to me, i didn't realize anything about power at all. >> talked about his audio project on power, evolution and exercise of political power in america. he shares his progress on the next volume of his book. >> he had passion since the beginning. i wrote in the book, but the ambition was the overriding consideration with him. it was only when compassion and ambition coincided, he realized if he wants to be president, he has to pass the civil rights bill. so was he feeling flawed? not at all. all his life he had wanted to help poor people and particularly poor people of color. >> sunday night on c-span at 8:00. energy secretary rick perry testified on president trump's

proposed fiscal year 2018 budget. members asked questions about the proposed cuts of the budget as well as to where to store the ation's nuclear waste. >> the committee will come to order. i apologize for the delayed start. but hopefully we will have an opportunity to hear from the of the and learn president's views for the department of energy. secretary perry, i want to welcome you to your first hearing following your bipartisan confirmation here in the senate.

it took us a little bit longer, we are grad to have you at the helm and getting a full complement of folks there at the department. the budget request for the department of energy takes a different approach. the president has made a concerted effort to increase funding for the national nuclear facility. this is a portion of the department that falls outside the scope of our committee here. the administration has requested robust funding for the cleanup of nuclear waste left behind by our country's cold war legacy. the budget request proposes deep cuts to research and development for energy and science. it proposes to phase out nnovative programs such as arpa-e that have had success. i'm concerned by certain parts. the united states is the world

leader in science and energy. we like it that way and we want to keep it that way. at the core of that excellence is the work done at our national labs and universities by the men and women. members on both sides of this committee want to maintain and strengthen that leadership. we need to be careful we don't get in the way. but keeping that in mind, many of us have found good bipartisan opportunities where it makes sense to increase funding for r&d. i appreciate the need to derive savings and balance our budget but it cannot come at the expense of our efforts of energy and innovation. good science should not sit on a shelf and the department should push the limits of science in order to ensure that the next generation of energy technologies is developed here in this country. although i do not support all the proposals in this budget request, i believe we do have

some areas of agreement here. we can undertake reforms at the department to help save taxpayer dollars. our work on the loan programs is a good example of how that can work. my goals for the department of energy is to drive down the costs of emerging pre-commercial technologies to make energy more affordable, reliable, clean, diverse and secure. takes us back to energy 2020. those principles haven't changed and particularly important for alaska where energy costs are in orders of magnitude. secretary perry, thank you for being here this morning. i hope to be able to host you up in the state soon. you have made similar commitments to colleagues in the congress here. look forward to hearing your priorities outlined before the committee this morning. turn to our ranking member.

senator cantwell: the department of energy is a global leader in science and technology with network of national laboratories and key to our national security when it comes to both nuclear and cyberthreats. the president's budget proposes to slash many of the d.o.e.'s essential programs and devastate emerging clean energy jobs in our economy and would kill science and innovation and the jobs that d.o.e. supports. the budget would raise electricity rates in the pacific northwest. a lot of people on this committee would not be supportive of that. the budget yo undermine u.s. energy leadership in a sector that is proposed to grow millions of jobs around the world and according to the international energy agency, $30 trillion will be invested in new facilities in energy efficiency between now and 2040. we have heard about the energy dominance from this energy. i would like to hear a lot less

of exporting commodities where china is having more blow back and pledging of how we are going to focus on winning the opportunity in energy efficiency, advanced technologies and things that consumers and businesses around the world are pledging commitment to. as this committee recently showed, the cost of clean energy technologies have dropped between 41% and 94% since 2008. i was very proud to join the chair on a recent northwest trip where we saw energy efficiency helping businesses save dollars alaska arew grids in looking for every advantage they can get in driving down the cost of energy. the success stories have been built on decades of investment by the department of energy and this is something both democrat and republican administrations have supported. but president trump's budget is a break in that bipartisan

tradition and an attempt to turn pack the clock on energy policy i think at the expense of the future. during your confirmation hearing you committed to protecting science and the men and women who conduct that science so i have great concerns of what i think is the proposed cut that could affect as many as 1,000 people me at the pacific northwest laboratory. this eliminates arpa-e which the high impact technologies that are too early for the private sector to either take on or advanced critically important to our nation. and the program which provides critical state assistance to 50 states to help them. draconian cuts to the research program, the 70% for the office of efficiency and renewable energy and 48% for the office of electricity delivery and

electricity reliability. that is something everybody across the board here cares about and 17% cut from the office of science which is the largest federal sponsor of basic srns. you questioned the certainty of climate change and you said i'm going to protect all the science whether it's related to climate or whatever aspects we are going to be doing, end quote. mr. secretary, i want to make sure you and your office has all the information you need on science. your budget proposal slashes the biological and environmental research within the office of science. the office that supports climate research by 43% and another troubling area is the important priority for d.o.e. on energy infrastructure. our grid and energy networks are under cyberattack, from 2012 to 2016 the number of incidents more than doubled and according

to the "washington post" story, russian government hackers have shown their interests in targeting u.s. energy and utility systems. so this threat to our grid is clearly growing and this morning, i along with 1 of my colleagues sending a second letter reit range that d.o.e. should address this. during your confirmation hearing you assured me and the committee that cybersecurity would be one of your top two priorities but nevertheless slashes it by 30%. i want to see a larger investment in this critical area to our infrastructure. i would like to mention, i know my colleague from washington had chance to talk to you about hanford funding and the administration's cleanup at the plutonium, uranium facility by

worker takeover events at the finishing plant and the budget being cut demonstrates a disregard tore the health and safety of the individuals who are working in our state. the trump administration needs to understand that if we do not prioritize hanford funding and the potential for safety and security, we are going to have issues and serious problems. these recent incidents are a wakeup call for the administration. and i'm working to ensure the resources are there for the public. i know i'll have a little sheet somewhere of all the ideas and schemes that people have come up with in the past. we had secretary lay the good plant construction in 1991 to reconsider the waste and pre-treatment plan. the clinton administration planned the privatization operation of the plant to pay contractors. we saw sick abrams grounding the waste in the tanks and calling

it good. we saw a secretary convene science experts to review the plan. secretarymon ease review ways of the treatment. all i'm saying is every energy secretary comes into office pressured more by an o.m.b. person who knows nothing about cleanup to do it on the cheap. it can't be done. we need to clean this up and based on science. so i look forward to asking you more about that. but i know many of my colleagues throughout the pacific northwest both on this committee and on the appropriations committee will have a lot to say about our priorities for hanford. thank you, madam chair. senator: secretary perry, good to have you before the committee. alison dune is with the secretary, chief financial acting officer for d.o.e.

