on. we couldn't be prouder of you. i like the fact that we have a strong contingent of men here today, too. i like that. way to go, guys. and with that, i want to present shanna with her crystal apple. here you go. let's get a picture of that. >> thank you. >> fantastic. with that, let me present the teacher of the year. shanna peeples. >> thank you, mr. president. your support and belief in public education is one of the many things i admire about you. you're charged to create world

class learners is our mission and we answer it in our classrooms every day. thank you secretary duncan for your advocacy of authentic learning and service for our students and your support of teacher leadership. thank you to my wonderful family. i'm nothing without you. thank you to kayla, my student to the texas delegation and to my administrators. [ applause ] finally, thank you to the talented passionate and remarkably good-looking group of state teachers of the year with whom i am privileged to join today. each of them is a study in excellence and each of them is a representation of what a great

teacher is. i am honored to stand here today. as a teacher of refugee students, i have been privileged to see public education through the eyes of students from countries as diverse as berm a, somalia, iraq, and cuba. being here today makes me think of my student. she was a shy teenage girl who had little formal schooling and much suffering in her native berma. one day a snowstorm shut down the entire city, but she set off, trudging toward her school in blizzard conditions, clutching a backpack full of homework. her friends had to find her convince her that school was indeed closed. but how is that possible, she asked them? school was always open like the hospital. we are in schools all over america in a sense never closed.

so many teachers like these behind me stay after school to listen to our students go to their games or concerts, or just create a safe space where they can draw because we are stable, dependable adults. for her, school was special. we were her beacon, her stability, her source of inspiration, dreaming and hope. this is the commitment that america and its schools offer all our students. we will be here and we will help you. this is no easy promise, and that's why so many families send us their most valuable resource their children. they trust us to teach them no matter their abilities, behaviors, or financial situations. school is the place where so many of us learned to dream. where we began the ground work of our futures. schools and their teachers are a stabilizing force in society and

a fierce promoter and protector of our democracy. public schools help us to find the most treasured thing that any of us have, personal meaning in our contribution to the common good. public schools must always stay open because teachers' doors stay open saying come in let's learn, let's hope, let's begin dreaming. thank you. [ applause ] >> hey! woo! >> good job, everybody. can we take one picture with

everybody? ♪ ♪

>> that was without any liquor! [ applause ] on the next washington journal, represent ron kind, chair of new democrat coalition and ways and means committee member will discuss his concerns with the trade promotion authority bill. then congressman john mica of florida is here to talk about the jie row copter landing on capitol hill and efforts to secure d.c. air space. later, a look at a poll that

shows younger americans prefer democrats control the white house in 2016. our guest is a polling director at harvard institute of politics. washington journal live every morning at 7:00 eastern on cspan. join the conversation with your calls and comments on facebook and twitter. navy secretary mabus remarks from the national press club, live at 1:00 p.m. eastern on cspan3. this weekend the cspan cities tour partnered with cox communications to learn about the history and lit rather life of to peek a, kansas. >> the act of signing that piece

of paper was viewed by missouri as an act of war. when northerners decided if popular sovereignty will decide the fate of kansas, we are going to send people to settle, that was viewed as an act of war by many that assumed it would all be theirs. there are raids back and forth across the kansas border almost immediately. in may of 1856 john brown, his sons, a couple of other followers dragged five men from their cabins along the mosquito and apot was the me creeks and they're hacked to death with broad swords. that effectively cleared that area of southern settlers. >> if you looked at the schools, standing outside, you would be hard pressed to determine whether white or african-american students attended because the school board really did provide all of the same materials that the

white schools offered and what is even more interesting for most people when they come to visit, they find out after graduating elementary school african-american students attended integrated middle and high schools. while they certainly were no supporters of segregation and obviously saw injustice of having to attend separate elementary schools, the african-american community also was very proud of their schools because these were excellent facilities. while there was support for the idea of integration there was also resistance, especially from teachers and local chapter of the naacp who feared the loss of the institutions and loss of the jobs. >> watch all our events from topeka saturday on book tv. and sunday morning at 10:00 on american history tv on cspan3. next, a discussion on u.s. hostage policy.

our guest, congressman john delaney of maryland. this is 35 minutes. >> we want to welcome back to the table congressman john delaney, a democrat of maryland. he is here to talk about warren weinstein who was killed by the drone strike recently, the president talked about it last week. he was a constituent of yours. >> he was. >> he was being held hostage by al qaeda. when and how did you learn about his death? >> well, we learned about it the day before it was announced from the white house. so i learned about it about the same time the family did. >> what was your reaction? >> i was just heartbroken because i never met warren which i feel sad about but i have really gotten to know the family incredibly well, elaine and warren's daughters. we worked very closely for the last couple years on a whole bunch of strategies to try to get warren back. so it was just such a terrible ending to what has been a really

difficult situation. >> what was that effort like? explain u.s. hostage procedure. >> yes. so i'll start by saying i think the men and women who work in the various parts of government that touch the hostage situation, principally the fbi, they have primary responsibility for dealing with hostages no matter what the circumstance around them being taken are, then the state department and other parts of government. men and women that work the cases are terrific, work hard. in truth, we don't do a great job as a nation in terms of coordinating all of the resources we have to bring these people back. we don't develop the kind of customized strategies needed. every one of these situations is highly unique. a lot has changed with respect to hostages. a lot of head set we apply is dated back to times when most hostages were related to drug cartels, capturing americans, wanting ran soms. now we have nonstate actors

taking american hostages. they don't really want the money, they use them as propaganda, and they're operating in countries that don't control their borders. it is a different set of facts than we used to. we have to change our head set and i think we need a more customize approach, we develop specialized capabilities just for hostages intelligence assets technological assets, all the wonderful assets of the military, and importantly leverage relationships in the region with other countries to help get information to help get our americans back. i think we need a whole new comprehensive strategy which is what we called for a hostage czar, most understand what that is. it is a person that wakes up every day with a white board of all hostages, how they're advancing the ball each day, but enhances new capabilities in the government.

>> walk through efforts when it came to warren weinstein. explain what that was like. what did you do, what did the administration do? >> what we did, we worked closely with the family, they were calling a lot of the shots here. we never wanted to get in front of the family in terms of what they wanted us to do. we focused on all assets of the government being utilized. pakistan we thought could do more to help in efforts to get warren back. we did specific things through the congress to push the government of pakistan to cooperate more fully with the fbi, right, and that's something in my own opinion if we would have had better cooperation earlier in warren's situation there's a chance we may have had a different outcome. so it was an example that surprised me that we -- we provide pakistan of billions of dollars of aid. when i heard that and heard we weren't getting the information back we wanted from the government about warren's situation, i was like this is ridiculous. we ought to be tying aid to getting this information.

we are not asking them to change foreign policy but are asking them to cooperate with the fbi as relates to american held hostage. that was one example. the other example we got involved, the government of qatar has been instrumental helping get american hostages back. we started efforts to get that conversation going again. again, not changing u.s. policy. u.s. policy is we don't pay for hostages and i fully support that. that doesn't mean we may not have partners that have other relationships in the region and can get these people back without violating u.s. policy. so we started those efforts. i was surprised we weren't doing more as a country in that regard. >> you're saying qatar can pay the ransom? >> no, not saying qatar can pay. but qatar like lots of governments has different relationships, know what's going on on the ground better than we do, have people they work with that may be able to negotiate like theo curtis. he was a terrific example where a private citizen gentleman

named david bradley i think is an american hero, has taken hostage release as a private mission. he worked on many of these cases. "the washington post" did a good story about this last year they talked about how a private citizen actually played an important role getting the government of qatar to get theo curtis back without paying ransom. and no one said they did. >> what was the communication between the al qaeda operatives holding mr. weinstein hostage and the family and the government? >> so there have been a few public communications where they sent videos. but in terms of other communications, i generally am very respectful of the family don't want to talk about any specific communications they may have had. >> what efforts can families like warren weinstein's, other families who have family members held hostage what effort can they make on their own? where does the government limit them in what they can do to try

to free their loved one. >> the u.s. policy is we don't pay for hostages, i 100% support. we also have a policy private citizens cannot pay for hostages, family members or loved ones. there's talk about that being reviewed. and that's an interesting conversation to have. the policy we don't pay for hostages i support. it will encourage more americans to be taken hostage. whether it should apply to families or not does merit conversation about whether there is evidence to support that would change the number of americans taken hostage, so that's open for debate but i think again unfortunately if we did a better job, again i don't want to criticize the individuals, men and women that work in the state department and fbi, they care about these people and work hard, but if we do what i want to do a whole new effort, what we are proposing, create a committee of national security council that has the principles of the most important parts of government.

you have state department fbi, intelligence, you have military, you have even the attorney general. they're all on the committee. the committee is chaired by a full-time person whose sole responsibility is to develop strategies and get hostages, find out where they are work to get them back, and communicate with the families. they'd be able to speak for the capabilities of all of the members on the committee. it would be a totally new approach and much more effective approach for getting hostages. >> how big a problem we need in your opinion a hostage czar? >> i think it is a huge problem, the fact an american like warren -- >> how many hostages are being held? >> no one knows exactly. a lot of them, warren's situation wasn't public for a long time because the family knew and the government knew, but the decision was made early on not to go public with it because they thought particularly considering his jewish faith it might be counterproductive. then when al qaeda would send open videos to the media

obviously the decision was to go public with it. there's estimates there's several dozen at any given time and how many of those are kind of the old fashioned drug cartel taking people at the american border versus the middle east, it is probably an even split and again, i am not talking about building a whole new department i am talking about taking resources we already have in the government and creating a way for them to be coordinated. i come from private sector i think about it as a management job. we don't need, because as you said there are only several dozen hostages as one time, we don't need a whole new bureaucracy, we need a capability that can develop hostage specific strategies all be different and customized based on facts on the ground, and have the ability to cut across all assets of government grab what's needed and execute against those strategies. >> let's get viewers' opinions. go to joy in california. democratic caller. hi joy.

