energy department before the senate energy and natural resources committee. some of the topics included energy infrastructure modernization and cybersecurity, renewable and clean energy technologies, the department's national laboratories, emissions reduction efforts, and carbon capture and storage. this is about an hour. >> this meeting will come to order. we are here today to discuss the president's budget request for the department of energy for fiscal year 2019.

so we welcome to the committee secretary rick perry. good to have you back in front of us. we look forward to your comments this morning. like last year, the request emphasizes funding for the national nuclear security administration, which falls outside of our jurisdiction. in addition, the president's budget requests additional funding for the environmental management corporation to cleaning up our nuclear sites. i appreciate these proposals, but the request offsets them with cuts to a number of energy and science programs that enjoy strong bipartisan support. it also seeks to eliminate all funding for rpe, which is a program that undertakes innovative pioneering work. and while we should always be looking for places to cut the budget, we should also recognize that innovation is critical to our nation's energy future. it creates jobs, it boosts growth, it adds to our security, and it increases our competitiveness. we need to focus on maintaining our global leadership in science, research, and

development. and central to that mission are the hard-working scientists and engineers at our national laboratories and our universities. now, although i do not support all of the proposals in this request, i believe that we will find many areas of interest and agreement. i believe it's time to look at reforms that can reduce the stove pipes at the department and make better use of taxpayer dollars. i'm intrigued by the department's decision to create a new cybersecurity office, and i look forward to seeing the remainder of the department's budget justifications, which will need to be released as soon as possible. so, again, secretary perry, i want to welcome you back before our committee. i will note, as always members have previously been alerted, that the secretary has a hard stop at 11:30 so you can head to the white house. i understand that you'll be taking up some, hopefully, nuclear-related discussions, and we appreciate your time. so, out of respect for our

limited time in the committee this morning, i will end my opening remarks here and simply note that i look forward to hosting you, mr. secretary, in alaska in the near future. senator cantwell, good morning. >> thank you, madam chair. the department of energy is a global leader in science and technology with an unrivaled network of national laboratories. it is also key to our national security. an important priority for d.o.e. is energy infrastructure security, and our energy infrastructure is under attack. it's under cyber attack, and we need to do much more to protect it as a national critical asset. russia has proven its ability to disrupt the grid, and last week, the trump administration announced new sanctions on russia for attacks on the u.s. infrastructure. the department of homeland security, and the federal bureau of investigation characterized the activities as, quote, a multistaged intrusion campaign by russian government cyber actors who gained remote access into the energy sector networks, end quote. the fbi and department of homeland security state that

since at least march 2016, russia has targeted government entities and multiple u.s. critical fractures including energy and nuclear sectors. a year ago i called for a comprehensive assessment of the cyber attacks by russians and repeatedly asked the trump administration to tackle this urgent task and make sure we have an assessment. if the fbi and department of homeland security's recent admission is not a siren, then i don't know what is. i hope that the belated response is the first step in turning that around to being a robust response to protect our critical infrastructure. at a hearing last week, mr. secretary, you appeared with your colleagues in the commerce committee and said that you are not confident that the federal government has a broad strategy in place. maybe we can elaborate and talk a little bit about that in the q&a. but as we discussed at a hearing earlier this month, establishing a new d.o.e. cyber office with marginal increases is not a

substitute for the serious investment and meaningful action that we need. you told this committee earlier this year that it is cyber, one of your key priorities. so, i hope that we will see meaningful action from this administration. we don't need rhetoric at this point. we need action. i want d.o.e. and the administration to be more aggressive, and i hope that we will get this assessment of where we are with our grid as a milestone to what we need to do moving forward. we do want to defend against what could be widespread blackouts and devastation to our economy and the other harmful security risks. i know you and i spent many hours at our national laboratory in the northwest at p&l discussing these issues, so i know you know this very well. on other budget issues, obviously, the department of science is -- the department of energy is a science and technology powerhouse, yet, the president's proposed budget

slashes many of d.o.e.'s essential programs, and i think would be devastating to our clean energy economy. it would kill science, innovation, and d.o.e. jobs by eliminating arpa-e and making drastic cuts to energy efficiency, renewable energy and electricity, and the budget would raise electricity rates in the northwest by auctioning off federal utility assets. so, i think these are obviously mistakes, and i will ask questions about them. the budget would also undermine u.s. energy leadership and kill jobs. as the chair noted at our thursday hearing, for the first time, china is expected to surpass the u.s. in total r&d expenditures. and according to the international energy agency, more than $30 trillion will be invested globally in new renewable energy facilities and energy efficiency between now and 2040. so, the cost of clean energy and energy efficiencies, like solar, l.e.d.s, and storage, have dropped between 41% and 94%

since 2008, and much of that was driven by the r&d of the department of energy. this is why we think this is so important to continue the science mission. the decreases in those technologies have helped consumers save money and have created jobs, and they have just in the energy efficiency and clean sector supported over 3 million u.s. jobs. so, the success story is built on lots of d.o.e. work through our national labs like the pacific northwest laboratory in richland, washington, and through many other laboratories across the country. president trump's budget also, i think, besides eliminating arpa-e, the weatherization program, the state energy program, which provide highly leveraged state-controlled funding to about 50 state projects, eliminates loan programs which lever billions in energy infrastructure, draconian cuts to energy research, 65% for

the energy efficiency and 59% for the electricity delivery system. i could go on, but i have to get to hanford, mr. secretary. i am disappointed by the administration's approach to the hanford cleanup. the trump administration's proposal for fy '19 cuts it by $20 million from fy '17 that was enacted. instead of the cut, hanford needs an increase of $200 million to scene wokeep workersd meet milestones. more complex than the budget cuts have been justified by saying, quote, the decrease from 2017 enacted levels reflect the demolition of plutonium finishing plant to slab on grade, end quote. so, pfp is still standing and there is not even a date to resume demolition work at pfp, and rightly so. but d.o.e. and the contractors have been unable to protect the workers. and as you and i again, we saw firsthand how we need to work in a safe environment at hanford, what are the technologies that

we need to do that. so, i think the administration's proposal comes up short. under this budget, the department would only be able to remain status quo without making progress. as you know, there is an agreement, a milestone that have to be met, so we will look forward to asking you questions about this in our q&a. it's very important that we continue to make progress on the largest nuclear waste cleanup project in the world. it is thorny. it is challenging. but we need consistent investment. i trust you're not going over to veterans affairs. i hope that you're staying right here and making sure that hanford is cleaned up. thank you, mr. secretary. >> thank you, senator cantwell. mr. secretary, again, welcome. if you would like to provide your comments to the committee, then views with an opportunity for questions and your responses. welcome. >> chairman murkowski, thank you for your hospitality, and ranking member cantwell, it's an honor to get to be in front of this committee and each of the members.

