    [House Hearing, 114 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                      AN OVERVIEW OF THE BUDGET PROPOSAL
                          FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
                              FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                  COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 March 22, 2016

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 114-69

                                   __________

     Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

     [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

           Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov

                                 ____________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    20-839PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2017

    ________________________________________________________________________________________
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
    U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
    E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                  COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

                       HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
    FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma             EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
    F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR.,         ZOE LOFGREN, California
        Wisconsin                        DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
    DANA ROHRABACHER, California         DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
    RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas              SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
    MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas             ERIC SWALWELL, California
    MO BROOKS, Alabama                   ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
    RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois             AMI BERA, California
    BILL POSEY, Florida                  ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
    THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
    JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma            KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts
    RANDY K. WEBER, Texas                DON S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
    JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan          ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
    STEVE KNIGHT, California             PAUL TONKO, New York
    BRIAN BABIN, Texas                   MARK TAKANO, California
    BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas            BILL FOSTER, Illinois
    BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia
    GARY PALMER, Alabama
    BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia
    RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana
    DARIN LaHOOD, Illinois
                                C O N T E N T S

                                 March 22, 2016

                                                                       Page
    Witness List.....................................................     2

    Hearing Charter..................................................     3

                               Opening Statements

    Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee
      on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
      Representatives................................................    13
        Written Statement............................................    15

    Statement by Representative Zoe Lofgren, Committee on Science,
      Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...........    17
        Written Statement............................................    19

                                   Witnesses:

    The Honorable Ernest Moniz, Secretary of Energy, U.S. Department
      of Energy
        Oral Statement...............................................    22
        Written Statement............................................    25
    Discussion.......................................................    65

                 Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

    The Honorable Ernest Moniz, Secretary of Energy, U.S. Department
      of Energy......................................................    98

                Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record

    Documents submitted by Representative Brian Babin, Committee on
      Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives..   130

    Documents submitted by Representative Marc Veasy, Committee on
      Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives..   134

    Documents submitted by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman,
      Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
      Representatives................................................   136

    Documents submitted by Representative Elizabeth H. Esty,
      Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S.
      House of Representatives.......................................   143

    The Honorable Ernest Moniz, Secretary of Energy, U.S. Department
      of Energy                                                         144

    Documents submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
      Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Science, Space, and
      Technology, U.S. House of Representatives......................   161

                       AN OVERVIEW OF THE BUDGET PROPOSAL
                        FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY FOR
                              FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017

                                  ----------

                            TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 2016

                      House of Representatives,
                   Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
                                                       Washington, D.C.

        The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:06 a.m., in Room
    2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar Smith
    [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Smith. Good morning. The Committee on Science,
    Space, and Technology will come to order. Without objection,
    the Chair is authorized to declare recesses of the Committee at
    any time.
        Welcome to today's hearing entitled ``An Overview of the
    Budget Proposal for the Department of Energy for Fiscal Year
    2017.'' I'll recognize myself for an opening statement and the
    Ranking Member, the gentlewoman from California, for hers.
        Today, the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology will
    examine the Department of Energy's Fiscal Year 2017 budget
    request. The Science Committee has jurisdiction over more than
    one-third of the Department's $30 billion budget, including
    almost $13 billion for fundamental scientific research and
    energy R&D. This includes the Department of Energy Office of
    Science, which is America's lead federal agency for basic
    research in the physical sciences. DOE's basic scientific
    research and energy R&D are conducted by 31,000 researchers at
    over 300 sites around the country, which include universities
    and the 17 national labs.
        The fundamental research conducted by the Office of Science
    has led to groundbreaking discoveries about our universe, made
    possible innovative new technologies, and provided the
    foundational knowledge for private sector achievements across
    our energy and manufacturing industries.
        This Committee provided strong support for the Office of
    Science through the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act, which
    provided $5.3 billion for basic research. The Science Committee
    bill passed the House last year. And that authorized level was
    enacted into law as part of the 2016 omnibus appropriations.
        I'm pleased to see this budget proposal build on COMPETES
    and Congressional appropriations to provide priority funding
    for basic R&D. Unfortunately, the President's budget proposal
    doesn't stop there. The President refuses to make the tough
    choices necessary in a responsible budget environment.
        Instead, the fiscal year 2017 proposal reads like a
    wishlist for the White House's political allies. It uses budget
    gimmicks to add more spending for expensive commercial
    technologies already available to American consumers or
    rejected by them in the market. For example, the Office of
    Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) receives an
    increase of $830 million, or 40 percent, in discretionary
    spending in the fiscal year 2017 budget.
        In addition to this unjustified substantial increase, the
    Obama Administration proposes adding another $1.3 billion in
    new mandatory spending for ``clean transportation.'' This
    allows DOE to commit large sums of money without following the
    budget caps set in law. Combined, this is a 105 percent
    increase in EERE's budget. The President's budget does not
    reflect current constraints on federal spending or support a
    balanced, all-of-the-above energy strategy.
        The President's budget also proposes significant spending
    to support the administration's Mission Innovation initiative.
    This commitment was made during the Paris climate change
    negotiations and doubles federal spending on clean energy
    research and development.
        But investment is not made primarily in basic research in
    pre-commercial areas such as high-performance computing and
    advanced materials that cannot be accomplished by the private
    sector. Instead, this budget appears to focus Mission
    Innovation dollars on methods to move renewable energy into the
    market.
        The budget proposal lacks transparency on Mission
    Innovation. It should be clear what the Department hopes to
    accomplish since this budget proposal cuts projects with
    bipartisan support in order to fund this initiative. One
    example is the Department's proposed $40 million in cuts to
    fusion energy research. This is $90 million below the
    authorization in the House-passed America COMPETES Act. Fusion
    energy research could provide for safe, clean, and reliable
    energy for Americans in the future. If Mission Innovation is
    about investing in long-term research for clean energy, fusion
    should be a priority.
        In my home state of Texas, funds awarded to the Texas Clean
    Energy Project, a coal gasification project with longstanding
    bipartisan support, were abruptly pulled to fund these new
    clean energy priorities. Since the project is expected to
    capture 90 percent of the CO2 emitted from enhanced
    oil recovery in the Permian Basin, it is hard to understand how
    this project doesn't meet the administration's ``clean energy''
    standards. I'm pleased to be working with my Ranking Member
    colleague, Ms. Johnson, to restore funding to this important
    project.
        While Secretary Moniz and I may disagree on the spending
    and research priorities outlined in the administration's
    budget, we do share an appreciation for DOE's vital role in
    maintaining American leadership in scientific discovery and
    technological achievement.
        Over the past year, this Committee has examined a broad
    range of the Department's research. It is our responsibility in
    Congress to ensure American tax dollars are spent wisely and
    efficiently. As we shape the future of DOE, our priority must
    be basic energy research and development that only the federal
    government has the resources to pursue. This will allow the
    private sector to move groundbreaking technology to the market
    across the energy spectrum, create jobs, and help our economy.
        I want to thank Secretary Moniz for a good working
    relationship with this Committee and for his open and
    straightforward approach to issues of mutual interest.
        [The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Smith. That concludes my opening statement, and
    the Ranking Member, Ms. Lofgren, is recognized for hers.
        Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Chairman Smith, for holding this
    hearing, and thank you, Secretary Moniz, for being here to
    discuss the fiscal year 2017 budget proposal and for your
    distinguished service to our country not only during this
    Administration but throughout your career.
        I think we can all agree that the federal investments in
    research and development have proven to be worth every penny,
    especially in the energy sector. Without these crucial
    investments over the past century, the nuclear power industry
    would not be where it is today, the shale gas boom might never
    have happened, and our growing utilization of the vast array of
    renewable sources might be nonexistent. So I'm proud of our
    accomplishments but we need to look ahead.
        During the Paris climate negotiations, Secretary Moniz and
    Bill Gates took a basic idea, doubling our investment in clean
    energy, and grew it into an unprecedented effort to modernize
    our world energy economy. Mission Innovation is a joint effort
    between 20 countries to double publicly funded clean energy
    research over the next 5 years.
        This was coupled with an announcement from a group of many
    of the world's top private sector investors called the
    Breakthrough Energy Coalition which aims to invest billions of
    dollars in commercializing new technologies developed in
    Mission Innovation partner nations. COP21 was an ideal location
    for Mission Innovation to come to fruition, and the way we
    produce and use energies over the coming decades will
    ultimately determine the future of our planet. And technology
    and innovation is a key factor in all of this.
        And so I applaud you, Secretary Moniz, for your work to
    guarantee a brighter future in the face of the growing threat
    of climate change.
        The budget request is the first attempt to identify and
    account for Mission Innovation funding, and I'm pleased to say
    I believe the proposals for the Office of Energy Efficiency and
    Renewable Energy, the Office of Electricity, ARPA-E, and most
    of the programs within the Office of Science are in line with
    the thrust of this new initiative, and I strongly support them.
        However, I am concerned that some areas of the budget were
    neglected, areas that are consistent with the ultimate goal of
    achieving a clean energy future. And while I appreciate this
    year's reasonable request for supporting the operations of the
    National Ignition Facility, the Fusion Energy Science budget,
    as the Chairman has mentioned, within the Office of Science
    seems to baffle me every year. With a ten percent cut proposed
    last year, followed a nine percent cut this year, it's the only
    program within the Office of Science receiving a cut, and
    they're just does not seem to be justification provided for
    this decision.
        The potential for fusion energy is growing, as we see
    incredibly innovative researchers and companies approaching
    this challenge with new ideas and designs, yet these innovative
    concepts seem to reach a dead-end if they go to FES for
    support.
        The landscape and potential for fusion research is
    changing, and it does not appear that the fusion energy budget
    is changing with it. It would be disappointing and
    disheartening if the ultimate fusion breakthrough never saw the
    light of day because of unnecessary limitations within this
    budget.
        Now, Ranking Member Johnson is with President Obama today.
    It's the only reason why she's not here, and I want to mention
    her concern with the budget for the Office of Fossil Energy and
    in particular the proposed de-obligation of funds for the Texas
    Clean Energy Project also mentioned by the Chairman. I joined
    the Texas and Washington delegations in their desire to work
    with you to come to a fair and transparent path forward for
    this project. It appears to have a great deal of potential for
    developing and deploying carbon capture technologies that could
    be key to meeting our and the world's climate targets.
        More broadly, the research and development activities
    carried out by the Office of Fossil Energy are almost entirely
    devoted to climate and environmental impact mitigation, and as
    much as I would like to see a faster shift toward renewable and
    other low-carbon sources in the near term, I expect that we
    will continue to rely on some mix of fossil fuels. So we need
    to find ways to make them cleaner sources of power in the
    interim, and I'm afraid this budget does not properly
    prioritize that responsibility, especially in the context of
    Mission Innovation.
        In addition, I'm interested in learning more about how the
    budget proposal supports the future of advanced fission
    reactors, which have the potential to be significantly safer
    while producing far less waste than the current generation of
    nuclear reactors. As a zero-emissions source of energy that can
    provide reliable baseload power, researching these new
    technologies should be a high priority. But the proposed 28
    percent cut to advanced reactor technologies does not seem to
    indicate that.
        So while there's lots to like in this budget request, I
    think we can understand why we'll also have more than a few
    questions. Your agency plays a lead role in determining how we
    power our economy and protect our environment. I very much
    appreciate your leadership and look forward to working with you
    to address each of these concerns.
        And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my
    time.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Lofgren follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Lofgren.
        Our witness today is the Hon. Ernest Moniz, Secretary of
    the Department of Energy. Prior to his appointment, Dr. Moniz
    was the head of the Department of Physics at the Massachusetts
    Institute of Technology where he was a faculty member since
    1973. Previously, Dr. Moniz served as Under Secretary of the
    Department of Energy where he oversaw the Department's science
    and energy programs. From 1995 to 1997, he served as the
    Associate Director for Science in the Office of Science and
    Technology Policy in the Executive Office of the President.
        Dr. Moniz brings both impressive academic credentials and
    practical skills to a very demanding job. Dr. Moniz received a
    bachelor of science degree in physics from Boston College and a
    doctorate in theoretical physics from Stanford University.
    Secretary Moniz, we welcome you and look forward to your
    testimony.

                TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE ERNEST MONIZ,

                  SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

        Secretary Moniz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
    Lofgren and Members of the Committee. I appreciate the
    opportunity to discuss our budget proposal with you today. It
    totals $32.5 billion in discretionary mandatory spending, but I
    want to emphasize the request for annual appropriations is
    $30.2 billion, an increase of two percent above the fiscal year
    2016 enacted appropriation. And that two percent applies to
    both the national security and the domestic side of the ledger.
        It is supplemented by the $2.3 billion in mandatory
    spending request, including $750 million for R&D and $674
    million for uranium enrichment D&D, the latter from the USEC
    fund.
        I want to emphasize, however, that in particular the $1.6
    billion USEC fund is an existing, not new, mandatory spending
    account, and our proposal is in keeping with the spirit of
    current authorization that revenues from the beneficiaries of
    past uranium enrichment, rather than taxpayers at large, be
    used to pay the cost of D&D of the now-shuttered facilities.
    The USEC fund, by the way, is one of three federal funds
    totaling nearly $5 billion that can be used in this manner.
        I want to acknowledge that underpinning all of these
    priorities is stewardship of the Department as a Science and
    Technology powerhouse, with an unparalleled network of 17
    national laboratories. And we are working hard to strengthen
    the strategic relationship between the Department and our
    national laboratory network.
        And finally, in this introduction, I want to highlight the
    crosscutting R&D initiatives in the budget. Among these
    initiatives are large increases proposed for grid
    modernization, the energy-water nexus, and the exascale high-
    performance computing initiative to support everything from
    nuclear weapons to energy technologies to cancer solutions.
        The supporting budget details for each of these are
    provided in an extensive statement for the record, which I
    request be inserted into the record, and I will spend my last
    few minutes discussing our Mission Innovation initiative.
        The fiscal year 2017 budget includes an increase of 21
    percent in discretionary spending for clean energy R&D
    activities supporting our U.S. Mission Innovation initiative.
    The President's budget proposes this increase within the
    overall discretionary budget cap.
        Mission Innovation is an unprecedented global initiative by
    20 countries pledging to seek doubling of public clean energy
    R&D over five years. Those countries represent over 80 percent
    of global government investment in clean energy R&D, so this
    entails a highly leveraged opportunity to drive energy
    innovation.
        The initiative is long overdue. In 2010, the American
    Energy Innovation Council, comprised of CEOs from multiple
    sectors, recommended that the government triple its investment
    in clean energy R&D. The Council made three points: One,
    innovation is the essence of America's strength; two, public
    investment is critical; three, the cost of RD&D are tiny
    compared with the benefits.
        So the pledge to seek to double the level of investment
    over five years is ambitious but needed in the context of the
    AEIC. Bill Gates, who was the leader of the AEIC, I know has
    recently met with a number of Members of Congress and
    reiterated the need for greatly increased government-sponsored
    energy R&D.
        The objective of Mission Innovation is to greatly expand
    the suite of investable opportunities in clean energy
    technologies. The U.S. and global clean energy markets have
    been growing rapidly, but they should pick up the pace even
    more now as the world's nations implement the Paris agreement.
    Picking up the pace of our own clean energy innovation will
    result in commensurate benefits for our economy, environment,
    and security.
        The scope of Mission Innovation spans the innovation cycle,
    from the earliest stages through initial demonstration, but
    with a weighting towards the early stages. And all clean
    supply-and-demand technologies and infrastructure enablers are
    part of it.
        Mission Innovation is complemented by the Breakthrough
    Energy Coalition that was referred to, launched simultaneously
    with Mission Innovation, spearheaded by Bill Gates, launched
    with 28 investors from 10 countries. The Coalition committed to
    providing investment in new technologies originating from the
    innovation pipelines in the Mission Innovation countries from
    early-stage R&D through ultimate deployment. These investors
    are committed to a higher risk tolerance and patience for
    return than is typical, combined with a willingness to take the
    most promising innovations all the way past the finish line to
    deployment. And that's another important leveraging of the
    Mission Innovation proposal.
        In particular, I want to single out the fiscal year 2017
    budget proposal for $110 million to establish Regional Clean
    Innovation Partnerships as not-for-profit consortia
    competitively selected for a fixed period to manage regional
    clean energy R&D programs focused on the energy needs,
    policies, resources, and markets of the individual regions.
        The program design and portfolio composition for each
    partnership will be based on regional priorities. As research
    portfolio managers, not performers, the partnerships will
    connect resources and capabilities across universities,
    industry, innovators, investors, and other regional leaders to
    accelerate the innovation process within each region.
        This approach tracks recommendations from the National
    Research Council's Rising to the Challenge, which noted that,
    ``until very recently, U.S. federal agencies have done little
    to support state and regional innovation cluster initiatives''
    and recommended that ``regional innovation cluster initiatives
    by state and local organizations should be assessed, and where
    appropriate, provided with greater funding and expanded
    geographically.''
        The Mission Innovation budget also supports increased
    investments in successful ongoing innovation programs at
    universities, national labs, companies, programs such as ARPA-
    E, energy frontier research centers, advanced manufacturing,
    bioenergy centers, advanced transportation technologies,
    advanced nuclear reactor technologies, and next-generation
    carbon-capture technologies, to name a few.
        In closing, I want to note that we will be holding a set of
    regional meetings across the country to gain input on these
    regional partnerships, and for the Chairman and Ranking Member
    Johnson, I'd like to say that we will have a May meeting in
    Texas, and we will extend invitations to both of you.
        That concludes my summary. Thank you for your interest, and
    I look forward to the discussion.
        [The prepared statement of Secretary Moniz follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Secretary Moniz, and I'll
    recognize myself for questions.
        And that meeting that you just mentioned is going to be in
    Austin, Texas, is it not, May 9?
        Secretary Moniz. May 9 is the plan----
        Chairman Smith. Okay.
        Secretary Moniz. --in Austin, Texas----
        Chairman Smith. Great.
        Secretary Moniz. --at U.T.
        Chairman Smith. All right. My first question goes to the
    subject of the budget, and just to make sure that we all
    understand, this is a budget proposal that the President cannot
    unilaterally implement. It is a budget that has to be
    authorized and appropriated by Congress, and that may or may
    not be exactly what the President requested. Is that the case?
        Secretary Moniz. I believe we are here, in fact, to seek
    support for the budget, yes.
        Chairman Smith. Okay. Secretary Moniz, my next question
    goes to our oversight responsibilities. And the Committee has
    engaged in continued oversight of the Department, including
    raising questions about DOE's Loan Guarantee Program, DOE home
    energy standards, DOE scientists who may have been fired for
    talking to the committee staff, and then just last week, a
    bipartisan request regarding the Texas Clean Energy Project.
        While we have received some documents from DOE on these
    issues, and I appreciate your telling me yesterday that you are
    conducting an investigation in regard to the home energy
    standards issue, many of our questions remain outstanding. For
    example, in the case of the DOE Loan Guarantee Program, we have
    yet to receive the Department's Risk List, which would include
    DOE's assessment of the risk for each loan guarantee.
        Now, just last week, news broke that the Ivanpah solar
    plant, which received a $1.6 billion loan guarantee, was
    struggling to meet its production commitments. And will you be
    able to assure us today that we will get the information we
    have requested, including the Risk List?
        Secretary Moniz. As we discussed, Mr. Chairman, the Risk
    List is very sensitive for proprietary information, but I think
    the best thing we could do is perhaps arrange a briefing on
    that risk profile of our various projects.
        Chairman Smith. Okay. Let's start with the briefing and
    then we'll go from there. Thank you.
        My next question is this: In--another subject involves
    the--what I mentioned just a minute ago, the DOE scientist who
    worked with this committee that was fired six days after
    meeting with our committee staff. These discussions took place
    at the Committee's request, and the briefing was organized
    through DOE Congressional Affairs.
        I just am curious whether any officials connected to that
    episode have in any way been sanctioned or upbraided, or is
    that going to wait on your--on some internal investigation?
        Secretary Moniz. That particular case, we indeed delved
    into that, and a settlement was reached that is confidential
    among the parties. But the employee is employed at the
    Department of Energy.
        Chairman Smith. Right. I understand that. We are still,
    however, interested in the circumstances that caused the
    dismissal of the employee. We're also concerned about an
    intimidation factor in regard to other employees who might talk
    to members of our staff. And in that regard, will you also
    assure us today that you'll provide the documents and
    information that we have requested? I know some more was
    forthcoming, I think, yesterday----
        Secretary Moniz. Last night, yes.
        Chairman Smith. --but not everything we have asked for, and
    so in regard to what--the documents that remain that we've
    asked for, can we----
        Secretary Moniz. Well, we--okay. I believe our General
    Counsel felt they were being responsive, but let's get together
    again with your staff, make sure what the staff views as not
    including in those documents yesterday, and we'll keep working
    at it to----
        Chairman Smith. Okay.
        Secretary Moniz. --get you what you want.
        Chairman Smith. I would guess your general counsel knows
    the documents that we have not yet received, and I guess I'm
    looking for an assurance that, all things being equal, that we
    will get those documents in a timely fashion.
        Secretary Moniz. Again, I am committed to providing
    documents as much as we can within the constraints of the
    General Counsel says if there are things that are----
        Chairman Smith. Okay.
        Secretary Moniz. --proprietary and need to be kept very
    close hold. Those could be a discussion with the counsel in
    terms of----
        Chairman Smith. Okay. In regard to this particular subject,
    we have not been told any of the documents are proprietary;
    it's just the question of----
        Secretary Moniz. No, no, it's not proprietary. It's--the
    settlements was reached as a settlement between the employee
    and the department and----
        Chairman Smith. Right. We're looking at communications, as
    you may or may not know, and those communications, I don't
    think, would be a part of any settlement. So to the extent that
    you can, you will give us the documents?
        Secretary Moniz. I--absolutely.
        Chairman Smith. Okay.
        Secretary Moniz. Yes.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Secretary Moniz.
        And the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lofgren, is
    recognized for her questions.
        Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I would just note that our staff calculates that your
    department has sent over about 8,000 pages of documents in
    response to inquiries this year, so I know you'll continue to
    work with the Committee, but I wouldn't want people to think
    that you haven't delivered boatloads of information to the
    Committee.
        I also want to talk about fusion energy. As you know, we've
    talked about that in the past. I'm particularly concerned about
    the National Ignition Facility and its importance. I know
    you're aware. We were at the groundbreaking together. And I've
    been trying to follow up on this. As you know, I'm sure, Dr.
    Holden in 2014 said that we couldn't support inertial fusion
    energy R&D activities that weren't relevant to the nuclear
    weapons reliability unless ignition was achieved.
        Now, subsequent to that, there was a National Academy
    report that had some very important proposals. Actually, that
    was prior to that. And I felt that Dr. Holden, who I admire a
    great deal, that his answer to my questions were not consistent
    with the National Academy recommendations.
        To follow up, I sent a letter to you in November to try and
    clarify the misunderstanding, and there had been statements
    made by the co-Chairs of the Academy report explaining their
    findings, their intent. And last month, I heard from the NSA
    Administrator, not you, indicating that they could not divert
    so-called--it's their word--the Fusion Energy Science program
    from its primary mission.
        Now, my question is this: The primary mission of the
    Department of Energy's Fusion Energy Science program is to
    steward research in promising fusion energy pathways. And
    considering that there's still no ongoing program at the Office
    of Science or ARPA-E for the--or the NNSA for proposals to
    conduct research in this area to compete for federal funding,
    how can we begin implementing the recommendations from the
    National Academy's report and establish a program that
    directly, officially supports R&D in inertial fusion for energy
    applications or at least find a way to allow strong, merit-
    reviewed proposals for inertial fusion energy research to be
    eligible for federal support? How do we do that?
