    [House Hearing, 115 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                           ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT
                             APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2018

    _______________________________________________________________________

                                     HEARINGS

                                     BEFORE A

                               SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                           COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                             HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                          ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                  FIRST SESSION

                                ____________

                  SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT,
                              AND RELATED AGENCIES

                       MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho, Chairman

      KEN CALVERT, California                        MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
      CHARLES J. FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee              PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
      JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska                     DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
      KAY GRANGER, Texas                             PETER AGUILAR, California
      JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington              JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
      DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio
      DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington

      NOTE: Under committee rules, Mr. Frelinghuysen, as chairman of the
    full committee, and Mrs. Lowey, as ranking minority member of the full
    committee, are authorized to sit as members of all subcommittees.

               Donna Shahbaz, Angie Giancarlo, Loraine Heckenberg,
                           Perry Yates, and Amy Murphy
                                Subcommittee Staff

                                   ___________

                                      PART 5

                                                                       Page

      Testimony of Interested Members of Congress ....................    1

      Testimony of Interested Individuals and Organizations ..........  121

      U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Civil Works)
      and Bureau of Reclamation ......................................  323

      Department of Energy............................................  409

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                             _________

              Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

                             _________

                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

      28-306              WASHINGTON: 2018

                          COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                                    ----------
                 RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey, Chairman

      HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky \1\             NITA M. LOWEY, New York
      ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama             MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
      KAY GRANGER, Texas                      PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
      MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho               JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
      JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas             ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
      JOHN R. CARTER, Texas                   DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
      KEN CALVERT, California                 LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
      TOM COLE, Oklahoma                      SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
      MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida              BARBARA LEE, California
      CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania           BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
      TOM GRAVES, Georgia                     TIM RYAN, Ohio
      KEVIN YODER, Kansas                     C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
      STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas                  DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
      JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska              HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
      THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida               CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
      CHARLES J. FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee       MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
      JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington       DEREK KILMER, Washington
      DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio                    MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania
      DAVID G. VALADAO, California            GRACE MENG, New York
      ANDY HARRIS, Maryland                   MARK POCAN, Wisconsin
      MARTHA ROBY, Alabama                    KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts
      MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada                  PETE AGUILAR, California
      CHRIS STEWART, Utah
      DAVID YOUNG, Iowa
      EVAN H. JENKINS, West Virginia
      STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
      DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
      JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
      SCOTT TAYLOR, Virginia
      ----------
      \1\}Chairman Emeritus

                       Nancy Fox, Clerk and Staff Director

                                       (ii)

     ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                      2018

                                  ----------

                                              Wednesday, March 8, 2017.

                                  MEMBERS' DAY

        Mr. Simpson. The hearing will come to order, and today we
    have a Members' hearing for Members of the Congress to come
    testify before--sorry, I didn't put it on. Today we have a
    Members hearing for Members to come and testify before Congress
    about areas of importance in the Energy and Water Appropriation
    bill, and we are happy to welcome all Members of Congress that
    have comments to make and suggestions for us.
        We are happy to welcome two Members today, Rick Nolan from
    Minnesota, and Francis Rooney from Florida.
        Rick, it is your time to give us our testimony. The floor
    is yours.
                                  ----------

                                              Wednesday, March 8, 2017.

                                    WITNESS

    HON. RICHARD M. NOLAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
        MINNESOTA
        Mr. Nolan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members of
    the committee, and thank you for all the great work you have
    done.
        Mr. Simpson. Turn your mic on, please.
        Mr. Nolan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, members
    of the committee, for hearing from us, and thank you for all
    the great work that this committee has done for this country.
    Much appreciated.
        I wanted to just briefly talk about the Poe Lock at the Soo
    Narrows, and I am sure you are probably familiar with it, but I
    do want to remind you that about a year-and-a-half, 2 years
    ago, Homeland Security did a study, and they found that 13
    percent of the Nation's gross national product goes through the
    locks at the Soo Narrows, and that is how all the mining in
    business and agriculture and industry from Lake Superior gets
    into the Great Lakes and into the Saint Lawrence Seaway.
    Thirteen percent of Nation's gross national product goes
    through those locks.
        And Homeland Security concluded, among other things, that
    if those locks failed us for any reason, it would throw the
    country into a great depression, put as many as 7 to 10 million
    people out of work, and countless businesses out of business,
    not just throughout the midwest, but as far west as California
    and as far east as New York, and as far south as Florida and
    Texas.
        Why? Well, much of that product that goes through there is
    ore from the mines in Minnesota, Wisconsin; and they, of
    course, fuel the steel mills of the Great Lakes which, in turn,
    fund the--or supply the automobile industry and all the
    manufacturing and industries throughout the Great Lakes region.
    It is a very, very powerful part of our country. In fact, the
    study concluded that the economy of the Great Lakes, if it were
    a nation by itself, would be the fourth most powerful economic
    nation in the world.
        So that is why we have military protection at the Soo Locks
    to protect us against some kind of, you know, terrorist or
    asymmetrical military attack. But the simple truth is, the
    locks are becoming very, very obsolete, and badly in need of
    repair. They are not large enough to accommodate the--today's
    most modern Lakers, the ships that haul so much of the grain
    and the iron ore, and they are badly and desperately in need of
    replacement. The price tag is enormous. It is estimated to be
    as much as $600 million to replace that Poe Lock, which is
    falling apart, and to create a redundancy and a support of lock
    to keep that commerce flowing throughout the country.
        I want to applaud this committee for appropriating $1.35
    million to do a cost-and-feasibility analysis so that we could
    get on with repairing this critically important part of our
    national security and our national economy, but bring to the
    attention of the committee the profound need to begin the
    process of funding this new lock, which is so critical to our
    economy, so that we can protect ourselves, continue to protect
    ourselves from a military attack, from natural disaster, or
    something we are totally in control of which is protect
    ourselves against negligence, and not stepping up to do the
    kinds of replacements and repairs that are necessary.
        So beyond that, Mr. Chairman, I won't take a whole lot of
    your time. I want to thank you for the work that you have done
    on invasive species as well. Up in my district in particular,
    we have the Mississippi watershed, we have the St. Louis
    watershed going into the Great Lakes, we have the Rainy Lake
    watershed going up into the boundary waters. We are water rich,
    and among other things, we need to protect that and protect
    ourselves from the multitude of invasive species that threaten
    the health of our fish and wildlife and waters.
        So thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Be glad to take any
    questions any of you might have, and thank you for the work
    that you do here. It is very important to our country, our
    economy, and I would hope that this could be part of President
    Trump's $1 trillion infrastructure plan. It certainly needs to
    be considered.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Congressman. Does any member have
    any questions? Ms. Kaptur.
        Ms. Kaptur. You know I can't let this moment go by.
        Mr. Simpson. I knew that.
        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
    Representative Nolan. What an outstanding representative you
    are, including for the Great Lakes, and I just wanted to ask
    you: Obviously, I am a great supporter of the study that is--we
    have funded, but I wondered if you have been privy, as a
    representative from Duluth, of any engineering studies that may
    have been done by the private sector that talk about the future
    of the seaway as a modern seaway. It was built during the
    Eisenhower era. It is over a half century old now.
        In terms of the width of the locks, right now you mention
    in your testimony, 13 Lakers heavily involved in the steel
    industry hauling ore, but what would be the proper width? What
    would be the proper dimension of the seaway from your region on
    down all the way to Messina? Have you seen such an engineering
    study to modernize the seaway?
        Mr. Nolan. Well, I have seen some of them. I can tell you
    right now, that the Lakers are operating at only about 80
    percent of capacity just because there has not been enough
    money put into the necessary dredging programs, and the locks
    are not even capable of handling the larger Lakers or the next
    generation of Lakers, and this is costing our country, oh, my
    gosh, the estimates are, you know, up into the billions of
    economic growth and income to the country.
        So I should know this, but is this committee responsible
    for the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund?
        Mr. Simpson. Yes.
        Mr. Nolan. Well, that is what I thought, and you know, I
    think there is a balance in there of about $7 billion, and we
    all applaud bipartisanship, and to be sure, we should. I must
    say, there are cases where bipartisanship is not necessarily so
    good, because I think both Democrats and Republicans have
    raided that fund for other purposes.
        So I would strongly urge the committee, when it comes to
    that Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, to see to it that more of
    those monies, which are paid for by the Lakers, that is a use
    tax, to maintain and upgrade the Great Lakes seaway system,
    which has just fallen terribly far behind, and I would strongly
    urge you to use your authority here to make sure that more of
    those Harbor Maintenance Trust Funds are dedicated to what they
    were established for, which is maintaining the Great Lakes
    seaway system. It is so vital to our economy and our well-being
    and the creation of good-paying jobs in this country.
        Ms. Kaptur. I thank you for making that linkage, and also
    just to say, in closing, that if you have recommendations of
    firms, of studies, of individuals on the engineering side that
    could meet with our Great Lakes task force and provide
    information to this committee, this subcommittee, I think I
    would be very appreciative of that.
        We have our regular big meeting in May coming up, but I
    think we need have a vision of the seaway and where the locks
    you referenced fit. But there is a bigger vision that, I think,
    actually, this committee has not been apprised of and of
    options, and other places in the country are much better
    organized, speaking very frankly, in terms of a vision for how
    to modernize their coastal ports or their regional assets, and
    I think that we need stronger voices, and yours is one of
    those. So I would just urge you to help us pull together that
    information in a coherent manner, and I thank you very much for
    your testimony.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence and the
    committee's indulgence.
        Mr. Simpson. Any other members have any question?
        Yeah, and I appreciate your point now. I think it is about
    $9 billion that is in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. We
    haven't used it for anything else. We can't use it within our
    budget, which is kind of weird, because of budget rules and
    what it would do to our overall budget and stuff, so we have
    got to find a way around that.
        The Transportation Committee tried to do that last year and
    was kind of shot down on it, but we are working on it. That is
    something we still need to do, because you shouldn't be
    collecting a tax to address a need and just growing more and
    more money in that if you are not addressing the need. That is
    something this committee recognizes, and we need to get
    Congress to recognize that also. So I appreciate your
    testimony, and thank you for being here today.
        Mr. Nolan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
    committee.
        Mr. Simpson. Mr. Rooney.
                                  ----------                              --

                                              Wednesday, March 8, 2017.

                                    WITNESS

    HON. FRANCIS ROONEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
        FLORIDA
        Mr. Rooney. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
    committee for giving me the opportunity to speak today about
    the Everglades as well as for all of the important things you
    have done in the past for the Everglades for so many important
    infrastructure projects in the country.
        The Everglades and Lake Okeechobee watershed include 16
    counties and 164 cities. It has a $2 trillion economic impact
    on the State of Florida, and supports 55 percent, 1.3 trillion
    of the real estate value in Florida. For every dollar invested
    in the Everglades and Okeechobee watershed, $4 of economic
    benefits are produced.
        Due to a century of development, the greater Everglades'
    ecosystem is now less than one-half of its original size. The
    rest of it is Miami and Ft. Lauderdale now, and Lake Okeechobee
    fills up six times faster than it can be drained, which results
    in massive discharges into the adjacent rivers and marshes, and
    sends untreated water down into them.
        It also impacts the delicate balance of fresh and saline
    water in the ecosystem. The Comprehensive Everglades
    Restoration Plan, or CERP, seeks to restore the balance to
    these delicate ecosystems and reduce harmful discharges in the
    Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie estuaries and send clean water
    south into the marshes of the Everglades of Florida Bay.
        CERP was created by the Congress in the State of Florida in
    2000. It includes 68 projects that will combine to create
    storage, treatment, and flow southward into the marshes of the
    Everglades; storage and treatment of water entering into Lake
    Okeechobee from the north, and you all have funded the
    Kissimmee restoration, which is a big part of that; and
    balancing of the flows to control salinity. CERP was set up to
    share the cost 50/50 between the State and the Federal
    Government, and as of December 2016, the State had expended
    about $2.2 billion, and the Federal Government had contributed
    about $1.26 billion, so it is a 63 to 37 percent split instead
    of 50/50, and so we think that the Federal Government has some
    catching up to do if we could get the money.
        In fact, there are three projects that were authorized way
    back in the 19--in the 2007 WRRDA bill, which are still
    incomplete, the site 1 impoundment over by Palm Beach in the
    Loxahatchee Wildlife Refuge, the Picayune Strand project in
    Collier County, and the Indian River Lagoon, or C-44, along the
    St. Lucie Canal. The cost to complete these three projects is
    $3.3 billion, most of which is centered in the C-44 basin.
        Additionally, there are four projects from the 2014 WRRDA
    bill which have not been completed; the C-43 West Storage Basin
    in LaBelle; the C-111 Spreader Canal on the east side of
    Miami--west side of the Miami, and what this will do is keep
    Miami pollution from seeping back into the Everglades from the
    east; the Broward County water preserve area; and the Biscayne
    Bay Coastal Wetlands project. You can see they are all around
    the lake; it is not just centered in one area. Each of these
    projects is essential to completing the whole mosaic of
    restoring the watershed and the Everglades.
        The cost to complete these projects is $1.7 billion, but
    the State of Florida will pay $800 million of that to complete
    C-43. It is worth noting how robust and vibrant is the
    partnership between South Florida Water Management and the U.S.
    Army Corps of Engineers. It is a great example of two areas of
    government working very well together. In the case of C-43,
    there were no Federal appropriations, so the State decided to
    go ahead and do the whole thing, and hopefully the Federal
    Government can catch up on some of these other projects that
    would offset that.
        The 2016 WRRDA bill contained several new CERP
    authorizations, one of which is the Central Everglades Planning
    Project, which is six projects for $1.9 billion, which
    constructs a whole series of projects to bring 210,000-acre
    feet of Lake Okeechobee water down into the Everglades into
    storage treatment basins, and then into the water conservation
    areas and down into the national park.
        The CERP includes several features, including backfilling
    of some canals that impede the flow of the water, and removing
    of some old levees and roads, and construction of a 15,000-acre
    foot Flow Equalization Basin, just west of an existing one that
    was recently built by the State of Florida. The one that was
    built by the State of Florida was taking in water of 400 parts
    per billion of dissolved pollutants, mostly phosphates, and
    turning it out at 10 or 12. So these are very effective
    devices, and so this is a great opportunity to expand that.
        The second WRRDA authorization project is to finish the
    Picayune Strand. That is a 55,000-acre of drained wetlands in
    Collier County, which also has flood control aspects of
    draining several neighborhoods to the north and it is last 133
    million of that.
        So and lastly, in addition to these projects, the Corps is
    responsible for the repair and replacement of the Hoover Dike,
    which was built in the 1930s to prevent some of the terrible
    floods that happened then. And it wasn't constructed all that
    well. Construction back then was done differently than
    constructions done now, and the Corps has done the first 40
    miles, and there is about two-thirds left to complete. That is
    $800 million.
        So basically, the Corps has supplied a high of $120 million
    back in 2010, and we are down to a low of, like, $69 million
    last year, so we are hoping that we can continue to demonstrate
    how important these projects are, and that we try to keep them
    moving forward to the extent that the committee can fit that
    into your, I know, very difficult work schedule and great
    demands for your money, but I appreciate your time today. Thank
    you very much.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Simpson. Thank you. I appreciate you, Congressman
    Rooney. Questions?
        Ms. Kaptur. No questions. I just thank Representative
    Rooney for being such an articulate spokesman for the
    Everglades and for your region. You really fight for her. Your
    constituents are fortunate.
        Ms. Rooney. Thank you, ma'am.
        Mr. Calvert. Thanks for coming down. I am looking forward
    to entertaining you there and check it out.
        Mr. Simpson. This committee has a lot to do with it, too.
    Obviously, from the Interior Subcommittee, so both the
    committee--the Interior Committee have a lot to do with funding
    the restoration of the Everglades and trying to get it back
    into shape, and we will be down there as soon as you get rid of
    those pythons.
        Mr. Rooney. We might have to get you down sooner than that,
    Mr. Simpson.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
        Mr. Rooney. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Joyce. Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Simpson. Mr. Joyce.
        Mr. Joyce. I would like to point out that I had the
    opportunity to go down and tour with the Everglades Foundation,
    and they have the same algal water problem, algal blooms, that
    we suffer in Lake Erie, and there are a lot of good projects
    that are being done, and so any way we could help Congressman
    Rooney along these lines would be, I am sure, deeply
    appreciated by the people down there.
        It is hard to fathom that they push out a half trillion
    gallons of freshwater into the ocean every year because they
    can't contain it in the Everglades, and as we all know, those
    are nature's kidneys, so the more we can do to help them, the
    better off the Everglades will be.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate you being
    here today, Congressman Rooney.
        Congressman Comer.
                                  ----------                              --
    --------

                                              Wednesday, March 8, 2017.

                                    WITNESS

    HON. JAMES COMER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
        KENTUCKY
        Mr. Comer. Thank you. Chairman Simpson, Ranking Member
    Kaptur, thank you for the opportunity to testify regarding the
    fiscal year 2018 Energy and Water Development and Related
    Agencies Appropriations bill. I testify to urge adequate
    funding for two very important projects to the First District
    of Kentucky, the Paducah Department of Energy cleanup site, and
    the Kentucky Lock Addition Project.
        First, I ask this committee to fully fund the Paducah
    Department of Energy cleanup site. As you may know, in 1959,
    the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant opened to support this
    country's nuclear weapons program, and later transitioned to
    produce nuclear fuel for commercial power plants. Because of
    this work, significant amounts of contaminated soil and
    groundwater remain at the site. Deactivation and cleanup work
    began in July 2014, and while much progress has been made,
    there is still much work yet to do.
        Funding closer to the fiscal year 2014 level is imperative
    to allow the Department of Energy to accelerate the C-400
    building cleanout project, which is connected to hazards
    associated with historic groundwater contamination.
        Second, I ask this committee to adequately fund the Army
    Corps of Engineers' construction account to continue the work
    of upgrading our waterways infrastructure. The Kentucky Lock
    Addition Project in my district is an example of a much-needed
    project that would benefit from adequate funding for Corps
    construction.
        The Kentucky Lock Addition Project was authorized in the
    Water Resources Development Act of 1996. This project includes
    design and construction of a new 110-by-1200 lock to be located
    landward of the existing 110-by-600 lock. Products originated--
    originating from or designated to 20 States pass through
    Kentucky Lock.
        Since most of the tows are greater than 600 feet in length,
    they must perform a very time-consuming double lockage to
    transit through the existing 600-foot--600-foot long Kentucky
    Lock. As a result, Kentucky Lock has some of the longest
    average delay times of any lock in the inland waterway system,
    with the average delay of over 8 hours.
        Recently, the Inland Waterways User Board learned that the
    total project cost would increase by $380 million to $1.2
    billion due to the uncertainty of sufficient funding. Without
    sufficient funding, the expected completion date of 2024 will
    add at least 5 years.
        Therefore, I respectfully request that the U.S. Army Corps
    of Engineers' construction account receive sufficient funding
    to avoid delays to completion of projects like the Kentucky
    Lock Addition and escalating project prices.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and if
    anyone has any questions, I will be happy to answer them.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

           Mr. Simpson. Thank you for being here today and testifying
    on these programs.
        Are there any questions? Mr. Newhouse.
        Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to say
    that I appreciate Mr. Comer's bringing to our attention the
    nuclear waste issues that you have in your district. I can
    certainly relate to the challenges and the importance of
    nuclear waste cleanup. We have a similar situation in my own
    district, and I just wanted to thank you for pointing that out,
    and also talking about the urgency of getting that kind of work
    done.
        Mr. Comer. Thank you.
        Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Simpson. Any further questions? Hearing none, thank you
    for being here today. We appreciate it very much.
        Mr. Comer. Thank you for your hard work.
        Mr. Simpson. We are waiting for our next witnesses that--we
    have some breaks in the schedule as people decided not to
    testify, originally signed up and a few things like that, so we
    are kind of waiting for the next ones to show up here, but let
    me just take a moment to welcome the three new members that are
    here to our subcommittee. Congressman Newhouse from Washington,
    Congressman Joyce, and Congressman Aguilar, thank you for being
    here today, and you will find this is an interesting committee
    when we get into a lot of these different subjects and stuff
    that a lot of people don't know a lot about, so----
        Mr. Newhouse. Thank you.
        Mr. Joyce. Thank you.
        Mr. Simpson. If nothing else, we will take a brief pause--
    --
        Mr. Calvert. Have a donut.
        Mr. Simpson. Have a donut--for the others to show up.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Simpson. Okay. The committee will be back in order. We
    now welcome to--we are now happy to welcome Mr. Panetta from
    California to testify before the committee. The floor is yours
    for 5 minutes.
                                  ----------                              --
    --------

                                              Wednesday, March 8, 2017.