thank you for your hospitality, your commitment to service to this country, today to discuss the president's fiscal 2019 budget request for the department of energy. and if i could, let me just say a quick thank you, chairman and ranking member, for allowing me to be able to depart at 11:30 today. i'll try to be brief and allow you the opportunity to ask the questions so that we can be productive today. obviously, it is a great privilege for me, and senator cantwell, just fyi, i'll be here. i'm not going anywhere. and it is an honor to serve as the 14th secretary of energy. >> well, you know my suggestion is that the energy secretary should be for life or until hanford's cleaned up, so i'm happy to apply that to you. i've asked that of every other one, so. >> yes, ma'am.

we'll take that under advisement. running this department requires a significant expertise, and that's one of the other things i wanted to thank you for, is being able to get the nominees through this process in a very timely way, get them on the ground, and we've done that. i think we have now nine presidential appointments with senate confirmation that are on the ground and working. and thank you for that assistance. this budget request underscores the d.o.e.'s commitment to stewardship, to accountability, to service that is respectful to the american taxpayer. i hope that our interactions with you and the other congressional committees over the past year have underscored the commitment to service and to transparency. in total, the d.o.e. leadership team appeared before

congressional committees 23 times in 2017, and we're proud of the strong relationship we've built with congress, which brings me to a topic that i want to address before getting into specifics. i am fully aware and i'm very displeased that some of this year's budget request documents were not released in a timely fashion. this is not how i operate. nor my staff, for that matter. so, let me just tell you that you may be assured that we're going to continue to refine those processes and improve the transfer of information to you all. so, when i first appeared before this committee last year, i committed d.o.e. to advancing several key objectives. i noted that we needed to modernize our nuclear weapons

arsenal, continue to address the environmental legacy that the cold war programs left us, further advance our domestic energy production, better protect our energy infrastructure, and accelerate our exoscale computing capacity. the fy 2019 $30.6 billion budget request for the department seeks to move us forward on these and other goals. our greatest duty is to protect our citizens, and nuclear deterrence is a core part of the d.o.e. mission. this year we requested an 8.3% increase for that purpose to align ourselves with the president's nuclear posture review and the national security strategy. we're also focusing on addressing the environmental legacy left at the department sites, which produced the

materials that helped us win a world war and to secure the peace. last year, we promised to focus on that obligation, and this year, we're requesting additional funds to do so. i know the department's environmental management program is a high priority for this committee, especially for those of you like ranking member cantwell, with a major project in her state. my visit to hanford last year helped shape my commitment to that just cause. we also have a duty to advance a fundamental mission of our department, and that's america energy independence. and thanks to u.s. ingenuity and innovation, we're on the cusp of realizing this mission objective for the first time since the 1970s. in the coming years, we will produce enough energy from all of our abundant fuels not only to meet our own needs, but our

friends, our allies, and our partners as well, as we export to them. just last year, we became a net exporter of natural gas. today we are exporting lng to 27 nations on five continents. and because technology's also making our energy cleaner, we can pursue an all-of-the-above policy that will efficiently develop and use all of america's energy resources. innovation can grow our economy and protect our environment. we drive further energy innovations, or i should say, to drive those energy innovations, we're requesting continued funding of our energy program offices as well as funding for research and fossil fuels and nuclear power, including advanced modular reactors. now, if we have a duty to

advance domestic energy production, we have a duty to make sure our energy is delivered without interruption. that's why i promised to step up our efforts to protect and maintain america's energy infrastructure in the face of all hazards. the devastation caused by the 2017 hurricanes and the impact to the electricity sector highlighted the importance of improving grid reliability and resilience. this committee has significant interests in our hurricane relief and restoration efforts, and i thank you for your continued support there. but we also need to protect from manmade attacks, including cyber attacks. so, this year, we requested funding increases to strengthen cybersecurity as well as the agencies' cyber defenses. we're establishing a new office of cybersecurity, energy security, and emergency response. it's called ceser, led by a new assistant secretary. and since most of our technology breakthrough involving energy have come through the work of our great national laboratories,

we need to ensure their funding as well. i could speak extensisentencext some of the great work they're doing, but i'll only mention two today. our effort to accelerate exoscale computing systems to keep on the forefront of supercomputing is extremely important, therefore a 31% increase in that line item. this will have positive implications on everything from artificial intelligence to some of the great work we're doing to improve the health of our veterans. chairman murkowski, in my first year, i visited nine national labs with four more coming up at the end of this month. i've also visited w.i.p., the nevada national security site, the mcneary dam and hanford, and in a few weeks, i'm looking forward to being in your home state and joining you there in alaska. wherever i go, there's one thing

that is made abundantly clear to me -- those who work for the department of energy are dedicated, they're patriotic, they're committed to serving the american people. and in the end, it is you, the people's elected representatives, who will decide how to best allocate the resources of our hard-working taxpayers. my commitment to each of you on this committee is that we will do our best to use these resources wisely in the pursuit of the vital goals that i've outlined, and i thank you and will do my best to answer your questions. >> very good. thank you, mr. secretary. before i begin my questions, senator heller has asked that a letter that he has provided to the committee be included as part of the record. so, we will include that. and you will see a copy of that as well, mr. secretary. senator cantwell has mentioned in some detail here the cybersecurity issue and the joint alert from department of

homeland security and the fbi regarding russian government cyber actors and how they have targeted critical infrastructure here in this country, including our electric and generation sources. know that i share senator cantwell's concern on this. i want to make sure that d.o.e. is cooperating with dhs and the fbi, with implementation of actions in response to this, but also to make sure that d.o.e. is taking the lead as this sector-specific agency. and mr. secretary, you and i had a conversation yesterday just about making sure that d.o.e., which does have this legislatively designated authority as the lead in the energy sector when it comes to cyber, that again, that continues.

so, i'd like you to speak specifically to that with regards to d.o.e.'s role. and then i've got one more quick question for you. >> yes, ma'am. senator, thank you. we work very closely with the department of homeland security. there's clear bifurcation, if you will, of our responsibilities, and certainly, the department of energy. we are the sector-specific agency that partners with the energy sector to ensure infrastructure security and resilience and coordinate response and recovery. this ceser office that we make reference to that we're standing up here is our response to the clear challenges that the sector

has relative to these sometimes non-state players or state players that are coming in and attacking not pecha, that attack last year that the russian government was involved with. there has been ransomware that's been stuck in. wannacry was the code name for it that we've seen. the formation of this ceser, this office, if you will, enhances the department's role in the sector-specific agency for the sector and better allows the department to address threats and natural disasters and expand national security responsibilities. the reporting relationship to the undersecretary of energy will ensure the importance and

the direct pipeline of information, if you will, back to the secretary of energy. and i think this placement is very important to bridge the gap between science and technology development and the operators and implementers focused on securing our systems. so, there is a clear that d.o.e. plays on cyber. we are committed to being as technically advanced as possible, and it's the reason that we request the funding and the reason that we have structured the agency, or not the agency, but the department, as such, to clearly send a message that this is important

and that we're going to fund it as such. >> let me ask you, mr. secretary, the same question that i ask every other cabinet member when they're in reporting to us on their budget, and this relates to the arctic, because this is an area not just of interest to me, but really, of interest around the world. and my complaint or my fear has been that administration after administration fails to really appreciate the opportunities, the challenges that the arctic presents. and so, i ask the same question, effectively -- what is contained in your budget request that is specific to arctic-related activity and how you view the department's mission and role, effectively, in the arctic? >> senator, i think it's good news for you that i've been there before. i've been on the nar slope.