>> caller: good morning. i am down in the garage i am not giving -- i can hear you guys talk but when i first saw the headline of terrorism, i thought of gitmo and i am curious why that situation is still going on. my second part of my comment is that with terrorism, you know, i read a lot about isis and what's going on with that, and i just think that the media overemphasizes the threat that that is to the united states. now -- >> joy, i am going to have the

congressman jump in, take on those two. >> thanks for those questions. as for guantanamo bay i agree. not clear what role that plays and i think the president's efforts to move to close that are headed the right direction. as for isis, i think i have a different take. i view it as a very, very significant threat to the united states. and in this area i actually take them at their word. if you listen to the words that the isis leaders are saying, they want to find americans wherever they are, including here if possible and they want to kill us. and that's what they're doing with the hostages overseas. so i think this is a very, very serious threat that we have to deal with as a nation and we can see by their actions they've done these incredible brutal killing of hostages they've had, it is an immoral awful act and i think it is a serious threat and they've said that they want

to do more of it wherever they can identify americans or other people that don't believe in their particular kind of cause and approach to the world which is the majority of the world, so i think it is a very serious threat for us. >> steve independent caller. >> caller: i was wondering what the difference between the jewish state being established for israel as they were terrorists at the time, actually colonies were terrorists at the time, and what are your thoughts on those policies being implemented in this context of this world order i guess now. >> yeah, i don't agree with the fundamental premise that the jewish state was terrorist or the united states was terrorist so i think we disagree out of the block. so hard for me to make any comment. >> we will move on. matthew in massachusetts.

independent. >> caller: yes, good morning. >> good morning. >> good morning matthew. >> caller: i wanted to make a few points. first, the funds that the terrorists receive will be used to kill more people including our soldiers. if anyone makes any doubt where do you think the money is going that's where it is going. and this change in policy is going to be one after another of individuals that will be turning themselves over. they're already leaving to go over to join these terrorist groups, so now -- in fact they won't even have to leave, just make a video in the basement i have been kidnapped i need money. and that money that the families will be able to provide it will just increase tenfold. it will keep increasing. >> okay.

so just to be clear, there's no proposed change in the u.s. policy as relates to paying for terrorism. no one has proposed the united states change that policy. i certainly don't believe we should, no one in the government has proposed that, even know one on capitol hill proposed that because the argument which you made one part of the argument, but the other part of the argument is people think if we pay for hostages they'll just take more of them in addition for money being used for purposes that are terrible, immoral, so there's no proposed change in u.s. policy. what there has been talk about is right now american families whose family member has been taken hostage, to the extent they talk about using their own funds to make ransom payments that they have been threatened by our government they will be prosecuted if they do that. there has been talk of looking at that policy, right. so that's a very different policy, not the government policy. and there are implications to

that. i think the extent we were to make changes to that policy, we would want to be very comfortable that changes would not change the rate of americans being taken hostage so i think it is a good discussion because we have seen situations like the foley family which was according to them threatened by our government when they were trying to do things to get their son brought back, but it just underscores the point to my mind which is if we had a more centralized capability to deal with finding american hostages, and that's the key part talking about the negotiation, talking about what we do with the terrorists, but where i think there's a huge gap, warren weinstein, my constituent who was held hostage and recently killed he was over there over three years and we couldn't find him, which to me is a failure of his country when you consider the capabilities we have as a nation technological capabilities, military capabilities, and our ability to put pressure on partners in the region to help us find hostages.

the fact an american can go three years, not be found in the middle east is a breakdown of our capabilities. that's the area i want to focus on, because if we find the people, we have more options. but at a minimum, won't bomb places we know they are. >> you wrote after the death of mr. weinstein was made public that you were saddened disappointed and outraged our government was not able to bring warren home. >> yes. >> where was the failure? intelligence? are you saying our intelligence did not know where he was at all during the three years? >> i mean we had a sense he was in pakistan, along the pakistan afghan border but that's just because that's our sense as to where all of them are taken because it is difficult terrain, we don't have a lot of capabilities there. but you're right greta. where i think the breakdown was is on the intelligence side, but intelligence broadly defined. not does our intelligence agency have great capabilities, are they listening of course they

are, but it is also working with pakistan to see what they know. do they have assets people with information, are they letting us talk to them. are we partnering and collaborating with others in the region. i think it was a breakdown that united states of america with all capabilities, which relative to the rest of the world are staggering that we cannot find americans that are being taken hostage in a limited part of the world. we kind of know where these people are. >> go to lancaster texas. the line for republicans, you are on the air sir. >> caller: seems that we have have attack monday on christianity. the area of baltimore where the riots are currently taking place, no one is speaking about the overtake of the islamic

community in the primarily northern states that have very poor economic support and they're just basically reaching out and no one is speaking out to bring aboutñ0@ that hey we are our home front is under attack. we are focusing more on the smoke and mirrors about a bunch of crips and bloods who had no injunction in the country to speak of. >> okay congressman. >> so look i think it is really important that when we speak about people practicing their faith, the faith of islam, the overwhelming, overwhelming majority of people practicing that faith live up to the core tenets of peace love, faith. we have to be careful talking about even people obviously practicing that religion in our own country. as relates to what's going on in

baltimore, that was a very different situation. people are reacting to baltimore, remember, we had a lot of peaceful protests after the situation with mr. gray's death, but what they were reacting to was what appears to be happening all over the country, which is an uneven application of our laws to poor inner-city black communities. and they want answers. they want answers as to why someone like freddie gray died like he did, it is somewhat inexplicable he would die based on what's been said. the community wants answers the family wants answers, we are heartbroken for them, and most protests were peaceful and raising this question in an appropriate way and then some criminals got involved and the situation got out of hand and that was terrible. but i think the core situation in baltimore is not what you're focused on, i think the core

situation in baltimore is what we saw in other parts of the country, which is are the poor black communities which have been underinvested in and in many ways are product of a failed and broken criminal justice system in this country, are laws being applied unevenly to citizens in those communities. that's the legitimate question has to be answered, not only relates to mr. gray's death and the situation in general. what do we do to improve the situation in the communities. we need to talk about the communities, not just around these crises but every day in congress, in local communities, what type of economic development strategies, what type of criminal justice reforms are needed so we can break this cycle of poverty and crime and despair and bad relations with the police department. so those are all of the issues that were coming out of the situation in baltimore, which were largely being handled in a very peaceful way, and the protests there were 50 to 100

religious leaders involved in what were peaceful protests and then quickly because tensions are high in these situations and these situations become inherently dangerous, things got out of hand very quickly. >> i am going to josh in florida. a democrat. go ahead with your question or comment for the congressman. >> caller: good morning, congressman. >> good morning, josh. >> caller: the question i have is simply tell me what do you suppose would happen if when a hostage is taken that the united states cut off all ties all support to that country until that hostage is released. i'll take your answer off the air. >> okay. josh, i like where you're going with your question. i don't think i would go as far as you're going. here's an example. warren weinstein. i'll tie it back to my constituent, warren because that's who i was working for the last several years. warren is captured in pakistan right? the question is were we getting

enough cooperation from pakistani police who have lots of contacts in the villages. were we getting cooperation. our experience is we were not. what we were doing in cooperation with the fbi and other parts of the government is threatening to hold back u.s. u.s. aid unless we get cooperation. so thematically, we are talking about the same thing, finding pressure points with various contacts or touch points the government has with other countries and making sure we're getting 100% cooperation. i wouldn't go far enough, the situation in pakistan around hostages is very difficult. the former prime minister's child was taken hostage to put into perspective how bad things are. going to them, saying we won't provide aid without getting our hostage back is probably unreasonable. should we say things like we are not going to provide aid unless

we get 100% cooperation from your various police authorities, military authorities because these things tend to be not as well coordinated in pakistan as here, you can get cooperation from the military but not the police, should we be conditioned aid on 100% cooperation from the police or military as relates to information related to an american hostage? the answer to that question is yes. >> we started this conversation talking about what changes you would like to see. can you outline them again for viewers? >> sure. we are proposing a committee of national security council get established. on that committee are all of the principals senior, most senior people in the agencies or arms of the government relevant to the hostage situation, talking fbi, state department, intelligence, department of defense, even the attorney general. and this new committee which again is part of the national security council will be chaired by an individual whose full time

responsibility is to work on hostage related matters. so this person will likely be referred to as the hostage czar, and what we believe this person should do is build up a small department that can leverage all of the capabilities of the u.s. government, intelligence, military assets, everything we have, including putting pressure on countries in the region mostly referring to the middle east, who we think can help us and thereby deliver a more coordinated, effective overall hostage strategy, more directly will have someone who wakes up every morning, goes into the office, has a white board right on the wall with names of all of the hostages you know, they've developed individualized strategies for each of these situations, and every day seeing what they can do to move the ball forward. what capabilities they need from intelligence. what do they need from the fbi. what do they need from state. what pressure do we need to put on pakistan, et cetera, et cetera, to do three things.