        Secretary Moniz. Thank you. First, context would be
    interesting to put out there. And, first of all, the good news
    is NIF has become more effective in----
        Ms. Lofgren. That is correct.
        Secretary Moniz. --and up over 350 shots last year. And the
    primary mission unquestionably is the Stockpile Stewardship
    Program----
        Ms. Lofgren. Of course.
        Secretary Moniz. --for which it has made major
    contributions. However, almost 20 percent of the shots were
    dedicated last year to non-stockpile stewardship activities,
    and those range from basic science in astrophysics to
    activities relevant to potential fusion.
        However, the National Academy's overarching recommendation,
    as I understand it, was that a structured program would await
    ignition. And as you know, ignition has proved elusive. So we
    continue to optimize both beam and target physics to achieve
    ignition, which would be the threshold for a more systematic
    ICF program.
        Ms. Lofgren. I don't think that's correct.
        Secretary Moniz. Okay.
        Ms. Lofgren. And I don't want to get in a debate here
    because our time is limited. Perhaps we can follow up after
    this hearing----
        Secretary Moniz. Sure.
        Ms. Lofgren. --and go through the National Academy report.
        Let's talk about the alternative approaches. Now, there
    have been several promising alternative approaches to fusion
    from small and midsize startups, and we had talked earlier
    about ARPA-E doing a three-year program to further explore
    potential for some of these concepts called the magnetized
    target fusion, but that program is temporary and it doesn't
    cover the full range of emerging alternatives that currently
    don't have federal support.
        What is the Department considering to ensure the full range
    of viable options for commercial fusion energy in terms of
    vetting and, where appropriate, actively--active pursuit? And
    does the Office of Science's current fusion research program
    have the flexibility to shift resources to new approaches if
    they don't align, for example, the tokamak research pathway? If
    not, what flexibility does the Office of Science need to be
    provided to do that?
        Secretary Moniz. First of all, the ARPA-E program, of
    course, like all the ARPA-E programs, are 3-year----
        Ms. Lofgren. Of course.
        Secretary Moniz. --kind of programs, and I might add, by
    the way, that some of the support from the ARPA-E program will
    actually be carried out at NIF, so that is part of a fusion
    program actually at NIF in terms of those experiments.
        In terms of the Office of Science fusion program--well,
    first of all, we have to say, you know, the--kind of the
    elephant in the room, frankly, is the trajectory for the ITER
    project----
        Ms. Lofgren. Right.
        Secretary Moniz. --and we are due to provide Congress a
    report on May 2 following a major project review in April. No
    matter which way we and the Congress go, that will have
    significant implications obviously for the science fusion
    program.
        The program certainly has flexibilities within the budget
    constraints. I mean, there are discussions about, well, first
    of all the MIT--I am past my recusal period. The MIT program is
    shut down in this budget. That accounts for much of the drop in
    the budget. So General Atomics has the tokamak work. Princeton
    has alternative work. The whole stellarator approach is of
    interest there. So they have the flexibility. It's a question
    of structuring the program within the budget.
        Ms. Lofgren. I think my time is expired, Mr. Chairman, so
    thank you for yielding to me.
        Secretary Moniz. And if I may add, I would be happy to
    follow up on that ICF in the next few----
        Ms. Lofgren. I would look forward to that, and maybe we can
    get to--rather than sending letters back and forth, get to an
    understanding on it.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Lofgren.
        The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Loudermilk, is recognized
    for his questions.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
    Secretary Moniz, for being here.
        And before I start my question, I would just like to extend
    my heartfelt prayers to the people in Brussels, Belgium, this
    morning for the horrific terrorist attacks taken against our
    friends and allies and remind people that it's not just the
    people of the Belgium that were attacked, but many Americans
    who serve at NATO live in that area. And the terrorism is a
    real, real-time threat not only overseas but here in the United
    States, as we have recently learned.
        As part of my responsibility in Congress, I serve as the
    Chairman of the Oversight Subcommittee, on this honorable
    committee. I also sit on the Homeland Security Committee, and
    back in May we traveled through the Middle East and even into
    Europe, and I went to Brussels as part of a counterterrorism
    task force.
        And one of the scenarios that we have to look at and one of
    the things that frightens me much more than other attacks that
    we have seen is a potential of a dirty bomb, release of
    radiation on our citizens not necessarily through a nuclear--
    traditional nuclear bomb but just a dirty bomb that releases
    radioactive material.
        And I want to follow up a little bit on what the Chairman
    had asked is in the last Congress the committee staff requested
    a briefing on low-dose radiation from your department regarding
    legislation dealing with low-dose radiation. And it's
    important, as we develop legislation, to understand the effects
    of and the risks of low-dose radiation either through a dirty
    bomb, how do we evacuate, how do we protect the people, as well
    as physicians who deal with this type of radiation.
        And as was mentioned earlier, and as I was made aware, that
    subsequent to that briefing where technical questions were
    answered, this employee was fired from your department. And,
    again, this briefing was organized through your Congressional
    Affairs Office.
        And I'm gravely concerned that--how can Congress do our job
    if we don't have timely and effective technical information
    which we rely on from agencies under the executive branch that
    we can effectively do our job not only from an oversight and
    investigatory authority that we have through the Constitution
    but also good legislation that represents the people, that we
    can effectively respond to these type of threats that we face
    or just the daily operation of using radiological material?
        What have you done in light of this to ensure that your
    employees are not intimidated from within to sharing truth and
    the information that Congress needs to be able to do our job
    that the American people expect us to do for them?
        Secretary Moniz. Well, thank you. If I may comment on
    Brussels first----
        Mr. Loudermilk. Please.
        Secretary Moniz. --because of course we all align with your
    initial statement. But I just would note that our Deputy
    Secretary was actually in Brussels on Friday discussing
    precisely these issues offered to our Belgian colleagues, an
    opportunity to come to our laboratories to see some of the
    technologies that could be used to prevent these things----
        Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you for that.
        Secretary Moniz. --which they said immediately, yes, and
    just days before this terrible, terrible event.
        I would also mention that March 31 and April 1, so end of
    next week I guess, we will host the Nuclear Security Summit
    here in Washington, which will address many of these issues.
        With regard to the low-dose radiation issue, first of all,
    I am trying my best to make sure that there's a culture of
    understanding, that we want to have clear statements of what
    are technical facts, as I said, and in this case--that employee
    is at work at the Department of Energy so----
        Mr. Loudermilk. So she has been rehired----
        Secretary Moniz. Correct.
        Mr. Loudermilk. --after being fired?
        Secretary Moniz. That is correct.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Okay.
        Secretary Moniz. So----
        Mr. Loudermilk. So at least there is some recognition----
        Secretary Moniz. Action was taken, correct.
        Mr. Loudermilk. Okay.
        Secretary Moniz. If I might add, on the substance, just to
    conclude on the low-dose radiation, I asked my Secretary of
    Energy Advisory Board to look at that. They came back and said
    the important issue, we're not the right group to look at this.
    We then charged the BER Advisory Committee to look at this.
    They will come back with a report this fall on what a
    restructured, effective program may look like.
        The reality is, as we all know, it's been a frustrating
    subject in terms of being unable to reach the conclusions that
    we would like to operationalize what is a hugely important and
    expensive issue for us, how one treats low-dose radiation. So
    we are actively looking at that. In the fall we'll have a
    report back.
        And I might add the cancer--this is a little bit of a
    stretch, but we can discuss it later--the cancer initiative may
    provide, through big-data analytics, one of the most effective
    ways of addressing the low-dose issue.
        Mr. Loudermilk. And thank you for what you're doing. And
    again, my concern goes back to--there may be a nuclear engineer
    on this committee. I am not one, and so therefore I rely
    heavily upon those that you employee to ensure that we do our
    job that the American people expect us to do. And things such
    as protecting against a dirty bomb, I can't think of anything
    that would be more high priority than us being proactive in
    that and from a legislative standpoint.
        And I hope that you agree that working between the branches
    of government is extremely important, that we have the access
    to the information, and when we request information, that we
    receive honest, true information that's comprehensive and in a
    timely matter to our job. Do you agree that----
        Secretary Moniz. Yes.
        Mr. Loudermilk. --we must do that? All right. Thank you. I
    yield back.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Loudermilk.
        The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Lipinski, is recognized
    for his questions.
        Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Welcome back, Secretary Moniz. It's great to see you again.
        I wanted to start out by asking about the Advanced Photon
    Source at Argonne National Lab. It's my understanding that the
    APS is slated for a major facilities upgrade and is the next
    project in line for an upgrade. So could you talk about the
    importance of upgrading the Advanced Photon Source and the
    importance, more broadly speaking, of maintaining our global
    leadership in light sources?
        Secretary Moniz. Yes, it is extremely important and, as you
    have said, we're on a systematic march towards upgrading our
    light sources. Just last year, we completed the Brookhaven
    upgrade for very high brightness. Our current project is on the
    coherent light source, so-called x-ray laser at SLAC, and we
    are in the early engineering phases now of designing the APS
    upgrade, which will provide much greater coherence in the
    beam--and it'll be an absolutely world-leading tool.
        So we're systematically upgrading our light sources, which
    are premier tools, the biggest drivers really of our user
    communities in this country. And I think, as you know, others
    may not, also spending about 40 percent of their time in the
    life sciences and making enormous contributions.
        Mr. Lipinski. Yes, so thank you for that, and it's
    important. As you said, we continue to move forward here.
        The second thing, as you know, an interest of mine is
    commercialization of DOE-funded research from universities and
    national labs. Last year, there were a couple of advancements
    on this front. First, the Office of Technology Transitions was
    tasked with supporting commercialization activities across the
    DOE; and second, the Lab-Corps program was created to
    accelerate the transfer of clean energy technologies from
    national labs such as Argonne to the commercial marketplace.
    Now, Lab-Corps is based on NSF's I-Corps model, and the program
    trains researchers on how to turn the discoveries into real-
    world technology.
        As I mentioned, work going on at Argonne includes
    developing energy-efficient material for windows, processes for
    deionizing water, and devices for charging electric vehicles.
        So Lab-Corps just began the second round of training
    sessions. Could you give us an update on the Lab-Corps program
    and also on the activities of the Office of Technology
    Transitions?
        Secretary Moniz. Yes, thank you. And I hope the Committee
    recognizes that we apparently can listen to these suggestions
    moving forward in these directions. So number one is the
    establishment of the Office of Technology Transitions under
    Jetta Wong, and I think that is making tremendous progress in
    multiple dimensions, including, I might add, implementing the
    2005 Energy Policy Act call for a Technology Commercialization
    Fund. And that is approximately a $20 million fund specifically
    for commercializing laboratory technologies.
        I might say there is at least one difficulty that we would
    like to see addressed in that, and that is that currently, the
    $20 million fund is quite atomized by having the contributions
    to it siloed according to the program from which those funds
    came. And that leaves very, very small amounts, as opposed to
    what we might accomplish by further aggregation, so that's an
    issue with the Congress that we would need authorization to
    address that.
        I might also add in the Office of Technology Transitions,
    we just established--and in January hired a person to head--an
    energy-investment activity that will provide much greater
    transparency for all investors to be able to access our
    technologies laboratory and university grants, et cetera.
        Lab-CorpE and other specific programs such as a voucher
    program, as well we have in the budget, and there's a lot of
    enthusiasm at the laboratories for advancing these. We can get
    you some statistics then for the record if you'd like. But I'm
    very pleased that the focus on technology transfer has been
    elevated quite dramatically.
        Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, and I appreciate your
    responsiveness and the Department's responsiveness, and these
    are things that I think are important for us to work together
    on as we move forward, so take a look at----
        Secretary Moniz. Great.
        Mr. Lipinski. --what you had mentioned.
