, or better yet let me send them to you. i'd love to have my active activ program that is focused on veterans' mental health. and it's not just veterans. it's also first responders, the nfl is going to be intrigued with this as well our olympic athletes for that matter, a mother who's got a daughter who
plays soccer, any place where concussions can come into place. we're using our massive computing capacity at the national labs, particularly in your district, for that purpose. i'd love for them to come up and brief you so that you have a really good handle on this, because i know your love for our servicemen and women and our veterans, as well as the science on this can change some people's worlds in a really positive way. >> thank you. i do appreciate the increases in the budget to both of the national labs. we need to remain at the forefront of the super computing capability on a global scale. if we don't, other nations will catch up with us or pass us. i yield back. >> senator portman. >> appreciate it. secretary perry, i appreciate
you making good on your promise which was made during the confirmation process to come out to the portsmouth plant in ohio. for 50 years it enriched uranium for our governments, our nuclear navy, for power plants. the workers at that plant made a lot of sacrifices, some health issues and you we're cleaning up that plant. to my colleague from wyoming who has departed, he talked about the need for us to stop using barter. in the last administration they didn't provide us the appropriations. in fact, they even slowed down the cleanup from 2025 to 2044 with the funding they provided even including the barter which is a huge mistake not just for that site and the safety of that area and the reindustrialization everyone wants but also it ends
up costing the taxpayer a lot more when you extend the life of these cleanups. we need the funding. there were 323 mining jobs in wyoming last year in uranium. when the funding was to be cut off at piketon, 800 jobs were on the chopping block. this funding going up and down and the barter being pulled, would obviously create again this crisis out there where we'd lose a lot of good people. we need them. it is a community that has very high unemployment already. i guess what i'm suggesting today is let's not pull the plug on the barter until we have the pro appropriations. i'd ask that you continue the barter program with regard to
the piketon plant. >> yes, sir. senator, i'm committed to the cleanup of that facility. my preference, obviously, is to have it appropriated in the old fashioned way, if you will, from a straight-up appropriation where your citizens and the workers at that plant know that congress is committed to the funding of that through a normal appropriation. obviously, if that does not happen -- and i've shared that with senator baraso as well. if that does not happen, the commitment to that cleanup is there and it is solid and long-term. >> thank you. i appreciate it, mr. secretary. i don't disagree with you. i appreciate your commitment to it. we're just trying to clean this thing up. the oh issue, as you well know, the obama administration toward the end of its term pulled the plug on the new generation of
enrichment. i listened to what my colleague and my friend from wyoming said. if we don't have this mining, he said, we would lose our ability to produce our own nuclear fuel. well, we've already lost it. we don't have any domestic controlled enrichment process in the country now. we were on track under the previous administration to through the acp program to create that with this new much more energy efficient technology call ee eed centrafuge. do we have any sense where we're going on the next generation of enriched uranium? >> the short answer is yes, sir we're working toward that as we
speak. i think my commitment to bringing the civil nuclear program in this country back to one of stability and frankly to lead the world is pretty much on display. it has been. we think there has been for whatever reason a -- i'm not going to call it an anti-nuclear mentality, but the civil nuclear business has been left by the wayside. whether it's building new plants here, whether it's committing to small monitor reactors, we have tried to reinvigorate that, send some clear messages that this country need to lead the world in civil nuclear technology. and these centrifuges are obviously a very important part of that process. >> i appreciate that we need to
have a source for enriched uranium. we also need it for our nuclear navy. we also need it for artridium. then finally from a national security point of view, in terms of nonproliferation, maybe the single most important thing we can do as americans is say, you know, if you don't enrich uranium in your country, which has often gotten diverted to nuclear weapons programs, we'll provide you that enriched uranium. we can't do that now. we do have a stockpile, admittedly. i thank you very much. appreciate your service. >> thank you, sir. >> senator manchin. >> thank you, madam chair.