you will not be providing testimony this morning but thank you for being here with the secretary. mr. secretary, if you would like to begin your remarks so we can return to questions. secretary perry: senator, thank you. and it's a privilege to be in front of you and the committee again. senator cantwell and members of the committee, it's my privilege to be here to discuss president trump's fiscal year 2018 budget request. and each of you know, it is a reat privilege to serve as the 14th secretary of energy. as a former legislator, i might add an appropriator as well and the governor, i am very respectful of the budget process and know the importance of the work you are undertaking and look working with you to finalize a budget that we can all be proud of and serve the

taxpayers of this country as well. in my 3 1/2 months i have seen the impact of the department's leadership, both domestically and internationally. i have traveled around the country. been into some of your states and senator cantwell, i intend asap, most ford likely this summer to look at that, to talk to the men and women who are working there, visit with those brilliant individuals that are on site that i happen to take a lot of faith in their knowledge of what's needed and how to address these issues that are driving their mission. so i look forward to being in a lot of your states over the course of the next month ahead. these labs truly are as you have all noted either today or in

previous conversations are national treasures. they are the future of innovation in this country. and i have been in absolute awe of the diverse scope of the department's mission and the consequential work that we are charged with undertaking. i have also traveled overseas representing the united states at the g-7 meeting in roman beijing for the clean mission innovation. i had the opportunity to visit japan and meet with leaders and stakeholders about the future of the energy partnership that the veryand japan has and on a somber note, i towered the site of the fukushima disaster and saw firsthappened the monumental task that they have before them. my trip to asia began on the day

that president trump announced hat we would officially -- officially withdraw from the paris depreement. i delivered his message to the world that even though the u.s. would no longer be part of the paris agreement, we are still the leader in clean energy technology and we are committed to that mission. the department of energy does many things well. america has remained on the forefront of technology for over 40 years because of the amazing men and women at these labs. you particularly understand this with the tools that you have in your states. they wake up every day knowing that they will make a real difference in the world. and i told them the first time i met with them, the greatest job i ever had was being the governor of texas. but after working here, i have come to realize secretary of

energy is officially the coolest job i have ever had, senator. under my leadership, our experts at d.o.e. will continue their work for the benefit of every american and our allies alike. as secretary of energy, i'm a member of the national security council, this council supported by d.o.e. in its mission to keep our nation safe. president trump's budget request for the department of energy provides 28 billion to advance our key missions and focuses on important investments including ensuring the safety and effectiveness of our nuclear weapons arsenal, protecting our infrastructure from cyberattacks, achieving computing and focusing the amazing network of our national laboratories on early stage research and development. and my goals are straightforward, advance our nation's critical scientific r&d mission, fulfill our environmental management

commitments. i just painted you a rather rosey picture. and while there is a lot of good news to report, there are other hard conversations that we need to have. as you are well aware. there are approximately 120 sites in 39 states that are storing spent nuclear fuel or high level waste. in fact, many members of this committee have waste in their states. we have a moral and a national security obligation to come up with a long-term solution finding the safest repositories available. this is a sensitive topic for some, but we no longer can continue to kick the can down the road. as a former legislative appropriator and agency head and

governor, i understand for following the rule of law. i have been instructed to move towards that goal. the president's budget request $120 million to resume licensing tivities for the yucca mountain repository and have a robust storage program. we need to be good stewards of the taxpayer dollars. congress has spent $5 billion on the mox project that is way over budget. 7.2 billion and 2048 completion date. the money appropriated for this project is money that could be used towards other priorities like national security or cleanup at other sites thrfment is a better, cheaper and better way to dispose of plutonium. we are using that process now.

i look forward to having a dialogue about these tough and important issues in the days and months to come. this proposal makes some difficult choices but it is paramount to execute our fiduciary to the american taxpayer. the president's proposed priorities dealing with the core mission by consolidating duplication within our agency is in order and it does respect our taxpayers. he deserves credit for beginning this discussion about how we most wisely spend our scarce federal dollars. as for me, this isn't my first rodeo. having been the governor of texas for 14 years, i managed under some pretty tight budget consequences and wasn't always blue skies and smooth sailing. we had substantial budget shortfalls during that period of time that i was governor. and we were able to budget

successfully and we faced limited resources at times and texas became a shining example of economic growth, higher educational standards and important improvements to the environment. . i will manage the same way at the department of energy. we did that in my state by working together. that's one thing i really want to bring forward today. is my intention to working with you. i understand this budgetary process. i understand it's the first step. i am committed to working with you. each of you. in the ways that you direct. i understand this process. i respect it. set clear goals. manage the best and the brightest to achieve those goals. and spending scarce resources wisely. with your help, i believe we can attain many of the positive

outcomes that you expect, that you want to see, that the department of energy is capable of delivering on behalf of the american people. so thank you again and i look forward to attempting to answer your questions. >> thank you, mr. secretary. i appreciate your enthusiasm for your new role. i'm sure that that will help you get through every day and some days are easier than other. ms. murkowski: we all know that around here. let me start my questions about arpa-e. because i'm a big fan of arpa-e. i recognize that when we think about the department of energy and the cool things that is you get to do, one of the cool things is to really help facilitate some of these great, fabulous ideas that change the country. change the world. but as we all know, cool ideas that start in somebody's garage

don't always end up making it through. we talk a lot around this committee about the so-called valley of death, with energy innovations. and good things happen but they just can't make it to that point of commercialization. and when i think of the role of arpa-e, and how it has really , its to be that bridge investments have reportedly spurred nearly $2 billion in follow-on private sector funding and spinoff companies to advance technology in market. this is exactly the type of thing that we should be doing. so the question to you this morning, to start things off, do you support the mission of arpa-e, and if so, if we eliminate it, where are we? really, where does that put the department of energy and that space that you should be

occupying which is to help really revolutionize and change the world here. mr. perry: yes, ma'am. senator, you asked the perfect question. i think from my perspective, the result of being able to deliver the next big thing, if you will, when you think about the department of energy and other arpa-type of agencies that are not directly darpa, for instance, and the internet, hydraulic fracturing was greatly assisted by the department of energy. i mean, as you shared, extraordinary stories about the technology and the innovation that's come out of the department of energy. arpa-e was created about a decade ago and it was funded the first time in 2009. so, my point with this, and listen, again, as i said, i understand this budgetary process. i'm going to follow your lead

when it comes to -- i know how the money's promoted. i know how the instructions come. nd so if the result is we want the department of energy to be really focused on pushing these new ideas out, getting them to commercialization, i am incredibly supportive of that. ms. murkowski: do you think that that's a role of the department? mr. perry: i do. i think that there is a real role to play on getting basic research funded, gap funding, to get that to the point where you can commercialize it. we're going to argue about whether is it this much or is it this much or what have you. but i don't think we're going to have an argument about -- i truly believe -- and you look at my history. as the governor of texas, we helped create emerging technology fund in that state, that commercialized technologies that would have died in that valley of death, as it's

referred to, had the gap funding not been there. i understand that. i support that. senator, we're going to have a discussion here and debate about what's the proper structure? s it the arpa-e structure? the congress -- go make it work, i will salute and get it done. ms. murkowski: do you think it's not worked in recent years? mr. perry: i will tell you i think it's worth having a conversation about. look at each of these programs. having a good open discussion about is this the proper structure, is this the right way to deliver the result? i've got a pretty good background of 14 years of managing a pretty big entity. what i would ask you, senator, and each of you, both the

personal and professional way, is i hope you will trust me, if manage this agency to deliver the results that you want. is it absolutely in the structure that we have today? i can't tell you yes or no. what i'm going to tell you is i'm going to work with you very closely. senator franken asked me this offstage and i answered it yesterday as well. when somebody said, you know, defend this budget. and i said, you know, the budget was written before i got here. it was written before the second day of march, the best i can tell. and -- but my job is to robustly defend that budget and i'm going to. with that said. i highly respect this process. and this is the first step of this budgetary process. as a governor i put a lot of