                                    WITNESS

    HON. JIMMY PANETTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
        CALIFORNIA
        Mr. Panetta. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
    that, Ranking Member Kaptur, other members of the committee.
    Thank you very much for this opportunity. I appreciate it. It
    is an honor to be here, as always.
        As many of you know or may not know, my family, I represent
    California's 20th Congressional District on the central coast.
    My family has deep roots in that area. My grandfather, an
    Italian immigrant, came to that area, my father was raised in
    that area, I was raised in that area, and now it is where my
    wife and I raise our two daughters. I am proud of that area not
    only because it is my home, but because I feel it has the most
    beautiful environment as well as the most bountiful
    agriculture.
        With both those traits, as you can imagine, we are
    constantly trying to find a balance, environmentally,
    economically, obviously politically, and with both those
    qualities, though, we are also trying to find effective water
    infrastructure, which is critical to that area. It ensures the
    environmental protection and it--which facilitates the economic
    activity of that area.
        And so today, I want to bring to your attention an ongoing
    Army Corps of Engineering project that does threaten the safety
    of the residents of a certain area in my district and the
    viability of the agricultural businesses of that same area. It
    is the Pajaro River Project. That consists of a series of
    levees built to protect the cities of Watsonville and Pajaro
    from flooding. Originally, these towns were settled by a large
    Croatian, Japanese, and Italian immigrant communities who came
    there to work the land, and yes, like my grandfather, to live
    the American dream.
        Today, immigrants, mainly of Latino descent, continue to
    come to this area, work in the fields, and yes, contribute to
    our community. The Pajaro River Project was originally
    constructed in 1949 to protect the people of those communities.
    However, the Corps and the community have recognized that that
    project's flood protection has been inadequate. Watsonville
    only has a 25-year flood protection, and the town of Pajaro
    only has a 7-year protection.
        The levees have received a patchwork of repairs over the
    years, but that does not address the necessary flood
    protection, nor does it safeguard the citizens from harm, and
    even the Corps has estimated that there is an 82 percent threat
    of flood in the next decade.
        One of the most glaring examples of this type of threat was
    in 1995, where there was a large flood that dramatically
    impacted the locals in that area. It resulted in over $95
    million in damage to the surrounding communities, and hundreds
    of people were displaced as a result of it.
        One local who was personally impacted by that flood was a
    rose grower named Eugene Tsugi, T-s-u-g-i. His business, 2G
    Roses, was inundated with floodwaters. His home, as well as his
    sister's home, were damaged by floodwater. In fact, the damages
    that he sustained were well over $1 million. He used to joke
    that his son, who was born 2 days after the flood, would go to
    college before the levees in that area were repaired.
        Well, unfortunately, due to a lack of action by the Army
    Corps of Engineers, that prediction was true. His son today is
    now an All American gymnast and a junior at the University of
    Washington near Seattle.
        In 2015, the Pajaro Project was incorporated into the Corps
    3 years SMART planning timeline, with a deadline of March 2018
    for the completion of a feasibility study, and environmental
    impact statement. The Corps has failed to keep the project on
    schedule. Though the locals have fronted 3.2 million to date to
    keep the project moving, the project is still an estimated 18
    months behind schedule. It is an ongoing threat to the
    community. In the last 8 months, the community has spent 1.5
    million on emergency damage response.
        The local non-Federal sponsors would like to keep this
    project moving, but they feel the Corps are not responsive, and
    it continues to be a threat to the safety of its local
    residents. Although last month, I met with Major General
    Jackson from the Army Corps to discuss the delays associated
    with this project, I found him to be very responsive. In fact,
    he is going to be traveling to the district to witness the
    project firsthand, and I hope that he sees the communities
    affected by the flooding, and he gets to hear from individuals
    who have suffered the damages from flooding, either to the
    property, and especially the agricultural businesses.
        So today, I ask the committee for continued funding for
    these water projects. It is an investment in these projects
    that are critical for the communities who rely on them for
    safety and economic prosperity. When making these investments,
    we should ensure that we are holding the Corps accountable to
    their own timelines. I urge the inclusion of report language
    requiring the Corps to provide an update on the current status
    and timeline moving forward of all projects subject to the 3-
    year SMART planning criteria within 90 days of the passage of
    this act. This would allow for increased oversight for the
    committee, while also increasing the accountability to local
    non-Federal sponsors.
        To ensure that the value of agriculture land is
    appropriately calculated when conducting cost-benefit analysis,
    more work is needed. Agricultural land in the Pajaro Valley is
    some of the most valuable in the county. When flooding, these
    farms often miss multiple growing seasons as they address
    environmental and flood safety concerns.
        I have heard from locals that they believe that their
    agricultural land has been undervalued because the only value
    of the physical crop damage was accounted for. I also urge the
    inclusion of report language directing the Corps to incorporate
    the full economic value of agricultural land when completing
    its cost-benefit analysis.
        This would make projects in rural communities more
    competitive for adoption into the Corps work plan by more
    accurately valuing the economic impact of agricultural
    production.
        I thank you for your time. I look forward to working with
    you to advance the health, safety, and economic liability of
    our rural communities depending on these investments and our
    water infrastructure. Thank you.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Congressman. I appreciate you being
    here today and bringing us up to speed on what is happening in
    your area per your request.
        Are there any questions?
        Mr. Aguilar. Congressman, what crops are at risk directly?
    What is the kind of the primary--I know there is a lot, a lot
    there, but can you give us a bit of flavor?
        Mr. Panetta. Of course. Look, in that area, it is the salad
    bowl of the world, as you know, Pete. It is an area that has,
    you name it, we got it. Strawberries are the main crop in that
    area, brussel sprouts, raspberries, artichokes, leafy greens,
    spinach, you know, I can go on and on. There is over--that area
    has over 100 crops. More crops on the central coast are grown
    than any other single State. These are areas that basically
    feed the Nation. It puts these types of crops onto the shelves
    of our stores, and eventually onto the tables that our
    families--so our families can eat it.
        Mr. Aguilar. Thank you
        Mr. Simpson. You had me till you said brussel sprouts. Ken
    and I argue about the value of brussel sprouts all the time. If
    there are no other questions, thank you for being here today.
    We appreciate it appearing before the committee.
        Mr. Newhouse. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to say that Mr.
    Calvert, I am sure, would lead a trip. This is a very terrible
    place in the world to visit at any given point.
        Mr. Simpson. I understand it is fairly ugly, too.
        Mr. Aguilar. Yes, so it might deserve some more thought.
        Mr. Newhouse. Mr. Chairman, just one short question.
        Mr. Simpson. Mr. Newhouse.
        Mr. Newhouse. I appreciate that. Thank you. First of all, I
    wanted to compliment your constituents' excellent choice of
    looking north for quality education, but in light--and thank
    you for your effort to preserve valuable farmland in the State
    of California. In light of all the precipitation that we have
    gotten in the West Coast this year, is that exacerbating the
    problem as far as the flood concerns are right there in that
    area?
        Mr. Panetta. You know, the obvious answer is yes, there is
    no doubt about that. But it is funny, during last year, you
    know, I went to a meeting where hundreds of community members
    showed up before the rains, and it has been an ongoing issue
    with them. So it is not just the rains that have highlighted
    this issue. This is something that if you live in that area, if
    you work in that area, if you do agriculture in this area, you
    know the risk that it can pose to that area.
        And so, yes, it is obviously highlighted. They had to put
    $1.5 million in damage repair because of the flooding that we
    experienced, but this is going to keep on going and going if it
    is not fixed any time soon.
        Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Simpson. I will say this, Congressman Farr, your
    predecessor, approached me even a couple of years ago about
    this while it was not all these heavy rains and everything was
    not the issue. It was that there was no water at the time, but
    he still recognized the problem that we had there, so thank you
    for carrying on on that.
        Mr. Panetta. You bet. Thank you. Thank you to the
    committee.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you for being here.
        Mr. Panetta. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Simpson. Mr. Mast, Congressman Mast, good to have you
    here today.
        Mr. Mast. Good to be here, sir.
        Mr. Simpson. The floor is yours for 5 minutes to testify on
    what you would like to see this committee do.
                                  ----------                              --
    --------

                                              Wednesday, March 8, 2017.

                                    WITNESS

    HON. BRIAN J. MAST, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
        FLORIDA
        Mr. Mast. I appreciate it, sir. Chairman, Ranking Member
    Kaptur, the rest of you members here, I appreciate you letting
    me address you. I am here to advocate on behalf of robust
    funding to for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, basically to
    advance and expand their river and harbor maintenance, flood
    and storm damage reduction, shore protection, and environmental
    restoration missions.
        In my Florida congressional district, which spans St.
    Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties, the most pressing issue
    that folks face really, there are harmful and unnatural massive
    discharges, sometimes up to 7 million gallons of freshwater per
    minute that are directed by the Corps of Engineers out of Lake
    Okeechobee and into the heart of our coastal saltwater
    community. These discharges, they are imposed by the Federal
    Government, and they turn the St. Lucie River and our
    Nation's--really the Nation's most species-diverse saltwater
    estuary, the Indian River Lagoon, into an algae-infested toxic
    waterway that surrounds hundreds of thousands of residents, and
    the resulting algal blooms, they kill beloved wildlife, like
    manatees and dolphins.
        These toxins that are released by the algal blooms, they
    hurt people through air and water, children can't go swimming
    or play near the water, the elderly residents must stay, you
    know, really inside of their homes if they live near the toxic
    air. These blooms also destroy our economy, because you can't
    sell a house that sits on top of toxic water. Nobody wants to
    go on vacation near toxic water. Nobody wants to go boating or
    fishing or anything like that in a giant stew of algae.
        As a result, local and small businesses, our bars, our
    shops, our restaurants, paddle board companies, outdoor
    recreation stores, gas stations, fishing charters, they are all
    suffering. After fouling our community, the discharged water is
    simply lost out to sea. It is wasted, when it really could have
    been put to important use had it not been discharged in the
    first place.
        Every time the Federal Government imposes these discharges,
    it means that hundreds of millions of gallons of water are less
    for drought reduction, hundreds of millions of gallons less for
    Everglades in Florida Bay, hundreds of millions of gallons less
    to replenish our Florida aquifers, the drinking water source
    for 8 million south Floridians.
        I can tell you these people in the Treasure Coastal of
    Florida, they understand the critical need for flood protection
    in the area and other communities surrounding ours, those south
    of Lake Okeechobee that prompt these discharges. However, my
    constituents back home, they just can't accept that despite a
    scientifically sound and decades'-old action plan, the State of
    Florida is fulfilling its financial responsibilities; the
    Federal attention and resources don't seem to respond to our
    water woes in the same way, regardless of how large the problem
    grows at either end of the Everglades ecosystem.
        The lack of responsiveness from Federal Government on
    Everglades restoration, it stems from one of three different
    places, different processes, all that feed into one another:
    project administration, project authorization, and project
    appropriations, and really delays in any one process. They
    impose further delays on the other processes, and when you are
    talking about more than 60 individual comprehensive Everglades
    ecosystem restoration plan projects, it can really add up in
    the end.
        So administratively, the Army Corps of Engineers is
    reluctant to marry their flood control mission with their Lake
    Okeechobee and ecological restoration mission in the
    Everglades, but coordinating these missions is the key to
    ensuring that more water is directed towards Everglades
    National Park, and away from coastal communities like my own.
        As vice chair of the Water Resources and Environment
    Subcommittee, you can count on it being my priority to pass
    Water Resources Development Act that includes more CERP project
    authorizations, and from an appropriations standpoint, I can
    tell you there is more funding is needed to allow the Corps of
    Engineers to quicken the pace of rehabilitation of Herbert
    Hoover Dike around Lake Okeechobee. You know, just my ask to
    you all, let's get this done. Let's get it off the books, and
    let's get Florida's water system repaired.
        More funding is needed to accelerate the construction of
    these already authorized CERP projects, the Indian River
    Lagoon-South, the Central Everglades Project, among others.
    There is a number of CERP projects that are still awaiting
    authorization in part, because funding and legal limitations on
    the Corps of Engineers with respect to investigations and
    studies.
        I would respectfully ask that the subcommittee consider
    increasing the appropriations for the Army Corps investigations
    and to raise the cap on the number of study starts for
    environmental restoration projects the Secretary of the Army
    can green light in each fiscal year. One a year simply isn't
    sufficient.
        And, finally, I would like to welcome the Chairman, the
    Ranking Member, every member of this subcommittee down to the
    Treasure Coast to witness firsthand the devastating impacts
    that we see around Lake Okeechobee discharges and the harmful
    algal blooms.
        I thank you all for your time and your important efforts to
    craft an Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill that
    reflects the concerns and the priorities of the American
    people. Thank you.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Other questions?
        Mr. Mast. Yes, ma'am.
        Mr. Simpson. Ms. Kaptur.
        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Mast,
    thank you so much for being here this morning. I wanted to ask
    you, you are in a really important position as vice chair of
    WRRDA, of the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee and
    Transportation and Infrastructure. Your statement in the
    testimony, reluctant--``Army Corps is reluctant to marry their
    flood control mission at Lake Okeechobee with their ecological
    restoration mission in the Everglades,'' and you specifically
    mention algal blooms, which is a gigantic problem in the lake
    that I represent, Lake Erie in the north.
        I am interested in that dysfunction. Why do you think that
    happens? It is really important that you recognize that in your
    testimony, reluctant to marry their flood control mission with
    their ecological restoration mission? Is there something wrong
    with the authorizing legislation?
        Mr. Mast. Well, you know, when we look at the flood control
    mission, they are taking water that naturally flows south
    towards the Florida Bay, and instead, they are sending it out
    the East Coast and the West Coast of Florida in a very
    unnatural way, and that is in the aim of flood protection, but
    at the same time, that water is, quite literally, needed in the
    Florida Everglades. The Florida Everglades are dry, they are
    drying up. They don't have the water that they need.
        So at one point we are sending freshwater in directions
    where it is not naturally meant to go. The coastal estuaries
    are, by nature, saltwater, and we are releasing freshwater into
    them. So by nature, it is harmful, before you even talk about
    the added nutrients that are in the water, and that is water
    that is actually needed for ecosystem restoration further
    south, which is where we want to see it head to and where all
    of these existing projects, should they be brought to
    completion, they will work towards moving that water south.
        And so unfortunately, when it is not prioritized in that
    way, we end up causing damage to both ecosystems when sending
    water in one direction would really help both ecosystems.
        Ms. Kaptur. Were they badly designed in the beginning?
        Mr. Mast. When you talk about ``badly designed in the
    beginning,'' we are talking about going back, you know, 100-
    plus years to when Lake Okeechobee was dammed up to begin with
    because it did used to naturally flow down to the Florida Bay,
    so we are talking about a very, very old problem.
         But in that, yes. It is badly designed in that these
    projects are not being allowed to come to completion. The point
    that I make to people is this often, when you are talking about
    the design of this. The Hoover Dam, not the Herbert Hoover
    Dike, that was the Nation's biggest infrastructure project.
    That was built in 5 years. This project is literally taking
    decades. And when you consider how much smaller it is, that is
    something that should trouble every one of us, especially when
    you are talking about doing that kind of damage to both
    ecosystems.
        We have to prioritize, you know, these projects, get them
    done, you know, in orders, you know, in the order that they
    give, so that we can see one after another after another come
    to completion, and end up not harming both ecosystems in the
    end.
        Ms. Kaptur. And could you describe the source of the algal
    blooms?
        Mr. Mast. Yes.
        Ms. Kaptur. The nutrients?
        Mr. Mast. Yes, ma'am. So during, primarily, the summer
    months, when there is an excess of rain that fills up the
    Florida watersheds, as we know, most water flows south, so when
    you get water north of Lake Okeechobee coming in on the
    Kissimmee River, which is also an issue. It was straightened by
    the Corps of Engineers. It used to run like a snake, but it was
    straightened out, so now the lake fills up something about six
    times faster than what it was originally designed to fill up
    at. That is what causes this need for releasing the water to
    the east and the west, because it can't get that water out of
    there quick enough. So you know, when we get those summer rains
    and it fills up that much, and there is added heat and that
    freshwater comes out into our coastal estuaries, that is how we
    get those algal blooms combined with the additional nutrients
    that are in this water to which I would make this point:
        For the Florida Everglades largely inhabited by snakes,
    turtles, alligators, and fowl, waterfowl, there are water
    standards for 10 parts per billion of phosphorous that can go
    down into the Florida Everglades. For the water that goes out
    to the East Coast and the West Coast of Florida where there are
    hundreds of thousands of residents, there are no water quality
    standards. Now, that is a State issue, but that is something
    that should be very troubling.
        Ms. Kaptur. Does agriculture contribute to the nutrients
    loading?
        Mr. Mast. Without question. When you have agriculture in
    and around, you know, any area that feeds into the watershed,
    absolutely, anything that goes onto those agriculture products
    are going to feed into that watershed.
        Ms. Kaptur. Not knowing your area, is it animal
    agriculture, or is it vegetables or fruits?
        Mr. Mast. So there is a plethora of agriculture. As I said,
    you have a watershed that feeds from, you know, hundreds of
    miles north, from 100 miles north, you know near the Kissimmee
    River, that feeds in, all the agriculture surrounding that
    feeds into Lake Okeechobee, all of the agriculture fields,
    there is an entire area surrounding Lake Okeechobee called the
    Everglades Agricultural Area. It is all farming, and all of
    those areas and what is put on those crops, absolutely, that
    plays a role into what is going into Lake Okeechobee, and what
    is spilling out into the coastal estuaries.
        Ms. Kaptur. I thank the gentleman. I thank the chairman for
    your indulgence because Congressman Joyce and I share a very
    serious issue in Lake Erie, shallows to the Great Lakes that is
    moving toward death right now as we sit here, and it drains the
    largest watershed in the Great Lakes region, and all the
    instrumentalities we have have not put us on pathway to really
    solve that problem fast enough. And, so, I look at your area
    and I am listening and I am saying, huh, there is some
    similarities here in this 21st century.
        We have to look at these watersheds, and we have to have a
    different way of approaching them more quickly, and we don't
    have that mechanism yet that some of our prior witnesses talked
    about the State government having responsibility for certain
    projects, working with the Federal Government, and the Federal
    Government doesn't fund its share, but this is--this is a 21st
    century problem, and we don't have the proper structure to move
    quickly enough. So I appreciate your testimony, and I
    appreciate the----
        Mr. Mast. Can I give you one other point on that?
        Ms. Kaptur [continuing].--Chair's indulgence. Yes.
        Mr. Mast. Just on your point just now. You know, when you
    look at ERDC, energy--rather, Engineering, Resource, and
    Development where they basically do all the testing for
    projects surrounding the Corps of Engineers, they don't have,
    you know, the robust resources to go out there and pursue
    research into ways to fix your algal blooms, my algal blooms,
    those that go on down into Louisiana at the massive level that
    we see them.
        When we are talking about cleaning a fish tank, yeah, that
    is something that we can do, but when we are talking about a
    rate at 7 million gallons a minute, or whatever it is that you
    may experience up there, or whatever it is that they experience
    down, you know, along the Mississippi and other places, I think
    this would be a great place as well to put research in, being
    that it is affecting so many different areas.
        Ms. Kaptur. Your statement, that is what I was interested
    in, ``reluctant to marry their flood control mission with their
    ecological restoration mission.'' That is a very insightful
    contribution to thinking about this. In our area, we have the
    problem that stretches over three States and another--a part of
    another nation, and so we can't get our arms around it, and
    yet, we know it is happening and we are not responding quickly
    enough, so thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Thank you for being here today. We
    appreciate it.
        Mr. Joyce. Mr. Chairman.----
        Mr. Simpson. Mr. Joyce.
        Mr. Joyce. When you talk about Lake Okeechobee, the
    diversion of the water east and west, is that because of the
    potential failure of the dike?
        Mr. Mast. That is exactly correct, sir. So you have--after
    Hurricane Katrina, the Corps of Engineers went around and
    assessed dikes around the country. The dike around Lake
    Okeechobee was determined to be one of the worst dikes existing
    around the country, and so that is where they determined--based
    on there is a lower schedule, Lake Okeechobee regulation
    schedule that determines the height at which you can keep the
    lake. They decided they had to keep it a lower level, and that
    is where they, you know, really, in a massive scale, started
    distributing water out the East Coast and the West Coast of
    Florida in a very unnatural way.
        Like I said, freshwater, and we all know what a commodity
    freshwater is in many parts of this country, going out, simply
    lost into saltwater estuaries where it is very damaging.
        Mr. Joyce. I am one to believe that is our version of oil,
    freshwater, potable water supply, and the idea that you are
    sending it out east and west. The other problem would be if it
    is--if I heard you correctly, that this is a collection, if you
    will, of agricultural discharge, so therefore, the lake must be
    loaded with phosphates?
        Mr. Mast. That is exactly correct, and that is where, you
    know, I brought about the point as well where you talk about
    there is a requirement for the level of phosphorous that goes
    down to the Florida Everglades where there is, you know,
    largely wildlife habitat, but there is not a requirement for a
    standard that go out towards where people are boating, fishing,
    skiing, playing, jumping in the water out of their backyards,
    you know, where the bulk of the population is, and that is very
    troubling to me.
        Mr. Joyce. You also mentioned that there have been some
    issues with this dike. If the dike should go, all that would be
    then set loose into the Everglades and the damage would be
    permanent?
        Mr. Mast. Should the dike fail, there is also population
    south of Lake Okeechobee, and that is where people recognize
    the need for flood control. Nobody is advocating that we not
    take into consideration the lives that are south of that dike
    in Lake Okeechobee because if that were to fail, there would be
    a massive loss of life, and nobody should overlook that, but
    that is also where it would be very beneficial.
        One of the things that is not being looked at right now is
    that lower schedule, that Lake Okeechobee regulation schedule,
    it is one of the most important things that could be looked at
    because as every one of those 60-plus projects of Everglades
    restoration in Lake Okeechobee, dike restoration come online,
    the Corps of Engineers should be assessing can they take the
    Lake Okeechobee level an inch or 6 inches or a foot higher,
    because when you are talking about the hundreds of miles of
    breadth of Lake Okeechobee, every inch, or every foot that you
    can add to that lake is billions, and sometimes hundreds of
    billions of gallons of water that you no longer have to release
    into unnatural areas, and this is another place where the Corps
    could really work, but we are not seeing a pathway for them to
    adjust that with every instance of them making an improvement
    to the area.
        They are, instead, looking to wait for about 8 years down
    the line and just do one adjustment then, and this is that
    mechanism where you specifically talked about marrying flood
    control and marrying ecosystem restoration. That is--that is,
    in my opinion, one of the biggest things that can be done to
    marry flood control and ecosystem restoration is every time you
    get something online, look at that regulation schedule and say
    we can take this many gallons offline going out the East and
    the West Coast of Florida where it is causing damage.
        Mr. Joyce. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Mast. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Mast. I appreciate you being
    here today and informing the committee on the issues.
        Mr. Mast. Thank you.
        Mr. Simpson. Mr. Gosar.
                                  ----------                              --
    --------

                                              Wednesday, March 8, 2017.

                                    WITNESS

    HON. PAUL A. GOSAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
        ARIZONA
        Mr. Gosar. Chairman. Well, thank you very much, Chairman
    Simpson and Ranking Member Kaptur, for the opportunity to
    testify before the subcommittee. I am Congressman Paul Gosar,
    and I represent Arizona's Fourth Congressional District. I am
    also the chairman of the Congressional Western Caucus, the
    chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources
    Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, and vice chairman
    of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
    Subcommittee on the Interior.
        Critical programs and oversight activities addressed----
        Mr. Simpson. Paul, could you turn on your mic?
        Mr. Gosar. Critical programs and oversight activities
    addressed by the Energy and Water Development and Related
    Agencies bill fall under the purview as well. I would like to
    take an opportunity to discuss several of these today.
        Last fiscal year's subcommittee bill contained a rider
    prohibiting any changes to Federal jurisdiction under the Clean
    Water Act, effectively preventing funds from being spent to
    implement Waters of the United States, or WOTUS, that rule put
    forth in 2015 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the
    Environmental Protection Agency. The WOTUS rule attempted to
    assert Clean Water Act jurisdictions over nearly all areas with
    even the slightest of connections to water resources, including
    manmade conveyances.
        Farmers, ranchers, job creators, and private property
    owners would suffer under this overreaching water grab. WOTUS
    contradicts numerous prior Supreme Court decisions and seeks to
    expand agency control over 60 percent of our country's streams
    and millions of acres of wetlands that were previously
    nonjurisdictional.
        WOTUS was slated to go into effect August 28 of 2015, and
    fortunately, the Sixth Circuit issued a nationwide stay that
    has temporarily blocked implementation of this new rule. Even
    more promising, just last week, President Trump signed an
    executive order requiring the EPA and the Corps to rescind and
    revise any aspects of WOTUS inconsistent with Federal law. This
    was great news, and I was honored to join the President in the
    Oval Office for that signing.
        While I have great confidence in President Trump and
    Administrator Pruitt, the review required by the order will
    take some time and there could be subsequent legal proceedings.
    Accordingly, Congress must, once again, take a clear position
    against WOTUS and retain the important provision prohibiting
    the expansion of the Clean Water Act in this fiscal year's
    bill.
        Another important rider from last year's bill that must be
    maintained defunds the Obama administration's social cost of
    carbon models. These flawed metrics can be easily manipulated
    in order to attempt to justify new job-killing regulations.
        For instance, the Obama administration attempted to justify
    the EPA's methane rule utilizing the social cost of carbon,
    stating that the rule would supposedly yield climate benefits
    of $690 million in 2025. Those speculative benefits, that can
    be easily manipulated, supposedly outweigh the $530 million the
    rule is expected to cost businesses and job creators in 2025
    alone.
        The House has passed at least 11 different amendments
    rejecting the social cost of carbon in the last two Congresses
    alone. We must block these flood models once again in this
    year's bill.
        Now, section 507 of the bill last year, last fiscal year,
    contained a provision prohibiting the removal of any Federally
    owned or operated dams in fiscal year 2017. I thank the
    subcommittee for including this important provision, and, once
    again, ask that it be retained.
        In recent years, extremist environmental groups have
    increased efforts to dismantle and remove Federal dams. These
    efforts defy common sense, particularly at a time of major
    water challenges across the west, and with an increasing need
    for clean hydropower. Electricity generated from the Corps and
    reclamation dams--operated dams, is utilized by millions of
    Americans every day. Many of these dams are essential
    components for flood control, strategic water storage, and live
    sustaining irrigation for millions of acres of American
    agriculture. Tens of millions of Americans rely on these dams
    to supply their drinking water and support their livelihoods.
        The vital water energy, economic, and ecological benefits
    provided by the Federally owned and operated dams must be
    protected. I, once again, ask the subcommittee to retain the
    important provision prohibiting the removal of any Federally
    owned and operated dams in fiscal year 2018.
        Finally, I would like to ask that the subcommittee continue
    to provide important resources for the Corps of Engineers'
    construction and investigations budgets. These accounts ensure
    the timely development of critical water and infrastructure
    projects that provide benefits for communities throughout the
    Nation. We must continue to provided adequate resources for the
    important projects funded by these accounts.
        I appreciate the opportunity to testify today. The Western
    Caucus looks forward to coordinating closely with all of you in
    the future, and thank you, Chairman Simpson. With that, I yield
    back.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Gosar. Other questions?
        Ms. Kaptur.
        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to
    ask Representative Gosar, for your own district, I don't know
    it, how many counties it covers and from where do you obtain
    clean water?
        Mr. Gosar. We obtain clean water within the State
    jurisdiction, which is what I have been talking about is the
    jurisdiction is subsurface water, which is the jurisdiction of
    the State.
        Ms. Kaptur. But I am saying for your district, in
    particular, does it come----
        Mr. Gosar. I am talking to you exactly what the majority of
    my water is from subsurface water within the State of Arizona.
        Ms. Kaptur. Wells?
        Mr. Gosar. Absolutely, and the jurisdiction of the State.
        Ms. Kaptur. Your district is heavily rural?
        Mr. Gosar. Almost all of it.
        Ms. Kaptur. Almost all of it. All right. So you don't--you
    don't receive any of these Federal water projects that exist in
    the west, your district doesn't benefit from any of that?
        Mr. Gosar. We border between Arizona and California, so the
    Colorado always has those infrastructure processes. I have also
    initiated one in the southern part with Mexico on the lower
    Santa Cruz that is federally mandated, absolutely.
        Ms. Kaptur. All right. What percentage of the water that
    your constituents drink actually then comes from subsurface
    water, 80, 90 percent?
        Mr. Gosar. Pretty much.
        Ms. Kaptur. Wow. All right. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Gosar. Thank you.
        Mr. Simpson. Other questions? Hearing none, thank you, Mr.
    Gosar. I appreciate your testimony and----
        Mr. Gosar. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Simpson [continuing]. Giving us your views on this
    upcoming bill.
        Congressman Crist, should I call you Governor? Congressman?
        Mr. Crist. I can't hold a job. Charlie always works,
    though.
        Mr. Simpson. Welcome to the committee.
                                  ----------                              --
    --------

                                              Wednesday, March 8, 2017.