i have visited that part of the state as an appropriator when i was in the texas legislature, and even before that time spent in your state in the, taking in the candor and beauty and diversity of that state. i think it's important to have people with eyes-on situational awareness, if you will, of the state, of the needs. one of the reasons i'm going with you is i'm going to see some things i've never seen before. whether it's microgrids, the importance of microgrids, whether it's having the conversation on small mited iraqers. is there a role to play in a state as thinly populated, if you will, as your state? the idea that transition that we

have in the continental 40 united states is going to work in alaska is -- it's a myth. it can't. it's going to take some unique ways to address challenges that the arctic has. we're committed to those. our national labs, the office of electricity. we're going to be working with you in a commitment to you to be very open to the innovation and the technology that can serve the people of alaska in a, hopefully a way that they've never seen before. >> well, i appreciate that. my time is up. i will just note, not only for you, mr. secretary, but for the other colleagues on the committee, that alaska is hosting the national lab day at the end of may, which will be an opportunity to not only have national labs understand what

the arctic holds and vice versa. >> thank you. on hanford, the cleanup budget, you've made some assumptions about the plutonium finishing plant that i actually think are, you know, off in the assessment of cutting $230 million out of that. will you go back and review those assessments as it relates to the plutonium finishing plant and live up to the tri-party agreement, make sure that as you're making these budgets, that you're going to live up to making the milestones in that? >> yes, ma'am. i think it's very important for us. as you said in your opening remarks, there are some real challenges there. and going out there and spending the time, my deputy secretary spending multiple trips to the area, and others, i think it's really important for an edification process for us to

understand just the complexity, the breadth of the mission th e there, and i am committed to finding the solutions, as you -- >> and living up to the tri-party agreement? >> yes, absolutely. >> okay, great. on the pn&l side, we saw some great technology, whether that was in cyber, smart grid -- >> batteries. >> batteries, thank you. you remember, good. >> yes, ma'am. >> all right, so, why cut this area of the budget? i'm not the only one here representing national laboratories, right? >> absolutely. >> so. >> and i hope, and i lay on the table a history of being a manager of a rather large enterprise as the governor of the state of texas. i was an appropriator and an agency head in that state as well. so, the experience that i bring, just because there is a reduction of a line item doesn't

necessarily mean that there is going to be a reduction in results. and i hope there's some comfort that what we're doing is prioritizing in these national la labs. are we going to be able to fund every line item the way the line items were funded back prior to the 2018 proposed budget? probably not, buzz that doesn't -- but that doesn't mean that the results we're going to have all of those national labs are any less consequential. >> well, i'm not sure i agree with that, but i hope you're right, and i definitely want science to be a bigger priority within this administration. but let me turn to cyber for a second, because you were, i think, at a house committee. i wasn't sure if this was before the commerce committee which you were also there with members of the cabinet, but you said you were not confident that the

federal government has a broad strategy in place as it relates to cybersecurity. i don't know if you were talking about duplication or issues, but my concern is that we still don't have an assessment. we don't have a risk assessment. so, if we don't have the risk assessment, how do we know what we are really budgeting towards? now, you took one step at it, which, i think given everything that's happened, a 10% increase in not where we need to be. i've called for a doubling, but i could see where i am wildly underfunding what is one of the most serious threats to us as a nation right now. so, what can we do to get this threat assessment done by these agencies? and i think i mentioned you when i hear from our colleagues at armed services or homeland security. the military sit at the very

table you're sitting at, and then tell them, yes, this is a real threat, a real problem, but d.o.e. has to fix it. and then here you're sitting with a 10% increase and no threat assessment. so, what can we do to get both a better understanding of our real risks and an accurate budget increase to fund what is critical, critical to our national security? >> senator cantwell, thank you for recognize iing the challeng that we have. it is very real. it is ever changing. and again, i don't want to belabor this point of a 10% increase being less than what you think is appropriate for this. that's why we have these hearings, to discuss these areas of conflict when it comes to,

you believe it needs to be more. i might believe it needs to be a bit more myself, but the fact is, we're spending some dollars in other areas in our budget that are going to have real concrete effect on cyber. and i'll give you an example. in exoscale computing, in our ability to be able to manage massive amounts of data is going to be i think tantamount to our success in combating the cyber attacks that are going on. that amount of money has been increased by 31%. so, it's not just in that line item on standing up the cyber office -- >> senator, do you believe that we need a risk assessment as a nation? >> do i -- >> do we need a risk assessment of this problem? >> i think that's going on as we speak. we have three areas in d.o.e. that are focused on cyber and

have been meeting and having these conversations before. the coordination and conversation is ongoing, senator. >> well, i am sure that all of us, either in a secure room or publicly, would like to see the government's risk assessment. >> absolutely. >> i hope you'll agree that they need -- >> this committee advanced the small-scale lng access of 2016, giving countries greater access to liquefied gas. it mirrors d.o.e. rulemaking announced last september. this bill, just to put a plug in for it, benefits american workers, the american economy, american geopolitics, and lowers global greenhouse gas emissions. so, there's some objections that, somehow, this would raise domestic natural gas prices, but according to the cia world fact

book, the entire world energy command at all caribbean nations combined is 1.2% of the u.s. given that only small-volume projects are eligible to benefit from the legislation and the 1.2%, the low energy demand, what do you think will be the impact of this legislation on u.s. natural gas prices? >> in a simple statement, i would suggest it would be miniscule, even if identifiable at all. >> and how do you think this would impact the energy markets that we're targeting, those in the caribbean and central america? >> i think opening up those markets are incredibly important, whether it's being able to modernize, get away from some very ineffective fuels from the standpoint of both cost and to the environment, being able to bring that lng to play in

those markets would be good for the -- >> and many on this committee are concerned, and just to speak to them about global greenhouse gas emissions. so, if we're replacing high-sulfur, highly viscus zen z -- venezuelan crude, with u.s. natural gas, what would that do for greenhouse gas emissions? >> yes, sir, texas gas does burn cleaner, it's true that you've identified that. in all seriousness, we saw a major transition from older, inefficient plants in my home state in the 2000s to gas plant, and we saw the sulfur dioxide down by 60%-plus emissions, the nitrogen oxide down by almost over 50%. >> and that is not even using venezuelan sour crude -- >> that's right. >> which many of these folks do.