        Thank you. I yield back.
        Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski.
        And another gentleman from Illinois, Mr. LaHood.
        Mr. LaHood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And Secretary Moniz, thank you for being here today and for
    your testimony.
        And we are proud in Illinois to have two really first-class
    national laboratories, the Fermi National Accelerator Lab and
    also the Argonne National Lab. And looking at how we--the
    research, technology, and innovation that's being done at these
    labs and how we ensure that we are getting that technology
    transfer information to the private sector, whether that's
    entrepreneurs, whether that's mature companies, how we do that
    and the potential barriers that are there, Secretary Moniz. Are
    you satisfied now we're doing all we can to, you know, engage
    in that process and further the private sector, or is there
    more to do there?
        Secretary Moniz. Oh, I think there's certainly more. I'm
    pleased that we are doing more, but there's clearly more to be
    done. The Energy Investment Center that I mentioned is part of
    that. That's another new step to providing the transparency.
        But also what I would say is what's maybe most important in
    the end is not a specific program but the clear recognition by
    the laboratory directors that technology transition is part of
    their responsibility. So I think if it's done at the
    laboratories with the commitment of the director, that in the
    end may be the most effective step.
        Mr. LaHood. And is it your view that that's something that
    can be internally done by your department or is there something
    you need from us to ensure that we continue to engage in this?
        Secretary Moniz. At a high-level we probably have the
    authorities that we need, but as I said earlier, something like
    the Technology Commercialization Fund--I already mentioned one
    problem, which is the atomization of it, the siloed nature, so
    that's something we would need Congressional action.
        And another issue is there is a--at a minimum I would call
    it a lack of clarity on cost-sharing requirements. And our
    General Counsel is interpreting them rather narrowly that we
    are going to require at least 50/50 cost-sharing. In that kind
    of a program it would probably be better to have more
    flexibility, as we do in applied energy programs to have, for
    example, a 20 percent cost-sharing. So there's a couple of
    places where Congressional action could be extremely helpful.
        Mr. LaHood. And can you give us a couple examples of
    success stories you've had in the last couple years here in
    reducing these barriers and success that we've seen in the
    private sector?
        Secretary Moniz. Well, I think that success means things
    actually happening, and if we go to Argonne, to pick an
    arbitrary laboratory, for example, the JCESR, the hub on energy
    storage, has had results get out into the automotive sector
    already. So that's a great example of technology transfer
    driven by the dialogue between the companies, including the
    companies in the region, obviously, with the Argonne
    leadership.
        Mr. LaHood. Yes. And I guess I would just say, you know,
    highlighting more things like that, reducing those barriers,
    you know, is, you know, something that we need more of, and the
    public seeing the direct benefits of taxpayer money being spent
    at these labs and kind of the fruitful results of that, you
    know, is going to benefit us all----
        Secretary Moniz. Yes.
        Mr. LaHood. --and so I would encourage more of that with
    the Department.
        Secretary Moniz. Thank you. And I might add that part of
    the communication is that coming up in--what's the date of Lab
    Day--I forgot.
        Anyway, assume coming up we will have here on the Hill Lab
    Day. I forget the exact date. And the focus this time is on
    science. We're rotating it, national security, et cetera,
    science, and that'll be an important part of the communication.
        Mr. LaHood. Thank you.
        Those are all my questions, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. LaHood.
        The gentlewoman from Connecticut, Ms. Esty, is recognized.
        Ms. Esty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ranking
    Member Lofgren, for holding today's hearing to review the U.S.
    Department of Energy's science and technology priorities within
    its budget request for 2017.
        Secretary Moniz, please first let me allow you to--
    congratulate you on your excellent work in securing the
    historic climate pact in Paris just in the last few months.
    While it's only a first step, we must all work together to take
    action on climate change.
        There are a couple of topics I'd like to touch on. The
    first is on the U.S.-Israel Strategic Partnership Act which
    Congress passed and the President signed into law in late 2014
    establishing that it is a policy priority for the United States
    to pursue every opportunity to deepen our energy relationship
    with Israel. Managed by DOE with strong bipartisan support in
    Congress, the U.S.-Israel Energy Cooperation Program has set
    the stage for long-term strategic cooperation in the
    development of new energy technologies.
        Now, we know that Israel is a world leader in technological
    research and development with expertise in areas such as
    cleantech, water resource management, and cyber protection
    technologies that may be applicable to our own critical
    infrastructure.
        So a couple of questions: As DOE increases its investments
    in R&D, does the Department have plans to expand its current
    programs with Israel? And second, increased investment in R&D
    will also serve to improve cybersecurity in the electric power
    and natural gas subsectors. And how do you see this benefiting
    the region like the Northeast, as you know well, where the
    natural gas supplies are constrained during winter months?
        Secretary Moniz. Thank you. If I may, by the way, note
    April 20 is the day of Lab Day on the Hill for science.
        With regard to Israel, first of all, I'm happy to say that
    I will be traveling to Israel April the 2nd for a few days.
    I'll be hosted by Minister Steinitz, my corresponding Cabinet
    member, and we are definitely talking about increasing our
    collaboration in energy.
        But I might also mention certainly I'm very interested in
    carrying forward the discussions we've already started on
    looking at the energy-water nexus. Israel is obviously well-
    known as a world leader in water management, all types of
    energy-efficient water management. It's going to be a great
    area for collaboration. So I'm not saying we have something
    mapped out yet, but that's an area that we will certainly be
    exploring.
        On cybersecurity more broadly--there was, of course, a
    discussion about some cyber issues in Israel not so long ago,
    but here in our program I want to emphasize we continue to have
    a very strong emphasis on cybersecurity. All the risks, frankly
    to the grid, cyber among them. I just want to emphasize that
    overall our budget is up, but in one program, the Office of
    Electricity, it went down. But I want to emphasize it's because
    with the fiscal year 2016, we finished four discrete projects,
    so kind of the fundamentals are there as well.
        We also have expanded dramatically our interaction with
    industry. The Deputy Secretary chairs an initiative there, and
    in fact we've taken the step of doing things like providing
    clearances to key members of that industry to be able to share
    information. So this is a huge, huge issue, we know, and we
    will continue to focus on that quite strongly.
        Natural gas, our Quadrennial Energy Review, both the first
    installment on energy infrastructure and the second installment
    that we are working on now, which is on electricity end-to-end
    has a strong look at this because, as we've seen, there have
    been projections, of course, of natural gas growing
    dramatically in the energy sector. The growth has been even
    faster than anticipated, and indeed, in 2016 for the first time
    the EIA at least projects that natural gas will have a higher
    market share than coal over the entire year. This is an
    incredible change.
        Now, in looking at that, the QER analyses, interestingly
    enough, say that the scale of build-out of the transmission
    infrastructure to manage this growth actually does not have to
    be any bigger than the current rate, the current rate of build-
    out. Partly, that's because of the geographical diversity now
    of the sources.
        However, there are localized issues--you mentioned New
    England--that's the prime example where we continue to work on
    the constraints there. There is some development of increasing
    capacity, but that's one where we have to keep an eye out.
        Ms. Esty. Thank you. And I'll follow up more on the
    desalination efforts in the proposal in the budget on that
    and----
        Secretary Moniz. Yes, we have a de-sal hub proposed in the
    budget, yes.
        Ms. Esty. Thank you very much, and I yield back.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Esty.
        And the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Weber, is recognized for
    his questions.
        Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Secretary Moniz, thank you for being here. I'm glad to hear
    about the report of natural gas actually replacing coal in the
    marketplace or leading--having more of a market share. As
    Chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy, that's important to us.
        Do you think, just from a practical standpoint--so natural
    gas and nuclear for that matter, I guess, would be labeled as
    one of the more cleaner energies, I guess, for lack of a better
    term? Would you agree with that?
        Secretary Moniz. Absolutely.
        Mr. Weber. Good. As you probably know, the Golden Pass LNG
    plant is actually in--well, you may not know it's in my
    district--and it's waiting to export, waiting on permits. The
    first DOE permit was first filed in 2012. Now, this project
    represents billions of dollars of private investment and
    thousands of jobs in Texas and in the nation, and you've
    already said natural gas is coming up in the marketplace. I'm
    glad to hear that.
        FERC--we want to get that permit expedited. They have to
    have a permit from FERC. So all of these LNG plans, I would
    argue, are critical. Will you commit to working with me to
    advance critical infrastructure projects like this, help DOE to
    move those projects along and in fact provide timely updates to
    me and my staff on those applications and where they stand?
        Secretary Moniz. Oh, certainly. We've been, I think, very
    transparent and, quite frankly, processing things quite fast
    once they have their FERC EIS because----
        Mr. Weber. Do you think we can get that done in 30 days
    after their EIS is approved?
        Secretary Moniz. Well, yes. So the last two years we've
    been getting things out between day timescale to month
    timescale. So----
        Mr. Weber. Okay.
        Secretary Moniz. --that's our intent.
        Mr. Weber. Well, that's----
        Secretary Moniz. And, of course, the FTA license was
    granted in 2012. It's the non-FTA that's now on the----
        Mr. Weber. Right, so you're going to work with us and we
    can get those as quickly as possible because, obviously, we'd
    like to take--we would like to take advantage of that market
    share increase that you're talking about.
        Secretary Moniz. I believe FERC's docket shows the EIS
    coming up in the summer for this--
        Mr. Weber. Okay. Well, that's what we want to hear.
        I'm going to jump over to nuclear here now and put my
    nuclear hat on. H.R. 4084 is a bill that we passed out of this
    committee. Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Johnson were
    cosponsors of it, as myself and many others on the Committee
    for that matter. And what it does is it--are you aware of that
    bill? It instructs the DOE to focus on the next round of
    nuclear generators research--I'm sorry, nuclear reactors
    research and to be able to partner with private industry to
    have the site developed so that we can actually come up with
    the next--are you familiar with 4084?
        Secretary Moniz. In general terms, not----
        Mr. Weber. Okay.
        Secretary Moniz. --in specifics.
        Mr. Weber. Okay.
        Secretary Moniz. Right.
        Mr. Weber. So on February 29 it passed the House by voice
    vote. On January the 28th, the Senate language passed as an
    amendment by recorded vote of 87 to 4. Now, I bring those
    numbers up because that's a pretty substantial backing
    bipartisan bill that we would argue, known as the Nuclear
    Energy Innovation Capabilities Act.
        So do you know about the bill? And I guess I'll put you on
    the spot. Do you support that kind of legislation?
        Secretary Moniz. Well, again, I don't know the specifics of
    the bill, but generally speaking, yes. I believe that nuclear
    and innovation in nuclear fission technologies is very
    important.
        Mr. Weber. Sure, but you agreed with me earlier or you
    actually stated an opinion that natural gas and nuclear is
    among the cleaner energies.
        Secretary Moniz. Yes, yes--no, so I--yes, I totally support
    the general objective----
        Mr. Weber. Right.
        Secretary Moniz. --for sure, yes.
        Mr. Weber. So if we can bring in the next round of
    reactors, that would be advantageous to us.
        Secretary Moniz. And we did provide up to $80 million for
    molten salt and for pebble bed development, for example, in
    addition to supporting the ongoing work with the small modular
    reactor.
        Mr. Weber. Right. Well, the DOE Office of Nuclear Energy
    supports civilian nuclear R&D for energy and we would argue
    national security needs. Now, based on what happened and what's
    been happening around the world--and Representative Loudermilk
    brought it up earlier what happened in Brussels. We would argue
    that we need to be very intense and focused on our national
    security, and this is one way that if we're in the lead,
    nuclear speaking, then we can help with nonproliferation. So I
    would say that for the DOE's, I hope, point of view this is an
    important bill that would get you all's support.
        Secretary Moniz. Yes. Again, I don't know the specifics of
    everything----
        Mr. Weber. Sure.
        Secretary Moniz. --in the bill, but generally speaking,
    absolutely.
        I might also add on Friday in China, we dedicated a Center
    of Excellence on Nuclear Security----
        Mr. Weber. Okay.
        Secretary Moniz. --that addresses some of those questions
    that----
        Mr. Weber. Well, I'm glad to hear that. Let me jump over