find these people that was a big problem with warren weinstein, we never found him over three years, which i think is a huge failure of the government. once you find them, you have options, you can negotiate for release, you can go to rescue them, you can certainly avoid bombing where they are and also dealing with families. we have seen a very uneven situation with respect to families, they're not getting the information they need and it is coming in disjointed fashion. it is a comprehensive solution that doesn't involve building a big bureaucracy but puts a small team in place, but that team has lots of power to cut across all of the parts of government and get what they need to deliver better results. >> is this something the president can do on his own? >> yes we think the president can do it on his own. >> did you talk to him about it? >> we talked to the white house. they talked about creating something that's confusing, called a fusion cell where they create a better way for different agencies to coordinate. our proposal goes further.

i think our proposal is a much better solution. directionally i think we're headed the same way and i look forward to working with them with our legislation and hopefully coming to an agreement that we can all say yeah, this is what we should be doing. >> let's get back to calls. chuck is waiting in delphi, indiana. hi chuck. >> caller: hi. >> go ahead. >> caller: i have a question, a couple of them really. one has only been hit on a little bit. why are we always giving money to foreign countries that hate us? that are jihadists and borrow money to run our own country from china. now, i don't understand this. >> we will have the congressman respond. >> the total amount of u.s. foreign aid we provide all over the world is a number that's misunderstood by many people. it is actually smaller than people think, less than 1% of the budget of the united states. it is not like we are providing significant -- it is a lot of

dollars, the budget for the u.s. is big, but as a percentage all of the aid is less than 1%. my own opinion is is the aid is important. a lot is for humanitarian needs in many of the nations where they're dealing with inhumane crises when children and people are at real significant risk and i think is the most powerful wealthiest nation in the world, we have a moral obligation to show leadership and help these countries out. some is to help build economies in these regions which has proven to be one of the most stabilizing factors in the health and stability of a nation, which by the way is in our best interest. when we have stable nations, we are less likely to have terrorist groups form. some related to bolstering security that are nations that are key partners of ours. but i think the foreign aid strategy of this country is well thought out and effective. we don't obviously provide money to terrorist organizations right, that's obviously

prohibited. no one in the government would do that, so we're not doing that. some countries we provide aid are countries where governments have a hard time controlling their own borders, right, and they have terrorist operations going on within their own countries which they're trying to fight and we're trying to help them fight. and a lot of foreign aid is designed to create an environment where we can be more effective at that. so i think the foreign aid budget of the united states has accomplished multiple objectives. i touched on some humanitarian reasons, there's economic reasons, we want to create some of the markets because it is good for u.s. businesses but it is also related to our national security because if we can help stabilize some of these nations we are less likely to have as many terror threats. you look at what's going on in some of these countries, some of these countries have shockingly high unemployment particularly among younger population, 50 60 70% unemployment among young people in some of these countries. that's exactly the kind of

environment where terrorism breeds and a lot of our aid is designed to prevent that. >> let's try to get in a handful more calls. go to harry in washington. hi harry, you're on the air. >> caller: good morning, congressman. >> good morning, harry. >> caller: first of all, my heart goes out to families of the hostages. secondly i would like to ask you do you think there's a parallel between what was going on in the 1990s when president clinton was also using drones to try to fix a problem that we couldn't put our finger on and now the same thing is being done and it seems to me anyway that it is just as ineffective as it was back then. the difference being isis is a disease that's spreading a whole lot quicker than what president clinton was dealing with back in the 1990s.

>> all right we will have the congressman answer. >> listen, i agree about the threat of isis. i think it is obviously an incredibly scary situation what's going on with isis and we need to be incredibly determined and committed to defeating isis. as i said to the earlier caller i take them at their word, their word is they want to continue to attack and kill americans. we need to fight them and need to fight them on the ground where they are and work with partner nations in doing that, so countries where isis exist, those countries can get control of their countries again and we can eliminate the threat. i think the drones, look there's important discussion about drone policy. i think they've largely been effective accomplishing missions, but drones need good intelligence. one of the problems with the warren weinstein situation, intelligence told us there were only four people in the compound that the drone bombed. turned out there were six. i think the intelligence that was done was thorough careful

intelligence but obviously wasn't enough. which is one of the reasons i want more intelligence around hostage identification. we would have known where warren was, we probably wouldn't have been bombing in that region. but drone capabilities are only as good as intelligence capabilities. we would have had the same discussion about warren's death and the italian aid worker's death as well which was also a tragedy, if that attack was by a manned vehicle. i think the reason i like drones, it is a way of putting fewer americans at risk right, because when we do manned operations, american soldiers are at risk. with drones we don't have to do that. it is proven effective, but has to be done in cooperation with really good intelligence. >> and democrat in vermont. >> caller: good morning. do you believe there should be cooperation with countries all over the world, especially the

pakistan. president obama compared to other presidents got rid of osama bin laden. the second about baltimore and what happened. the governments should also in respect. if police or person -- to respect law officers and law officers are supposed to respect human rights. we are not to mistrust all police officers. there are police officers in every situation, put their life in danger their loved ones, their children a father a husband, policeman are devoted their whole life for this

country. we are not supposed to judge all police officers. >> all right. >> well, your question which dealt with two different topics but you had a common theme cooperation and respect. and those are really important words that apply to a lot of situations. first part of the question was about pakistan and then i think generally about cooperation. it is really important for us as a government to have cooperation with other nations where we have common interests. and pakistan is a good example. we have a lot of common interest with pakistan. i don't think as a nation we held them to the highest standard, so you can have a relationship with a nation and cooperate with them and have respect for them you also have to make sure they're living up to their end of the bargain. so cooperation and respect are the principles of foreign policy obviously. every once in a while you have

to be tough. we have to be tough on our partners to make sure they're cooperating with the united states in a way we deem acceptable. and that's kind of a complicated area, but thematically i agree. then you talk about the situation in baltimore, and look, it is a tragedy what happened to mr. gray and his family demands answers as do a lot of families of african-american men in poor communities who feel like they've had uneven treatment from the police. but you're right. we also have to be incredibly respectful of our police forces around the country. many policemen were injured in the baltimore situations, our heart goes out to them as well. as the president said the other day, it is a reminder that it is a tough job being a police officer is a really, really, really tough job in this country, particularly in some of these communities which have been broken through cycles of poverty and other failures in our criminal justice system. these communities have a lot of

violence and crime and are high risk for police officers. i think you're right there has to be mutual respect and trust or it won't work. >> cambridge, ohio, al. independent caller. >> caller: good afternoon, congressman. >> hey al. >> caller: i had two questions for you okay? it sounds like from your synopsis that you've just given about what proposed changes to make going to be politicizing the process. in to ask you, i don't really agree with that. but let's see if we can -- if we politicize the process, then what would happen if say, these right-wing newscasters and congressmen get on and demonize

the victim as they did in the bergdahl case? >> i don't think i'm demonizing the process at all. i think i'm doing the opposite of that. i'm not sure what -- i'm probably known to be one of the least political members of congress and part of that is i spent my career as an entrepreneur in the private sector sector, building businesses, taking them public, and running them which isn't a political business it's an operation business, a strategy business, a management business. which is how i think about the hostage situation. i think we have a management issue. we have tremendous resources in this government that are designed for big engagements and big endeavors and lots of activity. then we have a hostage situation which is only, fortunately, only a few handfuls of hostages at any one time. and each situation is very different and highly custom eyed. and so when i put my management hat on what i see -- this was based on very specific breakdowns that i saw with respect to warren weinstein's case. i see that we could set up a