                                    WITNESS

    HON. CHARLIE CRIST, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
        FLORIDA
        Mr. Crist. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much, Chairman
    Simpson, Ranking Member Kaptur, and members of the
    subcommittee. It is a great honor to appear before you today.
    As you know, this is my first chance to testify before an
    Appropriations subcommittee. For me, it is a special
    opportunity because your former colleague and former chairman
    of the full committee, and someone I hold in the highest
    esteem, the late Congressman Bill Young, who served with you
    for so many years, was my Congressman for decades.
        During his time in Congress and on this committee, he did
    many great things for our Nation, our State and my Pinellas
    County. Many of those projects live on today, and I would like
    to talk to you about a few of them this morning.
        First is the Pinellas County Shore Protection Project. The
    Army Corps of Engineers, the State of Florida, Pinellas County,
    and our local communities, have been tremendous partners in
    maintaining our 20 beautiful miles of beach coastline to
    protect the people and property along it. Much of the support
    of this project was generated by the committee, for which I am
    grateful. I am here to ask for your continued support.
        The funding you provide for the Army Corps is critical in
    delivering the resources Pinellas County needs for our beaches.
    Beach nourishment not only protects public and private
    infrastructure, it is a great economic generator for our
    region.
        A second request I would make of the subcommittee related
    to fiscal year 2017 is to help us finish a project Congressman
    Young started back in 2002. The seven members of our Tampa Bay
    area delegation are sending you a letter asking the committee
    to help us break through a bureaucratic new start deadlock that
    has stalled construction of the Port of Tampa's congressionally
    authorized Big Bend Channel navigation project. This deepening
    and widening project will improve the movement of goods through
    the port of the I-4 corridor, essentially, Florida's fastest
    growing part of the State.
        It will set the standard for public-private partnership by
    turning a mere 20 percent of Federal stake in the project into
    a $55 million economic development initiative that will create
    8,000 jobs for our region. My Tampa Bay colleagues and I are
    not requesting any funding for this project. Instead, we seek
    language for the fiscal year 2017 bill you are finalizing to
    clarify it.
        I want to briefly mention also the Everglades, and I want
    to give credit to my freshman colleague and one of your new
    colleagues from Naples, Florida, Representative Francis Rooney.
    He is championing this effort. He is on the other side of the
    aisle, and I am grateful for what he is doing. I am incredibly
    grateful also for the consistent backing by this subcommittee
    for America's Everglades, and respectfully ask that you
    continue it. Thank you so much for your time. I appreciate it.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Simpson. Thank you. I appreciate you being here,
    Congressman Crist. Questions for Congressman Crist? Hearing
    none, thanks for--thanks for being here today, and we will take
    those views into consideration as we try to do our 2017 and
    2018 budget.
        Mr. Crist. Right. It will go well.
        Mr. Simpson. It will be a challenge.
        Mr. Crist. Yes, sir, of course. We will do it together.
        Mr. Simpson. Mr. Tipton.
                                  ----------

                                              Wednesday, March 8, 2017.

                                    WITNESS

    HON. SCOTT R. TIPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
        COLORADO
        Mr. Tipton. Thank you, Chairman Simpson. I would like to
    also thank Ranking Member Kaptur and members of the committee.
    I welcome this opportunity to be able to appear before you and
    thank you for your interest and priorities of your colleagues
    as you make difficult decisions on infrastructure and program
    and investment, particularly in the area of water resources.
        The Third Congressional District of Colorado has partnered
    with the Bureau of Reclamation for at least seven decades,
    working together to develop hugely important and beneficial
    multi-use projects in southern and western Colorado. These
    projects have provided necessary water supply, which has
    sustained our agricultural, industrial, and recreation
    economies, and continue to help our small communities grow and
    prosper.
        I am distinctly aware that the mission of the Bureau of
    Reclamation is changing, and that the construction of large
    water supply projects with all Federal dollars is likely a
    thing of the past, but the partnership the Bureau has with the
    local water districts and providers remains critical in the
    semi-arid West, where the development and conservation and
    management of this finite resource is absolutely essential.
        The need for this local Federal partnership could not be
    clearer than the pursuit of the Arkansas Valley Conduit, the
    last component of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project authorized in
    1962. Since an amendment to that original authorization was
    enacted in 2009, this committee has provided funding, which has
    contributed to the completion of the required environmental
    analysis and the ongoing feasibility work. The current schedule
    would likely allow for construction to begin in 2019 or 2020.
        The purpose of my testimony today is to strongly encourage
    you to provide sufficient funds to move this project forward in
    a timely, and, therefore, economical fashion and urge you to
    recognize the interest and responsibility that the Federal
    Government has in building this project. The water supply for
    50,000 people living in the Lower Arkansas Valley is
    contaminated with naturally occurring radionuclides.
    Approximately 40 small water providers face the task of finding
    new water supply or treating the supply they have.
        The Arkansas Valley Conduit, as a regional rather than a
    piecemeal solution, is a more functional and more fiscally
    effective way to meet the challenges for safe drinking water.
    Many of these small providers from the Colorado Department of
    Public Health and Environment, for failing to meet the Federal
    mandated Safe Water Drinking Act standards, should it prove
    necessary, the State of Colorado has approved a $60 million
    loan to move the project forward in a partnership with the
    Bureau of Reclamation.
        The local water providers are paying for administration,
    planning, and environmental compliance through quarterly
    assessments, working closely with the Southwestern Colorado
    Water Conservancy District to move the project forward. I would
    like it noted that under the provisions of the 2009
    legislation, the revenues generated locally can repay the
    entire cost over the project.
        The Fryingpan-Arkansas Project generates revenue by storing
    nonproject water for a price. Water providers enter into long-
    term contracts with reclamation to store the water in the
    Pueblo reservoir. That revenue stream for full repayment makes
    this project and its financing unique. It should also be noted
    that the Southeastern District, the State of Colorado, and the
    Colorado Congressional Delegation are fully aware of the fiscal
    constraints we face and of the changing mission of the Bureau.
        To that end, we are working on meaningful cost-saving
    measures, including use of existing facilities for treatment
    and delivery wherever possible, and possibly design-build
    processes. Both of these efforts will save money and deliver
    clean drinking water faster to the communities who desperately
    need it.
        The people of the Lower Arkansas Valley deserve no less
    than that. It is for their health that the Federal Government
    creates water quality standards, and the Federal Government has
    the responsibility to help these communities meet those
    standards.
        Thank you, again, for providing me the opportunity to
    testify today, and I look forward to working with you to ensure
    the dream of completing the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project as it
    becomes a reality, and the Arkansas Valley Conduit is built.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Congressman.
        Mr. Tipton. Thank you for your time.
        Mr. Simpson. I appreciate you being here today. Are there
    questions for Congressman Tipton? Ms. Kaptur.
        Ms. Kaptur. I just wanted to ask the Congressman, thank you
    so much for your testimony. What a name for a project, the
    Fryingpan. I just wanted to ask you, these elements,
    radioactive, either radium or uranium, are these new? Or is it
    just that they have discovered this now?
        Mr. Tipton. These are naturally occurring.
        Ms. Kaptur. Uh-huh. Are there elevated levels of cancer in
    that particular part of Colorado?
        Mr. Tipton. You know, I am not sure if there are elevated
    elements, but under the Clean Water Act, it was a
    responsibility that the EPA put forward to be able to provide
    safe, clean drinking water for the communities in the Lower
    Arkansas Valley. This started back in 1962. John Kennedy
    actually visited Pueblo, Colorado, for the initiation of this
    project, so it is long term in coming, and I guess,
    Representative Kaptur, it is really the responsibility of the
    Federal Government through this mandate for clean drinking
    water, which I think we all share and understand it is
    important for our communities to be able to get this project
    off of center, to be able to move this forward, and to be able
    to get it completed.
        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. We learned--I learned a great deal
    from other members, so I just thank you very much for
    testifying today.
        Mr. Tipton. Thank you.
        Mr. Simpson. Any other questions? 1962 to today is only 55
    years. That is kind of quick for government work, isn't it?
        Mr. Tipton. I didn't speak for the government.
        Mr. Simpson. I appreciate you being here today, and thank
    you for your testimony.
        Mr. Tipton. Thank you, Chairman.
        Mr. Simpson. We are going to take a short break while we
    await the next individuals that are coming to testify, so we
    will be in recess for just a couple of minutes.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Simpson. The committee will be back in order. We have
    with us Congressman Foster from Illinois. The floor is yours
    for 5 minutes.
                                  ----------                              --
    --------

                                              Wednesday, March 8, 2017.

                                    WITNESS

    HON. BILL FOSTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
        ILLINOIS
        Mr. Foster. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Simpson.
        Mr. Simpson. Microphone on?
        Mr. Foster. Thank you, Chairman Simpson, Ranking Member
    Kaptur, for holding this Members' Day, and to all the members
    of the subcommittee for allowing me to testify today. I am here
    to, first of all, thank you for your past support for the
    Department of Energy's Office of Science, and to urge you to
    continue to prioritize and invest in science.
        The United States has been at the forefront of innovation
    and progress, largely due to its investment in scientific
    research. It has helped raise the standard of living for
    millions of Americans in our past and represents the best hope
    for economic progress in our future. But this scientific
    progress requires us to take a long view.
        Discoveries are not made overnight, and the experiments
    need sustained attention and resources for us to learn from
    them. Scientific investments are not like building a road where
    you can cancel it and restart it at the drop of a hat. The
    scientific programs have to be built up over decades, but can
    be destroyed in a single budget cycle by having their project
    underfunded.
        Similarly, our scientific infrastructure requires a long-
    term sustained funding to ensure that opportunities are not
    missed. You know, as the only Ph.D. scientist in the United
    States Congress, I serve as a lightning rod for concerns from
    science, from high-tech businesses that depend on that science,
    from academics, and from ordinary citizens who care about the
    future economic and scientific progress in our country.
        And so I have heard from a number of my former colleagues
    in science in the scientific community who are very worried
    about what the incoming administration could mean for
    scientific progress in this country. So I would urge this
    subcommittee to seize the opportunity to put researchers, the
    companies that depend on that research, and, you know, all--
    everyone who cares about science in this country, to put them
    at ease by providing funding levels that support the critical
    work for the Department of Energy's Office of Science.
        There are two specific projects that I want to highlight
    here today. Both of these are projects that have to have
    significant construction start money, you know, in the upcoming
    cycle, or the teams that put them together and are prepared to
    make them a reality will dissipate. You cannot--you cannot keep
    projects on hold forever.
        These two projects are Argonne National Labs Advanced
    Photon Source Upgrade, and the Long-Baseline Neutrino Facility,
    and the Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment, so-called LBNF/
    DUNE, which represents a collaboration between Fermi National
    Accelerator Laboratory in Illinois, and the Sanford Underground
    Research Facility in South Dakota.
        Starting with Argonne first. The experiments conducted at
    Argonne National Lab's Advanced Photon Source, or APS, support
    both discovery science fundamental research, and also market-
    driven research. Its facilities are used by companies that have
    products to develop.
        Pharmaceutical research at the APS has yielded lifesaving
    new drugs for HIV, for melanoma, and for renal cell carcinoma.
    Industry chemists have used the APS to develop energy-saving
    solar shingles, while combustion researchers have developed a
    process that has led to cleaner diesel engines. And research
    conducted at the APS led to a Nobel Prize in chemistry in 2012
    for the work on what are called G-protein coupled receptors,
    which are the mechanism at the heart of the addiction mechanism
    inside people's brain, and so with the heroin epidemic
    ravaging.
        This allows scientists to look at these molecules in
    action, the ones that are at the very heart signaling the
    cells, the neurons that make the decisions that are affected by
    opioids. So this is fundamental research. I am not promising
    that they are going to cure the opioid epidemic this year, but
    you know, it is only this sort of long-term research that
    allows us to actually, dream of a cure for this, as well as
    Nobel Prizes, which as a scientist, I have a certain fondness
    for.
        The APS needs to be upgraded to ensure that the American
    scientists and companies continue to have access to the best
    scientific equipment in the world. The competition in this area
    is fierce with dozens, literally dozens of competing facilities
    under construction, and in operation around the world. But the
    APS upgrade will use next-generation technology to make the APS
    hundreds of times brighter, which opens up a vast array of
    scientific frontiers at the nanoscale that are completely
    inaccessible at any machine anywhere in the world today.
        So this upgrade will leverage the existing infrastructure
    at the Advanced Photon Source valued at about $1.5 billion,
    while applying a new technology to create a world--a world-
    leading facility at substantially less cost than building a
    facility from scratch. And with this upgrade, the APS will
    become the ultimate 3-D microscope. Without it, the United
    States will lose its global leadership in X-ray science to
    Europe, Japan, and China.
        Robust funding for the Department of Energy basic energy
    science major items of equipment line will enable the APS
    upgrade to continue and proceed on schedule, and more
    importantly, on budget. A funding delay, I should say, on a
    personal note, that my wife was one of the great
    accomplishments of the Office of Science, was the completion of
    the last photon source, light source on time and under budget.
    My wife was the construction manager for that at Brookhaven
    National Laboratory.
        So, but funding delay will add millions of dollars to the
    total cost of this project. Second critical opportunity where
    this year's funding is particularly important is the LBNF/DUNE
    project, which will be critical to maintaining U.S.'s
    leadership in high energy physics and in fundamental science.
    This facility, part of which is located a Fermi National
    Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, Illinois, where I worked for
    25 years, and the other part of which is located in the Sanford
    Underground Research Facility in Lead, South Dakota, will be
    the first major international world class facility to be
    hosted--of its kind, to be hosted by the United States.
        So getting foreign money flowing into the U.S., in addition
    to U.S. money flowing to facilities in foreign countries is, to
    my mind, you know, essential, to having a healthy international
    scientific collaboration, you know, just a network of
    scientific collaboration internationally.
        Neutrinos, which will be studied there, are among the most
    abundant particles in the universe and our understanding of
    their nature may provide the key to answering some of the most
    fundamental questions about the nature of our universe. LBNF/
    DUNE would be the most powerful tool in the world to study
    these particles, and would help solidify the Department of
    Energy's high energy physics program as a world leader.
        And so, I am hopeful that the project will receive the $55
    million required in fiscal year 2017 to start construction for
    this project. Again, facilities like this are always in a grow-
    or-die situation. If you assemble the team and say we are going
    to start construction and then say, well, maybe not this year,
    people leave and they cannot be reassembled. Like I say, it is
    not like just building a highway where you have millions of
    competent contractors happy to bid on any new section of the
    roadway.
        So more than 770 scientists from 150 institutes and 26
    countries stand ready to contribute scientifically and
    economically to the LBNF/DUNE project, if we decide to make it
    go ahead, and I urge the subcommittee to provide full support
    and robust funding for the Department of Energy's high energy
    physics account.
        Investments in these projects, and in our broader
    scientific infrastructure, is really the only way to ensure
    that America remains an international leader in science. You
    know, we are--in testimony to Congress more than a generation
    ago, the guy who started--the guy who started Fermi lab was
    asked, Well, what is all this basic fundamental scientific
    research that you are doing? How does this contribute to
    national defense, which is obviously the competition? And he
    looked back at the committee and said, our research, our
    fundamental research, has nothing to do with national defense,
    except perhaps to make our country more worth defending.
        And that is the heart of the reason that our country should
    invest in fundamental research like that at Argonne Lab, like
    that at Fermi lab. If you look back in history, the reason that
    we respect what the--you know, what the Manichees did in, well,
    hundreds of years ago in Italy. It is not because they won
    their wars against their opponents. It is not because they
    succeeded in economics and commerce. It is because after doing
    all of that, they diverted a significant fraction of their GDP
    to fundamental research by the likes of Leonardo da Vinci, and
    that is why they will remain in the history textbooks forever.
    And so we should have no lower goal for our country. Thank you.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Simpson. Thank you. I appreciate your testimony. Are
    there questions for the Congressman?
        Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congressman
    Foster, I want to thank you personally. You and I have worked
    together on a number of initiatives. Also, for the benefit of
    the entire subcommittee, the super computing initiative has
    been so critically important to our country and will remain so.
    We are in very dire competition with the Chinese. At one point
    in time, we had the fastest super computers in the world. We
    have now fallen to third, I believe, in that race, from
    petaflops to Exascale. I know Argonne is very involved in that,
    Oakridge as well, but I want to personally thank you for your
    advocacy for the Office of Science. Oakridge is intimately
    involved.
        Mr. Foster. A key collaborator in all of these sort of
    projects. And, you know, there have been a number of Members of
    Congress who have taken a little time off because their
    districts have been hit by tornadoes. Any of you who doubt the
    power of super computers should look at the simulations of
    tornadoes where you see detailed simulations of tornadoes
    trying to understand what affects their formation and how to
    predict and how they will develop.
        And so this is just one of the many examples of where super
    computers at places like Oakridge will really contribute to,
    the lives of so many in ways that are not often in the front
    pages of newspapers.
        Mr. Fleischmann. Congressman, we thank you for your
    advocacy and for your help on these key critical areas. Thank
    you, sir.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Any other questions?
        Ms. Kaptur. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to thank
    Congressman Foster. It must be--just thinking about your life
    and engagement with all of these very high-level research
    initiatives and you are a Member of Congress, sometimes it must
    feel like a fish out of water being in this body.
        Mr. Foster. I do feel lonely from time to time.
        Ms. Kaptur. But you are a very effective spokesman, and
    someone who can put visions for new science in understandable
    terms, and so your presence is truly appreciated, and you have
    made that transition very nobly for your constituents but also
    for the country. Thank you.
        Mr. Simpson. A fish out of water would be an apt
    description for all of us. Mr. Polis.
        Thank you, Congressman Foster.
                                  ----------

                                              Wednesday, March 8, 2017.

                                    WITNESS

    HON. JARED POLIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
        COLORADO
        Mr. Polis. Thank you, Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member
    Kaptur. I am coming before a number of the subcommittees to
    suggest some cuts in appropriations. I know that there are
    going to be cuts in most of the lines, so I hope to be
    constructive.
        In the past, I have offered various amendments to cut
    spending on the floor of the House, supported both across-the-
    board cuts as well as particular line items cuts, and I have a
    few ideas for you here today for your line item. The first
    major spending line that I would like to recommend a cut for is
    the Fossil Energy Research and Development line item. This is a
    line item with an expiration. It is a dead end in the sense
    that our fossil fuels will be depleted, not only in America and
    around the world. Markets are already turning away from dirty
    fuels, fuels like coal and oil, not just for economic reasons,
    but also for the health and safety of our oceans, our air, and
    our planet. And so, I would hope that the committee would,
    rather than invest in the past, invest in the future.
        The version of this bill that came to the House floor last
    year actually appropriated $300 million more pork for the oil
    and gas industry than even the President requested for the
    fossil research account. I know you have to make some tough
    decisions. I think this will be an excellent line item to cut,
    rather than give more pork to the oil and gas industry. We can
    cut that out and reduce our budget deficit by $645 million.
    That was what the bill included last year. I would encourage
    you to zero out that line item, or, at the very least, cut it
    back significantly.
        If you do cut the $645 million back significantly, while I
    hope that the bulk of it goes to deficit reduction, another
    account that I would--with part of those proceeds, I would
    encourage you plus up would be the Energy Efficiency and
    Renewable Energy Fund, which, actually, invests in the future,
    the future of energy in our country. If we can increase it a
    little bit, it will help fund national labs, like the National
    Renewable Energies Laboratory. From 2009 to 2015, EERE's
    building technology office finalized 40 new or updated
    efficiency standards for more than 45 household and commercial
    products, saving consumers money, so it actually saved
    consumers billions of dollars, reduced carbon pollution, and
    helped generate jobs in our country.
        So I think if you want to use some of those funds that you
    save from zeroing out the Fossil Energy Research and
    Development Fund, that would be a good place to put some of
    those, and, of course, I know you have to make cuts overall, so
    I understand some of those cuts, if not all, would go to the
    bottom line.
        I also want to highlight EERE's work with private companies
    to apply 3-D printing, an additive manufacturing to renewable
    technologies, particularly making blades of wind turbines. With
    additive manufacturing, we can reduce the cost of blades,
    reduce the cost of wind energy, as well as highlight their work
    on plug-in electric vehicles, particularly the Clean Cities
    project, which Colorado has been part of, which developed a
    comprehensive EV and EV supply equipment readiness and
    implementation plan for our State.
        Now, there is another account under fossil fuels that I
    particularly think should be cut, and that is the one that
    works on oil shale formations with less than 50,000 barrels per
    day, and frankly, oil shale is one of the most dirty extraction
    methods out there, and, in fact, the distillation process
    releases pollutants into the air, including sulfur dioxide,
    lead, nitrogen oxides. In addition, it uses enormous amounts of
    water. The BLM reported that mining and distilling oil shale
    requires 2.1 to 5.2 barrels of water for each barrel of oil
    produced. Water is scarce across my home State of Colorado.
    Driving up cost for consumers and farmers is not the answer and
    not something that this committee should invest in making a
    reality.
        Finally, I have another cut. I would like to ask that you
    address the accelerated timeline of the W80-4 nuclear warhead.
    In 2015, I joined with my colleague, Mr. Quigley, to offer an
    amendment that would save $165 million in taxpayer money by
    placing development of the W80-4 nuclear warhead back to its
    original acquisition schedule, simply rather than accelerating
    it.
        The existing air launched cruise missile and warhead isn't
    being phased out until the 2030s. There is no risk of having a
    gap, a capabilities gap. Yet, the 2015 budget sped up the
    development for the warhead by 2 years to 2025. Fitting the
    W80-4 nuclear warhead onto the next generation long-range
    cruise missiles will free up $165 million to put towards
    reducing the definite and cutting your line item. At a time
    when the budgets are tight, that is very important.
        We already have the nuclear scientists disagree on whether
    our nuclear capability is enough to destroy life on the planet
    five or seven times. Frankly, I would advocate even deeper cuts
    in our nuclear capabilities. I would argue that a sufficient
    deterrent should be blowing up the world once. If you really
    want to blow up the world twice to be sure, you can do that,
    but we certainly don't need to blow up the world five to seven
    times. It is really redundant in terms of offering a
    deterrence, so that would be another excellent line item to
    look at cutting as your committee goes about its important work
    to save taxpayer money. I am happy to yield for any questions.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Simpson. Are there any questions for Congressman Polis?
    If not, thank you for your testimony. We appreciate your
    insight into this bill and your recommendations.
        Mr. Polis. Thank you.
        Mr. Simpson. And we will look at those as we try and put
    this bill together. Thank you.
        Mr. Huizenga.
                                  ----------

                                              Wednesday, March 8, 2017.