budgets forward. senator cantwell, i never got one back the way i sent it. but with that said, we're in a process, i respect that. i want you to know that on the arpa side of things, i will work dill skwlently to deliver for you the -- diligently to deliver for you the results that you expect, you demand, and that the american people will salute and say, well done. ms. murkowski: well, i think you will find at least among this committee that there is -- there's good support for what comes out of arpa-e. i'm hearing that you're willing to work with us on that and i think that that is important. you have good supporters here. senator cantwell. ms. cantwell: thank you, madam chair. mr. secretary, i'd like to follow up. i know representative newhouse had a chance to talk to you about the pacific northwest labs. i think when he raised the question about the potential of 1,000 laufs, you tried to reassure him -- layoffs, you tried to reassure him that would

you try to keep the employment at levels to deliver innovation and technology this country is going to need. so, are you suggesting that those 1,000 employees would not lose their jobs or would those employees -- i'm trying to understand where you think this is going. because you're so involved in innovation. i would say d.o.e. experts have been key partners in the fukushima cleanup. and the other things. i just want to understand where you think this is going. mr. perry: senator, there is -- there are a lot of numbers that have been thrown out about there's going to be this many people losing their jocks at the labs. this many people lose their jobs at the lab. i'm not going to sit here in front of you in the committee and tell you guarantee there's not going to be one person lose their job at a lab. i'm not going to do that. because that's not realistic. what is realistic is to tell you

that my priorities are going to be to make sure that we get the job done at these labs. it obviously requires a lot of really capable, smart, brilliant individuals. we have the flexibility, with our budget. i hope will you consider giving me even more flexibility than maybe previous secretaries have. to be able to manage those dollars the best way that we can, to keep those labs both functioning at the high level that they are, and to keep as many of those individuals employs ploid that you're going to need -- employed that you're going to need. manage erstand how to during times you have budgetary challenges. there may be some hard decisions that get made about whether or not this number of employees is the right amount or not.

with the goal being using our unexpected balances, using our flexibility for that not to be a challenge for our labs. ms. cantwell: i will give you this. you're not the first energy secretary to come before this committee with ideas of changing things. but most of the time i think our committee and the appropriators have probably set those administrations straight. because we have been the stewards of these concepts. and prioritizations and continually focus on them. as regional issues or as national issues. but i'm just curious, what area do you think we don't need innovation in? in the context of these lab workers, working on cybersecurity, nuclear nonproliferation, hanford cleanup, grid reliability, efficiency. are any of those areas that you don't think that we need to continue to innovate in? mr. perry: nope. ms. cantwell: ok.

so none of those would be on the chopping block? mr. perry: senator, everything is going to get analyzed. and again, i'm not going to tell you publicly or privately that there is not an employee that's going to get -- lose their job in the process. i'm going to manage it and i'm going to manage it in a very well way. but, you know, nothing that you said's not an important part of what the department of energy does. can we do it better? i think we can. can we do it more efficiently? i think we can. nd i'm not just talking from a political stand point. i've done that before. ms. cantwell: i wanted sco to ask you about worker safety at hanford. i know we only have a few minutes here. but all of these issues are critically important to our state. very much in the forefront of what's concerning. what specific steps are you taking on worker safety and will you look at this air tank issue

for us? the workers at various sites have come up with what they think are more workable solutions that are being implemented at d.o.e. on other locations to help the workers continue to do the cleanup that they need, but to be safe and secure on their air systems. mr. perry: one of the things that i want to in a global way just kind of share with you, one the first videos i sent out agency-wise was about worker safety. about our commitment to it. about if they see -- if workers see an issue that they should never fear that they cannot report that back. to the secretary of energy. all the way up if that's what's required. i think that was an important message that we sent out there. our commitment to the safety of these workers. e're going to continue to find

ways to implement programs, your it's, you know, site may be the biggest challenge that this country's got, hanford. ms. cantwell: hanford is the largest nuclear waste cleanup site in the entire world. that is why you cannot do it on the cheap. anyway. mr. perry: there's a difference between doing it on the cheap and doing it as efficient as you can. i want to have that conversation with you in the committee. often. ms. cantwell: ms. brown-waite:. welcome to you hanford as soon as possible. thank you. ms. murkowski: senator flake. mr. flake: thank you, mr. secretary. good to see you again. during the confirmation process, we discussed some of the issues that customers in arizona have had with wapa. the western area power association. the effective delivery of federal hydropower around arizona and the rest of the west, as you know, is very important to rural and urban customers alike.

as the chairman of the water and power subcommittee, i see our oversight role as improving the efficiency and transparency at wapa. ratepayers and taxpayers deserve to know how their money is spent, to know that the spent wisely and for the intended purpose. i know that wapa is staffed with a lot of good people. but unfortunately a string of past fraudulent spending has cast a shadow over the agency's finances. fraudulent spending of ratepayer money has been recently reported by arizona television stations and by newspapers. this march d.o.e. inspector general reported a list of actions taken by wapa to address concerns over fraudulent or improper spending in the government's purchase card program. however, the d.o.e. report did not, quote, determine the effectiveness of corrective actions in addressing the identified weaknesses, end

quote. then just last week it came to my attention that on several instances in sworn testimony this spring, a senior wapa official has said that problems with the government's purchase card program have not been adequately fixed. it's troubling to see that there is disagreement at the highest levels of wapa over whether sufficient safeguards are in place to start stop this from happening again. -- to stop this from happening again. question to you is, obviously the unacceptable what we've seen , the investigation's news stories, hearings, audits. after all that there still could be waste, fraud and abuse at wapa. do you agree that that's an untenable situation? mr. perry: yes. and if i may just please expound on that. we at this particular point in time, after the i.g.'s

investigation, are unaware of or current fraud or waste abuse for that matter at wapa. it is unacceptable. we hopefully will send that message loud and clear that the i.g. inspection did that as well. number one, that we're watching and paying attention. from your perspective and the i have -- and the individual you make research to, if you think hat there is a continued investigative effort that needs to come from d.o.e., can we have that conversation and go forward from there? because it's just unacceptable. any time those kind of activities occur, people lose faith in government and i came to this job to be of assistance,

to help. i hope i can be. mr. flake: thank you. what i think would be helpful is to follow up with the i.g. at d.o.e. to ensure that procedures are put in place, to ensure that this can't happen again. mr. perry: yes, sir. mr. flake: apparently some believe that they're not. the i.g., their report saying that it did not determine the effectiveness of corrective actions in addressing the identified weaknesses. so obviously they need to do that. so, if you could request the i.g. to ensure that money from the fraudulent and improper purchases has been recovered. mr. perry: yes, sir. i.g. to mr. flake: thank you. with regard, in just the minute i have left, research done at d.o.e., obviously the budget makes some tough choices, in the time of tight budgets, we have to prioritize this kind of spending. i'm exploring a bipartisan effort to help d.o.e. identify

some specific clean energy goals. in the area of advanced nuclear reactor technology. and grid scale storage. with intermittent power coming on. increasingly particularly in the west. we've got to have clean base load power. this puts pressure on nuclear power that wasn't there before. we have to make sure that research done at d.o.e. can help us into the next generation of nuclear and also grid scale storage, to take advantage of intermittent sourcing. mr. perry: yes, sir. i'll just quickly -- i happen to think, and senator mccowsky and -- murkowski and have had this discussion, small-minded reactors and the work that has been done and the work that will be done, i happen to think is one of the areas that we need to pend some substantial time and in our national