secretary, it's good to see you again. i'm reminded that our friendship goes back to our days as governor in 2005 that we really new each other quite well and you had katrina and you graciously took all of the hundreds of thousands of people from louisiana and mississippi and helped them and we were able to send troops down and c 130s. we've been hooked together ever sense. you've been quite busy fulfilling all your commitments to visit all the states you have in a bipartisan way. i want to thank you. you came to west virginia and you looked at what we had and what we did at some of the power plants and nettle in morgantown which is working on the clean coal technology. i appreciate your commitment on that and using the great coal that we have in our state in a much cleaner fashion and looking for different technologies there. also the storage hub, which we'll talk about and also the
rare earth elements which we have found that we're able to extract and be self-sustaining here in america. those are very important that nettle's been leading the charge on and you've been very supportive. i would like you to ask you about the title 17 loan guarantee program. i think there's about $8.5 billion in authority level for the fossil projects on clean coal technology and also the storage hub, which is extremely important to us and, i think, the security of our nation. i think, first of all, your concerns about the program being eliminated despite its strategic importance, and also do you agree, disagree on that program and what we can do to make it even stronger? >> senator, thank you for your long time friendship. just as an aside, i'll say that
coming to your district, sitting down with you and senator capito, the leadership over at the university of west virginia and the governor's office, economic development folks in that community really turned on a bright light for me from the standpoint of how developed that region of america who's sitting on top of the marcelless and the utica and that huge gas deposit and creating a dupe llicative national security of a refining capability in petro chemical. it was a really important trip for me. to the lpo, i think the keyword from my perspective in a re realistic way is phasing out. there are billions of dollars there that have already been
appropriated that i think that we could certainly with your guidance use in a very thoughtful way that can affect a lot of citizens in a positive way. i think -- i'm not going to try to get into anybody's head other than to say that if this committee and congress collectively decides to go forward with that program, that we will operate it with the type of oversight and transparency and the results that you all will be proud of. >> also, i want to talk to you about you and i have spoken directly on this, the storage hub for the national security of our nation, but also with a tremendous find of new resources we have in the tracking that we have done, west virginia, kentucky, ohio, pennsylvania, there's been tremendous boom for our energy independence, if you
will. with that, we've promoted a storage hub, which will give us the product and keep it in a very safe location also strategically away from our weather torn areas such as your state gets hit quite frequently and so does louisiana. do you feel that it would be a great strategic direction for our nation? >> as the governor, i'd wake up in august and september and say a little prayer that a category 5 hurricane did not come up the houston ship channel. i'd seen that model before and it's devastating, not just in the number of people who lose their lives which is obviously at the top of your concern list, but the devastation that it does to the country's petro chemical capacity. to have a duplication of that in a region of the country that is protected from that type of a natural disaster would be, i think, invaluable. duplicating that in that
appalachian region, pennsylvania, ohio, kentucky, west virginia, not only in an area that economically could certainly use the shot in the arm, sitting on top of the great natural resources of the marcellus and the utica can transition a region of america that would be very pleasing economical economically. >> department of energy's support and the administration's support is going to be vitally needed for this to be accomplished. but it is something i think that's drastically needed. the economic impact is $36 billion almost at the turn of the switch. but on top of that, the security of our nation. sir, your attention to this is greatly appreciated. >> we are going to be focused on it like a laser. you're absolutely correct from the standpoint of this is one of the projects that i've seen that the government can help with and actually not have to fund. the private sector will supply
the funding. they just want to make sure the permitting processes and the ability to get done what we're asking them to get done can be done as expeditiously as possible. thank you. >> thank you, senator manchin. i appreciate you bringing up the loan guarantee program. there are many of us around here who feel that that program needs some reforms and we actually suggested those in our energy bill that we had moved out of here. but we've got some funding that is left in it that we think could certainly be used to leverage some infrastructure out there. >> senator gardener.