    real quick to, I think, what one of the other members brought
    up, the Iran nuclear deal. And even though I wasn't supportive
    of that deal and I would say--I forget the number--70 percent
    of Americans were not in supportive of that deal, that deal was
    struck. And so it's important that we maintain the parameters
    of that deal and maintain a strict oversight on the nuclear
    deal. And I understand you were instrumental in negotiating the
    deal, is that right?
        Secretary Moniz. I was certainly heavily involved, yes.
        Mr. Weber. I'm sorry?
        Secretary Moniz. I was certainly heavily involved.
        Mr. Weber. You were heavily involved so you were heavily
    invested?
        Secretary Moniz. Well, I did spend 19 days straight in
    Vienna to----
        Mr. Weber. Okay. Well, we want to make sure that you keep
    our committee informed with any information on briefings that
    we need when you think that deal has been--that the tenets of
    that deal have been broached. Will you commit to do that for
    us?
        Secretary Moniz. I have to say the State Department leads
    this with DOE supporting them in terms of keeping the Congress
    informed, including on a classified level.
        Mr. Weber. Do you have any oversight purview over that
    deal? I mean, you're the ``nuclear expert,'' spent 19 days
    there. Are you----
        Secretary Moniz. By the way, along with Secretary Kerry.
        Mr. Weber. Okay.
        Secretary Moniz. We were both there for 19 days. The----
        Mr. Weber. Did Secretary Kerry go to MIT? I'm just asking.
        Secretary Moniz. Not yet.
        Mr. Weber. Okay. You're working on him already?
        Secretary Moniz. Yes, we're working on it. Right.
        Mr. Weber. Okay.
        Secretary Moniz. We did both go to Boston College, however.
        Mr. Weber. Okay.
        Secretary Moniz. But the----
        Mr. Weber. Do you have any kind of oversight on that?
        Secretary Moniz. Yes, so, again--so the Department of
    Energy is the core team in the implementation phase, so the
    answer is yes, and I personally remain engaged.
        Mr. Weber. Okay. So you will come back to this--if you see
    anything that adversely affects that deal and of course our
    national security, you would come back to this committee?
        Secretary Moniz. We--again, through the state-led process
    we will keep the Congress informed, including providing regular
    reports typically through the Foreign Affairs Committee, but I
    think it's open to all Members of Congress.
        Mr. Weber. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Weber.
        The gentlewoman from Massachusetts, Ms. Clark, is
    recognized.
        Ms. Clark. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
    Secretary Moniz, for your leadership and for being here today.
        I want to go back to Mission Innovation. And in Paris, the
    United States was one of 20 countries that agreed to double
    their support for clean energy research and development
    activities over the next five years, as you put it, creating a
    highly leveraged opportunity for us. And the President's fiscal
    year 2017 budget lays out his plan to do just that, but we have
    grave concerns about the ability to get that budget through the
    House and Senate this year.
        How important is it that we meet that goal of doubling our
    clean energy R&D over the next five years, and how important is
    it to where we stand with climate change?
        Secretary Moniz. I think it's very important on multiple
    counts. One, it's important objectively as, again, the American
    Energy Innovation Council pointed out. They recommended a
    tripling.
        Ms. Clark. Yes.
        Secretary Moniz. We propose this doubling. Number two is I
    would say that, as is in many things, you know, the United
    States has a special role in leadership, and if we fall down in
    meeting our objective, I think that would have significant
    deleterious consequences much more broadly in this highly
    leveraged situation with other countries and with the private
    investors.
        And third, I think that, again, even without going into the
    specifics of the Paris agreement, et cetera, it is simply a
    fact that essentially every country in the world is committed
    to pursuing lower carbon fairly aggressively. That means
    multitrillion dollar markets are going to be developing even
    faster, and we want to keep our innovation edge to take
    advantage of those markets.
        Ms. Clark. I think that is a critical point, and also going
    back to the end of your second point, with the public
    investment we saw with Bill Gates leading an effort but, I
    believe, 28 investors from 10 different countries, how--if we
    don't meet our goals on the public investment side, what do you
    think will happen to that private investment?
        Secretary Moniz. Well, again, I think it will be very, very
    hard to sustain because this was viewed as two complementary
    initiative. They're independent in principle but two
    complementary initiatives. We open up the innovation pipeline.
    They are prepared to put billions in to take advantage of that
    expanded pipeline.
        Ms. Clark. And what do you think--thinking of American
    leadership abroad, you know, if we don't meet this, what do you
    think will happen with the other countries' commitments? Do you
    think they will continue on, leaving our markets, our
    innovation behind, or do you think we'll have a destabilizing
    effect?
        Secretary Moniz. I think some will and probably some won't,
    but some of the bigger ones, to be perfectly honest, I think if
    you look at China's initial publications of its 13th five-year
    plan--again, I was just there last week, spoke with many
    government officials--the first characteristic, all of them
    mentioned about the five-year plan was the emphasis on
    innovation. So they are going to be pushing on science and
    engineering innovation as a foundation of what they are doing
    in the next year. So they're going to go ahead in my view as
    one example.
        Ms. Clark. Yes.
        Secretary Moniz. And that's just an example of why we need
    to maintain competitive edge, which is innovation.
        Ms. Clark. Yes. Well, we certainly believe that in
    Massachusetts, and I thank you for your efforts on this, and we
    look forward to working with you and also on the Regional
    Innovation Centers. I think that will be a critical piece to
    establishing our place in this marketplace not only because
    climate change has such a huge effect on our economy and our
    resiliency, but also because it is an area where we can lead
    and really be--create such a viable market for clean energy
    products and technologies.
        So thank you, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Clark.
        And the gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, is
    recognized.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Secretary, thank you very much. It's
    been a joy over the years actually having this interaction----
        Secretary Moniz. Quite a few years.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes, it has been.
        Secretary Moniz. Right.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Was your hair gray when it started?
        Secretary Moniz. I have no comment. I could--no, I won't
    dare to ask the same question.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Mine wasn't gray.
        Just a couple of thoughts here. The--when several of my
    colleagues on the other side of the aisle mentioned clean
    energy, let's note that there is a differentiation between
    clean energy with a definition that's aimed at stopping global
    warming versus clean energy that is based on human health.
        CO2, which is the target of global warming-
    focused energy reforms, CO2 is not in any way a
    threat to human health. However, NOx, SOx, and other things in
    the air, trying to get them out of the air is certainly
    important to people's health and especially those of us who
    live in urban areas, as I do, and have children are very
    concerned about those pollution factors. So we do want clean
    air.
        And I want to mention the nuclear energy issue to you in a
    moment, but let us note that when you mentioned earlier in your
    testimony about the positive nature of going from coal to
    natural gas, which is, I think, a very big step forward for
    both health and global warming considerations, let us just note
    that that would not have happened if the administration, while
    trying to stop the production of CO2, would have had
    its way in terms of disrupting the evolution in fracking.
    Fracking has given us, has it not, a major increase in the
    production of natural gas? And so that's if we get in the way
    of fracking and we get in the way of basically having a cleaner
    air, both for global warming and for people's health. Would you
    like to comment on that?
        Secretary Moniz. Well, first of all, of course it's a fact
    that horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing is what's
    opened up tremendous amounts of natural gas and oil production
    in this country.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Right.
        Secretary Moniz. But I guess I don't quite understand the
    administration comment you made in the sense that, frankly, the
    administration has been supportive of these developments with
    natural gas. Obviously, there are environmental issues to
    address. A lot of those are being done in the states. For
    example, Oklahoma has been very concerned over the seismic
    issues, which are not from fracking but from water disposal----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Right.
        Secretary Moniz. --which is where that is coming. So I
    think that is a balance between state and federal----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, we believe someone has looked at
    that pipeline decision as being something that was based--
    fundamentally opposed to fracking and--because that's where
    the--that extra oil was going to be coming from.
        Let me ask you about nuclear energy here. It has been of
    concern to me that as we move forward with--and, by the way, I
    would suggest that's the one area that people on both sides of
    the global warming issue should be able to agree upon.
        But from the Department of Energy under your leadership I
    have not seen the shift away from the light-water reactors,
    which I believe are naturally dangerous. And we--I've been told
    and correct me if I'm wrong--is we do have the capability of
    the building reactors now, especially small modular reactors
    that are not based on light-water technology. Why are we not
    focused on getting away from light-water technology and putting
    our money in building a prototype from--of one of these small
    modular reactors that is not light-water reactor?
        Secretary Moniz. Well, first of all, of course as you know,
    we are supporting a light-water reactor small modular reactor--
    --
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Right.
        Secretary Moniz. --to go to design certification this year
    at the NRC. But I do want to add that even though it's a light-
    water reactor, the safety characteristics are excellent. So we
    believe that is a very viable and safe----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Safer----
        Secretary Moniz. --technology.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. --but not necessarily safe.
        Secretary Moniz. Well, it's basically passively safe. Now,
    one of the reasons for that focus, our initial small modular
    reactor focus was on light-water reactors for the reason that
    those are the ones that could move most rapidly to a deployment
    because, frankly, it's also on the regulatory side the NRC has
    got all the apparatus for licensing now.
        Having said that, we just announced a month ago I think
    roughly two awards, two consortia involving companies and labs,
    et cetera, one on molten salt, which is a design originated in
    Oak Ridge in fact some years ago, and another on pebble beds--
    --
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Right.
        Secretary Moniz. --a pebble bed reactor. So we are moving
    out on those two alternative technologies.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. I appreciate that, and I would just
    suggest that the money that we're spending on light-water
    reactors is based on the past and we need to look to the
    future, and I think that is not based on light-water reactors.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher.
        And the gentleman from California, Mr. Swalwell, is
    recognized.
        Mr. Swalwell. Thank you, Secretary Moniz, for appearing
    before the panel.
        And just a question about--in multiple prior fiscal years,
    Congress has directed DOE to diversify its bioenergy program
    and specifically support the development of technologies that
    hold the promise of producing energy from municipally derived
    biosolids. I believe your office is familiar with this because
    the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, EERE, has
    yet to follow through on these directives. And our office and
    our constituents in the bay area has found this a little bit
    frustrating and troubling.
        And my staff has been told that finally a DOE funding
    announcement for projects promising to develop energy from
    municipally derived biosolids is forthcoming this March or
    April. First, is that correct, and can you commit today that
    such a funding announcement will be made in late March or
    April? And what type of total budget is planned for the funding
    announcement?
        And also, I did want to separately thank you for the very
    hard work you did and the participation with our national
    laboratories on the Iran nuclear agreement.
        Secretary Moniz. Thank you. Thank you for that.
        First of all, the question of the biosolids, there have
    been solicitations where that has been an option but not
    singled out and then not always selected. That is correct that
    there will be solicitations coming forward. I don't know the
    exact day. We can get back to you on that. That will have
    biosolids as the research topic. It will also include some SBIR
    solicitation for biosolids.
        Mr. Swalwell. Great. And do you have any idea as to what
    the total budget for what the funding announcement could be?
        Secretary Moniz. I think there are three--I don't have an
    exact number. There were going to be three pieces that total
    roughly $20 million, but I don't--I think the exact breakout of
    that will depend upon the three awards.
        Mr. Swalwell. Great. Thank you.
        And I yield back.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. [Presiding.] Mr. Hultgren.
        Mr. Hultgren. Thank you, Chairman.
        Thank you, Secretary, always so good to see you and