labs. i.n.l. in particular is working on that. we've got the private sector that we helped fund new scale that's out now, moving toward i commercialization. so i think we're making some good prodepress. fast enough to suit me. and not broad enough to suit me. mr. flake: thank you. ms. murkowski: thank you. senator heinrich. mr. heinrich: thank you, madam chair. it's great to see you, secretary. i want to start by thanking you for your trip to new mexico. i think it meant a lot to the folks at whip. it certainly meant a lot to the folks at los alamos. i know sandy is looking forward to getting to connect with you at some point as well. i think one thing you've heard from multiple perspectives this morning is the importance of safety and, in my conversations with you, i want to thank you for your commitment to that. because whether it's los alamos, whip, hanford, all these places, worker safety has to be number one. as you know, los alamos, which i believe you visited in may, has

long been the nation's center of excellence on plutonium research. is it correct that this budget, f.y. 2018, the request maintains los alamos' central role in the nation's plutonium mission and that it's your intent to stay on schedule and meet the statutory requirements for production? mr. perry: yes. mr. heinrich: that's good to hear. is it also your intention that los alamos continue into the future to fill that important mission for the nation, as was approved by the nuclear weapons council? mr. perry: yes, sir. mr. heinrich: i just ask one more thing on this front. can you assure me that you will make the final decision on additional plutonium facilities based sose soully on strictly objective criteria, things like cost, schedule, compliance with your mission requirements? mr. perry: yes. mr. heinrich: great. i want to ask you something that isn't strictly a budget-related item. but it's certainly timely and is

incredibly important from an economic perspective. as you well know, wind generation in west texas has really taken off over the last few years. now it accounts for about 23% of power generation for the electric reliability council of exas, ercot. they believe that 100% of the new electricity generation that's going to be added to texas over the next 10 years is likely to be wind or solar. do you agree with erco tmbing's technical assessment that they can accommodate such high enetration levels? err per i'm going to be cautious -- mr. perry: i'm going to be cautious about answering that defintively. we're in the process of doing a grid study now. mr. heinrich: that's why i bring it up. mr. perry: that i think will give a better -- certainly more in depth answer than i could to

stop -- just off the top of my head today. to the ould pump this first week in july, we should be getting that finalized. you obviously, and the members, will have access to that. as we talk about it. you know my history with wind and you know my history with having a very broad portfolio. and i bring that to the department of energy. nothing's changed from that perspective. mr. heinrich: i raise it largely because ercot is already managing dramatically higher levels of renewables than most states in the nation. so i think looking at what they've been able to do is instructive for whether or not we actually have a problem anywhere else. mr. perry: yes, sir. what i would remind folks is that texas has a rather substantial base load energy production as well. we're probably where

going to be getting down into the weeds on this, senator. is that what is the percentage of base load, whether it comes from fossil fuels, either from coal or we're going to be natural gas, or fro nuclear, that can -- that maintain that base load and having solar and wind as part of your overall mix, we think is a good -- i think, let me put it that way, is a very good thing. mr. heinrich: i having don't ac remember base load being a term when i was studying engineering. because we've always had a situation where for maintenance purposes you take entire facilities offline. so just like solar doesn't work at night, also coal fired and natural gas fired facilities get taken offline in their entirety in many cases. so i think we ought to be looking at reliability and on being able to manage the grid effectively for that reliability, as opposed to saying, well, this is good and that's bad or vice versa. mr. perry: absolutely.

i think you're correct in that. particularly in the sense of making sure that you have enough energy sources that are going to be reliable and stable and economical. that's what the public wants. you and the engineers and myself, we'll all have a great discussion about some intricacies here. but the american people want to know that when they flip that switch on, when it's 117 degrees in las vegas, as it was two days ago, that that air conditioning's working. mr. heinrich: might be something to this global warming thing after all. thank you, secretary. s. murkowski: thank you. brass brass the budget comb -- mr. barrasso: the budget request has some cuts. carbon capture and storage research, which the department proposes to cut by more than 80%. i'm concerned that these

proposed cuts conflict with what the president has said in terms of his goals to bring back coal jobs and to increase coal production. in 2005 coal accounted for about half of u.s. power generation. this past year it was 30%. i think we have to reverse this decline noord to maintain a reliable and resilient electric grid. i think the critical that we need to have all of the energy sources. there are emerging technology like carbon capture and storage that have the potential to reverse coal's decline, while also reducing emissions. i think successfully achieving the commercialization of these technologies is both going to protect the environment and ensure that coal plants remain in service and competitive in energy markets. could i just ask you to visit a little bit about the assurances you can give us and give me, that the department's budget request is sufficient to support the development and the commercialization of the clean coal technologies? , . perry: as i said earlier

maybe before you stepped in, i'm going to do my best to vigorously defend this budget. again, it was written before i got here. but with that said, i understand this budgeting process and prioritizing parts of it that may on the face of this budget look like there's been massive cuts over here, i hope we'll have the back and forth and the management of this budget, where we prioritize some things and we fund them and we get good results. ccus is one of those. on our trip to china, at the clean energy ministerial, we were able to get them in an international way to agree to put that carbon capture utilization and sequestration issue at the forefront of the clean ministerial, to do some

investigative work, to have that conversation internationally. i think that's good not only for the environment, i think the good for american technology. as you know, one of my first acts as secretary of energy was to go to the pet novembera plant right outside of houston. the world's largest capture --on -- coal and it is a fascinating -- we had this conversation with the vice premier in china. they are interested in this technology. i think we're doing what not only the american people, but this congress wants us to do. as a country. and that is to promote these technologies that are coming out of, in this case, d.o.e., and a lot of the cases, and the private sector working together.

so i'm committed to promoting that technology, committed to this all of the above approach, which the carbon capture side of coal utilization is very important. we're going to use it. and we're going to use it wisely and we're going to use it in a way that affects our environment in a positive way. and in a way that affects our economy in a positive way. mr. barrasso: the department budget's proposal includes cuts to the office of electric delivery and energy reliability. that's the program that's responsible for research and development to improve grid reliability and security. in terms of attacks. i know you talked about in your prepared remarks, among the most critical missions of the department, is to develop the science and the technology that will assure americans of a resilient electric grid and energy infrastructure. we all agree. according to the northwest american electric reliability corporation's report last year in terms of cyber and physical

security threats to the grid, they say they continue to increase, becoming even more serious. we're hearing it all across the country, not just to the electric grid. all components. i'm just concerned that less research and development for this innovative work could place our nation's grid at risk to these threats. so if you could spend a little bit of time talking about how we can make sure that the security is there for the grid for the future. mr. perry: yes, sir. i'm deeply aware of the president's executive order. the department of homeland security, the department of energy taking the lead on cybersecurity. even before that was done, we had stood up, three of our national labs, in what is referred to as the cybercore, to be working on it. it is a prioritization. when i had all the lab directors in, that was one of the things they heard, that we were going to spend the resources, we're going to spend the focus and we're going to have the result of being able to deliver to the

private sector and to the challenges and the fixes, if you will. and we're working on that diligently. i'm committing to you, senator, that that is a top tier priority at the top of energy and i suggest to you -- at the department of energy and i suggest to you again that those labs have the capability. i.n.l. has their own grid out there where they can go out and break things and invest it, if will you. and duplicate what we're seeing. so i'm concerned about it. as an american citizen. i'm confident that the department of energy has the intellect, the capability. and i will suggest to you the funding to do what both the president and you as members of congress expect us to deliver.