you're using something even cleaner than that. >> that's right. so, the point is, we know that you can see emission reductions and substantial emission reductions when you transition away from older, inefficient plants, in particular plants that are using -- you know, we can get into a whole other discussion which we don't have time for, about the northeast being forced to use some pretty ineffective fuels because they do not allow the transport of natural gas across some of those states. >> well, let me ask you something else. texas was a leader in wind power, probably is the leader in wind power. >> still is, yes, sir. >> one thing we've noted is that using more natural gas, because you can have your start-up plant in background work, that actually, you enable expansion of renewables by converting your base load, if you will, to natural gas. any comments on that? >> no, sir. you're correct. >> yeah. i think we saw that you get 0.8

incremental increase of renewables for every one, unit of one, if you will, increase of that. so, anyway, so, just to kind of explore that with you. thank you. one more thing that is a concern. there is a mox plant being built in south carolina. i won't ask you to comment on this too much, except that there was an order for a kind of contractor collaborative process to rebaseline that order, 413.b from the department of energy. and i'm not sure that that has been updated in this collaborative process. so, can i have your commitment just to review that and get back to us on that process? >> yes, sir. >> i appreciate that. i yield back. thank you. >> thank you, senator. senator, i guess it's now cortez ma masto. >> thank you. secretary perry, yesterday i sent you a letter about yucca mountain activities and

expenditures, and an update on expenditures that would be associated with a restarted yucca mountain proceeding. it's important that my constituents have an accurate understanding of the balances of the accounts for nuclear waste disposal and what expenditures are being made in response to yucca mountain in the absence of congressional direction. would you commit to giving this letter your attention and providing a quick response within the next two weeks? >> i literally have it in my hand this morning, and i'm going to review it and give you as timely a response as possible. >> thank you. thank you. >> yep. >> your budget recommends spending $120 million to bring high-level nuclear waste to nevada. prior to your confirmation, you were asked about yucca mountain and you stated to this committee in writing that, quote, i cannot at this time make an assessment about the time and cost associated with the yucca project, but i am committed to learning more about the project and helping to resolve this national problem. i want to focus on the first part of your answer, which is the time and costs. in regards to cost, are you

aware of the last year in which the department of energy completed a total system life cycle cost assessment for yucca mountain? >> i am not. >> let me tell you, it was 2008, more than a decade ago. are you aware of the detailed estimates this report included on the total cost for yucca mountain? >> i am not. >> okay. in 2007 dollars, about $96 billion. and it has not been adjusted for inflation. are you aware that this report also indicates the department of energy will need $13.5 billion, again in 2007 dollars, in ten years just to obtain a construction authorization and license from the nuclear regulatory commission? >> i take your word for it, senator. >> thank you. one of the many yet to be addressed concerns regarding engineering safety and cost pertains to d.o.e.'s design for titanium drip shields that are supposed to sit over each of the thousands of waste canisters in yucca mountain's underground tunnels to keep out corroding

water. no plan has been made to design these structures. no pay-for has been determined, which is particularly crucial, considering the amount of material required has been said to exhaust the nation's supply of titanium, and no plan has been made on how to install the shields. this unacceptable state of affairs was detailed by former nrc commissioner victor galinski in a bulletin of the atomic sciences journal article in november 2014. has any such consideration like this been made? >> senator, i would tell you that in the decade that's passed since that report that you're making reference to, that a lot of technology's changed, and i don't want to -- >> has the department of energy done a consideration or analysis based on that, to put costs associated with it? >> no. >> okay. and if you're going to make a budget request to restart licensing for a facility that requires such expensive, innovative engineering, wouldn't it be more appropriate to lay

all of these considerations before congress before asking for more money? >> i think what we're asking, senator, is that these dollars are for the licensing side that the nrc's working on and for our operational side of it just to cover the cost of that. that's not to be looking at the structural issues that are involved there that may or may not be -- >> so, in that regard, does the department of energy feel confident in the current license application for yucca mountain, or would it need to submit a new application for changes? >> i think we would be going forward with the licensing process as the law requires us to, and you know, i think -- >> is there additional cost associated with it? >> not that i'm aware of. >> would the environmental impact statements for the project require any updates? >> i would suggest it probably would. >> does the department of energy even have a final design for the

facility? >> no. >> so, why should congress agree to appropriate any funds without answers to any of these questions? >> well, i think this issue's been on the table for a long time, and congress has -- you know, congress funds a number of things without having a final plan done, so this is nothing out of the ordinary. this is basically -- >> i appreciate that comment, but i disagree. i am sitting here in congress and i want a final plan. i want to know how the money's being spent. i want an analysis. i want an assessment. i think it's irresponsible not to ask those questions to ask for that information, and it's your job to provide that information. so i'm looking forward in the future, if we're going to go down this path, and we've had this conversation before, i think you need to come up with concrete answers and an assessment and cost affiliated with it, for many things that are happening right now with the department of energy. and i disagree with some of the comments you've made and have concerns and echo some of the

concerns of my colleagues with respect to the budget cuts that are occurring and being requested for the department of energy and the impact it's going to have in nevada as well. thank you. i notice my time is up. >> thank you, senator. senator barrasso. >> thank you, madam chair. mr. secretary, thanks for coming back. always good to see you. as you and i have discussed, i am strongly opposed to the department's practice of bartering excess uranium to fund the cleanup and decommissioning of the portsmouth plant. we've talked about that, and that's not something that you or this administration have begun, and we talked about the need to get rid of it because the gao has repeatedly said the barters are illegal. they have also contributed to record-low uranium prices and put uranium workers in wyoming and certainly states producing uranium out of work. last year, uranium production was at the lowest level since 1950 and we're on the cusp of losing our ability to create our own nuclear fuel. i think in terms of our national

security, the administration cannot let that happen. can you commit to ending these barters, funding the cost of cleanup, decommissioning services at portsmouth exclusively with the congressional appropriations? >> senator, thank you. it's a plixlg to be back here in front of you. and as you and i have had conversations both privately, and as i stated publicly, i think this uranium bordering process has to be on my list of one of the most poorly designed poll sifz ever come across since becoming secretary of energy. it pits two very important objectives against each other, and it doesn't serve either one of them very well. and personally, i'd like to see it stopped completely. we realize what the challenge is. our efforts should be focused on letting the uranium marketplace work as it should while

continuing without disruption the important work that's taking place at the portsmouth site. so, given the needed funding is past in a 2018 omnibus, i would be pleased to announce the suspension of the barter program in 2018, and between now and then decide on fiscal year '19 budget, and i'm certainly committed to working with congress on that. so, i hope we can extend ending the barter beyond this fiscal year working together to fully fund our environmental management cleanup through the appropriations process. >> thank you. i want to move to another area. in your testimony, you expressed support for advancing america's coal industry through innovative clean coal technologies. the department proposes in its budget, however, to cut funding for carbon capture utilization and storage and research and