what happens when the great things that are fundamentally transformed our economy come from somewhere else? when i look at the budget for the department of energy, i am concerned about some of the areas of research and the advanced research in particular. i want to make sure that we continue to advance in this country, because what happens if that great next energy discovery
isn't in the united states but it is indeed in china or india and they're able to manufacture, they're able to capitalize on those jobs and the next time we fly of, where it's jordan or denver, colorado, we look down and don't see the impact that america has had, but the impact that some other nation has had because we took our eye off the ball. we're proud of the contributions that our national lab system has made, the efforts made in advanced energy research. and i think we have achieved so much because we've had that research and that partnership with the federal government that we can't get rid of that sort of idea that we have the opportunity to partner and build funding opportunities. the benefits for our nation in energy security, energy resilience resilience, we'll only be able to achieve them if we continue to support our scientists and engineers at our federal
facilities and research facilities. c >> senator, the thing i've been most proud of in the year that i spent as the secretary of energy is being able to go to these national labs. as i said in my opening remarks, i never met any more patriotic, more committed individuals as those that work in our national labs. the support of them from congress is powerful, is palpable. it h continuwill continue on. to address with specificity what you brought up in a really beautiful observation about this country, the dollars that you all are going to appropriate, the dollars that we've had for for computing probably will make the biggest
impact upon all of that type of research that you're making reference to, the innovation that's going to come out of the labs. it's going to be expedited substantially by the commitment at the exoscale super computing capacity. our effort is very deep and broad in that arena. >> i look forward to working with you on that funding as well as a number of other areas of funding to make sure that we continue being the pride of the united states in our national lab system but more than that the pride and envy of the world as they look at our great centers of excellence represented by our research development and national lab system. switching to grid cyber security issues, the office of energy reliability has led an effort in coordination with the labs to talk about the technical challenges of grid modernization. in many cases, these assets that
we're working with are privately owned and don't have the resources for research and development on their own. therefore doe has provided a lot of technologies for the grid. the budget request splits the office into two, one focused on cyber security and one on electricity delivery. i'm going to ask a few questions. i'm going to run out of time. maybe we can continue this conversation after the hearing. the cross cutting initiative, the doe grid modernization laboratory consortium have brought together technical expertise. the cross cutting initiative has been a success, i think most people would admit. it's important the doe continue to lead this program. can you comment on the department's plans for these two efforts? if you could get back to us on that, that would be great.
this week we've heard a lot about foreign nations attacking our grid. we have the possibility of a foreign nation that has attacked our colorado department of transportation with the sam ransomware virus. are you confident the budget will provide the resources necessary to ensure that our electric grid remains secure? is there something we can do to support the effort to make sure critical infrastructure has the necessary cyber security tools? i'm out of time. >> i will get those to you post haste. >> and recognizing again the secretary's time schedule and that we have four more colleagues, we'll try to get through quickly senator widen and senator hienrick. >> good to see you. a little bit of pacific northwest business. i told the bush administration, george w. bush, his folks that
bonneville isn't going to get sold off on my watch. we also are very concerned in our part of the world about eliminating the national energy technology lab at albany which i think is doing singularly good work. i hope you'll reconsider that. i do want to ask you about h hanford. on march 6th the project director for the waste treatment plant sent the private construction contractor a letter demanding that the company explain why it couldn't document that the steel used at the the plant was up to safety standard. and the project director said that this was a potentially unrecoverable quality issue. basically they couldn't open the plant after billions of dollars had been spent and decades of
effort. a week later, mr. hamill was transferred, and i'd like to believe the best in people but it's hard to see that that was a coincidence. so i want to ask a couple of yes or no questions. i want mr. hamill to promptly provide the committee with a detailed history and explanation about this potentially devastating safety issue at the $17 billion waste treatment plant that hasn't yet treated en ounce of radioactive waste. will you direct him to provide us that information? >> yes. >> great. second, i'd like you to make mr. hamill available to us so we can ask him directly without interference about this issue. will you do so? >> i'm not sure i can make him do that. but the request -- >> you will tell him that's acceptable to you for him to sit