    honestly do appreciate your work and your passion, especially
    in our labs. As you know, that's a special passion of mine.
        Secretary Moniz. See you on Lab Day.
        Mr. Hultgren. Yes, it's going to be great. And boy, our
    labs are excited. I know that's going to be very important, so
    thank you.
        Along with laboratories, also passionate about basic
    scientific research, which the Office of Science is doing to
    promote innovation and the energy future where America can
    lead. We had a good meeting last year with the Labs Caucus
    where you talked about the Breakthrough Energy Coalition and
    ways which we might be able to work together with Mission
    Innovation. I'd hoped the Office of Science would take the lead
    on this.
        While I think the gimmicks with the mandatory spending
    throughout the President's budget were a disappointing reversal
    on his negotiated budget with Congress, I hope there are still
    some places we can work together.
        The Department is asking for $1.2 billion in new spending
    throughout the Science and Energy programs. The Office of
    Science, with the requested increase of $225 million, is only
    about 18 percent of this requested increase. EERE was 68
    percent of your requested increase. Quite honestly, I think
    this is shortsighted.
        AAAS estimates that across the board the President's budget
    cuts basic R&D by 2.3 percent while increasing applied research
    by 2.8 percent. Maybe you all managed to save some shortsighted
    cuts, but I know you can't speak to your deliberations with
    OMB.
        So my first question is about how we can make our Office of
    Science programs better aligned with the private sector be it
    the Breakthrough Energy Coalition or anyone else. If OMB passed
    back your budget request and told you to realign your increases
    so that EERE and Office of Science were flipped, how would you
    propose to handle nearly $829 million in new spending? And what
    do you think personally the labs need to do to be more nimble
    and accessible to the outside?
        Secretary Moniz. Well, first of all, let me just comment.
    I'm not aware of the specifics of this AAAS scoring, but--and
    there may be also a labeling issue for--I just don't know, but
    for example, part of the proposal would be to add--even in its
    first year--five new Energy Frontier Research Centers. I would
    call that use-inspired basic research. I don't know how that is
    scored in there.
        But I've said earlier that in our increase, our intent
    certainly is to weight more towards the earlier stages of R&D,
    and science plays an important role in there. There are many
    other proposals besides the EFRCs, but I also want to single--
    ARPA-E is also very, very important, and has tremendous
    results, I think. So anyway--so we will be having strong focus
    there.
        I also might add that some of the proposal, for example, on
    the regional centers was placed in EREE even though it's across
    the board. It's not only efficiency and renewables. So we've
    already talked with some in Congress about the need to find a
    different budget structure for that to reflect the reality.
        As far as the labs being nimble, well, I think for one
    thing is----
        Mr. Hultgren. Can I ask a quick question real quick? So why
    didn't some of the basic energy science programs get similar
    increases to EERE?
        Secretary Moniz. Well, again, there are complicated
    dynamics in there. I think what we did is we put in specific
    increases that we thought made a lot of sense, including like
    the EFRCs and BES, which was one particular area.
        But again, look, obviously we're here to discuss with
    Congress what is the right mix there. We do want to increase
    energy R&D, and we'd like the increases, as I said, to be
    weighted towards the earlier stages.
        Mr. Hultgren. I just have about 45 seconds left. Let me get
    to one other thing if I could real quick, and we'll keep our
    conversation going. So thank you.
        I'm not sure if you remember I represent Fermilab. Just
    kidding.
        Secretary Moniz. Do you?
        Mr. Hultgren. I'm just kidding. You hear that a lot for me,
    but I'm so proud of the great work that they do and really am
    honored to be able to represent them. And I do want to thank
    you for the time that you've made available to me over the last
    months and years.
        But I want to just ask you how do you see the
    implementation of P5 going, and how have efforts in creating
    international collaboration out of LBNF been going? Are we
    meeting, exceeding, or behind your expectations in getting
    international commitments?
        Secretary Moniz. So, first of all, LBNF and P5 LBNF, strong
    emphasis, it's the centerpiece. We're on the ramp up for LBNF
    and--which does remind one that we hope we don't end up in CR
    land again because things like these new projects--things that
    go up and go down don't go up in the CR world, so let's hope we
    can get to a budget that has priorities in it.
        In terms of international, I think the discussions are very
    encouraging. I've had discussions myself with two major
    countries in the last month, nothing you sign on the dotted
    line yet, but I think it's going well. And of course a critical
    piece is going to be the whole work with the EU and CERN----
        Mr. Hultgren. Yes.
        Secretary Moniz. --as a lead investor. But I'm very
    optimistic. There's a lot of excitement about this and this is
    going to be a great good.
        Mr. Hultgren. Well, thank you. That means a lot to us. I
    know it means a lot to the physics community. But any way we
    can be helpful, I do know this is something that pulls us
    together.
        Secretary Moniz. Great.
        Mr. Hultgren. Ranking Member Foster, Bill Foster and I and
    others obviously have met with you and our delegation about the
    importance of this and want to thank you for your role, and any
    way we can help with that, we certainly want to do that. My
    time is well past expired.
        Secretary Moniz. Thank you.
        Mr. Hultgren. Thank you.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Hultgren.
        And the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Foster, is recognized.
        Mr. Foster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you, Secretary Moniz, for appearing today to discuss
    DOE's science budget. And I look forward also to having
    hearings on the Republican budget proposal. But I also would
    like to thank Secretary Moniz for his work on the Iran nuclear
    deal.
        I have personally found the DOE extremely supportive in
    responding to Member requests for detailed briefings on this. I
    think I had more than a dozen classified briefings on this,
    many of them individual briefings, and I found--where I've had
    access to the DOE experts in weapons and nonproliferation. And
    so I just want to say that we really got our question answered
    in whatever detail we ask, and I want to thank you for that.
        I'd also like echo the sentiments of my colleague Mr.
    Hultgren and take the opportunity to thank you once again for
    meeting with the Illinois and South Dakota delegations of both
    the House and Senate to reiterate your support for the Long-
    Baseline Neutrino Facility. Your support for this is very much
    appreciated. I was somewhat disappointed to see that LBNF
    received less than they need to to move forward at full
    schedule, but I trust that you and DOE are still supportive of
    this project?
        Secretary Moniz. Oh, yes, and my impression is that the
    budget proposal will allow them to move forward quite nicely.
        Mr. Foster. Yes, the civil part was, I think, adequately
    funded. There was some--I think some of the approval is pending
    the international contribution----
        Secretary Moniz. Oh, yes, but again, Congressman Foster, no
    bones about it, I mean, this is a high-priority project, the
    highest-priority project certainly in particle physics.
        Mr. Foster. Yes.
        Secretary Moniz. And if I may add something----
        Mr. Foster. So your comments on the CR, I think, are very
    relevant----
        Secretary Moniz. Yes.
        Mr. Foster. --as well.
        Secretary Moniz. Yes. And if I may add, I just want to
    thank you for the interest you took in the Iran deal. Using
    your physics background was really important, and we really are
    appreciative.
        Mr. Foster. Thank you. I also want to thank you for your
    supportive words about Argonne's Advanced Photon Source to Mr.
    Lipinski, and I look forward to continuing to work with my
    colleagues to make sure that the APS upgrade has the necessary
    funds to complete the upgrade on time.
        I was pleased to be joined by 11 of my colleagues,
    Democrats and Republicans, on a letter to the Appropriations
    Committee in support of full funding for the APS upgrade, so
    that's on our radar screen as well.
        Let's see. One thing having to do with--you know, there's
    this report that's due out, I think, in May having to do with a
    way forward on ITER. And so I was wondering what sort of plan--
    we could find ourselves in one of two places on that, one--a
    positive indication of the letter will, I think, cause most
    people to think that the amount of money we're spending on ITER
    is too low to, you know, complete the project on the proposed
    schedule.
        On the other hand, if we decide to withdraw, I think that
    some money will have--rapidly have to be reprogrammed. And so
    in the context of a CR, that could be very painful either way
    you have to adjust it. I was wondering if there's contingency
    planning underway in DOE to understand how you'd respond to
    this?
        Secretary Moniz. I am just, in fact, kicking off exactly
    that kind of planning for the two possible directions because
    frankly, we're going to be quite compressed in time with the
    technical report and review in April and then the May 2 report
    due to the Congress. So I think we're going to have to stay
    close on this and respond appropriately.
        Certainly going forward, as you implied, the U.S.
    obligation of roughly nine percent of the project for both
    capital and operating is likely to require, you know, a
    significant increase in the scale of the fusion budget.
        Mr. Foster. And now to----
        Secretary Moniz. If one goes forward, I mean.
        Mr. Foster. And now to change subjects rather
    significantly, how much effort is being put into the use--to
    the prospect of using naval propulsion systems with, say, 20
    percent enriched uranium as a way to really--you know, if that
    became the international standard for things like naval
    propulsion? It would be very positive for nonproliferation. And
    how much effort are we putting into that?
        Secretary Moniz. I would say modest. It is being looked at,
    but it's in the early stages frankly because there's a major
    focus on, first, the new power plants for the Ford-class
    aircraft carriers, those are now done. The first one went
    critical last year, and the Ford will sail in the next few
    months. And now there's also the power plant for the next--the
    Ohio-class replacements to submarines----
        Mr. Foster. So are there alternative----
        Secretary Moniz. Yes.
        Mr. Foster. --designs being developed for the use of less
    enriched uranium or is that not likely to happen?
        Secretary Moniz. I would say there's early-stage work for a
    future generation potential LEU power plant.
        Mr. Foster. Okay. Well, thank you.
        I guess my time is expired, and I yield back.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Foster.
        And the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Westerman, is
    recognized for his questions.
        Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
    Secretary, for being here today.
        In the budget request for the Energy Efficiency and
    Renewable Energy, the proposed budget for the bioenergy program
    is increased by 24 percent and is largely focused on research
    and development on a drop in biofuels and algae feedstocks to
    lower the cost of biofuels without increasing the cost of food
    or disrupting agriculture.
        While the budget mentions the Biomass Research and
    Development Board, the collaborative effort with the U.S.
    Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Environmental
    Protection--or the Environmental Protection Agency to make sure
    efforts made across the government are coordinated, there is no
    mention of collaboration with the Forest Service to assess the
    biomass potential for our forests.
        So I've got a forestry degree and an engineering degree, so
    forestry and energy are two things that I like to talk about.
    And if we look just on federal lands last year, we had ten
    million acres of forest go up in smoke. If you put that on an
    energy equivalent using Forest Service data, that's a lot of
    BTUs converted back. And to put it in terms of something we
    understand, it's about 26 billion gallons of gasoline is the
    equivalent of the energy that went up on our national forests.
    That's about 19 percent of all the gasoline used in our country
    each year.
        So I'm going to go out to the Berkeley Lab and visit it
    later this week. I'm looking forward to that, and I hope
    they're going to tell me they're doing a lot of research on
    forest biomass to drop in fuels. But has the Department
    explored working with the Forest Service or our research
    universities to incorporate forest biomass into the DOE
    research and development portfolio?
        Secretary Moniz. Our program does work with the Forest
    Service on woody biomass. I'd have to check this, but I think
    we are spending something around $20 million in the woody
    biomass area. I'll have to check that. A large focus is on
    combustion, and I think co-firing and these kinds of things,
    some work on conversion to biofuels, but I can get back to you
    with a more detailed answer.
        But we do work with the Forest Service. We have a woody
    biomass program, and I'll get you the details.
        Mr. Westerman. And I'm familiar, you know, making pellets
    out of wood, which is not the most efficient way to use it----
        Secretary Moniz. Right.
        Mr. Westerman. --maybe, but if we're doing research on any
    kind of biomass, it seems like, you know, just on federal lands
    we had ten million acres burn up, and that doesn't even start
    to touch the amount of thinning that needs to be done on our
    federal forests. If you throw in private lands, the potential
    for a fuel source if we could come up with a feasible way to
    convert that to--or to a liquid fuel----
        Secretary Moniz. Liquid fuels, yes.
        Mr. Westerman. --it's tremendous. So it seems to me like it
    would be prudent to put more money into research biomass to