management structure that takes advantage of all the assets we have as a nation and all the leverage and capabilities we have with people around the world and delivers a better kind of product or solution to the american people. right? and what i'm talking about is creating an effective and efficient way to develop highly specialized strategies for each hostage and have someone calling the shots who can quickly grab, cut through the bureaucracy, grab whatever assets are needed. the fbi, state department, intelligence communities, whatever they need congress whatever the case may be. and bring it to bear to find the hostages, hopefully get them rescued, and communicate better with the families. there's no politics at all in this solution. right? i've never talked about it in political context. i've talked about it only in the context of helping the families like the weinsteins, getting better information, hopefully finding their loved ones that are held hostages and god willing getting them back to the united states safe. >> congressman delaney thank you very much for your time this

morning talking to our viewers about this. appreciate the conversation. >> thank you. on the next "washington journal," representative ron kind of wisconsin chair of the new democrat coalition and a ways and means committee member will discuss his concerns with the trade promotion authority bill. then congressman john mica of florida is here to talk about the recent gyro copter landing on capitol hill and efforts to secure d.c. air space. a look at a poll that shows young americans prefer democrats retain control of the white house in 2016. our guest is john delavolpe polling director at harvard institute of politics. "washington journal" live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. join the conversation on facebook and twitter. next thursday may 7th is election day in the uk. tomorrow, bbc question time hosts a debate with party

leaders answering audience questions. that's live at 3:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. the new congressional directory is a handy guide to the 114th congress with color photos of every senator and house member plus bio and contact information and twitter handles. also district maps, a fold-out map of capitol hill, and a look at congressional committees the president's cabinet federal agencies and state governors. order your copy today. it's $13.95 plus shipping and handling through the c-span online store at cspan.org. tuesday, energy secretary earnest moni z testified before the senate energy and natural resources committee. he outlined the first installment of the operation's quadrennial energy review, a report that provides policy recommendations for modernizing u.s. energy infrastructure.

this hearing chaired by alaska senator lisa murkowski is two hours. good morning. welcome to the committee. the hearing will now come to order. we're here this morning to review the first installment of the quadrennial energy review. we call it the qer around here. we're pleased to have secretary moniz back before the committee. this is your second time so far this year. we appreciate not only the public engagement but the time that i know you give each of us as you come to either discuss issues in our offices or through your frequent phone calls. i appreciate that engagement and that reach-out. i think it's very helpful. secretary moniz oversaw the development of this report at

the department of energy and, again, i think many of us have had an opportunity to have a little bit of discussion on this report but this morning is our opportunity as a committee to review it. in the united states, we take it for granted that when we flip a switch, the lights turn on, that our devices charge up when we plug them into the wall, that when we pull off the side of the road to fill up at a gas station when we're on a family trip, that everything works. we live in a country that has abundant resources and innovative technologies that make our way of life and our standard of living the envy of many around the world. and we should be proud of the tremendous progress that has been made but also recognize that nothing is guaranteed to

stay this way and that's particularly true when it comes to our energy infrastructure, which i think we will all acknowledge is facing serious challenges across the country right now. we regularly focus on opportunities to improve energy infrastructure in this committee. already this year, we have held hearings on innovation related to the electric grid, increased oil production, our opportunities in the arctic and the importance of pipeline infrastructure. i think today's hearing is a good next step here. the qer looks at our nation's energy infrastructure at a critical time. many of our systems are aging and in urgent need of modernization. we've seen dramatic increases, of course, in energy production, oil and gas are at record levels, the market penetration is on the rise and the stress placed on our systems has increased faster than it can be addressed. the qer makes a number of recommendations to alleviate these current deficiencies. in many cases, the solution is new spending, adding up to potentially billions of dollars but i think it's important to note that the vast majority of

the nation's infrastructure is privately owned and sustained and improved by private investment. at the same time, i understand that advancing our energy infrastructure will require some federal funding even within our constrained budgets. but federal spending is not all that matters. so do regulations, particularly those that hold back projects and private investments. we have to keep that in mind as we seek to find a better balance. as i go out and talk to folks in alaska or just really anywhere in the country, so many of the business interests, when they are talking about infrastructure and where we are, they say, what we really need is some level of certainty. we want some level of certainty so that we can go ahead and make these substantial investments. now, as we are here to discuss infrastructure today, i do think that it is relevant to point out that the keystone xl pipeline has been delayed for over 2400 days.

we have, in my state, a critically important piece of infrastructure that trans-alaska pipeline system. it's something that i worry about and recognize that without ensuring that that pipeline has the resources that it carries, it is a piece of infrastructure that could face declining health and strength and it's something that i worry about. it's one thing to read a report outlining our infrastructure challenges but another to set out proactively to solve them every day. any modernization of energy policy should, in my view, visit the de facto ban on oil exports that we have imposed over 40 years ago. i think the qer is too light in that regard. i was, however, pleased to see it recognize the unique issues that impact the arctic and the valuable role the united states can play as chair of the arctic

council. i was with secretary kerry on friday but, again, understanding our role as an arctic nation there, i think it's key and i appreciate the focus that has been given. we know that we have significant infrastructure challenges and we know that we're going to have to work together to solve them and that goes for the members of this committee as well as we work on a broad energy bill noting that infrastructure is one of our key titles within that bill. and it goes for congress and the administration as well. working together here. we can use the qer as a reference piece or a template to weigh ideas and to discover potential solutions for our energy bill and we've discussed that with the secretary. and secretary, as you face -- as with you as the face and the focus behind the effort, i do think we've got an opportunity here to make considerable progress on infrastructure issues as we move forward with

that. again, i thank you for your leadership. on that, i look forward to you outlining the terms of the report this morning. and with that, i turn to senator cantwell. >> thank you, madam chair, and thank you for holding this important hearing on transforming u.s. energy infrastructure and i thank secretary moniz for all that he does, shuttling back and forth between iran sanctions discussions and the quadrennial review must be a wide breadth of focus. so thank you very much. this hearing today is particularly important because infrastructure is the link of all of the components of our national energy system and it's increasingly complex. it's independent and, certainly as the report shows, is in need of an upgrade. as we begin the legislative process of crafting a bipartisan energy bill, it's essential to have an analysis and data of the infrastructure that supports the systems. the need for reliable and efficient supplies of energy is becoming closely intertwined with our economic growth and competitiveness.

that's why it's even more important that we understand the trends affecting the infrastructure deliveries of these commodities. for instance, there's been a surge in crude oil by rail in the last five years. in a five-year period starting from 2009, there was an increase of roughly 4,000 -- 4,400% in the volume of rail shipment. this trend has had a number of implications. for example, crude oil now competes with other commodities, more traditional transportation by rail, which caused delays in delivery of crops and agricultural products to market. the report explicitly states that these recent unexpected shifts in supply and demand for rail service has resulted in disruption to agricultural shipments, quote, exceeding even those caused by hurricane katrina, end quote. the department of agricultural marketing service concluded that, quote, the current rail service problem has exceeded previous events in terms of both magnitude and duration, including hurricane katrina,

which caused major disruptions throughout the entire agricultural system. a number of high-profile incidents have also underscored major safety concerns and point to the need for us to revisit existing regulatory structures. as the quadrennial energy review notes "these accidents have highlighted the need for additional monitoring, enforcement, inspection, and setting new safety design requirements for tank cars." back here we have all the oil and rail industries pointing fingers at one another. some asking serious questions about agencies and organizations within the department of transportation. like the hazardous material -- i want to submit an article for the record that was just written last week about that into the record. i want to thank you for helping bring data to bear on these

policy questions. it is clear that our work is not done here. the department of transportation agricultural, federal energy regulatory commission must continue to develop and understand how rail don't know jegs may be oosking safety implicates. obviously outdated infra infrastructure carries safety risks. zeffing in infrastructure upgrades enables the last benefits of new technology to increase efficiency improve re liability, and create jobs. in fact, projections indicate that by 2030 the energy sector will employ a 1.5 million workers and changes in the electricity sector affect the number of types of energy jobs. new technology jobs demand new skill training in the electricity workforce and i'm glad to see that was part of the report. older business models are going to change and our economy is going to involve the electricity

business that must keep pace with the innovation and continue to be efficient and flexible and advanced and this work is important because our grid, i believe, is a platform. it's a platform for products and services and technology, not only in the united states of america but for electricity all around the globe. i was struck yesterday by the report that solar lamps were the only public lighting sources initially available in parts of nepal after the tragic earthquake and avalanche this weekend. so new technology plays a role here and at home and in making sure that our energy systems are resilient and more secure. so obviously here in the u.s. we have been working with our laboratories in developing policies that inform infrastructure so in terms of the electricity sector we know that obviously different states, different geographic priorities and different mixes of energy but it's my hope that we can accelerate the modernization of