down directly with us? >> yes, sir. >> thank you. >> then i think that just allows me to wrap up and save the chair a little bit more time. this is extraordinarily important. >> yes, sir. >> we have seen billions of dollars go into this. you've now got the project director saying that there is a potentially devastating safety issue and he has just been transferred after reporting this. so this story really needs now to get into the details. it is a whistle blower story, it's a safety story, it's an accountability story. when you were met with my privately before you were confirmed, you said on those kinds of issues we could work together. the answers you've given this morning are constructive. i need follow-up. we need to have this done
promptly. if it's not, we'll have to go the route of the inspector general. i'd rather not have to go that route. by indicating that you will tell him to provide us the information, the detailed history and the explanation of this potentially devastating safety issue, that's a constructive first step, and that you will tell him it is acceptable to you that he meet with us without interference. that's a constructive step. so i'll look forward to pursuing this and talking about it more in the future. >> yes, sir. >> thank you, madam chair. >> thank you. secretary perry, welcome. i'm going to start out by talking a little bit about laboratory directed research and development or ldrd. it's in my view an incredibly important investment in high
risk but high reward activities at our national labs. allows our scientists to pursue innovative solutions to some of our nation's most vexing energy and also national security problems. do you agree that ldrd is important, in fact vital, to the lab's ability to recruit and retain the best and brightest scientists and engineers? >> certainly important, yes, sir. >> do you support maintaining the lab director's current discretion to set aside up to 6% as authorized by congress for ldrd. >> i will follow the directives of congress, sir. >> you're comfortable with that figure as it's currently set. >> if you all think that is the appropriate number, we will work within the parameters of that. >> i'm still trying to wrap my head around given the advancements made there with solar cells, with power
controls, with lithium ion batteries, why would we want to zero out that program? >> senator, i come from a background of having worked in that type of environment, if you will. that was what i did when i was the governor of the state of texas with the emerging technology fund. so i know the results of really well-managed programs. and i know there are people on both sides of the aisle that are very spoupportive. i've looked at the results of it and have found some very, very positive things that came out of it. so let me just leave it at this. if this congress, if this committee, they support the funding of that, it will be operated in a way that you will be most pleased with. >> i appreciate that. i know the chair is the supporter and i as well think
it's important that this body revisit some of those funding levels. >> concur. >> moving onto storage, your testimony indicates that energy storage remains an important area of focus. we've seen huge strides in storage in the last few years. i am pleased to see the request for energy storage innovation hub known as jay cesar. i hope the hub will be renewed for five years. however your budget nearly eliminates the office of heaufo electricity storage research program and starts a new beyond batteries initiative. talk to me a little bit about your focus on storage and then explain what the beyond batteries initiative is. >> in a broad sense, i think that battery storage is the holy
grail of the energy storage side of things. when we're able to do that, i have great confidence that -- and it will probably come out of a national lab or at least some of the work come out of a national lab. programs grow, they mature. and i think that's what you're seeing happen here. beyond batteries is a visionary quest to find us in a position to lead the world in battery storage, new materials. it's one of the reasons this country needs to be self-sufficient as we can be when it comes to rare earth minerals, what senator manchin was talking about in his district, some deposits there that are very positive in that direction. i hope you will look at this, senator, as the next step, an
appropriate next step. doe has been historically done early stage financing, get innovations to particular places, commercialize them. and those programs are mature and we go onto the next challenge. >> i'm going to run out of time before long. i would just make the argument i'm certainly intrigued by what beyond batteries would mean. i think we need to be open to new technologies. while lithium ion has certainly had a huge impact on the market, i think additional new chemistries, for example, are an appropriate place that's still at that same level of development within the lab's roll as early stage, not late stage technology transfer. >> yes, sir.
thank you. >> thank you. mr. secretary, hawaii is the most forward thinking renewable electricity goal in the country of reaching 100% of reliance on renewables and alternatives by 2045. this budget goes in totally the wrong direction by cutting 66% for renewable energy and energy fe efficiency and grid modernization. there is a huge future ghoeloba market for clean energy technologies. your budget weakens the united states in this area. a report says china invested 132 billion in clean energy technologies last year compared to 57 billion in the united states. china is reducing -- isn't
reducing its investment in clean energy, so why should the united states? i think we are going in the wrong direction. why are we doing that? i know that you said that we are continuing to provide resources for research in fossil fuels and nuclear power. where's the commitment to renewable sources of energy when you're facing these kind of budget cuts? >> certainly they're still there, some almost $700 million of funding for that. and we're really focusing on early stage r and &d and we're to maybe train the united states' leadership position in these very transformative sciences. i'm comfortable, senator, that the commitment still there.