                                    WITNESS

    HON. BILL HUIZENGA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
        MICHIGAN
        Mr. Huizenga. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
        Mr. Simpson. Good to be here. Thank you.
        Mr. Huizenga. It is very good to be here. We are all set.
        Mr. Simpson. Yours for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Huizenga. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I deeply
    appreciate the opportunity to be here in front of you, and
    Ranking Member Kaptur as well, and the rest of the members of
    the committee. This is, I think, a very important issue and why
    I come before you today.
        I have been very grateful for our work together over the
    last number of years in efforts to increase the Army Corps of
    Engineers' harbor maintenance funding, and I think it is
    important to note that the Consolidated Appropriations Act for
    2016 allocated $1.263 billion for harbor maintenance, meeting
    of the congressional target overwhelmingly supported from the
    Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014, and I thank
    you for that--that work on that.
        And while I do believe that that is a very strong step in
    the right direction, the funding level will represent only 69
    percent of the harbor maintenance taxes actually collected, and
    I believe that full use of the harbor maintenance trust fund is
    urgently needed to support critical maritime economic activity,
    especially as we are talking about increasing our
    infrastructure needs here in the United States, or addressing
    our infrastructure needs here in the United States. And through
    that glide path that was established in WRRDA, Congress
    committed to achieve full use of the Harbor Maintenance Trust
    Fund through incremental increases over a 10-year period.
        It is in this spirit that I urge the House Appropriations
    Committee to stay on a path to full utilization of the Trust
    Fund and to allocate 1.333 billion for harbor maintenance in
    fiscal year 2018. That figure would represent 74 percent of the
    estimated harbor maintenance taxes collected this past year in
    2017.
        And during my first year in Congress, our ports and
    navigation channels were maintained at just 47 percent of the
    revenue collected through the HMFT, and having a 74 percent
    target, obviously, would show just how far that we have come.
    And by following the authorized glide path, we stopped adding
    to the maintenance dredging backlog. We had had a growing
    backlog of harbors that needed to be maintained; however, much
    more work does need to be done, and I should point that--point
    out that oftentimes, the Great Lakes doesn't think of--isn't
    thought of as coastal, or as shipping, or important, but it is
    a multibillion dollar blue economy that those of us in the
    Great Lakes region experience every day, and we know the vital
    importance of having those ports for the economic vitality not
    only of our States or our region, but frankly, our country and
    our standing throughout the world.
        And it was with great pleasure that I had a chance to work
    with Janice Hahn, previously from Los Angeles on this issue,
    and it was sort of strange bedfellows that had come together on
    that, but we made a good team because we were able to make that
    argument for the entire country.
        Well, tomorrow, the American Society for Civil Engineers
    will issue their infrastructure report card, and their last
    report card gave our water freight movement infrastructure a D
    for navigation channels, and a B for our ports, and tomorrow's
    grade, we anticipate, will frankly show very few improvements.
    The inefficiencies resulting from poorly maintained harbors
    drive up the cost of U.S. exports and imports, which threaten
    U.S. economic growth, and we can't sell more Made-in-America
    products, frankly, if we can't have them leave our harbors.
        And while many transportation infrastructure programs are
    struggling to identify beneficiary paid revenue streams to meet
    those needs, maritime commerce has been paying enough to meet
    the operations and maintenance of all Federally-authorized
    harbors for decades. In fact, this funding is especially vital
    for 140 Federally maintained commercial and recreational ports
    and harbors in the Great Lakes, many of which are facing a
    crisis. In fact, 92 of those harbors have not been Federally
    maintained in years because of a lack of funding directed in
    that area.
        At the same time, the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund has a
    balance of nearly $10 billion, and I believe that instead of
    increasing the balance of the Trust Fund or spending the money
    elsewhere, I urge you to dedicate our Harbor Maintenance Trust
    Fund tax revenue for its intended purpose, and enough of that
    has been collected, as I had said, that we would be able to
    deal with those harbors throughout the country, ranging from
    the Pacific Northwest to the Gulf Coast to the Port of Long
    Beach to Muskegon, Michigan, which is in my district.
        So Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member Kaptur, and the rest
    of the members, I really do appreciate this opportunity to be
    in front of you today and to make our case. Thank you.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Simpson. Thank you for you testimony, Bill, and thank
    you for your past work on the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. We
    have had many discussions on this and how we can address it.
    And as you know, I am a supporter of trying to be able to use
    the full breadth of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, and
    somehow relieve it from the budget caps and the weird budgeting
    rules we sometimes create for ourselves, because if you are
    only using 74 percent of it and you still have a need out there
    that means you took 26 percent in the bank----
        Mr. Huizenga. Yeah.
        Mr. Simpson [continuing]. And not using it to address the
    need that you are taxing for us, so it just doesn't make sense.
    But we still have a ways to go into convincing some of our
    colleagues that we need to take it off budget, but still
    subject to appropriation. So I appreciate your work on that.
        Mr. Huizenga. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that,
    and I look forward to working with you and the ranking member
    on this issue continually, so thank you.
        Mr. Simpson. Further questions?
        Ms. Kaptur. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to thank
    Congressman Huizenga for testifying today and being a very
    strong advocate for proper investment in our ports and
    waterways, and particularly because the waterborne commerce and
    transport is the most cost effective means of moving both cargo
    and people. I guess I have often wondered why we haven't paid
    more attention to that. We seem to figure out, well, at least
    partly, how to do roads and bridges, but when it comes to
    waterborne with our four coasts, we often neglect the Great
    Lakes, in particular, so I just thank you very much for coming
    and testifying today, and I know that our chairman is very open
    to working on both sides of the aisle, and hopefully we will
    make a difference this year on the Harbor Maintenance Trust
    Fund. Thank you.
        Mr. Huizenga. All right. Thank you.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you for appearing here today.
    Congressman Diaz Barragan. Is that right? Did I pronounce that
    correctly?
                                  ----------                              --
    --------

                                              Wednesday, March 8, 2017.

                                    WITNESS

    HON. NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE
        OF CALIFORNIA
        Ms. Barragan. Yes.
        Mr. Simpson. Okay. The floor is yours.
        Ms. Barragan. Thank you, Chairman Simpson, Ranking Member
    Kaptur, and members of the Energy and Water Subcommittee. I
    want to thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak to
    you this morning. I am going to echo some of my colleague that
    we just heard from.
        I represent California's 44th Congressional District. It is
    the seat that used to be held by Janice Hahn. It includes areas
    like San Pedro, Compton, and Watts, and it, most notably, has
    the Port of Los Angeles in the district. It is North America's
    largest seaport by container volume and cargo value, and I am
    proud to have that in my district.
        I am proud to represent the thousands of workers that are
    directly and indirectly associated with the Port of Los
    Angeles. It is the largest economic engine in the region, and
    it touches every single congressional district in this country.
    The San Pedro Bay Ports Complex, which includes both the Port
    of L.A. and Long Beach, accounts for one-quarter of the
    Nation's cargo and supports over 3 million jobs nationwide. As
    we mentioned, the goods that pass through the San Pedro Bay
    Port Complex touch nearly every facet of this country.
        In 2016, the Port of L.A. had its best year in its 110-year
    history. As our economy grows--continues to grow, so do the
    size of vessels and freight volumes. When you couple these
    factors with growing international competition and the fact
    that the American Society of Civil Engineers gave our ports a C
    in their report card, it is apparent that more must be done to
    improve our infrastructure for ports and harbors.
        My message today is simple: I urge this esteemed
    subcommittee to fund the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'
    navigation program at $2.9 billion for fiscal year 2018 and
    2017. Specifically, I urge you to fund the donor ports at $50
    million, and to hit the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund
    expenditure targets for both fiscal years 2018 and 2017, so
    that we can remain on the path to utilize 100 percent of the
    Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund revenues by fiscal year 2025 and
    thereafter.
        In June of 2014, the bipartisan Water Resources Reform and
    Development Act, also known as WRRDA, was enacted into law. You
    know, one of the most thoughtful provisions of this law was
    section 2106, which expand the use of the Harbor Maintenance
    Trust Fund for donor ports, for ports such as Los Angeles. As
    you know, in the case of donor ports, Harbor Maintenance Funds
    do not return to the States and harbors where the taxes are
    collected.
        For example, in California, California receives only 15
    percent back of what the shippers at our harbors pay into the
    Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. The San Pedro Bay Ports Complex
    is among the largest collectors of Harbor Maintenance tax funds
    with an average of $200 million each year, but we receive only
    1 percent back.
        Section 2106 of WRRDA addresses some of these tax fairness
    and donor equity issues. The section also authorized
    appropriations of $50 million for each of the fiscal year's
    2015 through 2018. Donor ports are authorized to use these
    discretionary funds for expanded uses, including berths and
    dredging of contaminated sediments, environmental remediation,
    or payments to importers or shippers transporting cargo through
    that port.
        The section 2101 of WRRDA see targets expenditures from the
    Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund increasing each year so that
    fiscal year 2025 and each thereafter, 100 percent of the taxes
    collected will go towards the intended purpose and operation of
    maintenance activities.
        A full utilization of the Harbor Maintenance tax will only
    occur, however, if the level of appropriations for the Civil
    Works Program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is at the
    fiscal year is increased.
        In fiscal year 2016, Congress appropriated $25 million in
    donor ports, of which slightly over $3 million were allocated
    to the Port of Los Angeles for critical berth maintenance
    dredging. For fiscal year 2017, the Senate bill contained $50
    million for donor ports, while the House bill only contained
    $10 million.
        I urge the subcommittee to help our Nation stay
    internationally competitive by funding donor ports at $50
    million for both fiscal years 2018 and 2017, and to hit the
    Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund expenditure targets. I thank you,
    again, for the opportunity to speak before you today.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Simpson. Thank you for your testimony. Are there
    questions? Ken.
        Mr. Calvert. Yeah, I appreciate your coming in and
    testifying. I knew your predecessor quite well. We had those
    discussions often about the Harbor Maintenance account, and
    also about maybe expanding the definition of the Harbor
    Maintenance account to go beyond the port facility because part
    of the problem with a part of--on the part of the Port of L.A./
    Long Beach, is getting the freight out and down the Alameda
    corridor, which we never really completed east of Los Angeles
    and down to the--and down and out of the L.A. Basin and through
    the Inland Empire, where we can move that freight out because
    right now, we just have an overload of freight that is backed
    up along the main rail corridors, and a lot of that is grade
    separations and the rest that need to be improved.
        So maybe in the future, Mr. Chairman, we can work together
    on what the Congresswoman brought up, and also about the
    improvements on those rail lines. Mr. Aguilar has the same
    problem in his district, so it is an issue that we need to
    address.
        Mr. Simpson. I appreciate that and would be happy to work
    with you on it. Thank you for you testimony.
        Ms. Barragan. Thank you.
        Mr. Simpson. You bet. Congressman Crawford.
                                  ----------

                                              Wednesday, March 8, 2017.

                                    WITNESS

    HON. ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
        STATE OF ARKANSAS
        Mr. Crawford. Yes, sir. Chairman Simpson, Ranking Member
    Kaptur, and members of the Energy and Water Subcommittee, thank
    you for allowing me to appear before you today to provide
    testimony on the importance of Army Corps of Engineer project
    funding to the First District of Arkansas.
        As you know, the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project,
    or MR&T, is the largest flood control project in the world.
    MR&T plays an integral role in protecting the Lower Mississippi
    Valley from devastating floods and enables continuous
    navigation along the Mississippi River and its tributaries.
        Since its inception in 1928, taxpayers have received a $46
    return for every dollar invested in this project, while
    preventing $612 billion in flood damages and protecting 4
    million residents of the Lower Mississippi River Valley. MR&T
    also promotes navigation along the river and its tributaries,
    and helps support a vibrant and agriculture economy. Over 500
    million tons of cargo move on the Mississippi River system each
    year, saving billions of dollars in domestic transportation
    costs, and giving U.S. businesses a competitive advantage in
    the global marketplace.
        I appreciate the continued support this subcommittee
    provides for MR&T, and I understand that our current fiscal
    environment forces us to carefully evaluate where each dollar
    goes. For MR&T to meet its current challenges, an increase in
    funding over the current CR funding level of $290 million is
    needed for the program to reach its full capability to protect
    lives, property, and to support commerce.
        To achieve its objectives, MR&T requires funding of
    approximately $500 million. While I recognize the challenging
    environment of fiscal restraint, I believe that Congress must
    prioritize the projects that provide taxpayers the best return
    on their investment. There are few government-funded programs
    that can boast a 46-to-1 return.
        MR&T also supports critical water supply projects needed to
    alleviate the alarming rate of aquifer depletion in the mid-
    south region. Examples include the Grand Prairie and Bayou Meto
    surface water projects that are currently under construction in
    my district. These projects are critical infrastructure
    investments designed to address the depletion of the Alluvial
    and Sparta aquifers. The loss of these aquifers would not only
    result in a severe disruption in the agriculture economy of the
    Delta region, but municipal and other industrial water uses
    would also be severely impacted.
        The U.S. Army Corps predicts the Alluvial aquifer will be
    commercially useless in the near future, and as a result, 66
    percent of the Bayou Meto project area will no longer have
    access to irrigation, while 77 percent of the Grand Prairie
    project will no longer be able to irrigate.
        Unless we deal with this problem now, there will be water
    crisis in the future that will strike a severe blow to the
    economy and quality of life in the already distressed Arkansas
    Delta region. I imagine many of the members of the subcommittee
    face groundwater problems in the districts they represent, but
    it is important to note that unlike many Western States, the
    State of Arkansas does not have access to targeted Federal
    groundwater protection programs such as those operated by the
    Bureau of Reclamation.
        Quite simply, there are no viable alternatives available to
    my constituents. While we have not yet seen a detailed fiscal
    year 2018 presidential budget, I am requesting this committee
    work with me and my staff to find ways to provide water
    infrastructure projects and adequate funding stream, including
    potentially revising the report language that authorized
    expenditures for ongoing work under the MR&T budget.
        Last year, the water supply projects in my strict barely
    received enough funding to satisfy existing contractual
    obligations and staffing needs. Hardly any progress was made on
    project construction, and we currently find ourselves in a
    protracted holding pattern with no end in sight. The longer the
    construction process is drawn out, the more costly these
    projects become to the taxpayer. The current rate of progress
    is unsustainable.
        I understand that the Appropriations Committee has limited
    resources available, and I certainly applaud the work you are
    doing to support critical water infrastructure projects. I am
    very grateful for the subcommittee's continued support for the
    Army Corps' vital work in the Lower Mississippi River Valley.
    Please do not hesitate to contact me or my staff as you work
    through the fiscal year 2018 appropriations process, and I
    thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Simpson. Thank you for being here today. Questions?
        Ms. Kaptur. I do have a question, Mr. Chairman, of
    Representative Crawford, and that is I am from the State of
    Ohio, and the entire Great Lakes system is threatened by
    something called the Asian carp.
        Mr. Crawford. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Kaptur. How do you look upon that issue in your part of
    our country?
        Mr. Crawford. Well, it is actually a very challenging
    issue, and unfortunately, the introduction of the Asian carp
    came about as a result of Fish and Wildlife and a management
    decision they made down in my neck of the woods and without the
    knowledge of what could happen, and now we see them invading
    the Great Lakes. They are a very prolific reproductive species.
        We are looking at potential commercial uses to harvest the
    Asian carp and find some--find a market in China. There is
    actually a market for that fish, and there are other markets
    available, but it is going to continue to be a challenging
    problem for us, not only in the Lower Mississippi, but as you
    have seen, it has migrated north into your area.
        Ms. Kaptur. We have to deal with it in your part of the
    country in order to prevent it spreading north.
        Mr. Crawford. Absolutely.
        Ms. Kaptur. And I know there are different actions being
    undertaken, but it is completely frightening to our maritime--
    --
        Mr. Crawford. It absolutely is.
        Ms. Kaptur [continuing]. And recreational activities up in
    the Great Lakes.
        Mr. Crawford. Well, they are dangerous, quite frankly. They
    pose a physical threat. I mean, they can jump into the boat, if
    that is not bad enough, and they do that routinely. But there
    have been documented cases of severe harm and, even death, by
    hitting individuals on boats because they are big and they are
    pretty aggressive feeders.
        Ms. Kaptur. I would hope Representative Crawford and our
    chairman, who has always been open to our concerns, as we look
    at this entire Mississippi River corridor, that we assure the
    various departments and agencies that the State and Federal
    levels are doing a better job because that is really coming
    north.
        Mr. Crawford. I am glad you brought that up because it
    certainly is a challenge for us, and in my geography, and it is
    not stopping there.
        Ms. Kaptur. We almost need an Asian carp task force that--
    along the entire length of the Mississippi.
        Mr. Crawford. That is not a bad idea, and I would be
    willing to serve on that if such a task force were stood up.
        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. You have experienced them first. All
    right. Thank you so very much. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Crawford, for being
    here today, and we will certainly look forward to working with
    you and your staff when we start putting this thing together.
    Thank you.
        Mr. Green, welcome.
                                  ----------                              --
    --------

                                              Wednesday, March 8, 2017.

                                    WITNESS

    HON. GENE GREEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
        Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and ranking member and
    members of the committee. I want----
        Mr. Simpson. Could you turn your microphone on?
        Mr. Green. Because over my years in Congress, we have
    worked together on a lot of issues. I represent a very urban
    district in Houston, but it includes about half of the Port of
    Houston, and I appreciate your consideration over the last 25
    years or so.
        Our district is home to the Port of Houston. I share that
    with Congressman Brian Babin, and the Port of Houston is one
    of--the number one export terminal in the country. Our port is
    the major economic engine for eastern Harris County in Texas,
    responsible for over 56,000 direct jobs, and over $5 billion in
    State and local tax revenue from business related to the port.
        In order for the Port of Houston and other port facilities
    in the United States to grow and support economic activity
    throughout the country, it is critical for Congress to
    significantly increase funding for the maintenance and dredging
    operations for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for fiscal year
    2018. Increasing funding to the Corps--Army Corps civil works
    operations and maintenance account is the only way to ensure
    that the Port of Houston is dredged to the authorized depth of
    45 foot, and will be able to accommodate the post-Panamax
    vessels that are larger and are becoming the international norm
    for maritime container shipping. The same is true to ports
    along the Gulf Coast, the Atlantic seaboard, who rely on the
    Army Corps, dredging to keep our terminals open for business.
        The other issue in our district and neighboring communities
    in Harris County surrounding are severely impacted by flooding
    in recent years. In the past 2 years, the greater Houston
    region has suffered from two catastrophic flood events on
    Memorial Day of 2015, and as we call it Tax Day of last year,
    2016, that killed 17 local residents and caused billions of
    dollars in damages.
        In fact, many people in Houston directly affected by the
    2016 Tax Day flood have only recently recovered from the
    previous year's flood. In response to the growing frequency of
    catastrophic flooding in the Houston, Harris County, my
    colleagues, Congressman Al Green, Congressman John Culberson,
    and I, along with 100 other Members of Congress, introduced
    legislation last year to authorize $311 million in emergency
    appropriations for flood control projects. That $311 million,
    or the projects that have been approved by the Corps, but we
    haven't been able to fund, and again, we share 10 Members of
    Congress around the Houston area, and flooding doesn't matter.
    It gets all of us because we are the coastal plain, and I have
    bayous and rivers that go through my area, and we are fortunate
    to have them, although they do silt up our port, too. That is
    why we have to dredge.
        The legislation was not enacted, and--but it showed the
    support, and I would urge the subcommittee to significantly
    increase the Corps of Engineers' Flood Control and Coastal
    Emergencies Account. A robust increase in Corps--Army Corps
    flood projects would greatly benefit communities in Houston and
    along the Gulf Coast who live in constant fear when the next
    flood will strike and save billions of dollars in property
    protected from flood damage.
        And again, I want to thank you for the opportunity to
    testify, and, again, thank you for the relationship our--I have
    had with this subcommittee for many years. I would be glad to
    answer any questions.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Congressman. I appreciate you being
    here today, and I know you have got a tough area down there
    with all the floods that has going on lately, and we look
    forward to working with you and the other Members from that
    area to try and address those concerns.
        Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Kaptur. I just----
        Mr. Simpson. Questions?
        Ms. Kaptur [continuing]. Want to echo the chairman's words
    there. Frankly, Houston has just been battered, your coastline
    over and over. I really congratulate your community, your
    citizenry for their stalwartness in face of all of that, and I
    know we will try to do everything we can to help.
        Mr. Green. Thank you.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you for being here today.
        Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Simpson. Mr. Carter.
                                  ----------

                                              Wednesday, March 8, 2017.

                                    WITNESS

    HON. EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
        STATE OF GEORGIA
        Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it is an honor to
    be with you, and I thank all the committee members. I
    appreciate this opportunity to share my priorities and concerns
    for the First Congressional District of Georgia. It is an honor
    to represent a district that is so geographically diverse and
    rich in water resources. I look forward to working with you,
    Mr. Chairman, and the Energy and Water Subcommittee, to address
    a number of different challenges we are currently facing.
        I would like to start by saying thank you. Thank you for
    your continued commitment to working with us to complete SHEP,
    the Savannah Harbor Expansion Project. As you know, it is the
    most exhaustively studied, deep-draft project in the Nation and
    represents a significant economic opportunity not just for
    coastal Georgia and the surrounding areas, but for the region
    as a whole. Under the Corps of Engineers' original cost
    estimate, the Federal Government's share would need to be
    roughly $100 million annually to keep the project on track and
    on budget.
        It is these major deep-draft navigational projects that
    will be the stimulus for growing our economy. For this reason,
    I am respectfully supporting a funding request that would
    ensure robust funding for the construction of deep-draft
    navigation projects across the country.
        We are also fortunate to have one of the busiest roll-on/
    roll-off ports in the Nation. The Port of Brunswick has also
    seen tremendous growth with the majority of their increase
    being roll-on/roll-off in bulk cargo. While this is great news,
    it is not without difficulties. For years, we have worked with
    Corps of Engineers and the Georgia Ports Authority to deepen
    the river to authorize maintenance depth, but the Federal
    funding has been below needed levels.
        In addition, compounding shoaling and natural disasters
    have created additional challenges for the operators of these
    ships. As a result, I am supporting the need for better funding
    for maintenance projects across the Nation. With needed
    attention towards our Nation's operations and maintenance
    needs, we can keep our water-based infrastructure projects on
    track.
        While I have touched on these two major ports, the issue of
    harbor maintenance is a concern that both this subcommittee and
    authorizers have addressed before with the Harbor Maintenance
    Trust Fund. As we seek to grow our economy, we need to have
    ports that can sustain adequate depths as we transition to the
    larger vessels making calls.
        I know, Mr. Chairman, that you remain committed to finding
    a solution to this problem, and I look forward to working with
    you to remedy this situation. In addition to the previously
    mentioned projects, the Tybee Island Shore Protection Project
    is vital to protecting and sustaining the measures needed to
    keep the residents of Tybee Island safe from further severe
    weather events.
        The recent damage caused by Hurricane Matthew was mitigated
    thanks to the dune protections that were in place. Phase 2 of
    the Savannah Channel Impact Study is important to assessing
    erosion along the shoreline, and to determine the steps
    necessary to reduce the impacts of future severe weather
    events.
        I support sufficient funding under Additional Funding,
    Shore Protection Investigations, to ensure that Tybee Island,
    like many other communities, has the protection it needs to
    survive another disaster.
        Mr. Chairman, I am extremely appreciative of the hard work
    that you and your colleagues on the subcommittee do in crafting
    the Energy and Waters Appropriations bill as we discuss
    infrastructure development and ways to stimulate our economy,
    and we need to look no further than the water-based
    infrastructure stimulating global trade. I deeply appreciate
    your attention to these matters, and thank you for the
    opportunity to provide this input.
        Again, Mr. Chairman, I thank all of you for your work, you
    and your committee members for your work. These deep-draft
    navigational ports are extremely important, as you know, and I
    am not exaggerating when I say that SHEP, the Savannah Harbor
    Expansion Project, is the most, without question, the most
    investigated project that we have ever had. It is the most
    exhaustively studied deep water project that we have had. We
    have been doing this now for going on 20 years, and still
    haven't completed that project.
        This is funding that we desperately need, not for the First
    District of Georgia, not only for the State of Georgia but for
    the whole southeast United States. This is an impact that we
    can have on the whole southeastern portion of the United
    States. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all of the
    committee members.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Simpson. Thank you for being here today, Mr. Carter. We
    appreciate it very much. Other questions?
        Ms. Kaptur. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask
    Congressman Carter--thank you for your excellent testimony.
        Mr. Carter. Sure.
        Ms. Kaptur. Could you just explain to us who don't come
    from your part of the country, how the changing nature of the
    ecosystem, the weather and everything has impacted your area?
    You talked about shoaling up, you talked about silting up, what
    is going on? In a bigger sense rather than just the port, the
    deep water port, what is happening in the region?
        Mr. Carter. Well, keep in mind where we are. If you know
    the geography of the United States, Savannah is somewhat
    inland. Remember that the--Florida comes up and then it kind of
    shifts east and goes--and the eastern shoreline goes up, so
    Savannah is accessible to more areas within the southeast, just
    because of our location on the coast.
        We are more inland than the outer ports are, and that
    causes some problems, in and of itself, when you talk about
    some of the geographical problems that we have and some of the
    changes that we have, and particularly in the weather. It is
    both advantageous, and, at the same time, it can be a hindrance
    to us. It is advantageous because it makes us closer to a lot
    of the geographical areas and a lot of cities along the eastern
    seaboard, along the eastern United States. We don't have to
    travel as far to get there, but at the same time, it does cause
    a lot of silting and a lot of filling in of our ports, and we
    have to have a lot more maintenance.
        Ms. Kaptur. Is there more wave action, or what is
    happening?
        Mr. Carter. There is. Our tide shift in this particular
    area is more than just about anywhere else in the United
    States. We have alternating tides. We have tide shifts of 7, 8
    feet at times, and that is just unheard of in other areas in
    the country.
        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you. If there are no other questions,
    thank you, Mr. Carter. We appreciate it. We look forward to
    working with you on your----
        Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you
    especially, and your help on this and all the committee
    members.
        Mr. Simpson. You bet. Mr. Johnson, thank you for being here
    today.
                                  ----------                              --
    --------

                                              Wednesday, March 8, 2017.