mr. barrasso: thank you. ms. murkowski: thank you. senator franken. mr. franken: thank you, madam champlete welcome back to the committee, secretary pery. i don't envy your position. counsel to be a defense or someone charged with murder and you seem to be saying, i know he's guilty but i'm going o give him a robust defense. so. you're doing a great job. [laughter] a few days ago, former c.e.o. of lockheed martin and bill gates, released a report about the importance of federal investment in energy research and

development. the group recommends vastly increased funding for arpa-e. from 3ds00 million to $1 billion per year -- $300 million to $1 billion per year. and increasing federal investment for advanced energy to 2ds.5 billion a year for energy research proposed in your budget. the president's budget is frankly anti-innovation. it does the exact opposite of what the american energy innovation council recommends. it absolutely guts private investment in research, including slashing energy research programs by $3.1 billion and cutting renewable energy and energy efficiency esearch by nearly 70%. on arpa-e, the president's budget completely eliminates it. you said at a hearing yesterday that the budget was written

before you were confirmed. you said that today. but do you support this administration's budget cuts? mr. perry: i'm going to do everything i can to deliver to the american people within the bounds of the budget that you write. again, i understand and support, respect this process. is arpa-e the results a good thing? yes. is arpa-e the holy grail of how government needs to be structured? i will suggest to you maybe not. mr. frank: let's talk about some of these -- mr. franken: let's talk about some of these things. during your confirmation hearing you talked about how the federal government helped in developing technology essential to hydraulic fracturing. if we take about base load, we're talking about base load,

natural gas, really important, right? mr. perry: i will suggest to you there are, as is nuclear, as is clean coal. mr. franken: so that would be a yes. now, the most successful 1/5 of arpa-e projects have raised $1.8 billion in private funding and launched at least 56 new countries. -- companies, companies. you know, that's $1.8 billion is much more than arpa-e has expended during the first seven years of its funding. this whole idea that there isn't a role -- and i'm not going to make you defend it, because -- i just want to say the whole idea that the valley, that the government's job isn't to take things to the valley of death is wrong. and it's just -- that is the government's job in certain

technologies. we need to do that. we tried in the 1980's, the government cut energy funding. do you know what happened to private research investment then? mr. perry: no. mr. franken: they fell by 40%. private industry doesn't fill in in these kind of emerging technologies when the government doesn't do it. the government -- what the overnment does is incentivizes private industry to jump in. industry, actually industry cut energy research by 79%, when the overall r&d expenditures were

cut. so, let me turn to climate change. because that's what we're -- i'm out of time. did wait a while here. because of the health care thing. [laughter] [inaudible] mr. franken: ok. yeah, i guess you can. go ahead. ms. murkowski: i think we'll go to senator manchin. but we'll have a second round. mr. manchin: thank you so very, very much, chairman, madam chairman. first of all, secretary pery, good to see you back again. you were here last, january 19, through your hearing. at that time i want the committee to know that we talked, we had a very good conversation. you committed that when i asked would you come to west virginia, and you are coming to west virginia july 7. to see nettle and all the advances we've made in clean coal technology. i appreciate that. you're a person of your word.

i thank you. mr. perry: yes, sir. mr. manchin: i also remember when we were governors together in twiveb, i never forgot this. e were sitting in a southern governors association meeting, if you recall. katrina was getting ready to hit. and i asked you at that time, i said, rick, is this hurricane going to have any effect on you? you said, joe, i've been told my by my weather people that it's going to miss us. it might have missed you, but you got hit directly. mr. perry: the results didn't miss us. mr. manchin: i'll never forget. that you had a quarter of a million people come to your state for refuge and you took them all in. mr. perry: i know this is a little bit off subject. i think it's important. about working together. this is the democratic governor of west virginia and republican governor of texas. i got a call from the governor of louisiana then and she said, can you handle 25,000 people? i said, send them.

about 125,000 later i'm on the , ne to him saying, hey, joe can you send some aircraft to help us move some people because we had another hurricane that came in and moved all those people. rita. anyway. been for joe manchin and the people of west virginia and the national guard of west virginia, we'd have had some people in some real sling. i will never forget that. thank you. mr. manchin: i think that's the way we're supposed to work here. it's the way it should work in congress, the senate and congress. we're trying. the chairman and i work very much along those lines. anyway, we sent six c-130's and 1,200 troops. we worked well together. with that being said, i want to thank you again and your coming and we're looking forward to your visit. we will entertain new a bipartisan way. so with that we say thank you. let me go to the thing i'm concerned about. i understand that the studdy of our grid's reliability and

resilience, that you have undertaken, and i want to thank you for that, has drawn some criticism. i don't know why that would draw criticism, from finding out how secure the grid system is and what it takes to energize this grid system. as being both former governors, i think we're on the same page. what's best to be left alone, we should be collaborating with the federal government. we have to make sure this thing doesn't collapse on us. the study fits into that collaboration column. in west virginia, our existing capacity is over 90% in coal. we've eliminated all of the old plantses. we're looking for that new technology. i believe that the department of energy is taking a good look at this issue of how coal should play a part in our national defense. i thank you for that. it's not about one fuel type over another. it's how do we energize and secure the grid. so can you please comment on why you believe the study is so

important and basically focus on ensuring the reliability that the country depends on. i think you said, when it's 115 degrees and they flip the switch, they want is something to work. -- they want something to work. mr. perry: yes, sir. senator, it is very much i think one of the -- i'm so glad that we got tasked with this grid reliability because i think it is important for us to have this conversation. i think all of us would love to see blue skies and clean air everywhere in the world. mr. manchin: so they know we're talking about base load. base load runs 24/7 uninterrupted. you have 60 days of coal laying there, you're not going interrupt it. they're going feed it and it's going to give you power. nuclear gives you that. gas is come on strong. mr. perry: i'll mention this and pass -- in passing. yesterday there were places

where they had either brownouts or blackouts in the western -- in some of the western states. i saw this on the news. i'm not reporting it as guaranteed fact. i'm just telling you, we know when there's that kind of stress on our grid system, that we need to be prepared for that. so it's so important that we economically and from a national security standpoint have these multiple sources of energy that will be there when we need it, when it's called on. having 60 days of coal on the ground, i happen to think is important. having nuclear plants that are functioning and being able to move the waste offsite of those so that that industry knows there's going to be a future for them is important. i think the natural gas that we have been blessed to be able to

retrieve now is an incredibly important part of that. our wind energy and our solar energy and our hydro, all of of a collectively are part portfolio that we've got to protect. and making sure that our grid is -- when it's stressed to its highest levels will still be able to keep that air conditioning running in a place that temperatures are reaching 120 degrees outdoors, i don't want to take that call that a family has been put in distress or even died because we didn't do our work to make sure that there is a base load of energy to take care of the needs that has 24/7, 365 days out of the year. mr. manchin: i think it's one of the most important studies have you taken on. i think the going to be imperative for the american people and the security of our nation that we find out, how do we keep these grids alive and keep the energy flowing.