our grid by ensuring best practices and innovation-driven ground approaches can be implemented. as the quadrennial also notes, most of our nation's transmission storage and distribution structure is owned and operated by the private sector. that's why an important aspect of accelerating infrastructure technology is a private sector partnership, that again is called for in the report. in 2008, edison electric institute estimated by 2030, the u.s. electrical utility industry would need to make a total infrastructure investment of $1.5 trillion to $2 trillion. that was the range. so analysis concludes that natural gas interstate pipeline investment will range between 39 and 52 billion between the similar time period and depending on overall natural gas demand. so what is the cost of doing

nothing? well, between 2013 and 2012, an estimated 679 widespread power outages occurred due to severe weather which cost the economy $16 billion each year between 2013 and -- i'm sorry. 2003 and 2013. so -- and as i mentioned, the political report talks about spills and leaks and explosions from both oil and gas pipelines. that we've incurred costs on. so investments that promote innovative solutions, enhanced energy resilience and reliability and security clearly have huge benefits to our economy and i think that's what the report is trying to outline. so thank you for keeping our focus on what we need to do to take advantage of our energy resources but make them work better for the future years ahead. thank you. >> thank you, senator cantwell. now we will turn to the

honorable secretary moniz for your comments this morning and look forward to a series of questions after. welcome. >> well, thank you, chairman murkowski, ranking member cantwell and other distinguished members of the committee. i very much appreciate the opportunity to discuss with you the quadrennial energy review and also thank you for the patience of the committee in terms of the scheduling of this hearing. i am going to ask for your indulgence to take a slight detour, picking up on what senator cantwell said of our other missions. i want to say a little bit about the accomplishments of the department of energy within the last several weeks. we have many missions, nuclear security, waste management and cleanup and i wanted to note that within the last four weeks, as you saw, the -- our laboratories, et cetera, have been a major support in the iran

negotiations. on energy, we're here today to discuss the qer which just came out. on science, we just completed the coral announcement which is the next big step on supercomputing and on the waste side we had the important decision a few weeks ago to pursue defense waste in a targeted way. so i just wanted to say that this department is doing work in a whole broad range of areas and i think with great accomplishment. >> madam chairman, i don't know if that means that energy is at the center of things or senator moniz. >> no, this is the department of energy. >> we're glad for it either way. >> and our laboratories are a huge glue in terms of pursing all of these missions. i just couldn't pass that up. anyway, qer, so, again, last week the administration released the first installment and, as you know, focused on energy transmission storage and distribution, including the huge network of pipes, wires, storage, waterways, railroads and other facilities that are at the backbone of our energy

systems. the qer comes at a time, as the chair said, pretty dramatic energy revolution in our country and we are reaping tremendous benefits and we're also seeing the challenges to our infrastructure for distributing these supplies, infrastructure developed decades ago for a different energy world. these new challenges require us to modernize and transform the infrastructure to meet environmental and energy and competitiveness goals indeed for the next century. president obama established this qer task force. it had 22 agencies involved. just demonstrating the breadth of the equities in the energy system. co-chaired out of the -- by the director of the office of science and technology policy

and domestic policy councils, special assistant to the president for energy and climate. department of energy was the executive secretary for the task force and performed or commissioned an extensive number of technical and scientific analyses. our office of energy policy and systems analysis did much of the heavy lifting for this qer. we undertook an open transparent process involving experts and stakeholders, included 14 public meetings around the country and also a meeting in canada and discussions with our mexico compatriots. we released a final document a week ago and that's available on the web. the first installment provides policymakers, we think, with a road map for meeting our key energy objectives. there are several cross-cutting themes also covered, including jobs and environment infrastructure siting and, importantly, the integration of north american energy markets.

let me just highlight a few recommendations, for example, on resilience. clearly a national priority, resilience, reliability, safety and security of our infrastructure. for example, we recommend establishing a competitive program of targeted funding to accelerate pipeline replacement and enhanced maintenance programs for natural gas distribution systems. another, by the way, very big ticket facing our country, a quarter of a trillion dollars over the next decades, supporting the updating and expansion of state assurance plans. and then establishing a competitive grant program to promote innovative solutions from the states for enhancing energy infrastructure, resilience and reliability. that competitive program to move the needle would ultimately require 3 to $5 billion over a decade.

we also recommend looking at and then mitigating the risks associated with the loss of large transformers. we make recommendations in modernizing the electric grid. once again, a strong emphasis on providing state financial assistance to promote and integrate infrastructure and investment plans, efficiency and low carbon generation, are two-state planning grant programs we recommend in our fy 2016 budget. $63 million combined for those activities. clearly we promote grid modernization, another example of something in our 2016 budget but only a down payment but estimate to be a $3.5 billion of federal expenditures to help with grid modernization. a few other recommendations i'll just touch on. importantly, we need investments to optimize the petroleum reserve of both to upgrade it,

maintenance, distribution capacity but also recommend with congress a revisiting of release authorities to reflect modern oil markets. we look at associated infrastructures and, for example, support a new program of competitively awarded grants for share energy transport assets, such as key interconnectors from our energy intensive ports. we feel it's a very important and not very expensive but important activity to address critical data energy gaps in rail transport of energy commodities and supplies. we support alternative mechanisms for our waterways and we strongly emphasize collaborating with our canadian and mexican counterparts. for example, in what is already proving to be a successful integration of how we collect and share data, energy data.

to conclude, the administration's budget request, as i indicated, does include a down payment on some of the key recommendations but clearly to move forward we will need a bipartisan commitment to modernize the nation's energy infrastructure. we look forward to working with members of the committee and others in congress as we work out these next steps. we are living with the infrastructure decisions made decades ago and similarly, the next generation will look at our decisions taken and those not taken for how we shape the energy infrastructure and the energy system in the decades ahead. so thank you, chairman murkowski. ranking member cantwell. members of the committee. i look forward to our discussion. >> thank you, mr. secretary. again, appreciate your leadership on this and the

opportunity to work with you going forward. this is a big report. there's a lot in it. there is much to consider but we see a lot of good, thoughtful reports with much to consider that come before us here in the congress. and one complaint that many of us have is that we -- and this is in the -- not directed at you, but we see these good, strong, solid reports, but then there's no follow-through with legislative proposals coming out of the administration. one example is the energy trust fund from last congress. i had proposed it. the president actually noted it in one of his state of the unions. we never really saw anything happen from that. so the question, very broadly, is how do you envision a plan for engagement with this committee, with the congress on the qer beyond this hearing?

are you looking for input from members of congress here or are you going to send legislative texts? how are you moving forward from a broader perspective? >> madam chair, if i may give a little historical perspective, i was co-chair of the president's council of advisers science and technology task force that recommended doing the qer a few years ago. and as we were contemplating this, we met with many members of congress and it was interesting, we thought, that many of the members emphasized their interest in this qer because they felt that a process that brought together many agencies that have so many energy equities to the congress which, frankly, just like we have a department of energy, we have a committee on energy but many other committees having equities in this that this might provide a good basis for the

kind of discussion that we need for a more comprehensive look. we now have the product. i believe it could really help us in our administration congress, both chambers, both sides of the aisle discussion. so i certainly -- i know that many of my colleagues, i hope we have a road map for much of our discussion, want to engage in that discussion, certainly in both chambers. >> well, and i would encourage you to do that. as you know, we're looking on this side to build energy reform bill that is broader and comprehensive in scope and many of the proposals that you are outlining in the qer, i think we can look to. i know that on the house side they are doing the same but that's going to take a level of active engagement. we're going to need your leadership. >> we are totally prepared for

that and would be eager to engage in those discussions. >> let me ask you about a specific infrastructure project. as you know, we have extraordinary quantities of natural gas in alaska but what we lack right now is the infrastructure to move that natural gas to market. this week we have mr. abe from japan here in washington, d.c., and, believe me, alaskans would love to sell that natural gas to asia, to japan. but it is a huge project. we're looking at a project anywhere upwards of 60 to $65 billion world class in its scope, really unparalleled. you have mentioned before this committee and to me that the process for evaluating the license for the alaska l & g

project is kind of in a different category, if you will, for projects in the lower 48. can you just, again, assure me that you are pursing a conditional license for the alaska lng project and that in this process going forward that this project is receiving your full attention? >> yes. i'm happy to repeat that. we view, again, the -- getting moving the monetizing the natural gas in alaska is a very different proposition from that in the lower 48. as you said, first of all, the costs are enormous to move it to an export facility. so we will -- we are looking at this in a separate way. two points. well, we have already approved the free trade agreement part. we are actively looking at the nonfda part for a conditional approval.