                                    WITNESS

    HON. MIKE JOHNSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
        LOUISIANA
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Chairman Simpson, and Ranking
    Member Kaptur, and my colleagues and distinguished members of
    the subcommittee. I want to thank you for this opportunity to
    testify in front of the Energy and Water Development
    Subcommittee on the importance of developing and maintaining
    Louisiana and the Nation's water infrastructure needs.
        Today, I ask the committee to help fund dredging needs that
    will provide much-needed resources related to flooding and
    navigation benefit, and not forget the tremendous benefit that
    shallow draft waterways and ports have in bringing jobs back to
    the United States.
        The role our inland waterway systems play is an integral
    part of our Nation's maritime system, and it is critically
    important to our prosperity as a country. In my district,
    Louisiana's Fourth District, some our biggest challenges and
    yet some of our greatest opportunities revolve around port
    infrastructure and further development of the navigation of our
    rivers.
        We have four shallow draft port authorities which service
    485 miles of navigable waterways and shallow draft river miles.
    As many of you are aware, the Red River in northwest Louisiana
    experienced an historic flood, even in June of 2015, which
    affected 21 of our parishes. This flood, along with a series of
    other recent flooding events, have significantly damaged our
    navigation structures, and they are currently threatening the
    maintenance of the channel and the safety of our residents.
        An immediate issue that was identified was how far off the
    actual river's flood stage crest was from the projected crest,
    which is based on a 1990 flood of record. The flood crest in
    2015 was significantly higher than the flood crest in 1990,
    with less volume of water measured at the Shreveport gauge,
    which is our primary gauge there. The higher flood stage caused
    significant damage to homes and agricultural land and
    businesses, our oil and gas industry, and our public
    infrastructures.
        In order to determine the reasons for these discrepancies,
    a sedimentation survey and hydraulic model from the Army Corps
    of Engineers is necessary. The $1.5 million study is authorized
    under the existing J. Bennett Johnson Waterway Project,
    Construction's General Account. Unfortunately, only $250,000
    was allocated in fiscal year 2016. Robust funding is
    desperately needed to help projects such as this come to
    fruition.
        If this survey and the model are not completed and
    analyzed, the 350,000 acres, and approximately 58,000 residents
    of the area, will continue to suffer from future flood events.
    It is imminent.
        A second major issue concerns the protection of our major
    infrastructure. River levels have come within feet of entering
    many structures in Bossier City on the other side of the river
    from Shreveport. Due to the damaged river profile, it is highly
    likely that levees need to be raised and flood walls
    constructed to protect existing infrastructure.
        FEMA has stated that the Federal methods used to regulate
    development of the special flood hazard areas would have to be
    reevaluated due to ongoing discrepancies, which were on full
    display during the 2015 flood event. However, in true-to-form
    fashion, FEMA cannot provide a final base flood elevation, or
    BFE, or a flood insurance rate map, FIRM, it can't do those
    updates without the Corps' sedimentation study and the
    hydraulic model.
        Funding the sedimentation survey would allow FEMA to do
    their job, and, thus, further protect the people of Louisiana
    by completing updates to the BFE and the FIRM. In addition to
    these studies, the Red River has several other immediate items
    which were in need of Federal action and funding. I ask the
    committee to continue to work with me on the ongoing needs
    related to dredging so that river navigation for a 24/7
    industry can be maintained.
        These funding priorities will not only help protect
    constituents, but it will improve business development for
    opportunities not only for Louisiana, but also Texas and
    Arkansas. Navigation funds through the Corps are truly needed
    to ensure and maintain a 9-by-200 foot channel. Without this,
    businesses will not only take elsewhere to invest, those that
    already have invested in north Louisiana will probably leave.
        The planned goal is to get a 12-foot river depth to ensure
    adequate competition with nearby rivers, such as the
    Mississippi and Arkansas Rivers. A request for an investigation
    to change the authorized depth from a 9-foot to a 12-foot
    channel has been initiated. Repair for damaged buoys, locks,
    and levees along the Red River are also needed.
        The construction features of the J. Bennett Johnston
    Waterway Project are only 93 percent complete. The Alexandria
    Front Dike Reinforcement Construction project and the J.H.
    Overton Lock & Dam 2 Lower Approach project are examples of two
    that can compete for funding with the construction general
    account resources for these projects, and those will help to
    aid in completion of the J. Bennett Johnston Waterway.
        A final example of where navigation funds are needed is the
    Ouchita-Black Rivers Navigation project. Previously, the fiscal
    year 2017 budget request for the navigation project was 8.5
    million, and additional maintenance account funds will allow
    this project to compete for the additional funds necessary to
    keep the waterway open for commercial navigation in the next
    year.
        I am out of time. I just want to strongly urge this
    subcommittee to invest in our ports and waterways so that our
    local communities can continue to build vibrant economies, and
    I stand ready to work with each of you and the administration
    in developing meaningful solutions to better maintain and
    enhance our Nations's vast water infrastructure system. And I
    am grateful for your time and your diligence on all these
    important needs.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. I appreciate you being
    here today.
        Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Simpson. Other questions?
        Ms. Kaptur. Mr. Chairman, I gather we don't have another
    witness right away, so I am just going to take 30 seconds to--
    --
        Mr. Simpson. Okay.
        Ms. Kaptur [continuing]. Thank Congressman Johnson very
    much but to ask you if you have any theories about why the
    flood crest in 2015 was significantly higher than the flood
    crest in 1990. What is happening in your part of North America?
        Mr. Johnson. It is an excellent question, and the subject
    of much conjecture in our district. The prevailing theory seems
    to be that sedimentation has settled on the bed of the river,
    and that the Army Corps did not take that into account when
    they set that flood level, and so it is a substantial rise.
        We have lots of sedimentation on the Red River, and it has
    just built up over time, and so it was just something no one
    factored in apparently, as crazy as that sounds, and it was a
    gross underestimation. The--combine this flood with the flood
    that we had in south Louisiana several months later, we had the
    fourth most costly flood crises in American history in our
    State, and we are struggling to recover so----
        Ms. Kaptur. Are you getting more rainfall?
        Mr. Johnson. Let's hope not catastrophic levels.
        Ms. Kaptur. I guess what I am saying, are you getting more
    rainfall in shorter periods of time or larger volumes of
    rainfall? Is that contributing to the problem or not?
        Mr. Johnson. I don't know that that has been assessed to be
    the problem. I know there was an historic rainfall event in
    States just to our north, and, of course, it flowed down to us.
    And so it wasn't even really the rainfall levels in northwest
    Louisiana that caught us; it was rainfall in Missouri and
    Oklahoma and other areas, and it just came to us.
        We are doing our best to prepare for future events, and we
    are deeply concerned, pun not intended, that we could have a
    catastrophic event if these things happen again, so----
        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Thank you for being here today. We
    appreciate your testimony, and we look forward to working with
    you and your staff.
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you so much.
        Mr. Simpson. You bet. We are going to be in recess for just
    a few minutes. We have three more people that are here to
    testify, and they should be here shortly. We should be done in
    the next 25 minutes or so when they get here, so we will take a
    brief recess until they come.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Simpson. The committee will be back in order. Thank
    you, Mr. Wilson, for being here. We look forward to your
    testimony today. The floor is yours.
                                  ----------                              --
    --------

                                              Wednesday, March 8, 2017.

                                    WITNESS

    HON. JOE WILSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH
        CAROLINA
        Mr. Wilson. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and with Ranking
    Member Kaptur, what an honor to be here with both of you. This
    is kind of a show of bright faces here. Thank you. And then,
    excuse me, Congressman Fleischmann, too. I was not anticipating
    such extraordinary people, so thank you very much. I appreciate
    the opportunity to meet with you today.
        First, I would like to thank Chairman Mike Simpson for his
    leadership as chairman of the House Appropriation Subcommittee
    on Energy and Water. I am grateful to represent South
    Carolina's Second Congressional District, a diverse and
    thriving community that is home to vital national security
    environmental cleanup missions.
        Today, I will specifically address the necessity of fully
    resourcing the very positive and proven missions at the
    Savannah River site and the Aiken-Barnwell community that I
    represent adjacent to Augusta, Georgia. The Savannah River site
    is home to the mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility, MOX
    facility, a valuable part of our nonproliferation and nuclear
    security. The MOX facility is currently 70 percent completed,
    and when completed, will be the Nation's only facility that can
    convert weapons grade plutonium into green fuel. The--and bring
    the United States back in compliance with our international
    nonproliferation agreements.
        I am confident that after examining MOX with clear unbiased
    data, it will be apparent that completing MOX is in the best
    interest of our national security. The Savannah River National
    Laboratory conducts cutting edge research supporting our
    Nation's ability to produce tritium, to monitor and detect
    capabilities for nuclear nonproliferation, and to conduct
    nuclear forensics. It researches and provides improved
    technologies for safely storing and transporting high-level
    radioactive waste.
        Additionally, the laboratory continues to make advancements
    in electrical grid security, studying electromagnetic pulses,
    EMPs. The Savannah River site is home to other critical
    Department of Energy nuclear security and environmental cleanup
    missions as it safely processes Cold War era nuclear materials
    into stable materials that can be stored for later disposal.
        Last year, the site completed construction of the salt
    waste processing facility, greatly enhancing the speed and
    efficiency of the remediation of high-level waste. Other
    critical facilities include H-Canyon, the Nation's only
    production scale nuclear chemical separations plant, and both K
    and L areas where--which safely store nuclear materials.
        Now, all the missions at the Savannah River site are vital
    to bolstering our national security capability and safe
    environmental stewardship.
        Since 1952, the Savannah River site has played a critical
    role in processing and disposing of high-level defense waste.
    However, the Savannah River site was never intended to be a
    long-term option for high-level waste. It lacks the ability to
    serve as a permanent repository. The only viable permanent
    repository is Yucca Mountain, which is environmentally secure.
        I strongly urge the Appropriations Committee to allocate
    funding specifically for the completion of Yucca Mountain
    license application. Abandoning Yucca Mountain in favor of a
    nonexistent alternative would leave the communities across the
    United States, including the South Carolina-Georgia Central
    Savannah River region to bear the burden of storing nuclear
    waste the Federal Government has promised to remove.
        Additionally, American ratepayers have put enormous
    resources to completing the nuclear storage facility at Yucca
    Mountain, including $1.5 billion from the ratepayers of South
    Carolina. I believe that the completion of the license
    application will highlight the technical merits and alleviate
    any environmental concerns for its neighbors.
        I appreciate the difficult decisions the committee must
    make as we begin the appropriations process for fiscal year
    2018. Thank you for your time. I urge you to continue
    supporting the vital missions at the Savannah River site and at
    Yucca Mountain. Thank you and would be happy to answer any
    questions.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Congressman Wilson.
        Mr. Fleischmann.
        Mr. Fleischmann. Yes. Congressman Wilson, I want to thank
    you for your advocacy today, and also, to let everyone here
    know, the EM mission nationally is so critically important. I
    know Savannah River has a project, Idaho has a project,
    Oakridge has literally decades worth of work, Hanford. We can
    literally look all across the country, and I would like to
    urge, as you have done, participation in our bipartisan nuclear
    cleanup caucus. It is one of the fastest growing caucuses in
    Congress. Ben Ray Lujan is my cochairman. We work very well
    together to advocate, and when a particular site has either had
    a deficiency or has a need, we have been able to address that
    in a very effective way.
        So thank you for your advocacy. Savannah River is a
    critically important site as is Oakridge, and I appreciate your
    testimony here today, sir.
        Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much. And indeed, it is so
    positive to me to see the working relationships between the
    various sites across the Nation. It is really inspiring to see
    how positive it is and look forward to working with Congressman
    Lujan, too. I have worked with him on a number of issues, and
    this can be bipartisan and positive for the national security
    of the people of the United States.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Wilson.
        Ms. Kaptur.
        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. I just wanted also to thank
    Congressman Wilson for testifying today and bringing forward
    the importance of waste--nuclear waste disposal. I am hoping
    that in any new infrastructure bill that is proposed that the
    cleanup issues will be also considered for inclusion and both
    for the types of waste that you specify in your testimony as
    well as spent ordinance, which is a big problem in many places
    in the country and other ingredients that have been a part of
    our defense and nuclear complex.
        I think this could be a job creator. It is work that we
    have had backlogged on our accounts for years and years and
    years, and I think you could be an important voice in that. So
    along with the rest of us. So I just thank you very much for
    testifying this morning. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the
    time.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Thanks for your
    testimony, and we look forward to working with you on this
    year's budget.
        Mr. Wilson. Again, what leadership here. I am just honored
    to be in your presence. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Again we will be in brief recess
    until our next witness comes.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Simpson. The committee will be back in order. We are
    happy to have the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee with us today. I
    look forward to your testimony. The floor is yours.
                                  ----------                              --
    --------

                                              Wednesday, March 8, 2017.

                                    WITNESS

    HON. SHEILA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
        TEXAS
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much to Mr. Simpson and Ms.
    Kaptur. Thank you to this committee for its work that I think
    strikes an enormously bipartisan and nonpartisan cord, because
    all of us are concerned about major elements of clean water,
    clean air, and certainly energy for this Nation. So I wish to
    highlight the energy, water, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
    programs, which warrant the committee's continued attention and
    support. I will speak quickly about some initial ones so that I
    can focus on something that I think you have seen me on the
    floor confronting, and that is the flooding in Houston, Harris
    County, and, certainly, flooding that we have seen over the
    last couple years around the country.
        First of all, I support the $1.26 billion for Harbor
    Maintenance Trust Fund. Particularly, Houston Port is a manmade
    port. We face these issues of continuing to have to maintain
    the port so that it is viable for the major vessels that come
    in. As you well know, through the opening of the Panama Canal
    in its full force, the Houston Port will become busier than
    ever, and the dredging that is necessary is crucial. We
    continue to debate the question of how much money we send to
    the United States and how much money we receive, but I support
    the $1.26 billion for the importance, if you will, the
    importance of helping not only the Houston Port, but around the
    Nation. I support the $230 million for the Weatherization
    Assistance Program. WAP helps low income seniors, and I support
    that greatly as it relates to their energy efficiency. I
    support $2 million for the U.S.-Israel Energy Cooperation
    Program, robust funding for the DOE's Wind Energy Program in
    the State of Texas. We have taken wings, if I might say that.
        The wind program is unbelievable to both the chairman and
    the ranking member. It is particularly outside of our urban
    centers. It is in our rural communities. Our farmers are
    welcoming the windmills and asking, how many more can be placed
    on my land while I continue to do my--the commitment to the
    agriculture business that I have? So I am really supportive of
    expanding this program as a continuing substitute, or
    complement, to energy needs in the United States.
        I support $2.9 billion for energy efficiency; $5.672
    billion for DOE Office of Science, in particular, working with
    the NIH and the President BRAIN Initiative, we will develop the
    next generation tools and technology to support research into
    the brain. I support $84 million for the National Network for
    Manufacturing; support $70 million for the State Energy
    Program.
        And now to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This is a
    lifeline in Harris County. We have the Harris County Flood
    Control District. We just had a report assessing that some of
    the work that we have done may have helped, or may be helping a
    neighborhood that has suffered flooding almost two years
    straight, with loss of life. And that is really striking in an
    urban area. This is a residential area where people were lost
    by their vehicles, either flooding into the bayou, which is
    what we have, or they themselves flooding into the bayou.
        One particularly sad incident was firefighters who rescued
    two seniors and another individual. These seniors had just from
    come the graduation of their granddaughter, and because the
    storms were so bad, the family said, why don't you head home,
    not wait till the program is over, and they, unfortunately, got
    flooded out, I think even as they were getting out of their
    car. They were rescued by firefighters, but the boat toppled
    over, and they--both of them lost their lives.
        So this is in the urban area of Houston. And so the Army
    Corps of Engineers does vital work. The appropriations funds
    studies to determine the need, engineering feasibility, and
    economic and environmental return to the Nation of potential
    solutions to water and related land-resource problems, pre-
    construction engineering and design, and related data
    collection, interagency coordination research are very, very
    important. The Army Corps of Engineers plays a critical role,
    and it certainly is important to us.
        I was pleased that the fiscal year 2017 energy and water
    spending bill provided that the Secretary of the Army may
    initiate up to six new studies, and that five of those studies
    should be in areas where the majority of benefits are derived.
    I am optimistic that these provisions will be retained in
    fiscal year 2018, and that one of these new studies selected
    will be the Houston Regional Watershed Assessment Flood Risk
    and Management Feasibility Study that I have advocated for.
    Such a study is certainly needed to give the frequency and
    severity of historic level flood events in recent years in and
    around the historic Houston metropolitan area. I have asked for
    this for $3 million. We have never had a study of whether--how
    the bayous work together, and whether our improvements really
    work, and so this would be a great necessity.
        Let me quickly try to conclude by noting on April 15, 2016,
    an estimated 240 billion gallons of water fell in the Houston
    area over a 12-hour period, which resulted in several areas
    exceeding the 100- to 500-year flood area. The May 2015 Houston
    flood destroyed 3,015 homes, left eight persons dead. The
    economic damage caused by the 2015 Houston flood is estimated
    at $3 billion. The damage from 2016 is estimated at above $2
    billion. Not a hurricane; just rain. And our city is filled
    with bayous.
        So, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, minimizing the risk of
    flood damage to the Houston and Harris County metropolitan
    area, the Nation's fourth largest, is a matter of national
    significance, because the region is one of the Nation's major
    technology, energy, and financial report--export, and medical
    centers.
        So I support $2.8 billion for operation and maintenance; $6
    billion for coastal ocean data system; but, particularly,
    advocate for the study that I hope we can receive and so that
    we can assess the effectiveness of the tax dollars that we have
    received, the tax dollars that we hope to receive, and the
    effectiveness of making sure that we could be even a model for
    how you address the question of urban flooding in a location
    that is 50 feet below sea level, even though we are a few miles
    in from the Gulf.
        So I thank you all very much for the work that you do and
    ask your consideration. Thank you so very much.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Representative Jackson Lee. We
    appreciate you being here today. And Marcy, do you have
    anything?
        Ms. Kaptur. I just want to thank Congresswoman Jackson Lee
    for her excellent work and her indefatigability--Is that a
    word? Did I say it properly there? --on many fronts. And I have
    to say, all of the members of this committee, or the
    subcommittee, are very concerned about Houston and what has
    happened to you, the stalwartness it has taken for your people
    to come through the flooding, and wondering, you know, what the
    proper solutions are for--the proper engineering solutions are
    for an area like yours. We have also heard from witnesses from
    Georgia, Louisiana, and Florida, all along the southern part of
    the United States, the silting up of ports, the severity of
    storms, and now you are here as one of our final witnesses
    today. So it does make us wonder how to prepare our country for
    the future in this century, and so your information is very
    valuable to us.
        And I only have one question. In addition to that general
    concern about what is happening to our general weather patterns
    and environmental security along the southern part of our
    country, the entire question of your deep water port at Houston
    and how what is happening in the Panama Canal is impacting you?
    Could you expound on that just a little bit for it record,
    please?
        Ms. Jackson Lee. I would be delighted. And I would say it
    is a positive impact, and that is because of the new potential
    direction of the ships getting through much faster. Our port,
    which is now very close to the Panama's new route, so the
    Panama Canal's new routes that allow these ships to come
    through coming from the west and the east. We are seeing an
    increased use and higher tonnage coming into the Houston Port,
    which is a very large port, we are 10th in the world, but we
    are a manmade port, and we have to have dredging on a regular
    basis. And in order to maintain the viability of those ships
    and the income that comes in there, and also to be a
    contributor to the Nation's economy, because we do, we need to
    have the kind of maintenance that is intense and we need
    funding for that intense maintenance.
        So what I was saying is that it is a positive impact, but
    we are not a natural port, and that means we have to work at
    maintaining the port. And the port leaves the larger waters and
    comes into us up a 50-mile run that we have drudged to create
    the port, which is really right almost inside Houston, Texas,
    so inside city limits; our port comes into the city limits of
    Houston, and surrounding neighborhoods are there as well.
        So we have had a number of other issues that we have dealt
    with with the port being there, but the surrounding residential
    neighborhood has accepted the port, the port has tried to be a
    good neighbor, but all those concerns face us as a manmade
    port.
        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you. We appreciate your testimony and
    look forward to working with you as we put this budget
    together.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank you, Chairman. Might I have a
    special appreciation to Ranking Member Kaptur, who took note
    the $3 million study in the last debate on the floor and her
    staff was very helpful to our office, and we are most grateful
    to you and for your leadership here, and to the chairman, for
    both of you working so well together. Thank you.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. I yield back.
        Mr. Simpson. And, again, we will be in recess for a couple
    minutes as we are waiting for our last individual to come and
    testify.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Simpson. The committee is back in order, and will
    receive testimony from Congresswoman Watson Coleman. The floor
    is yours.
                                  ----------

                                              Wednesday, March 8, 2017.

                                    WITNESS

    HON. BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE
        OF NEW JERSEY
        Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you so much, Chairman. And thank
    you, Ranking Member Kaptur. I want to thank you for this
    opportunity to testify today on the agencies and programs under
    the jurisdiction of the Energy and Water Development
    Appropriations Subcommittee.
        The Army Corps' Civil Works Program covers a wide range of
    water resources activities that are essential to the public
    health and safety. I appreciate the important work this
    subcommittee has done in ensuring adequate funding for the Army
    Corps programs in previous years, which has benefited many of
    our communities and constituents. In past years, groups like
    the Greenbrook Flood Commission have used targeted Federal
    investments under the Civil Works Program to improve quality of
    life by expanding on water resource development activities like
    recreation and flood risk management. The Civil Works Program
    has also allowed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to strengthen
    its relationship with our communities through its projects that
    have enhanced quality of life for thousands of people.
        The Greenbrook Flood Commission, which supports 13
    different municipalities in my district, has already provided
    rejuvenation and relief to residents by completion of
    components of the Greenbrook sub-basin project through flood
    control programs. This project encompasses an area that has
    been ravaged by extreme flooding, which has caused extensive
    property damage, and even the loss of life.
        Over the course of nearly 40 years, the U.S. Army Corps of
    Engineers project manager for this project has worked to
    ameliorate the extreme flooding conditions through the
    construction of extensive levees, flood walls, and pump
    stations. In fiscal year 2016, the Army Corps Civil Works
    Program received approximately $6 billion in funding. Providing
    the Corps with the sufficient funding for fiscal year 2017 and
    2018, it is critical to keeping projects like this moving
    forward, especially knowing that certain projects like this one
    have previously languished due to a lack of funding.
        Projects like this one also help build a stronger and safer
    America by constructing durable and sustainable infrastructure
    that prioritizes the protection of life and property. They also
    help modernize our communities and reduce the risk of damage
    from natural resources, while promoting job creation and
    environmental stewardship.
        So, again, I want to thank the chairman and the ranking
    member for this opportunity to testify, and hope that Congress
    will continue to support the robust funding for such critical
    programs. And with that, I yield back.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Simpson. Thank you. We appreciate your testimony today.
        Questions, Ms. Kaptur?
        Ms. Kaptur. No, Mr. Chairman, but I do want to thank
    Congresswoman Watson Coleman for testifying today and for your
    support of the Corps. As we move forward here this year, we are
    expecting something on infrastructure from the administration,
    completion of many of these projects, augmentation around the
    country of work already underway could be a part of that
    measure, so I just wanted to put that on the table as we accept
    your excellent testimony.
        Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you very much.
        And, Mr. Chairman and Madam Ranking Member, I just--I want
    to apologize for being a bit late. I was testifying downstairs.
    It is just one of those days.
        Mr. Simpson. It is one of those days. We appreciate it. You
    weren't late, actually.
        Mrs. Watson Coleman. Oh, good. Thank you.
        Mr. Simpson. But we appreciate you coming. We appreciate
    all the members that came to testify today. Their comments will
    be included in the record.
        And I would also remind members that might be listening
    that our member request day is closed on April--database closes
    on April 6, so have the individual member requests in to the
    subcommittee so they can start working on them.
        But thank you very much, Bonnie----
        Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you.
        Mr. Simpson [continuing]. For coming here today and
    testifying before us. And we look forward to working with you
    and your staff as we put this bill together.
        Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
        Mrs. Watson Coleman. Appreciate it very much.
        Mr. Simpson. The hearing is adjourned.