i want to thank you very much. ms. murkowski: thank you. mr. daines: thank you, madam chair. mr. secretary, good to see you. as you know, montana is an incredible state known for fly fishing, elk hunting, for the great outdoors, glazer national park, yellowstone national park. we're also an energy state. we have more recoverable coal than any state in the united states. and i think as montanans, we strike a pretty good balance. one that believes in the importance of developing our natural resources, because without doing that we don't have jobs, low-cost, affordable, reliable energy sources. tax revenues for our schools and our teachers. at the same time we work to protect our environment. as montanans, may we always be a state where that mom or dad can go down to wal-mart and buy their elk tag. that we don't become a state where only the rich and famous can afford to live there.

one of the ways to do that is ensure we keep developing our natural resources responsibly. coal, oil, gas, they're an important component in our economy. yet we also balance out a large amount of hydroelectric power amend some wind. we have these large deposits of coal. we have critical minerals, which we develop responsibly and safely. and i really do believe we could bring this montana balance on a national scale. i think clean coal technology will play an important role in that going forward. global energy managed to grow and so is the need for coal. rill do believe as we think about the longer term here, we this important technology development. i want to talk for a moment about energy exports, mr. secretary. i was struck by some data i saw, in fact, at an energy summit i put on in billings, montana, last year. we took a look at the big

picture. the long term. there are projections around what's going to happen between now and 2050. globally. every projection is simply that. it's a projection. but it was from the u.s. chamber, reliable and good source of information. the global that population will increase by $1.6 billion -- 1.6 billion people by 2050. they also told us that energy demand is going to increase about 85%. between now and 2050. with the growth in global energy demand, with the u.s. now playing a larger control in supplying europe and east asia with coal and liquid natural gas , how do you see the department's budget supporting energy exports? because i think -- i've heard you say it. you said, not about energy

independence. it's about global energy dominance. i completely agree. i think it is so strategic from an economic viewpoint going forward, but also from a national security viewpoint. and the world's security. secretary? mr. perry: thank you. spending some time up in montana this last year, i was struck by two things. one, just the natural beauty of the state. it's extraordinary. i understand why some folks from my part of the world want to to spend their summers up there. and spend their money too. the other thing that i idn't

that government regulations have really impacted your state in a negative way. president trump has clearly given us instructions, whether it's myself or all of us, you know, i should say secretary zinke, for instance, who knows your state very well, that putting regulations into place that absolutely take care of our beautiful resources that we have . but also keep in mind the men and women, whether they're tribal members or citizens of coal strip, that we understand that rules and regular lying -- regulations that we're going to be making, being able to sell that coal. i had the president of ukraine in the office on monday. we were talking about u.s. coal being able to be delivered to ukraine so that they don't have pressures from russia at this particular point in time. prime minister modi is in town

soon to talk to the president and i can assure you that country is going to be the most populous country in the world in the very near future. their electricity demand is going to be monumental. we can be a part of that. american l.n.g., american coal, american technology. it's that ccus that i was talking to, the vice premier of china, about. our being able to deliver that. america, i don't think has had a greater opportunity in our history to be able to play a owerful role in securing our national defense, making sure economically that we are a massive player in the global marketplace, and having an impact on the environment. because the way texas drove down its emissions back in the 2000's

partly was transferring away from those older, inefficient power plants to natural gas. and american l.n.g. can help do that. we have an extraordinary opportunity. i hope that the d.o.e., and i feel very confident that we will, working with you, find those strategies of which we can put in place to promote american energy, american technology, and strengthen our security and our economy. mr. daines: thank you. i'm out of time but i want to thank you for area support in that area and your vision. i will tell you, when the vice president came out to montana several weeks ago, he met secretary zinke in billings. i flew out with the vice president from d.c. and the very first place that he went as vice president, his first visit to montana as vice president, we jumped in the suburban and drove out to the crow indian reservation, to the westmoreland coal mine.

we rode horseback with the secretary and the vice president, three of us rode horses up to tour the mine. those jobs for indian country are critical. thoir jobs there, they're unemployment rate goes to 80%. so thank you. ms. murkowski: senator cortes. court court welcome back to the committee -- cortcort welcome back to the committee. we had a frank and serious conversation about my grave concerns about siting nuclear waste at yucca mountain. since that time you visited the site. thank you for your courtesy. since that trip, you went from touting the importance of state sovereignty to a full-throated support for depositing the nation's waste in nevada against the will of my state. undermining a state's right to defend its communities against dangerous nuclear west. what has prompted such a change in your viewpoint?

mr. perry: i disagree with your anal siffs my position. nothing's really changed. i think it is wise for us to have a very open conversation this country about the moral as a ion that we have people. there are statutory requirements for to us move this waste. there are multiple options about where that waste could go. as i clarified yesterday, there that plan in place to put in a particular place. at this particular point in time. but i think we need to be looking at all of our options and having an open and a productive conversation about w -- i don't think it's wise for us to continue to leave high level waste, spent rods in

pools, not unlike what they had at fukushima. particularly that over in california, in the ring of fire. geologically, you could have an event that's not unlike what they had in fukushima. ms. cortes masto: i appreciate it and i received your comments. but let's talk about yucca mountain. i don't de-disagree, we need a ong-term plan. they were steadfast in the position that yucca mountain program is unworkable. in fact the department concurred with the recommendation from the blue ribbon commission on america's nuclear future that a phased, adaptive, consent-based siting process is the best approach to gain the public trust and confidence needed to site nuclear waste facilities. let me just say this. you've previously stated that you want to have a good working relationship with as many governors as you can.

well tell you, as you know, that governor sandoval is incredibly concerned about not only your talk and discussion on yucca mountain, but doubling down on talk about interim storage at the nevada national security site. and in fact, let me just say this. western governors association, which includes your predecessor in texas, recently passed a policy resolution which states that a nuclear waste facility should not be located within the boundaries of any western state or u.s. flag island without the written consent of that governor or territory. that is all that nevada is asking for. consent-based siting, which your predecessor, the secretary moniz and the blue ribbon panel have agreed that's what should occur. that's what we're asking to do. so why is that such a difficult concept? why is that something that you think should not occur and in fact this yucca mountain process should go forward and interim storage, which is a whole new conversation that we hadn't heard before, at the nevada

national security site, i'm confused? mr. perry: let me help with the last issue that you brought up. as i can. i was making reference to an that was by a nevada state senator. that he pitched that out as an idea. i think about may 14, 2017, article that i picked up. that was -- ms. cortez masto: i appreciate that. that's not something that we're going to support. let me just -- what we're looking for is at least some sort of commitment that you're looking for at least the science to prove that the safe. i mean, even your deputy secretary, he recently commented when he wasn't here and his nomination hearing that if the science is not there, that we would not support the project. so if you can't get behind consent-based siting, which is what all states should -- we should be looking at for all states and individuals there,

then at least look at the science and commit that if the science isn't there and it's not workable, then we should not store nuclear waste or spent nuclear waste at yucca mountain. can you commit to that? per sure. i can. i think it's -- mr. perry: sure. i can. i think the important for us to do two things. pay attention to the science and also to the rule of law. ms. cortez masto: thank you. i appreciate that. ms. murkowski: thank you. secretary perry, just so you do know, i have been asked to submit, as part of the committee record here today, a letter that senator canned well and -- from l and i received senators from nevada, with a request specific to the department about repository costs in previous studies. and a request for new cost

studies on geological disposal and repositories. so this will be included as part of the record. i believe that you may have already received it or in the process of receiving it. he's asked for that request. i have complied with that. senator king. mr. king: thank you, madam chairman. mr. secretary, i don't envy you today because you've been sent up here to defend the indefensible. this budget is perhaps the worst budget for any agency that i've in 12 years in public life. in terms of corresponding to national priorities. it's amazing. you made a statement in your opening statement, when you first appeared before this committee in your confirmation hearing, you said it when -- when it comes to climate change, i'm committed to making decisions based on sound science that also take into account the economic impact. this is not a sound science budget, mr. secretary. thanks nonscience budget. you're cutting the very areas where the science, which we need to make good policy decisions, is going to be examined.