it's different from our lower 48 approach but the conditions -- the special factors merit that and we are following through on that. >> appreciate that. let's go to senator cantwell. >> thank you, madam chair. mr. secretary, i have so many questions. i might have to submit some for the record. i want to start by this crude by rail and agricultural issue that was outlined in the report, the fact that it is displacing product in the marketplace right now. we're actually discussing this in the commerce committee as well but since this quadrennial report is such a comprehensive agency report, what are the next steps in dealing with that and what specifically are you doing at the department of energy on the volatility issue in giving us some analysis about that and what would the timeline be for that? >> okay. thank you for the question.

first of all, with regard to the commodity issue, in terms of -- frankly, there's been very, very sparse data available and the eia has already now launched a program collaborating with the department of transportation to get data on the movement of energy commodities, oil, ethanol, et cetera. but we would like to also and we recommend a collaboration with other departments, including usda and others to have a more unified commodity database. by the way -- and i should have said coal as well. particularly in the energy sector, again, oil, ethanol, coal movements. but as you said, there's a competition often right now for moving multiple commodities and we would like to get a multiagency approach to that. with regard to the oil by rail

specifically, we are collaborating with d.o.t. we have already put out from sandea what was a literature survey so far in terms of properties of different oils, mostly especially the oil that is the focus of a lot of concern. that first report, a literature survey only and only available literature. it had interesting findings, including the need for much more systematic characterization data of crudes. it did suggest that the data that were reviewed did not imply that any one property of the oil would, you know, determine what would happen in terms of combustibility in an accident. but it recommended a major research project that secretary fox and i have agreed to cofund which is now being

launched and sandia -- there will be some impatience but it will probably take two years to get through the full research program that will include really research into the characterization, the samples how one samples where one samples, with a focus on what the implications will be for testing and then understanding how crude oil properties affect things like combustibility. >> but your findings that you, sign tisks findings that you public, it's basically -- it's not something to ignore. you are undertaking more research on it because you are concerned? >> absolutely. >> can i ask you about -- >> just one last thing. sandia has a lot of experience, by the way, in looking at combustibility and combustion. that's why we're using their facilities. >> i saw in your report a lot of focus on working with states on upgrading the grid because of geographic diversity but

transformers are obviously a key component here. what are your thoughts on how we get more investment in transformers? >> so we recommend completing the analysis there and then depending on the results talking about a public/private partnership to move towards a reserve. when we released the quadrennial energy review last week with the vice president in philadelphia, we visited pico, a major utility which is actually on the technology forefront in many cases and there -- so they, for example, a large utility like that, does have some of its own reserve capacity with transformers. but we need to get a systematized view of that. across the country. different kinds of utility structures. obviously different places. our pma wapa has done a study, for example, specifically on how they might support a transformer reserve. we have to pull this together over the next months and come

back to the congress with what might be -- the congress and private sector in tears of what might be the most effective path forward. >> thank you, madam chair. >> senator gardner. >> thank you, madam chair and welcome back to the chair, secretary moniz. in the quadrennial energy review, you laid out four clear requirements for the report. one of the requirements was to review the adequacy with respect to energy policy of existing executive and legislative actions and recommend executive and legislative actions as appropriate and i believe the chair had cited one of those areas where we could have more energy policy driving action as the issue of l and g exports. did the qer take into account or look at or will a result of it be discussions of crude oil exports or perhaps administrative action policy considerations of crude oil

exports? >> the qer was really specifically focused on the infrastructure as opposed to that kind of a policy issue. so it does not really go into that in detail. >> thank you. and then when it comes to modernizing the electric grid, one of the examples of how it's taken too long for permitting and some areas to actually pursue modernizing and extending the grid. in susquehanna substation in pennsylvania, the rosen substation in new jersey, there was a need for 145-mile transmission line. it will be in service this spring but it took a total of eight years for that service line to come into service. so we have to have this adequate safeguards in place when it comes to making sure that we're protecting the environment and moving forward in the right technologies but what do you think congress can do to move these bare contractors to move forward with transportation implementation in a more timely fashion? >> well, first of all, i think we are making some progress and the rapid response transmission team, for example, has maybe not

with the speed, always the desire, but it has managed to get three projects to the permit stage, including the one that you mentioned. and there are three others now in the permitting stage and so, for example, on the trans west express project, we expect the final eis to be out very, very soon. and that project going into operation probably in 2017. so i think we do have a set of authorities and a set of administration institutions to try to streamline but it's also clear that there are obstacles often put up, and i know there are discussions in the congress, and i think senator heinrich is looking at things like backstop authorities. and we are happy to work again on the whole issue of expediting these projects. >> thank you. i look forward to working with you.

i had more questions on micro labs but i'll leave that to senator heinrich to continue that conversation. thank you, secretary. >> thank you. >> thank you, madam chairman and thank you mr. secretary for, first of all, your service to our great country. i appreciate very much what you do. >> thank you. >> also for being here today. speaking of the qer, i know when they went through this whole qer review, they were talking about -- basically, the near term changes due to the clean power plant, it did perform stress tests using the accelerated nuclear retirement scenario from eia's annual energy outlook 2014. since we in west virginia don't have any nuclear generation, this analysis is less relevant for its needs and the potential for infrastructure requirements from accelerated coal plant retirements that may result from the cpp.

will the d.o.e. be willing and able to reperform their stress test models for t s and d, transmission, storage and distribution, particularly electrical transmission and natural gas pipelines using the results of the eia cpp analysis? my main concern, sir is basically the reliability of the system right now. we're taking a lot of coal-fired plants off and they are not coming back online. so we're going to have a lot of capacity and if the lines are not energized or we don't have the reliability, we could be in serious problems. that's what we're concerned about and i didn't know if you all were looking at that or were willing to relook at that. >> first of all, there were a set of analyses relevant to that question but maybe not the precise scenario you'd like to look at. but i'd be happy to define a scenario that might answer your specific question's needs. i will say, again, we have a number of analyses of relevance. for example, one of the issues

related to your question is the question of a natural gas transmission line capacity. that was looked at and the conclusion was that, first of all, there's been a substantial build-out of that over the last decade. there's quite a bit of reserve capacity there and so a conclusion there was that with regard to the natural gas transmission capacity, we are not looking at a need for, you know, a major kind of national big build-out from what we have. there will be regional needs targeted around specific supply standards. >> can i ask one question, if i may? a lot of these power plants, we have coal-fired plants, are not in areas where there is oil or enhanced oil recovery possibilities. are you all looking at transporting or pipeline to transport co2 into those areas to get the enhanced recovery?

>> co2 pipelines are specifically -- we have recommendations in the qeu. i might add, the administration has -- >> basically, where all of ours were, west virginia, kentucky, pennsylvania? >> in general, i think we need to be able to collect the co2 for. for eor and for deep aquifer sequestration. i would note that the administration's put forward roughly a $5 billion incentive proposal around carbon capture and sequestration and one of the interesting features of it is -- and it's analysis i'd be happy to share with you and the committee -- that if one looks at a base case an ultra-centercreditultra-center ultra-supercritical new coal plant with the appropriate amount of carbon capture, the

incentive structure in the administration proposal would essentially equalize the cost of going into deep enhanced oil recovery and that could be relevant for parts of the country where you don't have the eor easily available. >> well, and officially i'd asked if you would come and you were so gracious to say that we can work out that scheduling and come to west virginia to explain to all of our utilities and providers, as far as you're miners, of what the future may look like for them and how we may best apply their skills to the needs of the nation's energy demand. >> i'd be delighted to do that. >> a lot of people worry coal is going to be wiped out completely. but i don't believe in any near future i've seen in the next four decades. this country is still going to depend an awful lot on coal production as far as an energy producer. >> the administration's projections still have coal somewhat lower but a substantial amount quite some time. another document that we're putting together a memo i'd be

happy to share is one that talks about the whole variety of programs we have on coal. and that includes the tax insebtives i just mentioned. it includes the $8 billion solicitation that we now have on the loan program for fossil projects. clearly r&d. we have also out of the department of labor worker community transition programs. so we have a whole variety of programs. and we probably need to pull those together in a coherent way, and i'd be happy to share that with the committee. >> i'd love to have that and we look forward to your visit to west virginia to explain to the good people of my state. >> great. what's a good time? >> as soon as you can get there. >> all right. thank you. >> thank you, madam chairman. as we had a chance to visit earlier, mr. secretary, it was a nice article in today's "usa today," energy progress has room to grow. for those members of the committee might have missed this in "politico" this morning, ernest moniz, rock star.