             TESTIMONY OF INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS

                                  ----------                              --
    --------

                                                Wednesday, May 3, 2017.

                              CITY OF TYBEE ISLAND

                                    WITNESS

    JASON BUELTERMAN, MAYOR, CITY OF TYBEE ISLAND
        Mr.  Simpson. The hearing will come to order. Thank you,
    all of you, for being here today. This is the first time this
    Committee, I think, at least in my memory, and I have been on
    it for a long time, has had public witnesses. And I think it is
    a good idea and we have--also, because we have had the time
    this year, because we have not been able to have any other
    witnesses because we have not got a budget yet and probably
    will not until the end of this month, so we thought it was a
    good time to have the public witness hearing and hear what all
    of you thought is important in this bill and things we ought to
    be considering as we draft this bill.
        I would like to welcome everyone to the Energy and Water
    public witness hearing. This morning members of the public will
    testify on issues that are important to them under the
    jurisdiction of this subcommittee.
        Each witness will have 5 minutes to present their
    testimony. Remember that your full testimony, the written
    statement, will appear in the hearing record. Members of the
    subcommittee may ask questions of the witnesses, but we would
    have a better chance of staying on schedule if we all work to
    keep this moving. We have to be done at 12:30 and we have 27
    witnesses it looks like, so I am going to keep to the 5-minute
    rule.
        So, would Ms. Kaptur have an opening statement?
        Ms.  Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am just so happy we
    can all be together this morning. I want to thank you for your
    leadership and for this public witness day. I welcome these
    days in particular, of the testimony that will come before us,
    and they are both valuable and I would say quite motivating for
    those of us on this subcommittee. I look forward to hearing
    from all of the interested parties today on what you believe
    important to be in our bill. And with that, I will close my
    remarks.
        And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for arranging this important
    opportunity for all of us to work together on behalf of the
    Nation's best interest.
        Mr.  Simpson. Thank you. Our first panel is Mayor Jason--
    pronounce your last name for me.
        Mr.  Buelterman. Buelterman.
        Mr.  Simpson. Buelterman, kind of throws my tongue in the
    middle, Buelterman, okay. Mayor and Derek Brockbank, welcome to
    the committee and the time is yours. Mayor, first.
        Mr.  Buelterman. Thank you very much. Good morning. I want
    to start by thanking Subcommittee Chairman----
        Mr.  Simpson. Is the microphone on?
        Mr.  Buelterman. I want to start by thanking you all for
    the opportunity to present before you today. My appearance
    before you is to underscore the need for increased
    appropriations to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
    investigations account, specifically additional funding for
    shore protection investigations that the committee has provided
    in the past.
        I want to use an example for my own city of Tybee Island,
    Georgia, to demonstrate what I believe is a pressing need for
    these funds across many coastal regions of the country. For
    those who may not be aware, Tybee is a barrier island located
    about 18 miles east of Savannah, Georgia.
        It is the eastern most point in the State of Georgia and is
    known for being a popular recreational destination for the
    region, as well as a vacation spot among tourists from outside
    the Savannah metropolitan area and is also home to about 3,000
    full-time residents.
        The sandy shoreline of Tybee is of significant value. While
    it is important to the city and region as a recreational venue,
    its primary purpose, the beach that is and the dunes, is to
    provide protection against damages caused by storms and coastal
    flooding.
        Recently my community suffered significant damage due to
    Hurricane Matthew. The total damage to Tybee amounted to at
    least $3.4 million. Those damages would have been far greater
    had our Federal Shore Protection Project not been in place.
        The Tybee Island Shore Protection Project was authorized by
    Section 201 of the Flood Control Act of 1965. It provides
    periodic renourishments estimated to be every 7 years until the
    end of the 50-year project life, which expires in 2024.
        The City of Tybee is working to extend the project's
    authorization and bolster its dune system. The Savannah
    district office of the Corps, at the request of our city, made
    a funding request for the President's fiscal year 2018 budget
    to fund what is called Phase II of the Savannah Channel Impact
    Study.
        Phase I of this study determined that approximately 73
    percent of the erosion of Tybee shelf and shoreline is caused
    by impacts from the manmade federally authorized Savannah
    harbor shipping channel.
        Under law, the Federal Government is responsible for
    mitigating damages caused by its own navigation projects.
        Phase II of this study, which is one of the reasons I am
    here, will determine what measures will be recommended to
    address the erosion. The study will be all encompassing,
    including assessing adding dunes to the existing Federal Shore
    Protection Project and assessing the severe erosion that has
    occurred along the shoreline of the northern end of our island.
        This portion of our island, although it is adjacent to the
    shipping channel, is not part of the current Federal Shore
    Protection Project and has been severely impacted by shipping
    traffic using the Savannah channel and will face even greater
    erosional impacts due to the channel's ongoing deepening.
        I urge the House Committee on Appropriations to provide
    sufficient funding to enable the funding of the Phase II study.
        I also want to highlight another issue that I respectfully
    ask the subcommittee to keep in mind as you determine future
    funding needs for shore protection projects.
        One of the major lessons of Hurricane Matthew and
    Superstorm Sandy was a massive amount of money that did not
    need to be spent in Federal post-disaster and flood insurance
    costs due to the existence of manmade dunes.
        I have given all a one-page--two pictures here on one sheet
    of paper. These two photos you have before you illustrate my
    point. The top photo of is of a beach town right up the coast
    from the second photo at the bottom of a town called Harvey
    Cedars, New Jersey.
        Both aerial shots were taken right after Superstorm Sandy.
    The town in the top photo, and I am not going to identify which
    one that is, did not have manmade dunes. The bottom photo is of
    a town that wisely did have manmade dunes.
        These dunes were built as part of a newer Federal Shore
    Protection Project by the Army Corps of Engineers. It is
    estimated that about $1.3 billion in Sandy-related damages were
    saved by the existence of Federal Shore Protection Projects in
    New York and New Jersey alone.
        Dunes are not part, however, of many older Federal Shore
    Protection Projects, such as the one on Tybee. Because of the
    time of the creation of projects, dunes were not considered in
    the 1970s to be a big deal and to be essential for protection
    for coastal communities.
        I urge the subcommittee to consider adding additional
    shoreline protection funding with the appropriate report
    language, noting that a portion of the additional money is to
    be used to expedite adding a dune element to older projects
    using the existing cost-sharing percentages for those projects.
        If the Corps is required to produce a straight forward
    report on those projects designed prior to 1986 where dunes
    were not included in the project design, you will see that
    Tybee Island is not alone.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you
    today.
        So the slow erosion of our beach is caused by the fact that
    sand that would otherwise drift to our beach naturally, gets
    stuck in the manmade shipping channel. Whereas the immediate
    impact from Hurricane Matthew had a very significant one-time
    event.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr.  Simpson. Mr. Brockbank.
                   ----------

                                                Wednesday, May 3, 2017.

               AMERICAN SHORE AND BEACH PRESERVATION ASSOCIATION

                                    WITNESS

    DEREK BROCKBANK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN SHORE AND BEACH
        PRESERVATION ASSOCIATION
        Mr.  Brockbank. Thank you. Thank you for having me. My name
    is Derek Brockbank. I am the executive director of the American
    Shore and Beach Preservation Association. Founded in 1926,
    ASBPA is dedicated to preserving, protecting, and enhancing our
    coast by emerging science and public policy.
        We represent the Nation's coastal practitioners--the
    industry, the local government officials, and academics who
    build, restore, and maintain our Nation's coastline. The City
    of Tybee Island has been a member for many years now.
        I am here today also to speak for natural coastal
    infrastructure, why beaches, high vegetative dunes, and vibrant
    wetlands protect communities from coastal flooding and storms,
    saving lives, protecting property, and reducing disruptions to
    the local economy.
        Simply put, natural coastal infrastructure is a wise fiscal
    investment, saving the Federal Government money by reducing
    post-disaster recovery costs.
        As you heard from the mayor, the Army Corps of Engineers
    has estimated that investment in shore protection saved $1.3
    billion of damage in New York and New Jersey and $1.9 billion
    in damage total during Hurricane Sandy.
        Coastal protection is also a jobs bonanza. In addition to
    construction jobs, restoring and maintaining coastal
    infrastructure supports lifeguards, fishermen, hotel workers,
    waiters, and the plumbers and technicians who work in coastal
    towns.
        So what needs to be funded? To protect our coastal
    communities and support coastal economies, the United States
    needs to, A, construct coastal protection and restoration
    projects; B, manage sediment as a resource, not a waste
    product; and, C, collect data and do coastal research to ensure
    that coastal projects will protect the people and assets they
    were designed to protect.
        To meet long-term funding needs, Congress should invest $5
    billion over 10 years in beaches, dunes, and wetlands as part
    of a national infrastructure package. But to maintain existing
    capacity, we respectfully request that the fiscal year 2018
    Energy and Water Appropriation includes the following:
        One, provide at least $75 million to the Army Corps for
    shore protection. Shore protection or coastal flood risk
    management are the funds the Corps uses to construct and
    renourish beach and dune systems that protect vulnerable
    coastal communities.
        While the administration's budget has consistently left
    shore protection unfunded, Congress has reliably added funding
    to this critical Corps mission. After steady declines in shore
    protection appropriations, we were pleased to see a slight
    increase to 50 million in the fiscal year 2017 omnibus.
        However, with our Nation's coastal communities increasingly
    vulnerable to severe coastal storms and the inevitability of
    the next major hurricane, we ask that you return shore
    protection funding levels to at least that of fiscal year 2014.
        The current Army Corps capacity for shore protection is
    $165 million annually, which was requested in a Dear Colleague
    letter led by Representative Wasserman Schultz as well as
    Congresswoman Frankel and fully supported by ASBPA.
        Our request of at least $75 million is less than half what
    the Army Corps could accomplish and should be the minimum
    appropriated.
        Two, provide $5 million for implementation of the
    beneficial use of dredge material pilot program that was
    authorized in the WIND Act and provides $6 million increase to
    regional sediment management to develop sediment management
    strategies for the South Atlantic Coastal Study also authorized
    in the WIND Act.
        The WIND Act was a major bipartisan success last December
    and authorized a number of good coastal programs that require
    the Corps to manage sand and sediment, which are the building
    blocks of coastal protection projects as a resource, not a
    waste product.
        The Beneficial Use of Dredge Material Pilot Program
    authorizes 10 projects around the country to innovatively use
    sediment dredged from navigation channels for coastal
    protection and/or environmental restoration.
        ASBPA has heard that Corps districts have submitted more
    than a hundred projects for this new program. Clearly the
    interest is there. What the program lacks is funding. We
    request $5 million for the full implementation of Beneficial
    Use of Dredge Material Pilot Program.
        This South Atlantic Coastal Study covers one of the most
    vulnerable regions in the world for hurricanes from North
    Carolina, to Mississippi, and the Caribbean Islands. The full
    cost of the study is estimated to be 10 to $14 million, but an
    initial Federal investment of $6 million to the Corps' Regional
    Sediment Management Program would allow parts of this study
    that were previously authorized to begin in earnest and cut the
    cost of the study in half.
        Finally, we request that you maintain funding for coastal
    data collection, including coastal ocean data systems, national
    coastal mapping programs, and Coastal Field Data Collection
    Program. Without good coastal data, Federal projects and even
    local projects cannot be properly designed.
        Given the Federal jurisdiction over the ocean and coast,
    this data acquisition must be via Federal agencies. So we ask
    you to at least maintain current funding levels for these key
    programs.
        ASBPA is grateful to your subcommittee and Congress for
    funding the Coastal Flood Risk Management Mission of the Corps.
    Of course these programs are but a few small pieces of a much
    larger investment needed to prepare our coastal communities for
    increasingly intense coastal storms and hazards.
        Improved coastal resilience will take coordination across
    multiple Federal, State, and Local authorities. It will also
    take a large-scale dedicated funding investment in coastal
    infrastructure. However, a good first step in protecting
    coastal communities is ensuring all shore protection, regional
    sediment management, and coastal data acquisition are
    appropriately funded. Thank you.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr.  Simpson. Thank you.
        Ms. Kaptur.
        Ms.  Kaptur. Yes. I want to thank Mr. Brockbank for your
    excellent testimony. I really agree with you on beneficial
    reuse, but I have a question.
        On page 5 of your testimony, you mentioned the Atlantic,
    the Gulf, and the Pacific coasts. Why did you not include the
    Great Lakes in the Coastal Data Information Program request?
        Mr.  Brockbank. Pure error and I apologize.
        Ms.  Kaptur. I just wondered. That is really important.
        Mr.  Brockbank. You are absolutely right and I apologize
    for that.
        Ms.  Kaptur. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr.  Simpson. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. We
    look forward to working with you.
        Mr. Pete Rahn, the Maryland Department of Transportation.
                                  ----------                              --
    --------

                                                Wednesday, May 3, 2017.

                     MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                                    WITNESS

    HON. PETE RAHN, SECRETARY, MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Mr.  Rahn. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member,
    members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me--sorry.
    Thank you for inviting me to discuss the importance of the U.S.
    Army Corps Engineers Civil Works funding to the Helen Delich
    Bentley Port of Baltimore, an economic engine not just for
    Maryland and the region, but for our Nation.
        Ports are the key links to U.S. access, to the global
    transportation network, and Federal navigation channels provide
    access to these facilities.
        I thank the Committee for continuing to invest in maritime
    infrastructure and commerce, especially with respect to
    essential dredging projects that keep our shipping channels,
    our maritime highways safe and open for business.
        This is a high priority for the Hogan administration, which
    is why the Maryland Department of Transportation requests that
    Congress ensure adequate funding in the fiscal year 2018
    budget, including $75 million for the Poplar Island and its
    expansion, $800,000 to initiate design for the Mid-Chesapeake
    Bay Island Project, $30.4 million in operations and maintenance
    funds for dredging the Baltimore harbor and channel's 50-foot
    project, and $12 million to maintain a depth of 35 feet in the
    C&D Canal and approach channels.
        The Port of Baltimore generates about 13,000 direct jobs
    and about 128,000 jobs linked to port activities. It is
    noteworthy that the average income for a port direct job is 16
    percent higher than the average Maryland salary.
        The Port of Baltimore was just recognized for the third
    consecutive year as the most efficient U.S. container port. We
    handle more cars in roll on, roll off, heavy farm, and
    construction machinery than any other U.S. port.
        The Port of Baltimore ranks first among all national ports
    in handling many commodities that are essential to our economy,
    such as aluminum, sugar, gypsum, cars, trucks, and equipment.
    We are ranked second in the Nation for exporting coal.
        Out of 190 major U.S. ports, Baltimore ranks 9th in the
    value of foreign cargo and 14th in foreign cargo tonnage. Our
    public-private partnership agreement with Ports America
    Chesapeake and the availability of a 50-foot deep container
    berth has positioned the Port of Baltimore to attract cargo
    growth associated with last year's Panama Canal expansion.
        Our tonnage increased 9.3 percent in the first 8 months
    since the Canal opened. The port's coal business has also
    increased significantly over the same period, as these ships
    need deep water, too.
        It is critical that the Port of Baltimore deliver
    sufficient long-term dredge material placement capacity to
    support maintenance of a 50-foot deep channel in terms of both
    depth and width to capitalize on that anticipated growth and
    maintain our existing business.
        If the Port of Baltimore is the economic heart of Maryland,
    our shipping channels are the arteries. With more than 130
    miles of dredged channels, we work with the Corps of Engineers
    to keep our channel system open.
        Maintaining the shipping channels is critical to the
    continued success of the port. Approximately 4.3 million cubic
    yards of sediment must be removed annually to maintain Federal
    channels and anchorages at their authorized depths and widths.
        Keeping the main Chesapeake Bay channels open for shipping
    relies on placement of dredge material at Poplar Island and its
    expansion as well as construction of the Mid-Chesapeake Bay
    Island Project. The Paul S. Sarbanes Ecosystem Restoration
    Project at Poplar Island will provide an additional 28 million
    cubic yards of dredge material placement.
        The Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island Project is critical, because
    it will provide 40-plus years of capacity. Federal funding is
    essential to enable Mid-Bay Project at the time it is needed
    and to avoid deauthorization in calendar year 2021.
        Federal funding for Corps dredging has been constrained
    over the last several years, and continued constraints will
    negatively impact the port. We believe that $25 million per
    year is needed to fully dredge the channels to Baltimore.
        The C&D Canal is also an essential part of the port's
    shipping channel system providing the shortest route to open
    water for vessels traveling between Baltimore and points north.
        Maryland remains fully committed to working with our
    Federal partners to deliver safe, efficient, and cost-effective
    maritime commerce infrastructure in Maryland.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I would be
    happy to answer any questions.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr.  Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Rahn. I appreciate you being
    here today and this is not the first time, or the last time, I
    suspect I will hear about port--harbor maintenance and
    dredging.
        Mr.  Rahn. I would suspect not, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr.  Simpson. Thank you.
        Mr.  Rahn. All right. Thank you.
        Ms.  Kaptur. Mr. Chairman? Might I just say that the fact
    that you have named your port in memory of our dear
    Congresswoman Helen Delich Bentley gets my attention. She was
    one of my closest friends during my congressional service and I
    congratulate you for that. So my eyes are wide open on your
    request.
        I wanted to ask you, what do you do with your dredge
    material?
        Mr.  Rahn. If I may first comment on your first comment
    about Helen and having the port named after her, she was
    actually alive for the last 12 years that it has been named
    after her. So she was able to actually know the honor that had
    been bestowed upon her for her huge activity in developing the
    Port of Baltimore. She was an amazing woman with an amazing
    vocabulary.
        The question where we put it, so we have two sites, or
    three, for the Feds, for Federal placement? Three.
        So we have three sites for Federal placement, but for the
    Corps, and then we have two additional sites that we use for
    the harbor dredging that we do as a State to keep the harbor
    open.
        Ms.  Kaptur. Do you use it or do you just store?
        Mr.  Rahn. Right now we are storing it, but we are looking
    for ways to reuse it. In fact, our State Highway Administration
    is changing their regulations to allow the placement of the
    dredge material into highway projects.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr.  Simpson. Thank you. Mr. Frazier.
                                  ----------

                                                Wednesday, May 3, 2017.

                   SOUTHEASTERN FEDERAL POWER CUSTOMERS, INC.

                                    WITNESS

    MICHAEL FRAZIER, SECRETARY, SOUTHEASTERN FEDERAL POWER CUSTOMERS, INC.
        Mr.  Frazier. Thank you, Chairman Simpson, Ranking Member
    Kaptur, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Michael
    Frazier and I am appearing today on behalf of the Southeastern
    Federal Power Customers in support of funding for Southeastern
    Power Administration, also known as SEPA, and the hydropower
    program administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the
    Southeast.
        The Southeastern Federal Power Customers is a not-for-
    profit corporation that was formed over 25 years ago to support
    the interest of electric taxpayers that received the benefit of
    the Federal Power Program in the Southeast.
        The members of the Southeastern Federal Power Customers are
    customer-owned municipal utilities and rural electric co-op
    that purchased the Federal resources provided by the Army Corps
    hydropower projects and use that hydropower with other
    generation to keep electric rates as low as possible.
        As you are aware, the power generated by the Army Corps
    hydropower projects in the Southeast is marketed by a separate
    agency under the umbrella of the Department of Energy. That
    agency, Southeastern Power Administration, SEPA, markets,
    sells, and arranges transmission for the power that the Army
    Corps projects provide.
        Our request to the subcommittee today is straightforward.
    The Southeastern Federal Power Customers are asking the
    subcommittee to authorize the use of receipts of at least $6
    million to allow SEPA to continue to meet its statutory mission
    of providing the power in the southeast to consumer-owned
    utilities at the lowest possible rate consistent with sound
    business principals.
        This request to the subcommittee can be easily met, because
    of the authorization for SEPA to use its receipts is considered
    neutral from a scoring proposition. In other words, funding
    this organization does not cost the subcommittee in terms of
    allocated dollars.
        Funding SEPA makes sense from a number of other
    perspectives as well. Authorizing SEPA to use receipts for
    program direction leverages revenues for the U.S. Treasury.
    Over the past four years SEPA has returned over $1 billion to
    the U.S. Treasury.
        Over the same period of time, it has been authorized to use
    roughly 28 million for program direction. It is a program that
    works for the Federal taxpayers. The program also includes
    other components such as the authorization to use receipts to
    wield the power and firm up power supply contracts.
        The subcommittee approves funding for these activities
    through the authorization to use receipts for purchase power
    and wielding activities.
        Like program direction, this funding authorization is also
    neutral from a scoring prospective, because the receipts or
    payments for these activities are received in the same year in
    which the expenditures are made.
        The payments for these activities are typically passed
    through charges on a customer's bill, which means that the
    expenditures are reimbursed rather than absorbed by SEPA.
        Let me emphasize an important point about the Federal power
    program that SEPA administers. The cost of the Federal power
    program are recouped and paid for by the ultimate
    beneficiaries. There are too few Federal programs that can make
    that point.
        For those of us that endeavor to keep the electric rates as
    low as possible for our taxpayers, our rate payers, we truly
    appreciate the support that this subcommittee has traditionally
    given to SEPA.
        We are also grateful for the support that this subcommittee
    has provided to the Army Corps hydropower program in the
    Southeast. As I mentioned earlier, the power market by SEPA
    comes from the Army Corps projects.
        The Army Corps' costs associated with hydropower are
    recovered in the rates charged by SEPA. However, Congress must
    still appropriate the funding for the Army Corps' operations
    and maintenance programs in the first instance to keep the
    power plants running.
        Although these expenditures are not treated the same as
    SEPA's direct program authorizations for scoring purposes, the
    subcommittee should be aware that the appropriations for the
    Army Corps hydropower program come back to the U.S. Treasury
    and the receipts paid for by the hydropower customers in the
    southeast.
        Every dollar put into the hydropower projects is returned
    to U.S. Treasury over time. In fact, I would encourage the
    members of the subcommittee to consider that funding the Army
    Corps hydropower program facilitates the payments to the
    Treasury, because the hydropower--if the hydropower equipment
    is not maintained, SEPA cannot sell the power which generates
    the revenues that I mentioned earlier.
        In conclusion, we ask that the subcommittee support SEPA's
    direct program, be it no less than $6 million, no less than $80
    million for purchase power and wielding activities, and no less
    than $75 million for the Army Corps hydropower programs to be
    used in the Southeast.
        Thank you for listening and I will be happy to answer any
    questions.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr.  Simpson. Thank you. We look forward to working with
    you and the other PMAs in trying to get some power that
    actually works. Thank you for your testimony today.
        Ms.  Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Frazier. Could I just ask over
    how many States does your authority exist, just Georgia?
        Mr.  Frazier. The Southeastern Federal Power Customers,
    we--all the States that the SEPA covers, so North Carolina,
    South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama. There is probably a couple
    more.
        Ms.  Kaptur. All right. Thank you.
        Mr.  Simpson. Thank you.
        Mr. Bean, welcome to the committee. It is good to see you
    again. Time is yours.
                                  ----------

                                                Wednesday, May 3, 2017.