earlier today you said the u.s., this was a direct quote, the u.s. is the leader in clean energy technology and we are committed to this mission. the budget doesn't say that. arpa-e, 93% essentially eliminated. you're even cutting the energy information agency 3.5%. which just provides information about our country's energy situation. energy efficientsy -- energy efficiency, 69.6% cut. office of science, 17%. those are the national labs. and by the way, there are 56,000 people that work for the national labs. the budget, i am quite confident, is largely personnel. o a 17% cut in a 56,000-person agency is about 9,500 people. probably there are other areas that can be cut. but to come here and try to tell us that you're about sound science when you're cutting these -- the very departments what, the very portions of your essential agency that are going to give us the science, is just -- it doesn't pass the straight

face test, mr. secretary. i like you. you and i were governors together. but i think you've been sent on a suicide mission here and want you to go back and tell the people that are pushing you to do this, i can't do it. it's not responsible. if you can find a question in there, you're welcome to it. [laughter] mr. perry: i was looking for it, sir. mr. king: i want to know, how do you justify these giant cuts? don't tell me about reorganization. you can't cut something by 69% d say you're going to find efficiencies. mr. perry: governor, if we're going to -- [inaudible] -- i understand this budgeting process. i respect it. and i bring a rather substantial management history of running

big things and doing them in a fairly substantial way. sometimes we had the money that most agency heads thought that we needed. sometimes we didn't. but i hope that we will -- can agree that this is a good starting point. mr. king: not a good starting point. it's a terrible starting point. if you want to make it more efficient, say 5%. 69% is not a good starting point. i meet you in the middle and the still not adequate. mr. perry: we'll work together to try to get it to be adequate is about the only answer i know to give you. mr. king: let me go to the other ne that just is -- it's awful. are you aware that our grid is incredibly vulnerable right now to cyberattack? mr. perry: probably more so than most people. mr. king: how in the world can you allow people to say you're going to cut the department that works on energy reliability and delivery, that's the grid, by

almost 50%? mr. perry: senator, again, i go back to, if we get some flexibility in our budgeting, i feel pretty confident we'll be able to protect the grid, because that's not the only place that we're doing any grid work. by a substantial margin. there are substantial places in our national labs, where we're doing work to protect the grid. . senator king: that's a national security concern. if you can move money around. cutting reliability for the grid is a national security threat. i serve on other committees around here that deal with this issue. it is a serious national security threat. i guess, as you pointed out and you said several times there is a but process and you understand congress, the president proposes congress disposes. here's the question, though -- if and when -- and i believe it's only a question of when -- congress restores a lot of these funds, will you

administer them as intended by congress and will you staff adequately to meet those needs? administer will you and implement the budget that congress passes? mr. perry: to the best of my ability, i'll follow the rule, sir. senator king: thank you. thank you, madam chair. >> thank you, senator king. we'll have an opportunity for another round of questions. i know that senator hoeven is hoping to make it back. i want to ask you, secretary perry, about the office of indian energy. senator murkowski: capacity building, cost reductions for tribes in alaska, natives. in is a tough area to cut,

my view. we have a situation in alaska, we got half the tribes in the country, and a lot of opportunities in the energy our when it comes to native people. we have doubled the staffing in the office of indian energy in alaska. folks, ave two d.o.e. to permanent employees in the state. we have been working with secretary moniz because we had one fellow, one person who had been running things for a period of years. he promised we might be able to see as many as three. we're up to two, but the reality is that we have had lack of adequate and consistent

d.o.e. staffing within our state. 'm not going to suggest to you need to be on a hiring spree but i want to make sure our needs are met. office of indian energy, in my view, is one of those areas where you have high-need -- an important priority. we need to make sure that not only resources are there but those that help effectuate the initiatives are in place. so the question to you at this time is whether you -- whether you think there's some opportunities within office of indian energy to do more with sharing -- not sharing of the

funds but distributing these funds through different grant programs, what are we going to do to make sure that the role of the office of indian energy is not diminished? and i'd ask you to speak to the issue of the staffing that we have tried to make a priority in the state and where you see that that might go. i'm glad that senator franken has rejoined the committee now because this is something he and i talked about often is within the office of indian energy, there's good opportunity there. senator hoeven coming out of north dakota i think appreciates that as well. so you have three of us that are interested in this budget category. mr. perry: senator, if i might, and i'll try to be as brief as i can on this. as a matter of fact, this is just a new -- it was released today -- senator murkowski: i am glad you are using new technology

instead of paper. mr. perry: the office of indian energy policy and programs announced today it's selected 13 tribal energy projects to receive a total of $7.8 million. i'm not going to delve into it any more but we're making some -- we're making some progress on that. and we will work very closely with you. senator hoeven and franken both, as you all both have tribal interests in your states and in this program. so -- senator murkowski: well, i appreciate that. it's always nice to hear news of grants but, again, i'd like to know that we got some great sustainability here and that sustainability comes with staffing. as you know, we got a really big state and we don't need to go into the alaska-texas comparison but i will remind you we are 2 1/2 times the size of texas and we got one guy.

mr. perry: i was given that t-shirt that shows texas inside alaska with the adage, size matters. senator murkowski: i am glad we have connected here so this is good. this is good. i'm going to defer to senator franken and then senator hoeven here so they have a chance to ask a second question. senator franken: well, senator hoeven is chairman of indian affairs, and he's signed on along with others on the loan guarantee program for indian energy. i'm glad to hear there's $7.8 million. there's more money in the loan guarantee program also for indian projects. i think that's a good thing. i want to ask you about climate change. secretary perry, at your confirmation hearing you acknowledged the climate is changing. on monday, you were asked on

cnbc, do you believe co-2 is the primary control knob for the temperature of the earth and for climate and you answered no. so if the climate is changing and if you disagree that co-2 is the primary driver, what do you think is driving the change? mr. perry: yes, sir. and i'll finish the rest of that interview for the public that may -- excuse me -- that may not have gotten as much coverage as me saying that i did not think that co-2 was the primary knob that changes. i don't. i think there are some other naturally occurring events, the warming and the cooling of our ocean waters and some, you know, activities that occur. i also said in the next breath that man's impact does in fact have an impact on the climate.