    biofuels.
        Secretary Moniz. Well, I was just told that, yes, $22
    million in woody biomass so--but why don't we get back to you
    with the program specifics.
        Mr. Westerman. Okay. I appreciate that.
        I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Westerman.
        And the gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, is
    recognized for her questions.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Secretary Moniz, welcome back to the Committee.
        Secretary Moniz. Thank you.
        Ms. Bonamici. My State of Oregon is a leader in the effort
    to establish a marine renewable energy industry in the United
    States, and we're proud to host the Department of Energy-funded
    Northwest National Marine Renewable Energy Center that's co-
    managed by Oregon State University, the University of
    Washington, and the University of Alaska Fairbanks. The center
    is working with the national labs and private sector technology
    developers to provide research and testing capabilities.
        In addition, Oregon State University is developing a DOE-
    funded offshore wave energy testing facility so innovators in
    the United States will have access to a domestic testing
    facility rather than going overseas.
        Now, I understand that the DOE estimates that up to 20
    percent of the electricity requirements of Oregon, along with
    California and Washington, could come from marine renewable
    energy resources. In places like Alaska and Hawaii, that could
    be up to 100 percent.
        Over the years, the wind and solar industries have received
    substantial and ongoing federal research and demonstration
    funding support. That's gone on for decades and it's resulted
    in the maturation, cost competitiveness, and rapid development
    and deployment of these technologies. The marine energy
    industry needs the same kind of sustained federal assistance to
    help private companies have that certainty they need to develop
    promising technologies that are really on the verge of
    commercial viability.
        So, Mr. Secretary, I've been an ongoing supporter of water
    power and the programs, so I've led appropriations letters and
    amendments requesting increase support for research.
        The fiscal year 2016 omnibus bill called for the creation
    of a new Water Power Technologies Office, so will you please
    provide an update on the efforts underway to set up the office
    and select a Director?
        And then also I wanted you to also address this issue. I
    appreciate including in the funding for fiscal year 2017 a
    request to continue the construction of an offshore wave energy
    test facility, but my understanding is that the amount of
    funding proposed by the Administration, along with the cost-
    share requirements, is not enough to construct a robust and
    sufficiently sized facility.
        So will you please also elaborate on the budget proposals
    requested funding level? Going forward, will the Department
    participate in discussions with interested stakeholders to
    develop a plan that will truly ensure successful deployment of
    this very promising wave energy test facility?
        Secretary Moniz. I think the answer is yes, certainly to
    the last question. So, as you indicated, I think the budget for
    marine and hydrokinetic is about a 25 percent increase proposed
    within the open water test facility as a central piece of that.
    Certainly my understanding is that that has been developed in
    considerable discussion with industry stakeholders in terms of
    what are these test requirements.
        In terms of the scale, I think the issue is that this
    budget in fiscal year 2017 would support the design phase
    leading them to a kind of go/no go decision in terms of actual
    construction. That's my understanding, but why don't I clarify
    that and will get back to on that?
        Ms. Bonamici. I appreciate that. And then was that in
    response to the Water Power Technologies Office?
        Secretary Moniz. Oh, again, if I may get back to you for
    the record on that because----
        Ms. Bonamici. Sure.
        Secretary Moniz. --to be honest, I'm not quite sure where
    that stands.
        Ms. Bonamici. All right. Thank you very much, Mr.
    Secretary, and I yield back.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici.
        The gentleman from Texas, Mr.----
        Secretary Moniz. Oh, I'm sorry. I was just given a note
    from--by my staff, if I may, that an announcement just went out
    for a new Director hiring for the water power program.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much.
        Secretary Moniz. I wasn't aware that. Thank you.
        Chairman Smith. Okay. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Babin,
    is recognized.
        Mr. Babin. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank
    you, Mr. Secretary, for being here.
        My question regards the fossil R&D budget proposal, which
    included a $240 million reduction of funds from the Clean Coal
    Power Initiative, or the CCPI projects to meet the total budget
    requirements for fiscal year 2017. This effectively pulled the
    remaining funding for the Texas Clean Energy Project, or TCEP,
    a coal gasification project with longstanding bipartisan
    support.
        At the same time the budget touts Mission Innovation funds
    within the fossil R&D program as ``doubling federal clean
    energy research and development investments.'' Does the
    administration no longer consider CCPI projects like the Summit
    Power Group's Texas Clean Energy Project 400 megawatt coal
    gasification plant as a ``clean'' energy? Isn't this just the
    sort of project that is exactly what the administration
    promised would be the result of Mission Innovation?
        It is my understanding that the company had every
    indication from DOE that they were moving forward, only to be
    told as the budget was released that the entirety of the
    remaining funding for the project was being repurposed in this
    year's proposal.
        I'm sure that you're aware that the Texas delegation sent
    out a bipartisan letter to you last week asking for specifics
    on the Department's interactions with TCEP. And without
    objection, Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter this letter into
    the record.
        Chairman Smith. Okay. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information appears in Appendix II]
        Mr. Babin. And can you provide any additional information,
    Mr. Secretary, on why this decision was made with practically--
    virtually no notice?
        Secretary Moniz. Yes, sir. First of all, I want to
    emphasize this was a programmatic choice, but you asked several
    questions. Number one is, yes, this is a Clean Energy Project,
    as are all of the carbon capture utilization and sequestration
    projects.
        Number two, we remain committed to having a strong program
    in this arena. And in fact, there are three large-scale capture
    projects that are either operating already or will be operating
    two more within a year. That includes the Petra Nova project in
    Texas with a coal combustion plant.
        The issue with the Summit project, the TCEP project, is
    that frankly, after a long time of us trying to support them--
    because, by the way, the program and I think this is a good
    project. I mean, it's--conceptually, it's a great project. The
    trouble is they've been unable to meet many of their key
    milestones.
        This discussion has been ongoing. They have had, I don't
    know, five or so transfers of phase 2 funding to phase 1. The
    program has gone out of its way to help. I personally was
    recruited to meet with the Chinese Exim Bank head twice. The
    program met in December with the CEO of the program. They asked
    for a financial plan. It was not forthcoming, and the program
    finally decided it was time to move on, giving, however, a no-
    cost extension to May to still give some time for the project
    to try to reach its milestones.
        So I think this has been an ongoing, longstanding
    discussion, and the fact of the matter is critical milestones
    are way overdue and are still not met.
        Mr. Babin. Okay. Well, I hear that, but one concerning
    thing is that the Department of Energy continually cites these
    failures to secure engineering and performance contracts as one
    of the major missed milestones, but in fact these contracts
    were publicly signed in December and January, and the December
    signing ceremony was in Beijing, even had DOE officials in
    attendance at that ceremony.
        Secretary Moniz. There has been EPC contract progress;
    partial, not complete, and the whole issue of financial close
    has certainly not been addressed. Again, we're not happy about
    it, but at some point the question was to move on, and in fact
    what the program is proposing is to repurpose those funds into
    new, innovative technologies at a smaller scale, chemical
    looping, oxy-combustion alternative approaches. So that's where
    the program has come down.
        Mr. Babin. Well, and I appreciate what you're saying.
    You're for the concept because the concept here, this project
    would store 90 percent of the CO2 emitted. And
    carbon capture and storage is something that I think is the
    goal of this administration and of your department.
        Secretary Moniz. And we do have three large demonstration
    projects that will do that as well.
        Mr. Babin. Okay. Thank you, and I yield back.
        Secretary Moniz. Yes.
        Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Babin.
        The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Veasey, is recognized.
        Mr. Veasey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary, I have similar questions that I want to ask
    you, but first, let me also take the time to submit a letter to
    the record regarding the Texas Clean Energy Project. The Texas
    Clean Air Task Force, Natural Resources Defense Council, the
    Great Plains Institute, Third Way, the Center for Climate and
    Energy Solutions also sent a letter of support praising the
    potential for CO2 capture.
        And also, Mr. Secretary, I wanted you to know that in
    addition to the Texas delegation letter of support that was
    just mentioned, the Washington State delegation and other
    environmental organizations will also be sending letters of
    support asking for DOE's consideration.
        Chairman Smith. Okay. And without objection, those letters
    will be made a part of the record.
        [The information appears on Appendix II]
        Mr. Veasey. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much.
        Also, Mr. Moniz, let me ask you about just being able to
    work with Congress to find a fair and transparent way to
    approach this project. And you just kind of--and you kind of
    touched on it a little bit but can you delve into that just a
    little bit more?
        Secretary Moniz. Well, as I said, I mean, the program,
    first of all, has taken many, many steps to help the project to
    be able to reach its goals. Most especially, financial closure
    has not happened. The--so the--but the program, again, gave the
    extension into May, the no-cost extension, to provide more
    time. If they were to meet milestones in that period,
    obviously, we would be going back to work with the project. But
    at some point we need performance.
        There's no--no one questions the desirability of the
    project as a project design, its objectives, its goals. That
    isn't the issue. But the program decided it was just time to
    move on and to invest in some new innovative technologies
    because of the lack of milestones being met.
        Chairman Smith. Would the gentleman from Texas yield just
    for a minute?
        Mr. Veasey. Yes.
        Chairman Smith. Secretary Moniz, just a follow-up on your--
    on that statement, it seems to me that in a budget of the size
    of the Department of Energy and with all the agreement we have
    on the necessity for research and development in certain areas,
    that the Department might be able to take another look at that
    project and find some additional funds. We're just talking
    about several million dollars on a yearly basis, and I hope the
    Secretary would consider doing that.
        Secretary Moniz. We will--okay. We will certainly--I will
    certainly go back and----
        Chairman Smith. Okay.
        Secretary Moniz. --talk with the program about that.
        Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I
    appreciate that.
        Thank you, Mr. Veasey.
        Mr. Veasey. Oh, absolutely, Mr. Chairman.
        Also, most of the questions I wanted to ask, they were
    already covered, but I did want to ask you just one more thing
    and that is about EOR, enhanced oil recovery. You know, with
    carbon capture being a part of the question that I asked you
    earlier, what do you think of the future of EOR?
        Secretary Moniz. Well, EOR is a--has been extremely
    important, as you--I think in--you may know there's a lot of
    CO2 flooding right now producing oil. The--a real
    issue has been the substantial drop in the oil price has made
    the EOR benefit less consequential for the overall economics.
    But the potential is dramatic.
        There's a report now, it's quite old, it's more than a
    decade old that said that, conceivably, the United States could
    reach two to three million barrels of oil per day from CO2
    flooding, and that would require hundreds of megatons of
    CO2 per year that would have to be found from
    commercial plants.
        Mr. Veasey. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
        Mr. Palmer. [Presiding] The Chair now recognizes Mr. Takano
    from Hawaii.
        Mr. Takano. California.
        Mr. Palmer. California, I'm sorry. Hawaii, California.
        Mr. Takano. That's the other Mr. Takano.
        Mr. Palmer. Sorry.
        Mr. Takano. Other Mr. Takei.
        Mr. Palmer. Takei. Okay. For five minutes.
        Mr. Takano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        First, Mr. Secretary, I want to thank you for being here.
    You know my own home State of California has a 1.3 gigawatt
    energy storage mandate, and utilities must procure 50 percent
    of their energy from renewables by 2030. As a Californian and
    the co-Chair of the bipartisan Battery Energy Storage Caucus, I
    am very interested in supporting this technology.
        It was recently announced that the Advanced Research Energy
    Projects-Energy, ARPA-E, made a big breakthrough in battery
    storage technology and have reached some holy grails in
    batteries. Can you talk a little bit about this breakthrough
    and how research and development dollars are so critical to
    fostering this type of high-risk technology?
        Secretary Moniz. Well, certainly, the--first of all,
    storage is a critical technology and potential game-changer, so
    we're all on the same page with that. And in fact in this