development by 80%. i think now is not the time to cut this funding for carbon capture utilization and storage. expanded use of these technologies are going to help us protect our environment, support the continued use of america's abundant fossil resources that we have. so, just over a month ago, i worked with a bipartisan group of colleagues to pass legislation extending and expanding tax credits for carbon capture utilization and sequestration. we should, i believe, build upon the success of this legislation by maintaining a robust research and development program to support the expanded development of this technology. so, you know, what assurances can you give me that the department's budget request is sufficient to support this development and commercialization of clean coal technologies? >> senator, as i said earlier to senator cantwell, just because there's a reduction in a particular line item doesn't mean that the results we're going to be having are not

appropriate. and our commitment to carbon capture utilization storage is very strong. we went to china last year to clean energy ministerial. we got ccus placed into the list of different technologies that they're going to be funding and working on in a worldwide way. we were in the uae with substantial fossil fuel developents and promoting carbon capture utilization in that arena as well. so, not only is the agency committed to continuing to fund, but also in our national labs to use their substantial technology and innovation to come up with new techniques, new avenues to

be able to use coal in a way that is not only appropriate to the environment but that's also from an economic standpoint very pleasing. >> well, thank you very much. i have some additional questions i'll submit in writing, but thank you, madam chairman. thank you, mr. secretary. >> thank you, senator barrasso. senator duckworth. >> thank you, madam chairwoman. secretary, when we met during your confirmation process, you promised to visit argan and firming labs in illinois and i want to thank you for following through with your commitment and visiting both of those labs. and although i don't agree with all aspects of the budget the administration is proposing, i am happy to see that the work that argonne and firming labs are leading, like exascale computing and the long baseline nutreno facility are priorities for the administration. secretary perry, i also want to thank you and your team for working with my office to provide input on bipartisan legislation i'm working on along with senators graham and bennett, to help veterans secure

good jobs in clean energy. our nation has experienced an exponential growth in clean, renewable energy. today, solar energy's the fastest growing industry in the u.s. and wind energy is quickly becoming a dominant form of energy. in addition, rapid innovations in technology are unlocking additional forms of low-carbon emissions and i think there is opportunity for veterans to find careers in these sectors. will you support my bill to create an innovative department of energy program that would promote the hiring of veterans in the clean energy industry? >> senator, i think you know probably as well as anyone in this room my commitment to our veterans. and in a multitude of ways. we look for ways to bring them into the workforce, because you and i both know that they already have matured beyond their years. they're already trained up in a

lot of different areas that we don't have to retrain them or to give them additional training. so, we are supportive of all programs that help employ those that we have made a commitment to because they have served this country in a sacrificial way. >> thank you. i was also very pleased to learn from argonne that under your leadership, d.o.e. is prioritizing research in precision medicine. there appears to be several direct application for this work in our military community, including helping to prevent suicide, addressing heart disease, and treating some forms of cancer. and i know you've mentioned this to me in the past. could you please provide recommendations on how congress can better support the work of d.o.e. and our national laboratories in advancing precision medicine research and development? >> we will, and let me just say in a broad way that we already have in our national labs

working on some of the nuclear medicine, and obviously, down in i think jefferson lab in norfolk there, in the physical particle lab, some science that's going on that has the ability to really improve the scientific side of the health community and using nuclear medicine there. but one thing that i would invite you to do, senator, or better yet, let me send them to you, and i'd love to have my active actvi program that we're just now standing up that is focused on veterans' mental health. and it's not just veterans. it's also our first responders. it's, you know, the nfl's going to be intrigued with this, as will our olympic athletes, for

that matter, a mother who's got a daughter who plays soccer. any place where concussions can come into place. and we're using our massive computing capacity at the national labs in your district for that purpose, and i'd love for them to come up and brief you so you'd have a really good handle on this, because i know your love for our servicemen and women and our veterans as well as the science on this can change some people's worlds in a really positive way. >> thank you. and i do appreciate the increases in the budget to both of the national labs. we need to remain at the forefront of the supercomputing capability on a global scale, and if we don't, other nations will not only catch up, but surpass us, and they're actively investing huge amounts of money in that, so it's good to see that that is covered in this year's budget. thank you. i yield back, madam. >> thank you, senator duckworth. senator portman. >> thank you, madam chair. i appreciate it.

and secretary perry, i appreciate you making good on your promise, which was made during the confirmation process to come out to the portsmouth plant in piketon, ohio. for 50 years, it enriched uranium for our government, for our nuclear navy, for our nuclear power plants, for the trid yum we need in our nuclear arsenal. and the workers at that plant made a lot of sacrifices, some health issues, and now we're cleaning up that plant. and to my colleague from wyoming who has departed, he talked about the need for us to stop using barter. well, unfortunately, we've had to rely on barter because in the last administration, they didn't provide us the appropriations. in fact, they even slowed down the cleanup from 2025 to 2044, by about 20 years, by the funding they provided, even including the barter, which is a huge mistake, not just for that site and for the safety of that area and the reindustrialization that everyone wants, but also

for the taxpayer, because it ends up costing the taxpayer a lot more when you extend the life of these cleanups. so, we need the funding. i just did a little research. there were 323 mining jobs in wyoming last year in uranium. when the funding was to be cut off at piketon, as you know, 800 jobs were on the chopping block. >> yes, sir. >> we have 1,800 people there doing this cleanup. you've seen what they do firsthand. they're great people. they're doing it in a smart, committed way. but man, this funding going up and down and the barter being pulled would obviously create, again, this crisis out there where we'd lose a lot of good people. and we need them. and it's a community that has very high unemployment already. so, i guess what i'm suggesting today is let's not pull the plug on the barter until we have the appropriations. and i guess i'm looking for a commitment from you today that you will continue the barter program, unless adequate appropriations are provided in the funding for fy '18 and fy

'19 with regard to the piketon plant. >> yes, sir. senator, i'm committed to the cleanup of that facility. my preference, obviously, is to have it appropriated in the old-fashioned way, if you will, from a straight-up appropriation where that your citizens and the workers at that plant know that congress is committed to the funding of that through a normal appropriation. obviously, if that does not happen -- and i've shared that with senator barrasso as well -- if that does not happen, the commitment to that cleanup is there and it is solid and it is long-term. >> thank you. i appreciate it, mr. secretary. and i don't disagree with you, as you know, and i appreciate your commitment to it. we're just trying to clean this thing up. >> yes, sir. >> and you know, it's not good for the area, it's not good for the taxpayer. the other issue, as you well know, because i've talked about this and you saw the site, the obama administration toward the

end of its term pulled the plug on the new generation of enrichment. so, i listened to my colleague and good friend from wyoming and what he said. if we don't have this mining, we would lose our ability to produce our own nuclear fuel. well, we've already lost it. we don't have any domestic owned or domestic controlled enrichment process in the country now because we've shut down piketon, we shut down paducah, and we were on track under the previous administration to, through the acp program, which is the american centuries project, to create that with this new, much more energy-efficient technology called centrifuge. so, my question to you is are you aware of the fact that there was going to be a re-evaluation of the obama administration approach to this? i believe you talked about it in your confirmation. and if so, what are the results of that? do we have any sense as to where we're going on the next generation of enriched uranium? >> yes, sir. the short answer is yes, sir.