and the question is, what is going to be the economic impact for this country? and i referred yesterday to the hearing in front of the appropriations -- senate appropriations that even an individual celebrated from the standpoint of his capabilities undersecretary of energy under the previous administration, steven coons, he said that the science isn't settled yet and i asked the committee and i'll ask you, don't you think it's ok to have this conversation bout, you know, the science of climate change? why don't we have a red team approach and sit down -- get the politicians out of the room and let the scientists and

listen to what they have to say about it. i'm pretty comfortable with, you know -- what's wrong with being a skeptic, i think, about something that we're talking about that's going to have a massive impact on the american economy? mr. frank: -- senator franken: you said we need a red team, blue team. it's my understanding that a red team, blue team, blue team makes an argument and red team tries to knock it down and the blue team then refines their argument and they go back and forth until consensus is reached. but that's exactly how science works. including climate science. researchers collect data and make arguments, peer reviewers poke holes in the argument. the researchers respond. it goes back and forth until consensus is reached. every peer review climate study

goes through that red team, blue team treatment. and then thousands of studies have gathered into reports and those reports themselves go through rigorous red team-blue team and this is -- that's the scientific process. you're not the first to do red team-blue team. the koch brothers hired a red team of skeptics in 2012 in an effort to cast out on mainstream science. it was called the best project, and much to the chagrin of their funders, skeptic scientists found mainstream climate science is quote. to quote the scientific director, call me a climate skeptic. this was 2013 or 2014. following an intensive research involving a dozen scientists i concluded global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of

warming were correct. i am now going to step further. humans are entirely the cause. if you say this is caused by the warming of the oceans, the ocean -- the reason the oceans are warming is because they absorb, water absorb the heat. that's why sea level is rising, because when the water heats, it expands. and also because of the melting of the ice caps. this is -- there's no peer reviewed study that doesn't say this is happening. and the biggest proponent of this is our military. and they -- in their quadrennial review say this is the biggest threat to our world. the time for red team -- i'm sorry -- that's what we do every day. that's what scientists do every day, and 100% of peer reviewed

scientists have a consensus and that is that this is happening. mr. perry: senator, you said something that caught my attention in your remarks that the person who had become a skeptic, converted skeptic, and you said he made the statement that global warming was 100% due to human activity. senator franken: uh-huh. mr. perry: 100%? don't buy it. every bit. don't buy it. senator franken: i'd like to respond to that. that was someone hired by the koch brothers. mr. perry: everybody has hired somebody that's gotten something wrong from time to time. to stand up and say that 100% of global warming is because of human activity, i think on its face is just indefensible. senator murkowski: we are

probably not going to resolve that here today so let's go to senator hoeven. mr. perry: hence we should have a red team approach to this. senator franken: never mind. senator hoeven: one of the things -- mr. secretary, good to see you again. one of the things we talked about at our energy and water appropriations hearing was how we could do carbon cap and sequestration and actually senator franken, one of the -- senator franken, before you -- what we did talk about and you were on board with carbon cap and sequestration projects under way. that is the -- using new technology and improve environmental stewardship. but there was one question that i did want to follow-up with you on that i didn't get asked yesterday and that is our energy environmental research center at the university of north dakota which i referred to yesterday which we are going to get you out to visit, look

forward to doing that and seeing what they're doing, they ve contracts and cooperative agreements. cooperative agreements with the department of energy, with your office of fossel energy. so energy and -- fossil energy. so the energy at the university has cooperative agreements with your office of fossil energy at d.o.e. so -- and then under those cooperative agreements they're doing actually this development of carbon store -- multicapture and the storage. and it's a big regional project. covers a huge area out there where they're actually putting co-2 downhole. in some cases it's recovery. in some cases it's storage. interestingly not, we are not only doing that for the fossil energy, we have ethanol plants out there. and one of our ethanol plants now -- because we put the legal and regulatory structure in

place to actually store co-2 from plastic wells. so just store it, not from secondary recovery. but we have the legal and regulatory framework that we basically developed from the iogcc. you were chairman of the iogcc and i was chairman several times. we passed regulation in north dakota. and so that legal regulatory framework's in place. e.p.a. just gave us prime is i on the ability to -- primacy on the ability to regulate it. not only are we working with the fossil nrning to restore, we have an ethanol plant now that's capturing the co-2 out of their process and then they're going to actually store, too. that won't be for tirtiary recovery. that will be for sequestration. we're doing it on the renewable side too. these are the kind of cooperative agreements we have with d.o.e. my request to you, would you ask your office of fossil

energy to expedite the grant funding? because our guys have grant funding under those cooperative agreements and they are being held up on their projects right now because that grant funding -- the share -- and it's shared between state of north dakota, private enterprise and your office but we're waiting on your piece of it. mr. perry: and senator, is it your understanding of this the delay has been because of a review process that was going on at d.o.e.? senator hoeven: i don't know the answer. mr. perry: i'll find out the answer. senator hoeven: i don't know the answer to that. the agreement's there. it's just they're waiting on that funding for these ongoing projects. i'm not sure. mr. perry: i'll find out. we'll be back in contact. senator hoeven: and when i see senator franken, i'll it will him we're working hard on these carbon capture projects. mr. perry: yes, sir. senator murkowski: thank you, senator hoeven.

secretary perry, you've been very good. i didn't think we would keep you until a quarter until 1:00. apologize for the late start. appreciate your indulgence going over here. your responses to many. as it gets warmer here in washington, d.c., though, you need to know that this alaska girl longs for the arctic and i start thinking about arctic, arctic all the time. what are we doing? here in the congress? what are we doing in the administration to really take that leadership role that i think the united states should as an arctic nation and we discussed at the confirmation hearing and prior to this is a focus of mine. i don't really see much in the budget here that will help us build out that energy -- that arctic energy vision. so i'd like to know if there is something special in here that you want to point my attention

to, i'm happy to look at it but know it's something i would like to sit down with you and your team. i know that your team is a little bit skinny right now. we're going to help you with that, but really want to try to make sure that there is an understanding that within the department of energy we think that you can play a very, very key role in so many of these initiatives as we work on our arctic global leadership. i look forward to that with you. mr. perry: senator, the one thing that i would just reiterate with you, i think we mentioned it here. i spoke to you in the committee -- the room behind the committee prior to coming in is my great belief and faith and hope that small modular reactors, the work that is being done in the private sector, the work that we will

be doing to advance that, the next generation, if you will, is i think one of the ways that we can address the arctic, the real challenges that you have, . t having a widespread grid this vast area of land where the population is thin in places and being able to deliver a source of energy to them that is practical, that is economical and that is stable will be a goal that i look forward to working with you. senator murkowski: well, i so agree. there are multiple applications where you might not think that nuclear would be a fit for alaska. everybody thinks of us as this great fossil-producing state and we certainly have that in abundance as we do our renewables, whether it's the wind, the solar, the geothermal, the hydro, clearly.

senator cantwell noted in her opening statement we have an opportunity to go to cordova to conduct a field hearing of the energy committee focused on microgrids. we're pie nearing microgrids in alaska that the rest of the world is paying attention to. so we got a lot to offer and, again, these are areas where you might not think about it in the context of the arctic discussion, but there is -- there's clearly a role. if you're looking for incubators of innovation, we can absolutely provide that to you. in fact, i've got a renewable energy fair that i'd like to invite you to in mid august in the interior of alaska. doesn't get any more beautiful than that. and if you want to just get a slight preview of some of the innovation that goes on, i have a grow tower in my front reception room in my office here in the hart building where

we're growing lettuce. so just here to tell you people don't think we can grow anything in the cold and the dark and we're proving a little bit of ingenuity you can grow it in your reception room. so looking forward to working with you. mr. perry: i look forward to coming up and spending some time in the great state of alaska. senator measure could you sayry: we look forward to it. thank you for your time. we stand adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> senate republicans released their health care law replacement bill yesterday. it's scheduled to come to the senate floor next week. we learned about key details fr