>> i had in the seen that. i wish i still hadn't. >> i ask unanimous consent to make this part of the record. >> only the picture to be part of the record. >> thank you. i do have a couple questions because the quadrennial energy report states that it is essential to promote more timely permitting decisions and explains that there's a gap between typical permitting times for energy generation and production sources and a much longer time for midstream energy infrastructure. the report goes on to say that legal requirements for the permitting and review of major infrastructure projects have created complex processes that in some cases have taken years or longer to complete. so i'm glad that the administration is acknowledging that the federal permitting process is broken. but i do have concerns about some of the recommendations to fix it. the administration recommends more permitting fees, more coordination among federal agencies, more public

engagement, but it really -- the administration doesn't make mention of establishing deadlines for permit decisions. it doesn't mention repealing duplicative permitting regulations. it doesn't mention limiting lawsuits which slow the permitting process. so, you know, with all due respect, do we really believe that more money and coordination and engagement is all that's necessary to resolve the delays in the federal permitting process? >> no, i certainly don't. and going, in fact, by the way to your opening statement, senator barrasso, opening words, i'm going to say that over these last years, we've kind of seen a shift where often the infrastructure time has now become the long pole in the tent, for shifting of the energy system, which is kind of a reversal a little bit of what it used to be. so i think we need to address these things. and we are trying to do that within our existing authorities,

but i want to point out that things like litigation, we cannot stop litigation. it's not a question of just federal authorities. the states play an enormous role. and of course, the more that we get into the issues of kind of semicontinental scale, let's say transmission lines that cross multiple states without all of the states being beneficiaries, the obvious problems emerge, and that's what we are seeing in terms of multiple delays. clearly, the issue of moving on corridors, for example, is set back often by the courts in respect to states' options. again, we'd love to work with you and other members on that, but we are trying to expedite within the t.i.p. program for western within 1222 authorities, where we do expect some progress this year, but it's slow in

coming. >> another thing that quadrennial energy review calls for is integrating north american energy markets. it explains that energy system integration is in the long-term interest of the united states, canada and mexico. states the integration of these markets creates economies of scale to attract private investment, lower capital costs, reduces energy costs for consumers. it also says mexico's energy reforms present an opportunity to increase energy trade with the united states and enhance energy security for the region. so i'm pleased the administration recognizes the benefits of increasing trade in energy resources. again, the administration seems to really not have the ambition or the courage to achieve the stated goals, specifically a the administration fails to recommend a policy which would allow crude oil exports to mexico. this is especially disappointing given a bipartisan group of lawmakers in both the house and senate have called on president obama to do just that.

if the administration is serious about integrating north american energy markets, shouldn't we allow crude oil exports to mexico? >> first of all, we share, apparently, the focus on the importance of north american energy. and the mexican energy reforms. i want to emphasize not only in the hydrocarbon sector but in the electricity sector, i think are really important and open up much more chance for us to be integrated on infrastructure and on energy trade and energy trade, even two years ago, was already north of $200 billion among the three countries. now, clearly in the qer, we did not address any specific project. and the question of oil exports is, as you well know, is in the department of commerce hands. but i think that in light of the -- of the energy reform in particular, revisiting those

questions is quite appropriate. and as you know, the mexicans have also proposed for our consideration a swap concept of light and heavy oil. so i think these are all areas of active consideration. >> thank you. just finally, and i'll have to submit written questions, mr. secretary. last week i wrote to you about the former deputy secretary of energy, daniel pottiman. i expressed my concern about his appointment to the board of directors of a group of commodities, trader, and just have concerns about that and hope to get a quick timely response from you regarding that letter. so thank you, madam chair. >> i can say your and the concern of other members brought to our attention has certainly led us to, you know, make sure all people in the department are aware, as is he, of the rules in terms of interaction. >> thank you. thank you, madam chairman. >> thank you, senator barrasso. as we're discussing prompt

replies, i am informed by my staff that some of the qfrs that we had submitted at the budget hearing several months ago have not yet been responded to by d.o.e. if you could just rattle the cage there, i would appreciate it. >> i did that last week. >> thank you. thank you. let's go to senator franken. >> thank -- thank you, madam chair. >> we have an interagency process to go through. anyway, but i apologize for that. i want to be prompt with that. >> thank you, madam chair. thank you, secretary moniz. in response to senator cantwell, you touched on the properties and characteristics of tidal oil specifically and specifically the characteristic of combustibility, and we've seen these crude-by-rail accidents that have led to some pretty spectacular explosions and in some cases tragedy, 47 people

killed in quebec during an accident. so let me ask about a very specific property which is vapor pressure. caused as i understand it by liquid natural gases -- >> ngls. >> -- yeah, that are particularly explosive. so, as you may know, on april 1st, north dakota -- or since then has been requiring vapor pressure bakken crude to be limited to 13.7 pounds per square inch before it's loaded into the railcars, but the big explosion in west virginia, the vapor pressure of that oil was at 13.9 psi. my question is whether the department of energy is working with the department of transportation in order to access the safety benefits of lowering crude oil vapor pressure before it's loaded onto trains. >> yes. so that is one of the specific

focus areas of the work that i alluded to earlier that our lab has carried out and will carry out. but again, the early indications are that no one property seems to be directly correlated to the combustibility issues, but that will be researched much more in the next year, and then there will be specific combustion tests done in accident scenarios to test this out. the second issue is that frankly, the literature survey indicated that the lack of systematic characterization also didn't always make it clear what actually was being loaded. >> okay. well -- >> so we have to work on both of those. >> there's obviously tremendous concern in the communities and

the first responders. >> and secretary fox, again, is equally eager to resolve this, and we will be cost sharing this work. >> thank you. i'd like to ask you about the nuclear negotiations between the p5+1 and iran, something you might know something about. the negotiated framework provides the basis for final agreement, and you have talked about how the framework blocks iran's overt paths to a bomb, both the uranium route and the plutonium route, but the blocking -- the blocking the covert path is in question and more challenging. and while the framework argument spells out an extensive and intrusive inspection regime over the entire supply chain for iran's nuclear program, there still will be concerns that iran would cheat and break out toward a new bomb, toward a bomb. but given all the various

restrictions and inspections that are in place throughout the supply chain, iran would have to cheat in more than one way and not get caught. so my question is, can you talk about all the ways that iran would have to cheat in order to get around the terms of the agreement and set up a secret uranium enrichment program? >> sure. that's a big question. >> can you answer it in the five remaining? >> right. but i think you've already put your finger on it in the sense that the transparency and verification elements that will be put in place in an agreement, first of all, are unmatched to those in any other situation. in terms of their comprehensiveness and intrusiveness. but specifically, because of the

scope of the activities, they would have to manage, succeed at an entire supply chain from uranium source all the way through all the processing of uranium to the manufacture of centrifuges outside of the iaea purview. they would have to be able to avoid various kinds of sampling and surveillance activities. it would be quite an achievement. and so i feel that these verification measures are extremely strong, and as we have said, special measures like the uranium supply chain surveillance will be in place for 25 years. so it would be quite a long period for observing whether or not iran, in fact, wants and has only a peaceful program.

>> thank you for your answer, and thank you, madam chair. obviously, as we go forward to june 30th and right beyond that, all this will be front and center. thank you. >> thank you. >> senator danes. >> thank you, madam chair. i want to go down the path that senator manchin had regarding coal. according to the energy information administration the u.s. produces about a billion tons of coal per year. in looking at the global numbers, it's about 8 billion tons annually. so we represent about 12% of the world's coal production. said another way, 88% of the coal production in the world occurs outside of the united states. and it looks like, projection in the next 10 to 20 years, coal production globally will only increase, plus or minus. as you know, coal is an important fuel for electricity generation in montana. in fact, more than 50% of our

electricity in montana comes from coal. i believe the national number is -- the round number is around 40%. it also provides good-paying jobs for montanans. including our tribal members. we had a field hearing on the crow reservation regarding coal production couple of weeks ago. it provides $120 million in tax revenues for our state which supports our schools, our infrastructure. it also powers midwest utilities. gary peters, the other new freshman senator, one of the new 13 new freshmen senators from michigan mentions the fact that it's coal coming from montana that powers our automobile manufacturing sector. so we are the saudi arabia of coal, globally speaking. we have more coal reserves than any other nation. in fact, montana has the greatest coal reserves of any state in the united states. i'm just concerned in looking at the review in trying to make sure we achieve the right

balance here of the all of the above energy portfolio, clearly a state like montana, we have bright skies. we have solar potential. we have tremendous water resources and hydropower. we have great wind potential. but we also have oil, natural gas and importantly coal. there are two export terminals important to my state that are currently under review by the u.s. army corps, the gateway pacific terminal and the millennium bulk terminal. i was recently out at one of those terminals with a member of the boilermaker union there in montana, a tribal member looking at the importance of looking at coal exports. and lastly, looking at the broader environmental picture, montana coal or u.s. coal, we actually have cleaner coal than many other countries around the world. so my question is -- and i welcome the mention in the report through your lng exports as discussed earlier in the

transmission corridors, but where do you see the priority looking at coal exports given that the global coal production's going to increase over the next decade plus? i just don't see much emphasis or thought relating to coal exports. where do you see that in our broader strategy? >> well, senator, coal exports are not, frankly, something in the department of energy's purview. most -- in fact, i believe a lot of the -- well the army corps army corp. has a role but a lot is state permitting and state eisst citizen, and i want to note you mentioned the amount of coal in china, of course, uses roughly half of the coal use and the -- we expect that they will be