we're working towards that as we speak. i think my commitment to bringing the civil program in this country back to one of stability, and frankly, to lead the world, is pretty much on display. it has been. we think there has been, for whatever reason, a -- i'm not going to call it an antinuclear mentality, but the nuclear, civil nuclear business has been left by the wayside, whether it's building new plants here, whether it's been committing to small modular reactors. we have tried to reinvigorate that, sends clear messages that this country needs to lead the world in civil nuclear technology. and these centrifuges are obviously a very important part

of that process. >> i understand that. we need to have a source for enriched uranium. we also need it for our nuclear navy, as you know as well as anybody. and we also need it for our tridium, because that lowly enriched uranium is necessary to keep our nuclear arsenal up to date. and finally from a national security point of view, in terms of nonproliferation, maybe the single most important thing we can do as americans is say you know, if you don't enrich uranium in your country, which often as you know has gotten diverted into nuclear weapons programs, iran being the greatest example, we'll provide you that enriched uranium. we can't do that now. we can't tell people we can provide them enriched uranium. we have a stockpile, but we have no program to be able to continue that. and by not having a commitment to it, to restart, it's going to take billions of dollars and years and years, and i just we could get started now so we have that capability into the future. i thank you very much. i've got other questions to ask and appreciate your service. >> thank you, sir. >> thank you, senator portman. senator manchin. >> thank you, madam chairman,

and thank you for holding this hearing. and secretary, it's always good to be with you and it's good to see you again. i'm reminded that our friendship goes back to our days as governor in 2005 that we really knew each other, knew quite well when you had katrina and you graciously took hundreds of thousands of people from louisiana and mississippi and helped them, and we were able to send troops down and also send c-130s and assist. and we've been hooked together ever since. also, you've been quite busy fulfilling all your promises and commitments in a bipartisan way to visit all the states you have, and i want to thank you, too, because you came to west virginia, and you looked at what we had and what we did, at some of the power plants that we have, and also netl in morgantown, the national energy technology lab, which is working on the clean coal technology which i think senator barrasso had asked you about, and i appreciate your commitment on that and use iing the great coae have in our state in a much cleaner fashion and looking for different technologies there.

also, the storage hub, which we'll talk about and also the rare earth elements that we've found we've been able to extract and be self-sustaining here in america. that's been very important that netl's been leading the charge on and that you've been very supportive. i wanted to ask you about title 17, loan guarantee program from the d.o.e. and i know it had been recommended to be phased out, but there's an awful lot of mileage left there, about $8.5 billion in authority left for the fossil projects on clean coal technology, but also the storage hub, which is extremely important to us and i think the security of our nation. so, i think first of all, your concerns about the program being eliminated, despite its strategic importance, and also, do you agree or disagree on that program and what we can do to make it even more stronger? >> yes, sir. senator, thank you for your longtime friendship.

just as an aside, i'll say that coming to your district, sitting down with you and senator capado, the leadership at the economic development folks in that community turned on a bright light for me on the standpoint of how to develop that region of america who's sitting on top of the marcellus and the utica and that huge gas deposit and creating a duplicati duplicative national security of a refining capability and petrochemical. it was a really important trip for me. to the lpo office, i think the key words from my perspective in a realistic way is phasing out. there are billions of dollars

there that have already been appropriated that, you know, i think that we could certainly, with your guidance, use in a very i think -- i'm not going to try to get into anybody's head other than to say that if this committee and congress collectively decides to go forward with that program, that we will operate it with the type of oversight and transparency and the results that you all will be proud of. >> also, i want to talk to you about you and i have spoken directly on this, the storage hub for the national security of our nation, but also with a tremendous find of new resources we have in the fracking that we have done, west virginia, kentucky, ohio, pennsylvania, there's been tremendous boom for our energy independence, if you

will. with that, we've promoted a storage hub, which will give us the product and keep it in a very safe location also strategically away from our weather torn areas such as your state gets hit quite frequently and so does louisiana. i didn't know how you all were doing that. do you feel that it would be a great strategic direction for our nation? >> as the governor, i'd wake up in august and september and say a little prayer that a category 5 hurricane did not come up the houston ship channel. i'd seen that model before and it's devastating, not just in the number of people who lose their lives which is obviously at the top of your concern list, but the devastation that it does to the country's petrol chemical capacity. to have a duplication of that in a region of the country that is protected from that type of a natural disaster would be, i think, invaluable.

duplicating that in that appalachian region, pennsylvania, ohio, kentucky, west virginia, not only in an area that economically could certainly use the shot in the arm, sitting on top of the great natural resources of the marcellus and the utica can transition a region of america that would be very pleasing economically. >> department of energy's support and the administration's support is going to be vitally needed for this to be accomplished. but it is something i think that's drastically needed. the economic impact is $36 billion almost at the turn of the switch. but on top of that, the security of our nation. sir, your attention to this is greatly appreciated. >> we are going to be focused on it like a laser. you're absolutely correct from the standpoint of this is one of the projects that i've seen that the government can help with and actually not have to fund.

the private sector will supply the funding. they just want to make sure the permitting processes and the ability to get done what we're asking them to get done can be done as expeditiously as possible. thank you. >> thank you, senator manchin. i appreciate you bringing up the loan guarantee program. there are many of us around here who feel that that program needs some reforms and we actually suggested those in our energy bill that we had moved out of here. but we've got some funding that is left in it that we think could certainly be used to leverage some infrastructure out there. senator gardner. >> thank you madam chair. thank you, secretary. i had the honor of joining a couple of our colleagues in a visit to the middle east a couple weeks ago. as we were flying over jordan

around dusk i couldn't help but look down and see jordan below us and think about what if the great invention surrounding us hadn't been discovered by people in america. i was looking down at roads that were filled with cars. henry ford perfected the assembly line and the mass manufacturing of cars. flying on an airplane that is done by the wright brothers of the united states. i began to wonder what happens if those next inventions aren't from the united states. what happens if it's not america who discovers those things but it's china, india, russia, something else? what happens when the great things that are fundamentally transformed our economy come from somewhere else? when i look at the budget for the department of energy, i am concerned about some of the areas of research and the advanced research in particular. i want to make sure that we continue to advance in this country, because what happens if

that great next energy discovery isn't in the united states but it is indeed in china or india and they're able to manufacture, they're able to capitalize on those jobs and the next time we fly over, whether it's jordan or denver, colorado, we look down and don't see the impact that america has had, but the impact that some other nation has had because we took our eye off the ball. we're proud of the contributions that our national lab system has made, the efforts made in advanced energy research. and i think we have achieved so much because we've had that research and that partnership with the federal government that we can't get rid of that sort of idea that we have the opportunity to partner and build funding opportunities. the benefits for our nation in energy security, energy resilience, we'll only be able to achieve them if we continue to support our scientists and engineers at our federal facilities and research facilities.