                       PUYALLUP TRIBE OF WASHINGTON STATE

                                    WITNESS

    DAVID BEAN, COUNCILMAN, PUYALLUP TRIBE OF WASHINGTON STATE
        Mr.  Bean. [Speaking native language.] Good day, honorable
    relatives and friends. My name is David Bean. I am from the
    Puyallup Tribal Indians. I am here today on behalf of my
    chairman, Mr. Bill Sterud.
        We appreciate the opportunity to testify regarding the
    fiscal year 2018 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Waterworks
    Resources Construction Budget. We especially want to thank Mr.
    Chairman Simpson for your continuing support of Indian Country,
    both in your capacity here on this committee as well as your
    former capacity as chair of the Interior Appropriations
    Committee.
        We are continuously taught by our late uncle, Billy Frank,
    to tell your story. I am here today to tell you our story about
    our treaty right and the resource. We are also taught by his
    father, Billy Frank, Sr., that all natural things, our brothers
    and sisters, we have a responsibility to take care of them. If
    they take care of the fish, the fish will take care of us.
        In particular we ask the subcommittee's support for the
    Army Corps' work to replace the Buckley Diversion Dam and
    Buckley fish trap on the White River in Washington State. This
    work is necessary, so the United States can honor our treaty
    rights and meet its obligations under the Endangered Species
    Act.
        The estimated cost of this work right now is 50- to $100
    million. In addition to funding, we request report language to
    direct the Army Corps not to consider this project a new start
    construction project.
        This is necessary, because right now even if the Corps
    received the funding, there is a current directive by OMB not
    to engage in any new start projects.
        This seems ridiculous to us, since the planning and design
    for this project has been ongoing for more than a decade. To
    put this into perspective, Mr. Chairman, we started this
    process with your former colleague, Congressman Norm Dicks.
        In addition to the existing facility, 77 years old, far
    exceeding its intended service life and replacement structures
    would be more accurately referenced as updates.
        Since time immemorial, my Tribe has fished for salmon in
    the White River and the Puyallup River. My family has fished on
    these rivers for generations. We continue to do so this very
    day as treaties guarantee our right to fish from these rivers.
    My Tribe relies on salmon for subsistence, ceremonial and
    cultural purposes, as well as an economic resource. Now, three
    species of salmon are listed under the Endangered Species Act.
    They include the spring chinook, bull trout, and steelhead.
        Putting our treaty right in jeopardy, if there are no fish,
    simply there are no rights to exercise. Together the Buckley
    fish trap and Buckley Diversion Dam compose one facility
    located on the White River, which empties into the Puyallup
    River farther downstream.
        Since the dam completely obstructs the salmon's migration
    to their spawning grounds, the Corps installed the fish trap in
    a hold facility to serve as a pathway for the fish to prevent
    their extinction. Now the fish trap is 77 years old. It is
    completely outdated.
        It was never designed to accommodate the runs of pink and
    coho salmon, which quickly overwhelmed its limited handling
    capacity. The limited fish handling capacity often creates
    delays where fish are backed up for a mile or more at the
    facility. This causes stress, delay, injury, and ultimately
    spawning mortality for all the fish, including those on the
    endangered species list.
        It is long past time to replace the facility and several
    studies and biological opinions agree. Pursuant to the most
    recent National Marine Fisheries Service biological opinion,
    the Corps is required to replace the Buckley Diversion Dam and
    fish trap by 2020. If funding is not provided to continue the
    planning and construction of this project, this simply will not
    happen.
        Because of the state of this facility, fishing season on
    both Puyallup and White Rivers was almost entirely closed to
    both Tribal and sports fishing last year. Thus, the impact of
    the Corps' failure to do its job, honor its trust
    responsibility to try to end Endangered Species Act, not only
    directly impacts Tribes' guaranteed treaty right, but the
    sports fishing industry in Washington State as well.
        Fishing is a multimillion-dollar industry in the region and
    the health of these runs is critical, not only to the Tribes,
    but to the economy of the Northwest. One thing we are taught by
    elders that what affects one of us, affects all of us.
        We respectfully request that Congress include funding in
    the fiscal year 2018 Army Corps of Engineer civil works budget
    for the Buckley Diversion Dam and fish trap by 2020 sufficient
    to ensure that construction of this facility is complete by
    2020. This is necessary to ensure the Puyallup Tribes treaty
    rights are protected.
        With that, I want to close by saying thank you. We are
    appraisingly thankful to you for this opportunity to talk with
    you here today.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr.  Simpson. Thank you, David. It is always good to see
    you again and hear your testimony.
        Any questions?
        Ms.  Kaptur. I have no questions, but thank you very much
    for being here today.
        Mr.  Simpson. Thank you. We look forward to working with
    you on this.
        Joseph Pavel.
                                  ----------

                                                Wednesday, May 3, 2017.

                    SKOKOMISH TRIBE OF THE WASHINGTON STATE

                                    WITNESS

    JOSEPH PAVEL, TRIBAL NATURAL RESOURCE DIRECTOR, SKOKOMISH TRIBE OF THE
        WASHINGTON STATE
        Mr.  Pavel. Good morning, good afternoon. I am Joseph
    Pavel, natural resources director for the Skokomish Indian
    Tribe. Thank you, Chairman Simpson, Ranking Member Kaptur, for
    this opportunity to testify on behalf of Army Corps of
    Engineers' appropriation in the amount of $13,168,000.
        This is the result of the development of an Ecosystem
    Restoration Project, one of three that was approved and
    authorized by Congress, and the recent Watershed Improvements
    Infrastructure Nations Act--Improvements for the Nation Act,
    that is as much as I am going to read.
        I would like to stress that this particular project
    addresses issues in the Skokomish River, the most frequently
    flooded river in Washington State, if not the Nation. You may
    have observed, or noticed, this is the river famous for the
    salmon swimming across the road. You have seen it. It is true
    and it is real and it is often.
        So we signed on with the Army Corps in 2006, a cooperative
    financing arrangement with our partner, Mason County, and let
    me stress, this is a cooperation between Tribal government and
    local government of Mason County of Washington State, so I
    believe I could speak on their behalf in support of the project
    as well.
        Then in 2012, we kind of got the first results of that that
    it would not be practical as a flood control project, but we
    could continue to develop the feasibility as an ecosystem
    restoration project.
        As I mentioned, we started in 2006. These Army Corps
    general investigation studies have a reputation to tend to run
    long and over cost, so this particular general investigation is
    the first one that was completed under a new edict of 3 by 3 by
    3: $3 million, 3 years, 3-inch binder. So this is the poster
    child of the new and improved and efficient Army Corps of
    Engineers.
        As far as I am aware, this is the farthest any of these
    ecosystem restoration projects has gotten. We are just looking
    to get this funding. The local school sponsors are responsible
    for a matching cost share. We have developed the resources to
    meet that obligation. Timing is of the essence, though. We have
    built momentum. We need to keep this moving. We need to get
    this project done.
        I would like to also mention that the Tribe, the county,
    and others have made significant investments in the watershed
    most notably. The city of Tacoma is a hydro project. We did an
    FERC relicensing of those. It is quite well known.
        But we were able to secure significant contributions from
    the city of Tacoma. This watershed has been worked really hard.
    We hold that the United States, the Federal Government,
    sanctioned the actions of the city of Tacoma and they have some
    responsibilities to step up and assist with the remediation and
    the restoration of this watershed, as well as that hydro
    project.
        The upper watershed has logged 90 percent clear-cut dense
    roads, very heavily impacted environmental from Federal
    Department of Agriculture lands. So there is some
    accountability there.
        Great wealth has been obstructed from this watershed and
    has supported the industry of the city of Tacoma, their tax
    base, supported the industry, the forced products industry, and
    that has generated a great tax base. So it is time to return
    some of that wealth, put some of that wealth back to work on
    behalf of the resources that the Skokomish Indian Tribe depends
    on, essential to our recovery of Chinook, summer trim salmon,
    bull trout, steelhead.
        The Skokomish River is a significant contributor to Puget
    Sound recovery. We will not ever have a recovery of our
    endangered species at Puget Sound until we can address these
    recovery efforts in the Skokomish River. Thank you.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr.  Simpson. Thank you, Joseph.
        You going to ask him?
        Ms.  Kaptur. As I listened to the testimony this morning,
    including Mr. Pavel, I just have to say how important I believe
    an infrastructure bill is to this country. I will be one of the
    chief advocates for the backed-up projects for the Corps across
    this country. It could be one of the greatest job creators we
    could have. Let us hope we can move the country toward that
    point. Thank you.
        Mr.  Simpson. Thank you. Jackson Brossy?
                                  ----------

                                                Wednesday, May 3, 2017.

                        NAVAJO NATION WASHINGTON OFFICE

                                    WITNESS

    JACKSON BROSSY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NAVAJO NATION WASHINGTON OFFICE
        Mr.  Brossy. Hello. My name is Jackson Brossy and I am the
    executive director of the Navajo Nation Washington Office.
    Thank you for this time to be here. I think it is important
    that we are here. Energy and water are two of the biggest
    issues facing the Navajo Nation today, so thank you.
        I want to address four different areas that impact the
    Navajo Nation, and this committee can help us grow our economic
    infrastructure. First, we see an area for the Bureau of
    Reclamation to help us out to support funding for an economic
    transition in light of the closing Navajo Generating Station.
    Second, we see an opportunity for the Bureau of Reclamation to
    support us in existing and building out new water
    infrastructure. Third, we see an opportunity for the U.S. Army
    Corps of Engineers' water programs to assist in further
    expanding our water infrastructure. And finally, the U.S. Army
    Corps of Engineers can help us with abandoned mine remediation.
    So I will start with the Navajo Generating Station.
        The generating station is a public-private partnership of
    coal-powered electrical generation on the Navajo Nation. And
    Congress was involved in creating this public-private
    partnership. And the reason we are here before you is the
    United States Government is an owner in this public-private
    partnership through the Bureau of Reclamation.
        However, less than a year ago, these non-Navajo owners
    decided that they wanted to divest and shut down this plant. So
    closure of this plant would be devastating. A recent Arizona
    State study estimated that closure would--the impact could be
    $18 billion over a span of 30 years. So any investment in this
    project has the potential to save billions of dollars in an
    area where there is an untenable 40 percent unemployment rate.
        So we seek a number of different proactive areas, including
    building out a railroad that will give us access to outside
    markets. We seek assistance with training for potential job
    losses in the thousands. And Congress is uniquely positioned to
    help us in this issue.
        I would like to transition into water infrastructure,
    another problem we have. There are about 15,000 homes in the
    Navajo Nation or about 30 percent in the Navajo Nation live
    without access to running water. That situation is absolutely
    untenable in 2017. And the Navajo Nation has been and continues
    to do everything we can to address this.
        We look at several different funding sources, including our
    own, and we put our money where our mouth is. And recently,
    this Congress passed--well, two Congresses ago passed the
    Navajo-Gallup Water Settlement. We ask for continued funding of
    the Navajo-Gallup Water Settlement in fiscal year 2018, and we
    also ask that the expired Rural Water Act of 2016 be
    reauthorized, so that we can work with the Bureau of
    Reclamation on different projects, including a 990,000
    agreement we have with the Bureau of Reclamation to connect
    with other existing water sources, so that we can get access to
    water for these folks on the Navajo Nation that do not have
    access to running water.
        The Navajo Nation also requests funding for the Bureau of
    Reclamation Native American Affairs Office. The Navajo Tribe,
    as well as other Tribes, take advantage of this office, and
    they help plan and coordinate and assist in a variety of
    projects.
        Transitioning to the U.S. Army Corps, Section 205 of the
    Flood Control Act of 1986 authorizes the Corps to assist local
    communities in reducing flood risk through their Small Flood
    Risk Management Program. We support reauthorization and funding
    for that program.
        The Navajo Nation also requests funding for Section 520 of
    the Water Resource Development Act for the Navajo Nation flood
    plain mapping. There are currently unspent Navajo Nation funds
    tied to this authority, so are our own funds, that the U.S.
    Army Corps of Engineers cannot spend without additional
    appropriations. The Navajo Nation requests that $500,000 be
    appropriated into this authority to match Navajo Nation funds
    that we are already planning on investing.
        And finally, transitioning to mining, there are a number of
    abandoned mines in the Navajo Nation that were created during
    the Cold War. Some of these mines were not properly
    decommissioned and some of them are still open today. This has
    created a tremendous health crisis on the Navajo Nation and we
    ask that the abandoned mines reclamation program be fully
    funded so that we can build out a database.
        Thank you.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr.  Simpson. Are these mostly uranium mines?
        Mr.  Brossy. There are more than--there are about 500
    uranium mines in the Navajo Nation and about half of them have
    not been remediated. And the United States was the sole
    customer of these, and so, obviously, the Federal Government
    has the responsibility to clean this up.
        Mr.  Simpson. Thank you.
        Mr.  Brossy. Yeah.
        Ms.  Kaptur. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman
    for testifying and just ask, could you repeat the number of
    homes on the Navajo Reservation that lack access? What
    percentage of the individual----
        Mr.  Brossy. Fifteen thousand homes, about 30 percent of
    the homes in the Navajo Nation.
        Ms.  Kaptur. A third?
        Mr.  Brossy. Yep.
        Ms.  Kaptur. Thank you.
        Mr.  Brossy. It is an untenable problem, and we are putting
    our money where our mouth is, but we asked for additional help
    from every single source possible.
        Mr.  Simpson. Yeah, we saw that firsthand when we were out
    there.
        Mr.  Brossy. Yeah.
        Mr.  Simpson. What was it, the year before last, I guess?
        Mr.  Brossy. Yeah, you rode on our dirt roads and----
        Mr.  Simpson. Yes, I did.
        Mr.  Brossy [continuing]. Last year.
        Mr.  Simpson. Yes.
        Mr.  Azure. How are the mines secured currently? How are
    the abandoned mines secured currently?
        Mr.  Brossy. Many of them are not secured. Some of the
    larger ones are covered. I am not, obviously, an engineer in
    the space, but there are mines that our Navajo Nation president
    saw last year that were wide open. They had doors that had been
    broken and people and kids and animals could go in there.
        Mr.  Azure. Thank you.
        Mr.  Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Jackson. Mr. Floyd Azure.
                                  ----------                              --
    --------

                                                Wednesday, May 3, 2017.

           ASSINIBOINE AND SIOUX TRIBES OF THE FORT PECK RESERVATION

                                    WITNESS

    FLOYD AZURE, CHAIRMAN, ASSINIBOINE AND SIOUX TRIBES OF THE FORT PECK
        RESERVATION
        Mr.  Azure. Thank you. Thank you for allowing me to be
    here. Good afternoon, Chairman Simpson, Ranking Member Kaptur,
    and the members of the subcommittee. My name is Floyd Azure. I
    am twice-elected chairman of the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes
    of the Fort Peck Reservation, located in northeast Montana.
    Please continue to do the good work you have done in the past
    years to finance the completion of the Fort Peck Reservation
    Rural Water System. The project is a joint Tribal/non-Indian
    rural water project, which Congress authorized in 2000 with
    enactment of Public Law 106-382. The legislature authorized the
    construction of a rural water system to ensure a safe and
    adequate supply of municipal, rural, and industrial water for
    some 10,000 residents of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, and
    the citizens of Roosevelt County, Sheridan County, Daniels
    County, and Valley County, which border our reservation. At
    full build-out, the project is estimated to serve 30,000
    Montanans.
        For fiscal year 2018, we seek approximately $27 million,
    with $14.7 million of those dollars for the Tribal portion of
    the water system, and $12.2 million for the Dry Prairie part.
    We hope that you will act favorably on our request, even though
    we do not have a congressman. Our congressman, Mr. Ryan Zinke,
    you will have his back and we will look out for his Montana
    constituents while he serves the entire country as Secretary of
    Interior.
        Mr.  Simpson. That is somebody more important.
        Mr.  Azure. To fund our request for fiscal year 2018, I ask
    the subcommittee to support an appropriations of $50 million
    for additional funding for ongoing rural water projects, a
    modest $3 million increase above the level this subcommittee
    recommended fiscal year 2017. This fund would supplement the
    specific funding for the Fort Peck Dry Prairie Rural Water
    system that is included in the President's annual budgets. This
    project grew out of necessity. Harmful levels of sulfates,
    irons, and brine contaminated our groundwater. We needed an
    alternate water source. We operate the water intake located in
    the Missouri River pumping station, a 3,000 square foot water
    treatment plant, and hundreds of miles of pipeline. Our two
    systems are interconnected and pump through our treatment
    plant. We are making our Tribal water rights available to
    Indian and non-Indian communities as our contribution to this
    effort. If our fiscal year 2017 construction funding is close
    to the $16 million we received for the project in fiscal year
    2016, we will be two-thirds complete with the $300 million
    project, with 16 years of Federal appropriations totaling just
    over $2 million.
        We learned last month that our project is now ranked second
    by the ABOR among the Tribal rural projects. I ask that you do
    not abandon your work to complete the construction. We have
    completed two of the three main trunks of the rural water
    system connecting the Dry Prairie on the west and the east of
    our reservation, and continue to lay hundreds of miles of water
    lines to serve our new communities.
        As appropriators, you know that any delay in completing a
    project such as this only increases the cost to American
    taxpayers. It makes no sense to cut Federal spending for
    authorized rural water projects when the president, States, and
    union Tribes are all calling for infrastructure projects to be
    completed to help create American jobs and promote economic
    development, especially in rural communities. Safe and reliable
    water is essential to our communities' health and economy.
        In conclusion, I urge this subcommittee to reject the
    administration's request to cut fiscal year 2018 appropriations
    for Bureau of Reclamation rural water projects and other
    nondefense agency appropriations critical to rural America.
    Federal appropriations are required to finance the completion
    of this important rural infrastructure project. Thank you.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr.  Simpson. Thank you, and if any of the committee
    members that--the last two people to testify, if you have not
    been out on some of the Reservations and seen the needs in
    terms of water and so forth, it is amazing what is going on. I
    have been very involved in trying to get the Cheyenne River
    Sioux Eagle Butte Water System completed out there that have a
    dire need, but it is throughout Indian country that we need to
    make sure that we maintain--it is amazing, in today's age, that
    people do not have access to fresh water, which is just
    incredible. So it is not only us, it is the Interior Committee
    also that has been working on it and stuff, so appreciate it.
    Thank you.
        Ms.  Kaptur. Mr. Chairman, I just say for all of the Tribal
    representatives who are here today, I would urge you to work
    together and invite the President of the United States to your
    Reservations and to make sure that the infrastructure bill that
    they are considering over there--and it is a new
    administration, so they got a lot of issues--but that they see
    you, and, you know, you might get him to come.
        Mr.  Azure. Thank you.
        Mr.  Simpson. Thank you, Floyd. Dr. Elmer Guy.
        Mr.  Guy. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Elmer
    Guy, president of Navajo Technical University.
        Mr.  Simpson. Is your microphone on?
                                  ----------                              --
    --------

                                                Wednesday, May 3, 2017.

                          NAVAJO TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY

                                    WITNESS

    DR. ELMER GUY, PRESIDENT, NAVAJO TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY
        Mr.  Guy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Elmer Guy,
    president of Navajo Technical University in Crownpoint, New
    Mexico, on the Navajo Nation. I ask that my full statement be
    included in the record of this hearing, Mr. Chairman. On behalf
    of the Nation's 37 Tribally and Federally chartered colleges
    and universities, that collectively are the American Indian
    Higher Education Consortium, or AIHEC, thank you for this
    opportunity to address your subcommittee.
        Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for your past support of
    Tribal colleges. I would also like to thank the subcommittee
    for your longstanding support for the MSI partnership program
    operated by the Department of Energy's National Nuclear
    Security Administration. I am here today with a modest request
    for a small program with enormous potential. I respectfully
    request $5 million in the fiscal year 2018 Energy and Water
    Development Appropriations bill to continue and expand the new
    Tribal college initiative, which is part of the Department of
    Energy's NNSA/MSI partnership program. Tribal colleges first
    joined the MSI partnership consortia program about 2 years ago.
    Already, it has made a significant impact in our small
    institutions and the rural communities we serve.
        Tribal colleges are place-based institutions located in 16
    States. We focus on Tribal Indian Nation-building through
    programs that sustain our Tribal cultures, languages, lands,
    and people. We are working to grow the country's Native
    workforce, and even more important, to create jobs in Indian
    Country to help address the deep-seated poverty that plagues
    our communities. Through AIHEC, Tribal colleges are
    implementing a long-term systemic plan to transition Native
    communities from local economies that perpetuate cycles of
    dependency and poverty into dynamic, innovation-driven
    economies, creating jobs and business opportunities.
        A key part of our plan is to work with new and emerging
    manufacturing technologies and methods to build jobs that
    Native Americans need and thereby to expand opportunity and
    leadership for all Americans. With seed funding from NNSA, we
    launched an advanced manufacturing program involving a pilot
    cohort of five Tribal colleges. This program will prepare a
    well-trained Native workforce in advanced manufacturing and
    create economic opportunities through the design and
    manufacture of products that are responsive to industry needs
    in these targeted technology areas.
        For example, the Center of Digital Technology at my
    institution, Navajo Technical University, has established a
    rapid growing advanced manufacturing program. Funded in part by
    the NNSA program and the National Science Foundation, NTU has
    developed a state-of-the-art facility, including 3D printers,
    computer numerical control machines, validation
    instrumentation, including metrology, that allows students to
    acquire knowledge and skills in design engineering,
    manufacturing processes, and performance analysis.
        Through this program, NTU is poised to become a leader,
    both in advanced manufacturing and the promotion of innovation
    and competitiveness through our own Center for Inspection
    Standards and Calibration. In fact, the Navajo Nation is
    contemplating investing in our college program, is helping
    recruit industry partners for research, development, and
    manufacturing projects involving faculty and students. Los
    Alamos National Laboratory is working with us to strengthen our
    metrology program simply because they lack metrologists.
        This is one example of how Tribal colleges are creating
    models for small, under-resourced, and rural institutions to
    successfully participate in an advanced technology-supported
    economic growth area, while providing students, both male and
    female, with hands-on training that leads to careers.
        Mr. Chairman, to ensure that the vital NNSA/TCU advanced
    manufacturing network initiative can continue, and more
    important, to help us accelerate the transformative power of
    relevant, job-producing higher education, we request your
    support for $5 million for the Tribal college initiative within
    the NNSA/MSI partnership program. Thank you.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr.  Simpson. Thank you. Thank you for being here today. We
    look forward to working with you on this.
        Maria Korsnick from the Nuclear Energy Institute?
                                  ----------

                                                Wednesday, May 3, 2017.