peaking their coal use relatively soon. still, a lot of coal being used, and we, of course, believe carbon capture and sequesteration with eor is critical, and i want to note that the department of energy will be hosting the international carbon sequesteration forum in montana i believe in august, i think it is, and we'll be sure to get you that information for that meeting. >> yeah, well thank you. i know your review mentions the administration's project dash board and recommends expanding an online project tracking system. i guess as we look at the broader energy picture and given that coal is still the number one source of electricity in america, it's number one in 51% certainly in montana, and i

would like to ask you to consider perhaps adding tracking coal export projects as we look at the broader national energy infrastructure as the equation. and the reality is there's the number one source of electricity that's part of the portfolio. >> we can look that and coal exports are now roughly 100 million tons, i believe, and it's quite a large number. >> yeah, we look at south korea, taiwan taiwan, japan, other countries i understand knee that, australia, and, again, 88% of the coal production occurs outside the u.s. we have a chance to continue to grow jobs, tax revenues for the schools, infrastructure by expanding coal exports, and that's a way to keep electricity prices lower as well as create jobs, tax revenues for our infrastructure. >> yeah. i actually have just now handed -- some of the words we

have on that, actually the east coast ports are alone shipping about 70 million tons, and the companies, quotes, companies that own and manage export terminals continue with long range plans for expansion focused on potential for continued demand in europe, asia, and south america, so this is data -- >> glad to see the east coast but turning to the west -- >> i understand. >> where the coal is, and senator bras sew from wyoming, and expansion is happening in asia. west coast terminals are important. >> i recognize the low sulfer content too. >> thank you. >> thank you, madam chair. secretary, one of the area os i'm excited about right now because we are seeing such rapid change is the area of power storage where capability's

increasing at a good clip, costs are coming down quite quickly as well, and i'm wondering if you could take a few minutes to talk a little bit about how you see -- what you see as d.o.e.'s role in accelerating this technology sector that could really change the way we think about energy our generation needs, facileitate time shifting and move us forward to a very very different kind of grid than what we've experienced in the past. utility scale storage, districted storage which is actually very interesting -- >> sure. >> and then, of course transportation storage systems, batteries, which, of course, might be good connected in the future, so we are working on all

of those, and we've had strong support in the area and we have a hub that we have established in our national laboratory and caesar looking at storage across the board with novel chemistries, et cetera, to reduce costs, and we are including storage in the system modelling activities to see exactly how storage can help us achieve goals in other ways that are much more complicated. if i may put in a plug, i think we did do a report at senator wyden's request a year and a half ago on large scale storage and integration into grid. that's very important. i'd like to add, however that the issue of consumer level storage combined with

distributed generation is getting to look extremely interesting, and can be yet another challenge to the utility business model that we have to look at. >> that's clear and i sort of encouraged utilities to get ahead of this and make some decisions about incorporating these things into their business model because if they just look at saying no or making it more difficult for people to put distributed generation on their homes, distributed solar at their -- or distributed storage at their homes, you know, you could see a very unstable or business model moving forward and that brings up the issue of rate making. i want to ask a related question because both the cost of solar panels coming down quickly and energy storage channels seen in the distributed market are fuelling a lot of change, and

one of the things to see is the ability of states to make accurate decisions about the costs and benefits, both sides of the ledger of those things brought on the grid. i wanted to ask you, if you think state regulators have the tools they need to adequately quantify benefits and cost of distributed generation and distributed storage so that they can make accurate rate cases and is this an area where possibly the labs might be able to help states accurately assess those costs and benefits. >> i think it's a long way to go, and, in fact one of the major recommendations -- major major -- but many remgts recommendations i should say, i guess, in the qer is we have to work on better evaluation algorithms for services provided in the grid, and, included, of

course, in the distribution system that you referred to in effect. the -- and so you alluded to the issue of distributed solar for example, and we know what's going on with the arguments involving net metering and value to utilities, and i think you know, on the one hand there's a real issue of how do you value the connectivity that is still there, but on the other hand, how do you value the benefits to the overall grid system from either distributed generation or efficiency programs. in fact, another issue as you -- as you know, another court issue is this question of how do demand side programs propagate back to rto and iso considerations at the regulations? so this is a critical problem and we certainly identified it. we did not exactly put the solutions forward, but i think

that's something to work on, and i think your idea of getting a lab focus on this would be good, particularly in that we've also proposed one the major quotes down payments that we have in our fy16 budget proposal to congress is the grid modernization. the grid modernization program put forward is not simply about, you know, high voltage line, but that includes the state grant programs, includes the whole set of rs, so we could take that on. >> well, i look forward to working with you on that, and i think now is the time because we're just seeing a lot of policy decisions made with a very meager amount of data, and the more data we have, the hr direction we have, the better the policy decisions will be. >> if you have specific ideas and directions we'd love to get together and talk about them. >> fantastic. >> a critical issue. >> yeah secretary, nice to see

you. i was pleased to emphasis on terminals, and as you know, the parrish in louisiana is ground zero for that thing, and original qer had increased funding to dredge the ship channel that's so important if two tankers go side by side, that sort of thing but then i'm told that omb pulled funding out, and now, of course i'm representing the state with a lot of harbors looking at the trust fund that has more than enough money to pay for this and it's not happening so any thoughts as to why when the money's sitting there, we are not empathizing using the dollars raised in order to increase the potential of the infrastructure that you stress so wisely? >> well, i think -- you apparently have seen the cartoon that we had in there in terms of the channel and certainly the

issue of keeping up with our inland waterways problems, in this case, the dredging issues in the channel are, obviously, very important. all i can say is that i think the administration is committed to trying to accelerate those. there was -- i forgot if it was $16 million -- i believe added for dredging specifically in the channel which i understand would open up the channel appropriately. i can go back and look again if you'd like. that's my understanding at least. >> thank you. secondly, the mox facility in charleston, south carolina dr. >> savannah river site. >> there's a recent line at the aerospace corporation gave unfavorable to the project and out of line from reports from army corp of engineer and

suggested another 30 years to completion opposed to eight years it's taken to get so far depending on who you speak to. i think aerospace has 50 contractors say 65 and any thoughts on that one? i -- what experiences does the aerospace corporation have on the projects? that's the first question, and, two, can we have transparency to assumptions because it's a complicated project. assumptions mean everything. >> we're happy, by the way on the last part, to have completely transparent briefings, what we'd like to do on that, and the aerospace corporation has been a contractor quite frequently to the nsa part of d.u.e. in terms of nuclear projects and -- >> i'm meaning plans such as these, i see nuclear projects for a defense project, but that's different from this. >> these are, look, first of

all, of course, it's a unique project, so no one worked specifically with the project than the contractors. senator, when i came into this job, i made it very clear that i wanted to be very transparent, but also very straightforward and data driven. and sometimes the results are not so pretty, but when we looked internally at d.u.e. at this last year we came out with a full life cycle cost north of $30 billion. that, in fact, led to the idea of them going out for an independent contractor to look at that. the increase -- >> 30 billion in in addition to that which was spent or 30 billion of that which was spent? >> it was north of 30 -- in this case, including the four to five already spent, but, you know,

that scale. two points about the aerospace. one is that they put in a lot of risk management contingency number one. number two is that the charge included a cap on the appropriations spending annual appropriations spending that -- >> see thasht's -- >> we viewed as being reasonable. the trouble was, that cap, and that is our problem with the beginning, that cap, that spreads the project out so long that it builds up. informally, we have looked at the implications of allowing higher annual appropriations cap to lower the life cycle cost significantly, but it's still in the high 30 billions. high 30 billions. so i think -- i want to

emphasize that's not just the mocks plan. partly, we're talking apples and oranges. the plan itself is only one part of a very -- of a much bigger project including how you get the pits down into plutonium oxide and, of course, the operating costs over decades, so i want to clarify -- >> got that. >> that's what the -- let's call it the high 30s or 40 billion dollars is. >> over time, i look forward to the briefing, thank you. >> okay. >> and if i got a second shot i will. >> okay. >> i want to thank you for your role in the iran negotiations. there's an extraordinary article in the "new york times" the role played analyzing the proposals, the labs, and it strikes me as fortuitous in the extreme negotiations, we have a nuclear

physicist in charge of the department of energy. i -- i want to go to page 226 -- you know what i'm talking about -- deferential in natural gas prices between new england and the rest of the country, 2-7 is the number of chart. this is an infrastructure problem. and i just think it's something -- it's absolutely urgent for our region. we went into natural gas in a big way, starting in the year 2000, and now 50 to 60% of the electricity comes from natural gas, and a lot of people like myself, switched to natural gas to heat our homes, and last winter, winter before last, we had thee highest natural gas prices in the world, and this shows us it almost