can you give me the assurances i need, many of us need, to make sure we continue our strong support of our national labs and that you'll support it going forward? >> senator, the thing i've been most proud of in the year that i spent as the secretary of energy is being able to go to these national labs. as i said in my opening remarks, i never met any more patriotic, more committed individuals as those that work in our national labs. the support of them from congress is powerful, is palpable. it will continue on. i know that. to address with specificity what you brought up in a really beautiful observation about this country, the dollars that you all are going to appropriate, the dollars that

we've asked for for computing probably will make the biggest impact upon all of that type of research that you're making reference to, the innovation that's going to come out of the labs. it's going to be expedited substantially by the commitment at the exoscale super computing capacity. our effort is very deep and broad in that arena. >> i look forward to working with you on that funding as well as a number of other areas of funding to make sure that we continue being the pride of the united states in our national lab system but more than that the pride and envy of the world as they look at our great centers of excellence and innovation represented by our research and development and national lab system. switching to grid cyber security issues, the office of energy reliability has led an effort in coordination with the labs to talk about the technical challenges of grid modernization.

in many cases, these assets that we're working with are privately owned and don't have the resources for research and development on their own. therefore d.o.e. has provided a lot of technologies for the grid. the budget request splits the office into two, one focused on cyber security and one on electricity delivery. i'm going to ask a few questions. i'm going to run out of time. maybe we can continue this conversation after the hearing. the cross cutting initiative, the d.o.e. grid modernization laboratory consortium have brought together technical expertise. to address the challenges the grid faces from an interstorage standpoint. the cross cutting initiative has been a success, i think most people would admit.

it's important the d.o.e. continue to lead this program. can you comment on the department's plans for these two efforts? if you could get back to us on that, that would be great. this week we've heard a lot about foreign nations attacking our grid. we have the possibility of a foreign nation that has attacked our colorado department of transportation with the sam it shut down 2,000 plus computers. are you confident the budget will provide the resources necessary to ensure that our electric grid remains secure? is there something we can do to support the effort to make sure critical infrastructure has the necessary cyber security tools? i'm out of time. >> i will get those to you post haste. >> and recognizing again the secretary's time schedule and that we have four more colleagues, we'll try to get through quickly senator widen and senator hienrick. >> good to see you. a little bit of pacific northwest business. i told the bush administration, george w. bush, his folks that bonneville isn't going to get sold off on my watch.

it isn't going to get sold off now either. i wanted to put you on notice on that. we also are very concerned in our part of the world about eliminating the national energy technology lab at albany which i think is doing singularly good work. i was in albany, oregon, a couple days ago and i heard it again. i hope you'll reconsider that. i do want to ask you about hanford. you're up on the layout there. on march 6th the project director for the waste treatment plant sent the private construction contractor a letter demanding that the company explain why it couldn't document that the steel used at the the plant was up to safety standard. and the project director said that this was a potentially unrecoverable quality issue. basically they couldn't open the plant after billions of dollars had been spent and decades of effort.

if that was actually the case. a week later, mr. hamill was transferred, and i'd like to believe the best in people but it's hard to see that that was a coincidence. so i want to ask a couple of yes or no questions. i want mr. hamill to promptly provide the committee with a detailed history and explanation about this potentially devastating safety issue at the $17 billion waste treatment plant that hasn't yet treated an ounce of radioactive waste. will you direct him to provide us that information? >> yes. >> great. second, i'd like you to make mr. hamill available to us so we can ask him directly without interference about this issue. will you do so? >> i'm not sure i can make him do that. but the request -- >> you will tell him that's

acceptable to you for him to sit down directly with us? >> yes, sir. >> thank you. >> then i think that just allows me to wrap up and save the chair a little bit more time. this is extraordinarily important. >> yes, sir. >> we have seen billions of dollars go into this. you've now got the project director saying that there is a potentially devastating safety issue and he has just been transferred after reporting this. so this story really needs now to get into the details. it is a whistleblower story, it's a safety story, it's an accountability story. when you met with my privately before you were confirmed, you said on those kinds of issues we could work together. the answers you've given this morning are constructive.

i need follow up. we need to have this done promptly. if it's not, we'll have to go the route of the inspector general. i'd rather not have to go that route. by indicating that you will tell him to provide us the information, the detailed history and the explanation of this potentially devastating safety issue, that's a constructive first step, and that you will tell him it is acceptable to you that he meet with us without interference. that's a constructive step. so i'll look forward to pursuing this and talking about it more in the future. >> yes, sir. >> thank you, madam chair. >> thank you. senator manchin? >> thank you. secretary perry, welcome. i'm going to start out by talking a little bit about laboratory directed research and development or ldrd. it's in my view an incredibly important investment in high risk but high reward activities

at our national labs. it allows our scientists to pursue innovative solutions to some of our nation's most vexing energy and also national security problems. do you agree that ldrd is important, in fact vital, to the lab's ability to recruit and retain the best and brightest scientists and engineers? >> certainly important, yes, sir. >> do you support maintaining the lab director's current discretion to set aside up to 6% as authorized by congress for ldrd. >> i will follow the directives of congress, sir. >> you're comfortable with that figure as it's currently set. >> if you all think that is the appropriate number, we will work within the parameters of that. >> i'm still trying to wrap my head around given the advancements made there with solar cells, with power

controls, with lithium ion batteries, why would we want to zero out that program? >> senator, i come from a background of having worked in that type of environment, if you will. that was what i did when i was the governor of the state of texas with the emerging technology fund. so i know the results of really well-managed programs. and i know there are people on both sides of the aisle that are very supportive. i've looked at the results of it and have found some very, very positive things that came out of it. so let me just leave it at this. if this congress, if this committee, they support the funding of that, it will be

operated in a way that you will be most pleased with. >> i appreciate that. i know the chair is the supporter and i as well think it's important that this body revisit some of those funding levels. >> concur. >> moving onto storage, your testimony indicates that energy storage remains an important area of focus. we've seen huge strides in storage in the last few years. i am pleased to see the request for energy storage innovation hub known as jay cesar. i hope the hub will be renewed for five years. however your budget nearly eliminates the office of electricity storage research program and starts a new beyond batteries initiative. talk to me a little bit about your focus on storage and then explain what the beyond batteries initiative is. >> in a broad sense, i think that battery storage is the holy grail of the energy storage side

of things. when we're able to do that, i have great confidence that -- and it will probably come out of a national lab or at least some of the work come out of a national lab. programs grow, they mature. and i think that's what you're seeing happen here. beyond batteries is a visionary quest to find us in a position to lead the world in battery storage, new materials. it's one of the reasons this country needs to be self-sufficient as we can be when it comes to rare earth minerals, what senator manchin was talking about in his district, some deposits there that are very positive in that direction. i hope you will look at this,

senator, as the next step, an appropriate next step. doe has been historically done early stage financing, get innovations to particular places, commercialize them. and those programs are mature and we go onto the next challenge. >> i'm going to run out of time before long. i would just make the argument i'm certainly intrigued by what beyond batteries would mean. i think we need to be open to new technologies. while lithium ion has certainly had a huge impact on the market, i think additional new chemistries, for example, are an appropriate place that's still at that same level of development within the lab's roll as early stage, not late stage technology transfer. >> yes, sir. thank you.