    budget there is substantial increased support for storage, both
    grid storage and mobile vehicle storage. The goals are--include
    things like doubling energy density while halving the costs, so
    they're pretty aggressive goals. I think we're making excellent
    progress towards them.
        And there are a variety of technologies being looked at. I
    think what you're referring to, I believe, is a flow battery
    advance that is still not quite at the holy grail but it's
    very, very, very encouraging.
        Mr. Takano. Great. I know you've already talked about
    renewable energy and the grid, and could you talk a little bit
    more about the Department of Energy's Grid Modernization
    Initiative, and what about--and what the grid of the future
    looks like? And how does the budget request help us get there?
        Secretary Moniz. So the Grid Modernization Initiative is
    the so-called crosscut that--for which we have the largest
    increase proposed because we think it is so central. We have a
    lot of infrastructures that depend upon the grid infrastructure
    for their operations. So it's absolutely central.
        So the Grid Modernization Initiative I would say at high
    level it certainly advances the technologies that one needs for
    a much more sophisticated set of sensors, IT data integration,
    real-time modeling of the grid for reliability and resilience
    and for connecting potentially very geographically diverse
    sources and loads. It will also go through the distribution
    system. We have a strong focus on the systems analysis, how do
    you put all of this together in a way that operates, again,
    emphasizing resilience and reliability.
        I might also add it will address the spectrum of risks from
    cyber to physical to geomagnetic disturbances. We have a
    program on EMP going on with Oak Ridge and EPRI, so it's a
    pretty comprehensive program looking at this grid of the
    future, which will need to serve in a very different way,
    particularly if distributed generation becomes a large part of
    the picture.
        Mr. Takano. Distributed generation meaning not so
    centralized?
        Secretary Moniz. The generation more at the load themselves
    like, for example, rooftop solar would be----
        Mr. Takano. That's a good example----
        Secretary Moniz. --a clear example----
        Mr. Takano. --of distributed----
        Secretary Moniz. Distributed generation. Right.
        Mr. Takano. You know, in light of the events--you mentioned
    kind of the different kinds of threats to the grid. In light of
    the events in the Ukraine where it appears that a coordinated
    cyber attack was successfully carried out on the country's
    electric grid, how is DOE prioritizing research in grid
    security?
        Secretary Moniz. Quite high. I mean, cybersecurity is a
    very, very serious threat, and I can say that the energy
    infrastructure is a target of many cyber attacks, and those are
    increasing year by year. So we have programs looking at new
    technology approaches. We have programs looking at working with
    the utilities directly in terms of their cyber defenses.
        Mr. Takano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time is up. Thank
    you.
        Mr. Palmer. Thank you.
        The Chair now recognizes Mr. Grayson from Florida.
        Mr. Grayson. Thank you. I'd like to ask you, Mr. Secretary,
    some big-picture questions about fusion energy. As it safe to
    say that fusion energy is possible? In other words, it's not a
    like a perpetual motion machine, it's not like traveling faster
    than the speed of light? It's possible that we could have
    sustainable fusion energy reactors, right?
        Secretary Moniz. Absolutely.
        Mr. Grayson. All right. So it's been 50 years since we
    started trying and we've spent, oh, probably more than $50
    billion trying to accomplish this. Why hasn't it happened yet?
        Secretary Moniz. It is extremely difficult. The--certainly
    in confined plasma approaches, you know, the kinds of
    temperatures and--that are reached are extraordinary and we
    have materials issues, we have instability issues, and while
    there has been a lot of progress in terms of increasing the
    density of plasmas, we're not anywhere near there. We've not
    achieved ignition whether it's in confined plasma or in ICF.
        Mr. Grayson. So what do we----
        Secretary Moniz. And I might add that ARPA-E did put out a
    program which tried to open up a new frontier in some sense
    intermediate between inertial confined fusion and magnetically
    confined plasmas.
        Mr. Grayson. And the status of that?
        Secretary Moniz. I'm sorry?
        Mr. Grayson. The status of that?
        Secretary Moniz. The work is--the awards were made last
    year, and they're typically three-year awards. The research is
    going on right now.
        Mr. Grayson. What percentage of the fusion budget is now
    being spent on ITER--the ITER project?
        Secretary Moniz. Well, the ITER--the appropriation this
    year for ITER is $115 million, and the total fusion budget--I
    forgot exactly but it's 200 and something. It's probably, I'm
    guessing, 40 percent, something like that.
        Mr. Grayson. All right. Maybe not putting all of our eggs
    in one basket but aren't we putting an awful lot of eggs in
    that one basket?
        Secretary Moniz. Well, certainly, it's a large fraction of
    the budget. It's actually below the nine percent that ITER
    calls for. As you know, we have a report due to Congress on May
    2 on making a recommendation on what path to take with ITER,
    and that will be based in turn, among other things, on a
    technical review report due in April. So I think, you know,
    obviously the Congress has called for a decision point, and in
    May we will be providing a report.
        Mr. Grayson. What would be some of the economic and social
    impacts if you were able to solve this problem, we had feasible
    fusion reaction?
        Secretary Moniz. Well, of course, I just want to emphasize
    that feasible here in the end does also require an economic
    test in terms of its being competitive in the--in a low-carbon
    marketplace. Certainly if that's the case, fusion has the
    advantage of not having some of the waste challenges that one
    has in fission, for example, and it could provide a major
    baseload power source.
        Mr. Grayson. What do you mean by the issue that you just--
    the waste? Be more specific about that, please.
        Secretary Moniz. Well, in fission the dominant part of the
    waste are the fission products that remain the challenge for a
    few hundred years typically. And so it's very, very radioactive
    and also very temperature hot as well, at least initially,
    whereas in fusion where one is dealing with very light
    elements, you do not have anything like the fission products.
    You clearly have materials that have been irradiated by
    neutrons, you know, that need to be D&D'ed at the end of the
    life of the reactor, but it's nothing like the long-term
    radioactivity of fission-spent fuel.
        Mr. Grayson. Do you picture the operating costs, not the
    capital costs but the operating costs of a fusion reactor to be
    high, low, or very, very low?
        Secretary Moniz. I just don't know until we see what the
    technology is. I just--as you said, it's been 50 years but I
    think we still can't answer that question.
        Mr. Grayson. Well, a couple decades ago NASA was running
    into a problem with giant white elephant projects, and they
    decided to go by a different route that they refer to as
    faster, better, and cheaper. Do you think that that tells us
    anything about where we should be going with fusion?
        Secretary Moniz. Well, first of all, there's no way around
    the fact that in fusion you're going to have to, one way or
    another, confine a nuclei in a challenging way.
        Now, what is interesting in my view is that there are about
    50 companies in the United States pursuing nuclear
    technologies, most of them fission but some of them fusion.
    Some of them have been prominently displayed on the front cover
    of a popular magazine, for example, two months ago.
        Mr. Grayson. All right. My time is up. Thank you.
        Secretary Moniz. Okay. Thank you.
        Mr. Palmer. I now recognize myself for questions. Mr.
    Moniz, in February of this year a report surfaced that you,
    along with other senior department officials, are using private
    email accounts to conduct official work-related business. Have
    you ever transmitted sensitive or classified information over
    your private email?
        Secretary Moniz. Certainly not, but I do need to clarify. I
    believe there's a little bit of a--just to make sure we're
    talking about the same thing. At DOE I have two accounts, one
    of which is ``my private account'' that I get emails directly
    to and another which is, frankly, the public-facing account,
    which gets screened by the Executive Secretary. So--the--but
    those are both DOE accounts.
        On the occasions when--if I get an email to my personal,
    personal account that's relevant to DOE business, I copy it to
    the government accounts so that there's a record of all--of
    everything.
        Mr. Palmer. So you're testifying that you've got two
    official accounts----
        Secretary Moniz. At DOE----
        Mr. Palmer. --at DOE----
        Secretary Moniz. --correct.
        Mr. Palmer. --and that occasionally you've used your
    personal account? Have you ever transmitted classified--
        Secretary Moniz. Absolutely not.
        Mr. Palmer. --sensitive data over your personal account?
        Secretary Moniz. Absolutely not. And everything----
        Mr. Palmer. Right.
        Secretary Moniz. And everything is--if that comes in--
    mostly coming-in mail, then I copy it and any response into my
    DOE--in my DOE account----
        Mr. Palmer. Do----
        Secretary Moniz. --so there'll be a complete government
    record.
        Mr. Palmer. Do other members of--or officials in the
    Department of Energy use personal email accounts to your
    knowledge?
        Secretary Moniz. To my knowledge, no. Again, with--no, at
    least not--if--again, we can't avoid receiving an email----
        Mr. Palmer. Right.
        Secretary Moniz. --but then the direction is everything has
    to be copied to the government account.
        Mr. Palmer. Well, that's interesting because the--are you
    aware of this report about federal agencies and particularly
    DOE and FERC using personal emails for business?
        Secretary Moniz. My understanding--I've not seen the
    report, but my understanding is that was this confusion over
    having the two emails----
        Mr. Palmer. Well, it's not just you----
        Secretary Moniz. --in DOE.
        Mr. Palmer. --it's some of the officials at DOE.
        Secretary Moniz. To my knowledge, no one is using personal
    email for government business without having it in the
    government record.
        Mr. Palmer. Without having it in the government record.
    Title 44 covers that and requires that if you do use a personal
    email account that you've got to copy that to your government
    account within 20 days. Do you have a policy to ensure that any
    employee who may use a personal email account complies with the
    law?
        Secretary Moniz. I--well, I assume since it's the law that
    it is a policy, but I'd have to check with general counsel in
    terms of how explicitly we have that. But I can assure you with
    me it's 20 seconds.
        Mr. Palmer. That's very reassuring, and we're all grateful
    for that.
        Secretary Moniz. Right.
        Mr. Palmer. I do think, though, that considering the
    reports that are out there and considering what's going on in
    other agencies and it is going on in other agencies--and the
    reason I bring this up is that we've had this come up with--I'm
    on the Oversight Committee. It's come up with this. One of the
    things that I'm trying to do is ensure that we protect our
    information systems and particularly our most sensitive
    information systems.
        As we've had some discussions here--I think Mr. Grayson
    raised this about some of the things--or I think it was you
    that says it shows up in some of the Popular Science or
    whatever magazines. But there are some things that need to be
    protected, and----
        Secretary Moniz. And, sir, I'm happy, by the way--I'll go
    back and check with the counsel, and we're happy to reinforce
    the guidelines to everyone. Again, I don't know of any issue,
    but we can reinforce that.
        Mr. Palmer. Well, the reason I'm bringing this up is that
    the same information that we had made the claim that there was
    a FOIA request that the department officials declined to
    respond to because it involved information transmitted over
    your private email account. Now, private email account, can you
    distinguish between the two accounts that you have at the
    Department of Energy? Is--one of those might be considered a
    private account versus your personal email account?
        Secretary Moniz. The--again, the--one account at the
    Department of Energy is private in the sense that that----
        Mr. Palmer. Okay.
        Secretary Moniz. --email address is certainly not available
    to the public, but it is a government account. It is completely
    a government account.
        Mr. Palmer. Are you aware of anyone in your department
    refusing to comply with a FOIA request?
        Secretary Moniz. I am not aware of it, no. I'd have to
    check with the General Counsel.
        Mr. Palmer. Can you check with the General Counsel and get
    back with us----
        Secretary Moniz. Yes.
        Mr. Palmer. --and we can submit some very specific
    questions that you can respond to. So we would like to know
    whether or not there had been a FOIA request that involved any
    of your email accounts in which the Department did not respond.
    And so if you could do that, we'll get the questions to you,
    and we'd like an answer, I think, within 10 days. Would that be
    sufficient?
        Secretary Moniz. I would think so. I will--again, I'll talk
    to my counsel.
        Mr. Palmer. Okay.
        Secretary Moniz. Yes.
        Mr. Palmer. Well, I'd like to thank the witness for his
    testimony and the members for their questions. The record will
    remain open for two weeks for additional written comments and
    written questions from members.
        This hearing is adjourned.
        Secretary Moniz. Thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 12:06 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                                   Appendix I

                                  ----------

                       Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  Appendix II

                                  ----------

                       Additional Material for the Record

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]