we've had some great success stories, whether it was dealing with hydrogen fuel cells in automobiles, whether it's solar energy office met and exceeded its goals of five of the last five years. in short, we're hitting or exceeding our goals and then you set new goals. some of the work that we're doing on carbon capture and utilization and getting that technology out into the world can be very helpful to the environment. >> mr. secretary, i understand the importance of the early stage r&d,beyond early stages, technology that's developed can never possibly be utilized. example, in september this energy subcommittee held a hearing on how innovation in the energy sector with an emphasis on the role of
t r national energy labs. technology strategy for duke energy, one of the largest utility companies in the country, explains that utilities need to know that a new technology fully works before they trust it on their power system. she explained that it's not necessarily fundamental sciences or what i would call early stage r&d, but the fact of the matter is we can't operate out of a system with technology solutions that don't have history. so she continues that anybody who says the national labs are infringing on the potential of the private sector perhaps doesn't understand the km complexity of the system we are operating. one of the reasons i introduce -- to demonstrate how to integrate energy storage, rooftop solar and other vast electric grid technologies. so i do thank the chair and ranking member for invcluding
advanced grid demonstration in that budget bill. i wish the president's bill had the same foresight. we need to support beyond the early stage stuff. i hope that you recognize the continual needs for the alternative energy sector. >> i do. >> senator smith recognizing that we're trying to keep the secretary on time so we will be very quick. >> yes. thank you very much, madam secretary. mr. secretary, thank you for being here. i'm very glad that senator herone asked the question about the energy efficiency and renewable energy office. i strongly support that and appreciate what i hope was a willingness to work with us on getting that budget number up to a place that would work much better for my state. i also would just like to quickly note i have a similar request, i'll say, on the importance of werization
assistance, which is so important in minnesota. the weatherization assistance program has helped seniors stay in their homes, it helps young families afford their homes because they can afford energy better when we weatherize their houses, so important to minnesota. and as a former business person, i appreciate that the return on investment for this program is good according to the national lab. we see a $1.72 benefit for every dollar invested in weatherizing homes. it creates a lot of jobs too. i'd really like to work with you on this as well and see if we can't find some common ground on keeping the weatherization assistance program working well for minnesota and our country. >> yes. senator, we'll work with you. as a governor, let me just say i think it's really important for the states to play a very
important role in that arena as well. >> yes, i agree with that and our state does play an important role. we're looking for a good partnership with the federal government. >> thank you. senator king. >> i'm going to try for 30 seconds. >> thank you, governor. >> i'm just glad to be here in any role. >> three quick points. number one, congratulations on the formation of the cyber security energy security and emergency response office. very timely, very important. i think a great initiative and look forward to working with you on it. this is one area of huge national vulnerability, the fact that you've created an office to focus exclusively on that problem is commendable. i look forward to working with
you on that. that's number one. >> thank you sir. >> number two is please maintain the focus on research. i believe one of the most important things the federal government can do is do research that isn't necessarily going to pay off right away, because the commercial sector does that very well. we all know we wouldn't have tracking, wouldn't have the revolution in the price of oil and gas that we have butt for suppo -- but for support in the department of energy years ago. we need to be thinking about future technologies that we perhaps can't even imagine now. research, however it's defined, i think is one of the most important functions than the department of energy can perform. i hope you will continue that focus on things like storage, for example, which you've characterized as one of the most important parts of this country. and weatherization, it really is important. i want to echo my colleague from minnesota.
we face situations in maine where people have to choose between medication, heating their home and putting food on the table. weatherization is a great way -- it's a great way of avoiding expenditures in the future. please, if the congress reestablishes that, i hope the department will continue to actively promote it. it's very important to our constituents. >> senator king, the department is going to be a good partner. but more importantly, having been an appropriator in one of my previous lives, having been an agency head and a governor and now the secretary of energy, i respect this process. if you see fit, this committee sees fit, congress sees fit to fund particular line items, i'd give you my solemn oath that it
will be administered and managed as transparently and as successfully as possible. >> mr. secretary, i can't ask more than that. thank you very much. >> mr. secretary, thank you. this is well ahead of senate time. we are one minute over your hard stop. so i think we did pretty well. i think you heard sir the concerns from more about these budget category areas. we'll be looking critically at them as we focus on these important priorities, whether it be weatherization, cleanup, cyber. >> thank you again for your thoughtfulness in allowing me to walk out. thank you all for your pleasant experience today. >> happy to be with you. committee stands adjourned.
navy secretary richard spencer along with admiral john richardson and general robert neler on navy readiness and the 2019 budget request. they testified before the senate armed services committee. monday on landmark cases, tinker v des moines independent community school district, a case about student free speech. in 1965 five students from des moines, iowa, wore black arm bands to school to protest the vietnam war.