>> thank you. mr. secretary, hawaii is the most forward thinking renewable electricity goal in the country of reaching 100% of reliance on renewables and alternatives by 2045. this budget goes in totally the wrong direction by cutting 66% for renewable energy and energy efficiency and grid modernization. there is a huge future global market for clean energy technologies. your budget weakens the united states in this area. a report says china invested 132 billion in clean energy technologies last year compared to 57 billion in the united states. china is reducing -- isn't reducing its investment in clean

energy, so why should the united states? i think we are going in the wrong direction. why are we doing that? i know that you said that we are continuing to provide resources for research in fossil fuels and nuclear power. where's the commitment to renewable sources of energy when you're facing these kind of budget cuts? >> certainly they're still there, some almost $700 million of funding for that. and we're really focusing on early stage r&d and we're going to maybe train the united states' leadership position in these very transformative sciences. i'm comfortable, senator, that the commitment still there.

we've had some great success stories, whether it was dealing with hydrogen fuel cells in automobiles, whether it's solar energy office met and exceeded its goals of five of the last five years. in short, we're hitting or exceeding our goals and then you set new goals. some of the work that we're doing on carbon capture and utilization and getting that technology out into the world can be very helpful to the environment. >> mr. secretary, i understand the importance of the early stage r&d, but if you don't go beyond early stages, the technology that's developed can never possibly be utilized. for example, in september this energy subcommittee held a hearing on how to foster

innovation in the energy sector with an emphasis on the role of our national energy labs. the director of emergent technology strategy for duke energy, one of the largest utility companies in the country, explains that utilities need to know that a new technology fully works before they trust it on their power system. she explained that it's not necessarily fundamental sciences or what i would call early stage r&d, but the fact of the matter is we can't operate out of a system with technology solutions that don't have history. so she continues that anybody who says the national labs are infringing on the potential of the private sector perhaps doesn't understand the complexity of the system we are operating. one of the reasons i introduce -- to demonstrate how to integrate energy storage, rooftop solar and other vast electric grid technologies. so i do thank the chair and ranking member for including

advanced grid demonstration in that budget bill. i wish the president's bill had the same foresight. we need to support beyond the early stage stuff. i hope that you recognize the continual needs for the alternative energy sector. >> i do. >> senator smith recognizing that we're trying to keep the secretary on time so we will be very quick. >> yes. thank you very much, madam secretary. mr. secretary, thank you for being here. i'm very glad that senator herono asked the question about the energy efficiency and renewable energy office. i strongly support that and appreciate what i hope was a willingness to work with us on getting that budget number up to a place that would work much better for my state. i also would just like to quickly note i have a similar

request, i'll say, on the importance of weatherization assistance, which is so important in minnesota. the weatherization assistance program has helped seniors stay in their homes, it helps young families afford their homes because they can afford energy better when we weatherize their houses, so important to minnesota. and as a former business person, i appreciate that the return on investment for this program is good according to the national lab. we see a $1.72 benefit for every dollar invested in weatherizing homes. it creates a lot of jobs too. i'd really like to work with you on this as well and see if we can't find some common ground on keeping the weatherization assistance program working well for minnesota and our country. >> yes. senator, we'll work with you. as a governor, let me just say i

think it's really important for the states to play a very important role in that arena as well. >> yes, i agree with that and our state does play an important role. we're looking for a good partnership with the federal government. >> thank you. senator king. >> i'm going to try for 30 seconds. >> thank you, governor. >> i'm just glad to be here in any role. >> three quick points. number one, congratulations on the formation of the cyber security energy security and emergency response office. very timely, very important. i think a great initiative and look forward to working with you on it. this is one area of huge national vulnerability, the fact that you've created an office to focus exclusively on that

problem is commendable. i look forward to working with you on that. that's number one. >> thank you sir. >> number two is please maintain the focus on research. i believe one of the most important things the federal government can do is do research that isn't necessarily going to pay off right away, because the commercial sector does that very well. we all know we wouldn't have fracking, wouldn't have the revolution in the price of oil and gas that we have but for the support in the department of energy years ago. we need to be thinking about future technologies that we perhaps can't even imagine now. research, however it's defined, i think is one of the most important functions than the department of energy can perform. i hope you will continue that focus on things like storage, for example, which you've characterized as one of the most important parts of this country. and weatherization, it really is important.

i want to echo my colleague from minnesota. we face situations in maine where people have to choose between medication, heating their home and putting food on the table. weatherization is a great way -- it's a great way of avoiding expenditures in the future. please, if the congress reestablishes that, i hope the department will continue to actively promote it. it's very important to our constituents. >> senator king, the department is going to be a good partner. but more importantly, having been an appropriator in one of my previous lives, having been an agency head and a governor and now the secretary of energy, i respect this process. if you see fit, this committee sees fit, congress sees fit to fund particular line items, i'd give you my solemn oath that it will be administered and managed as transparently and as

successfully as possible. >> mr. secretary, i can't ask more than that. thank you very much. >> mr. secretary, thank you. this is well ahead of senate time. we are one minute over your hard stop. so i think we did pretty well. i think you heard sir the concerns from more about these budget category areas. we'll be looking critically at them as we focus on these important priorities, whether it be weatherization, cleanup, cyber. >> thank you again for your thoughtfulness in allowing me to walk out. thank you all for your pleasant experience today. >> happy to be with you. committee stands adjourned.

as congress heads into the 2019 budget cycle, this afternoon the administrator for the u.s. agency for international development will testify on the agency's budget request before a senate appropriations subcommittee. live coverage starting at 2:30 p.m. eastern on cspan 3.

tomorrow attorney general jeff sessions will testify before a senate appropriations subcommittee on his department's budget request. watch live coverage at 2:30 p.m. eastern on cspan 3. this evening, president trump and first lady melania will host their first ever state dinner with the french president and his wife. friday morning, we're in salt lake city, utah. utah governor gary herbert will be our guest during washington journal starting at 9:30 a.m. eastern. the senate foreign relations committee is recommending cia director mike pompeo be confirmed as secretary of state. that after rand paul dropped his

opposition. the nomination goes to the full senate. they could take place this week. this morning we looked at the challenges mr. pompeo is facing on washington journal. >> kenneth weinstein, he's the ceo of the hudson institute and joining us to talk to us about mike pompeo. a little bit about the hudson institute. what is its positioning? >> we're dedicated to promoting u.s. international leadership. we are center right. we do a lot of work on international affairs, on u.s. national security. and economics as well. >> when it comes to mike pompeo specifically, you had an