                            NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE

                                    WITNESS

    MARIA KORSNICK, CEO AND PRESIDENT, NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE
        Ms.  Korsnick. All right, thank you very much. I am very
    pleased to be here today and share with you the nuclear energy
    industry's view on the fiscal year 2018 budget. My comments
    today are going to cover four main areas. First, the NRC's
    outdated and costly regulatory regime needs to be updated.
    Second, accident-tolerant fuel and advanced reactors require
    urgent review and action. Third, that the Federal R&D efforts
    that promote new technologies and innovation are essential. And
    fourth, the licensing of the proposed Yucca Mountain repository
    must proceed according to the law and in parallel with the
    pursuit of consolidated interim storage. I will summarize those
    four key points.
        First, with the NRC, while our reactor fleet relies on a
    focused, efficient, and technically expert NRC, we believe that
    the agency's regulatory regime needs to evolve. Thanks to your
    oversight on this subcommittee, you have created additional
    attention and focus on the NRC's processing of licensing
    actions, its readiness to review second license renewal
    applications, digital instrumentation and controls, the backfit
    rule, and advanced nuclear fuels. We appreciate that, however,
    the NRC's work here is not yet done. Congressionally directed,
    independent assessments emphasize the need for NRC to continue
    improving the efficiency and transparency of its regulatory
    processes and operations, consistent with its own good
    principles of good regulation. As NRC rebalances its
    priorities, consistent with leaner budgets, we would ask them
    to integrate preparation for accident-tolerant fuel and reactor
    applications as part of its funding program. The NRC's own
    Project Aim 2020 report recommends shifting resources away from
    disciplines that are less in demand towards these activities to
    maintain the efficiency of the current fleet regulation.
        Second, by 2030, the United States could experience
    electricity shortages if a significant number of reactors are
    retired, as currently projected. To avoid this outcome, the
    industry is preparing a path to enable the renewal of the
    operating licenses of nuclear plants a second time, and that
    would be for an additional 20 years. Two plants have already
    announced plans to do so. While DOE's work in this area has
    been critical, additional work is still necessary through the
    Light Water Reactor Sustainability Project. That R&D can reduce
    the operating cost of the existing fleet. This includes work in
    advanced instrumentation and controls and the accident-tolerant
    fuel program. Increasing funding for the accident-tolerant fuel
    program will actually allow the R&D to be accelerated ahead of
    its current schedule.
        Congress should also continue funding for the Energy
    Innovation Hub for Modeling and Simulation. That project
    sponsors CASL, which is the Consortium for Advanced Simulation
    of Light Water Reactors. That initiative is successfully
    developing tools that help us optimize our fuel performance,
    support approval of new designs, and also support plant life
    extension.
        Turning now to small modular reactors, the SMR licensing
    and technical support program we think has been a success. The
    new scale design, a certification application, has recently
    been docketed by the NRC, and TVA's early site permit
    application was docketed last year. The SMR/LTS program should
    be expanded to support first-of-a-kind engineering, and
    continued investment by the Federal government as a cost-
    sharing partner is necessary to ensure that these first SMRs
    are deployed in the mid-2020 timeframe.
        Developing this technology is going to help U.S. companies
    capture an international market as well for smaller and more
    versatile carbon-free energy sources. So here at home, SMRs
    will complement the large, passively safe reactors that you
    know we are building in Georgia and in South Carolina. And
    given the benefits for domestic job creation, expansion of
    income and export income and clean electricity, we think
    Federal support for the SMR technology is a sound investment in
    our Nation's future.
        Third, the ability of the nuclear industry to continue to
    innovate depends on the Federal Government supporting
    demonstration projects and encouraging advanced research. NEI
    supports the programs managed by DOE's Office of Nuclear
    Energy, and they seek to accelerate the commercial use of new
    nonlight water reactor technologies. The Gateway For
    Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear, or the GAIN program, has
    expanded access to the U.S. national labs. The small business
    voucher program implemented last year was, in fact, very
    successful, and a second round of awards was announced earlier
    this year. We think this program should be expanded.
        The advanced reactor industry has formed three technology
    working groups now. There is molten salt reactors, fast
    reactors, and high-temperature gas reactors, and this focuses
    the R&D needs, also interfaces with this GAIN program to inform
    the DOE Research and Development. Continued and increased
    funding for DOE advanced reactor program is essential to foster
    the ongoing and timely development and commercialization of
    advanced reactors, and also, in the continuation of funding for
    the industry cost-sharing awards that support the development
    of two advanced reactor concepts. Although the United States
    has a world-leading national lab program, it, in fact, lacks a
    fast neutron test reactor facility. Building an American
    facility would enable companies to accelerate the
    commercialization and eliminate our need to rely on a Russian
    research reactor, as we do today. We support the establishment
    of an independent U.S. facility in no less than 10 years.
        Lastly, with respect to used nuclear fuel management, NEI
    supports funding for DOE and NRC to complete the licensing of
    the Yucca Mountain repository in parallel with the development
    of consolidated storage. We encourage Congress to restructure
    the funding and spending mechanisms of the Nuclear Waste Fund
    to provide for dependable access to the Nuclear Waste Fund
    while maintaining congressional oversight. Such action is
    essential to ensuring that the Federal Government can meet its
    statutory and contractual commitments.
        Thank you, Chairman Simpson, Ranking Member Kaptur, and the
    members of the subcommittee. I am happy to take any questions
    you may have.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr.  Fleischmann. Thank you, Ms. Korsnick, good to see you.
    Melissa, great to see you again. For the benefit of everybody
    on this subcommittee I just want to thank you all for the
    outstanding work that NEI does.
        On a personal level, your support for the Nuclear Cleanup
    Caucus and all that we do in sites from Oakridge to a little
    place called Idaho, and across a great United States, thank
    you. Beautiful little place. Yeah, that is right. I have been
    once.
        If I may, I have two quick questions. Castle, you touched
    on Castle which is very important to us. Can you please, again,
    tell us how Castle has helped the current fleet in terms of
    nuclear power and how we can improve the economics of nuclear
    power using Castle?
        Ms.  Korsnick. I can give you a couple of examples. Watts
    Bar 2 is a plant that recently started up, and I know they used
    the Castle simulation program as part of that plant startup, as
    an example.
        I mentioned a recent SMR, small modular reactor, program
    NuScale is a company that is involved with SMRs, and I know
    they are using the Castle program as they are providing input,
    as they are finalizing their design and getting regulatory
    approval. And so the Castle program is being used in that.
        And we are looking at using the Castle program, as well, in
    support of the life extension as well as accident-tolerant
    fuels, and they are two very key programs for the current
    fleet.
        Mr.  Fleischmann. Thank you. And one further question. Does
    NEI support the Department of Energy reestablishing a domestic
    uranium enrichment capacity for national security purposes in
    the near term and why?
        Ms.  Korsnick. Yes, I would say from an NEI perspective we
    do think that it is important that the United States has the
    ability to enrich uranium.
        Mr.  Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Ms.  Kaptur. Thank you very much and we appreciate your
    testimony this morning, Ms. Korsnick. I wanted to ask you a
    difficult question you did not completely reference in your
    testimony. You probably have been here this morning, you heard
    about the Southeast Power Marking Authority and some of the
    other energy umbrellas that exist across the United States.
        In the region of the country that I represent nuclear
    energy is undergoing particular market pressure right now
    because of, I do not know whether one would call it an anomaly
    in the marketplace, but because of the movement of natural gas
    into our energy production, and the severe impact that has had
    on the nuclear industry. For the plants I represent and in the
    general Great Lakes region we have no such umbrellas across our
    region.
        Do you have any recommendations or thoughts you could
    provide now or to the record how we can deal with these
    companies? It is my understanding 25 percent to a third are
    heavily impacted currently. That could allow them to continue
    to function, but they may not be able to meet that test in the
    individual States in which they exist because energy pricing is
    really global in nature and we face the threat of a loss of
    many of our nuclear power plants in the commercial sector. Do
    you have any comments on that or could you providing
    information to the record on a range of solutions that you
    might suggest as head of your institute?
        Ms.  Korsnick. Certainly. I will provide a few comments
    here, but I will add more to the record, if that is okay. I
    would characterize the challenge that is facing the fleet today
    is, in fact, the low price of natural gas or the glut, if you
    will, of natural gas has put significant pressure on the
    operating fleet.
        I know that we have been working with the Federal Energy
    Regulatory Commission. And they have just, in fact, had a
    technical conference this week, and one of those items is to
    look at the value that nuclear brings to the marketplace, and
    the fact that all of that value is not being realized, in fact,
    in the market. So it is a significant challenge. You are right.
    We have closed six plants in the last few years, seven
    additional plants have announced, and there are more that are
    threatened.
        So I do think that this is a significant challenge. I would
    step back. I would say right now the solutions are playing out
    in individual States, so there was success in New York. There
    was success in Illinois, but there will be other individual
    State conversations. But I do think it is very important for us
    as a Nation to step back and look at what we have in nuclear
    power and appreciate the importance that nuclear power brings.
        There are 60 reactors being built around the world today,
    two-thirds of those are Chinese and Russian design. The United
    States needs to be in that conversation. We do not get in that
    conversation by letting our fleet at home atrophy. We need to
    take this very seriously. We should look at it as a national
    security issue, and that is something that we are working very
    much to create that conversation. I am happy to add more for
    the record.
        Ms.  Kaptur. All right. Thank you very much. And, Mr.
    Chairman, this is such a significant issue in the Great Lakes
    because when our nuclear power plants were built we actually
    function in the commercial marketplace. We have nothing like
    the Tennessee Valley Authority or the Bureau of Reclamation or
    the Southeast Power Market Authority. It simply does not exist.
        And these companies are really enduring hardship. I really,
    personally, I think we need a bridge financing package. The
    industry has not really asked for that. Right now they are sort
    of hostage at the State level, but this is an issue for this
    subcommittee, and also for the authorizing committee, I think.
    And I just do not, I am sorry to say, I just do not think our
    States are up for the task of meeting a national challenge. So
    I just wanted to put that on the record and we would welcome
    any additional comments you wish to make.
        Mr.  Simpson. Thank you.
                                  ----------                              --
    --------

                                                Wednesday, May 3, 2017.

                                  E4THEFUTURE

                                    WITNESS

    STEPHEN COWELL, PRESIDENT, E4THEFUTURE
        Mr.  Cowell. Hi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the
    opportunity to testify today. And I will be testifying, we have
    submitted testimony on behalf of myself, EForTheFuture, but
    also Home Performance Coalition. My partner, Brian Castelli,
    will be also talking about it.
        So my goal is really to talk through about how energy
    efficiency, and specifically the work that is being done by DEO
    in the very critical role of working collaboratively with
    States is absolutely critical. Just a little bit about
    EForTheFuture. We used to be called Conservation Services Group
    and we ran the residential energy efficiency in 23 States,
    including Tennessee, Ohio, New York, New Jersey, California,
    Oregon, Washington, Massachusetts, and a few other States.
        But we were able to assist, our nonprofit was able to
    assist over 3.5 million American U.S. households reduce their
    energy consumption over the last 20 years. That was our work.
        We recently sold our business work to a Texas company,
    Clear Result, and they are going to continue doing that. We are
    going to continue focusing on research, education, and
    innovation to really drive our energy economy for the future
    which is what we have to do. And so one of the things, really
    the specific points--and I would like to thank the House,
    specifically. Your continuing resolution continues the work
    that I am going to talk about, and so thank you very much,
    which I think you are going to vote on today, later today. I
    think it was a leadership effort, so thank you very much.
        Specifically, the Building Technology's Office at DOE does
    tremendous work around helping all of us in the energy
    efficient world, which energy efficiency is the least
    expensive. It is the most reliable and it is the most
    beneficial. Brian will be talking about the jobs impact
    analysis that we did in terms of how many jobs and its impact.
        But the Building Technology Office, part of EERE, is really
    critical to helping provide the background and the
    underpinnings for all the efforts in each State. The State
    energy programs provides the support to the State energy
    offices because this country, we have delegated managing and
    running our energy economy to the States. It is a critical
    partnership between State and Federal. If we do not have a
    strong energy economy we will not keep going as a country, so
    we really need to put all the pieces together.
        So we really strongly support that and the weatherization
    systems program, helping low-income people try to avoid energy
    poverty, and that is really critical as well. There has been
    great work over the years of the weatherization assistance.
        As a matter of fact, CSE EForTheFuture started as a result
    of learning from the weatherization program in 1979. So a long
    history of tremendous innovation and others will be talking
    about the weatherization assistance program and its critical
    nature.
        We did put together a letter, which we have submitted, with
    almost 2,500 names, including names and businesses from every
    State, all of your States in terms of Ohio, Tennessee.
    Tennessee we had 135 different businesses submit a letter
    asking for support, continued support for those programs that I
    mentioned because they really are critical for a lot of
    reasons.
        So that letter was put together really with reaching out to
    all the people that we work with and talking about the value
    and the benefit that they bring. And one of those benefits, we
    did another report on the issue of the health impacts,
    predominantly low-income. And what we identified, we worked
    with DOE as well as several others, that, in fact, residential
    energy efficiency reduces healthcare costs, particularly
    Medicare, right? And it reduces asthma. It reduces a variety of
    health impacts, so it really produces benefits that we really
    had not even calculated before, and that ought to be, you know,
    recognized in the discussion, in the deliberation.
        Really, in closing, it is really critical to recognize that
    volatility of our energy prices is an absolute critical concern
    for our economy. In several cases, one of the things I did, I
    helped draft and put together the Stimulus Bill in 2008. I was
    asked to assist with that, and one of the research projects
    that we did was looking at the relationship between energy
    prices and home mortgage failure. They were directly related to
    each other.
        Between 2003 and 2008, the average American family lost 15
    percent of their disposable income. And any homeowner who was
    on the edge was pushed over the edge. I presented this
    information to all the Senate staff, Energy staff and there was
    a gasp, like, oh, we did not realize that. The banks may have
    put the gasoline, but the match was energy costs. Right? So
    volatile energy costs have a tremendous negative impact on our
    economy, and energy efficiency is the way that we can stabilize
    those.
        So thank you very much. Appreciate the work that everyone
    is doing. We need to continue things like weatherization
    assistance, the State energy program collaboration really is a
    collaboration between State and Federal. You guys cannot walk
    away. You have got to work with each of the States in helping
    craft the energy policy.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr.  Simpson. Thank you.
        Mr.  Cowell. So thank you very much.
        Mr.  Simpson. Thank you for being here. Thank you for
    mentioning all of those important States, but you left out the
    State. So other than that I am, you know, I am not going to
    say.
        Mr.  Cowell. I know. I know. We did not work in Oklahoma. I
    am very sorry.
        Mr.  Simpson. It is like the Ohio University, right?
        Mr.  Cowell. All the rest of you.
        Mr.  Simpson. Any questions?
        Ms.  Kaptur. I welcome your testimony so much. You have
    found very receptive ears on this panel, but especially with
    this member. And I am hoping that an organization like your own
    will consider as part of the infrastructure bill to work with
    other colleagues and institutes and organizations on the
    outside to have a housing component to the infrastructure bill
    that may or may not be coming forward in this administration,
    this new administration.
        I represent hundreds, if not thousands, of constituents who
    cannot afford to put a new roof on their homes. Many of them
    are seniors. What is happening in a State like Ohio, because of
    the difficulty with our nuclear power plants in the northern
    part of Ohio, which gets very cold, by the way, energy bills,
    if the State gets its way are going to go up more for people
    who are elderly, too.
        They cannot afford windows. They cannot afford insulation.
    They cannot afford weatherization. They get sicker, just what
    you say. And I just think we need a massive roofing program
    across this country, roofing, windows, insulation as a part of
    an infrastructure bill. And it ought to affect millions of
    people, not thousands because it is desperately needed. It
    could be a job training program as well.
        So I thank you for your testimony. I am so glad you came
    today and thank you for the programs that you support at the
    Department of Energy.
        Mr.  Cowell. Well, thank you.
        Ms.  Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr.  Cowell. From a product's point of view, we have looked
    at, and I actually worked with Home Depot together and they did
    an analysis of where the products that go into energy
    efficiency improvement in homes and over 75 percent must be
    made in America because they cannot be made anywhere else,
    insulation is too light. Heating and cooling equipment is too
    heavy to transport. Glass, windows are too fragile. Right? I
    mean, these are products that are made in America and every job
    has to be an American. You cannot take a house and move it
    overseas and fix it and bring it back. That is a little
    difficult to do.
        Mr.  Simpson. Thank you.
        Mr.  Cowell. Thank you.
        Mr.  Simpson. Thank you for being here today. Brian?
                                  ----------                              --
    --------

                                                Wednesday, May 3, 2017.

                           HOME PERFORMANCE COALITION

                                    WITNESS

    BRIAN T. CASTELLI, PRESIDENT AND CEO, HOME PERFORMANCE COALITION
        Mr.  Castelli. Thank you, Chairman Simpson, and thank you
    for the invitation here, Ranking Member Kaptur. My name is
    Brian Castelli. I am with the Home Performance Coalition and we
    are a nonprofit organization that advances the residential
    energy efficiency market through research, education, and
    policy analysis. We also hold the premier national and regional
    conferences on home performance, both the policy arena, as well
    as the best practices for installing energy efficiency majors
    in the home.
        We work with all stakeholders in the industry, from the
    installers themselves to the manufacturers of the products. I
    am here to talk today about support for three of the Department
    of Energy's programs. One in the residential energy efficiency
    program and the other two in the weatherization and
    intergovernmental affairs office.
        Specifically, we would like to see the subcommittee support
    $200.5 million for building technology offices which develops
    the critical technologies, tools, and solutions to increase
    energy efficiency in homes and buildings. We would also like to
    see $23 million of that number focused on the residential
    building integration. Integrating all the different parts of
    the efficiency office that deals with homes.
        This has been a missing piece in the portfolio of programs
    that DOE has had, and we think this is now the time to get that
    program up and running. We would also like to support a $50
    appropriation for the State energy program. It supports the
    State and local efforts to develop and implement cost effective
    energy efficiency projects and leverage private sector
    innovations.
        Now, as a former director of the State energy office for
    Pennsylvania, and also as the Washington D.C. liaison for the
    California Energy Commission I would like to tell you, these
    are some of the most important infrastructure we have in the
    States are the State energy offices. They are where the rubber
    meets the road. They work with the companies, the corporations,
    and the individuals in those States to make sure that energy
    efficiency plays a major role in the energy programs of that
    State.
        It is where innovation happens. That is where we really
    have a lot of the innovation, both on the policy side as well
    as the technology side. Many years ago when I was with the
    Pennsylvania Energy Office we teamed with both the Texas Energy
    Office as well as State Energy Conservation Office, as well as
    companies in Ohio, Columbia Gas of Ohio to do a community
    project in low-income weatherization where we did the first,
    the seminal work, in plug load monitoring both for electricity
    and natural gas. And that now has become an industry in and of
    itself, so I am very strong on supporting.
        However, I notice that a good friend of mine, Doug Taylor
    is in here today. He is here now and he is going to speak later
    and he will tell you a lot about the State energy offices.
        The third program that I want to talk about is the
    weatherization assistance program. We would like to have you
    support a $225 million appropriation for that program. Steve
    talked a lot about the weatherization program. It helps low-
    income, rural families, seniors, and individuals with
    disabilities to make lasting energy efficiency improvements in
    their homes.
        Oakridge National Lab has provided a lot of good data on
    this program, and it has shown that every dollar that is
    invested by the Federal government $2 to $4 returns in
    benefits, both to society, as well as the home owners. This is
    a critical program. It helps the most vulnerable, and I know
    that everyone in this room does not want to make the vulnerable
    more vulnerable or the poor poor.
        This is a program that helps these people. By lowering
    their energy costs they are able to use that money, which may
    have gone to a utility, but they can use it for food. They can
    use it for health. They can use it for a lot of things. So we
    are very strong on this program. They return a significant ROI
    and they deserve the support of the United States on this.
        Jobs, Steve said I would mention jobs, this is a report
    that the E4 Foundation funded and supported. Done by an
    outside, objective consultant group that does these surveys.
        And it is one of the most effective ways to save consumers
    and businesses money on their utility bills. There are two
    recent reports out. One came from E4, followed two weeks late
    by a report from DEO. Very similar results. The E4 report shows
    that over 1.9 million Americans are employed in the energy
    efficiency industry. It is kind of a stealth program, energy
    efficiency. Nobody knows about it. Do not understand how many
    jobs that there are there.
        The most recent report from DOE which was done with data
    from a year later showed 2.2 million full and part time jobs in
    energy efficiency. They are well-paying, diverse, and they are
    found in every State in the country. Again, these jobs are in
    the residential sector, 40 percent of them, and they involved
    the insulation of energy efficiency products.
        The contractors are the boots on the ground. They are the
    people who install these products in the homes, who do the
    installation, the windows, the roofs. And let me tell you,
    those jobs cannot be exported. They are indigenous jobs, not
    only to your State, to your country, to your local community.
        And the most interesting thing about this is there are over
    165,000 U.S. companies that are small businesses, fewer than
    ten employees in this part of the energy efficiency sector.
        Just for some information here, you might be interested to
    know in the State of Washington there are over 38,000 energy
    efficiency jobs. In Ohio over 78,000 energy efficiency jobs.
    You probably, even though you know your State better than
    anybody, you probably do not realize how many jobs there are.
        In Idaho, nearly 3,000 jobs and these are important jobs.
    They are critical to the efficiency industry. They are critical
    to your State's economy, and we believe in them. And this is a
    good program.
        So we believe that energy efficiency is vital to the
    economic growth. The industry supports millions of these well-
    paying jobs, and we urge the subcommittee to preserve at least
    level funding for the DOE programs I mentioned earlier, and
    outlined in the written testimony we provided earlier.
        I want to thank you, again, for the opportunity to provide
    this testimony. Thank you.
        Mr.  Simpson. Thank you. And I will just announce for the
    committee's sake that we are so far 25 minutes behind schedule,
    and not quite half way through yet, so everybody speak quickly.
        Mr.  Castelli. I am happy to answer quick questions.
        Mr.  Simpson. Ken.
                                  ----------                              --
    --------

                                                Wednesday, May 3, 2017.

                   SOUTH CENTRAL COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP

                                    WITNESS

    KEN J. ROBINETTE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SOUTH CENTRAL COMMUNITY ACTION
        PARTNERSHIP
        Mr.  Robinette. Good morning, Chairman Simpson, ranking
    member Kaptur and committee members. I am the CEO of the South
    Central Community Action Partnership in Twin Falls, Idaho. I am
    pleased to submit testimony today to support the Department of
    Energy's Weatherization Assistance Program referred to as WAP.
    I would also like to thank the two presenters that just came
    before us that talked about WAP to set me up for this
    presentation. So thank you.
        With the Department of Energy's Weatherization Assistance
    Program I would respectfully urge this committee to fund the
    Weatherization Assistance Program in fiscal year 2018 at a
    level of 230. That is a little bit above what they had
    recommended but we are deeply concerned about the
    administration's proposal to eliminate WAP and I believe that
    this funding level is essential in continuing and improving the
    outstanding results of the program. The WAP celebrated its 40th
    anniversary in 2016. Today I want to highlight the impact that
    the WAP has nationwide as well as demonstrate what the program
    makes a difference in my State of Idaho.
        The WAP is a proven, cost effective and successful model of
    a Federal, State and local partnership. WAP services are
    delivered by more than 900 organizations, many of which are
    community action agencies like mine. WAP operates in every
    corner of the Nation making a difference in both urban and
    rural communities in all 50 States and the District of
    Columbia, U.S. Territories, and Native American Tribes. Since
    its inception in 1976 over 7.4 million homes have been
    weatherized by WAP. That is 7.4 million families with extra
    money in their pocket and living in a safer, healthier more
    comfortable home. It is widely known that the families with low
    income pays a larger portion of their income towards home
    energy costs and their higher income counterparts about 16
    percent of income versus just three percent according to
    Oakridge National Laboratory. Weatherization helps alleviate
    this high energy burden through cost effective, energy
    efficiency improvements such as insulation, air sealing, HVAC
    systems, lighting and appliances.
        According to DOE, in cold weather States like Idaho WAP can
    reduce heating costs by as much as 30 percent and families in
    weatherized homes save at least $283 each year on their energy
    costs. This income can be used to pay for goods like food,
    medicine and education.
        According to a commonest at the Home Energy Affordable Gap
    Project, Idaho households with incomes below 50 percent of the
    Federal poverty level pay a staggering 21 percent of their
    annual income simply for their home energy bills. Idaho has six
    WAP providers that serve all 44 counties and weatherize
    approximately 975 homes annually for families and individuals
    that are economically disadvantaged. Of those homes weatherized
    each year more than 2,400 individuals many of which are
    elderly, disabled and young children now live in a more energy
    efficient and safer home. Many of our families submit letters
    of thanks for assistance they received.
        I would like to share one of those letters from a family
    who owns a home in small farming community of Hazelton, Idaho.
    This family where dad and mom are both working with one small
    child who is disabled writes we are so grateful and could not
    thank you all enough of everything. I was so amazed how
    professional all the guys were. Our home used one third of the
    electricity and a lot less coal. The proof is in out reduction
    of our power bill. Also my son has only had one minor cold.
    Last year he had several because the cold drafts and
    fluctuation of temperature.
        In addition to providing substantial emergency savings for
    hard working American families, the WAP also makes homes
    healthier and safer. For every dollar invested in
    weatherization, $2.78 cents were generated in health and safety
    benefits. Weatherization measures generally improve
    ventilation, mitigate mold, and improve indoor air quality. As
    a result, residents of weatherized homes experience fewer
    asthma and allergy symptoms as well as fewer hospitalizations.
    Children in weatherized homes missed fewer days of school and
    their parents missed fewer days of work.
        In the Oakridge National Laboratory study of WAP residents
    reported paying an average of $514 less out-of-pocket medical
    expenses after weatherization. Not only does WAP make a
    necessary, needed improvement to our national aging housing
    stock, but it also helps American workers and American
    businesses. The WAP directly supports more than 8,500 jobs and
    indirectly supports thousands more in related business. The WAP
    has provided training and workforce development to thousands of
    low-income and middle-income workers allowing them to secure
    stable employment across the entire State or across the entire
    supply chain from WAP crews, material suppliers, tech
    companies, and more.
        Idaho is also a great example of another key success of WAP
    with a strong record of leveraging and additional funds to
    supplement the Federal dollars. The main method of leveraging
    is through partnerships with utility companies. Many of which
    depend upon the WAP delivery network to carry out low-income
    residential efficiency incentives. In 2015, increasing--excuse
    me, let me back that up. At least 21 States were able to
    leverage additional funds from utilities in 2015, increasing
    the impact of the WAP in those States. This leveraging activity
    is only possible with the critical base money from DOE as well
    as DOE's reputation and high quality standards. In Idaho, we
    have had a longstanding partnership with three of our largest
    utility companies. Over the past 5 years, they have contributed
    more than $11.8 million that were invested in approximately
    2,200 households throughout the State.
        In closing, I would like to extend my gratitude to all of
    you for your hard work and continued support of WAP over the
    years. I again respectfully urge the subcommittee to find or
    fund the WAP at $230 million for fiscal year 2018, the funding
    level necessary we believe to sustain a national program to
    serve low-income families in all local communities. Thank you.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr.  Simpson. Thank you, Ken. Ray.
                                  ----------                              -

                                                Wednesday, May 3, 2017.

           NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR STATE COMMUNITY SERVICES PROGRAMS

                                    WITNESS

    RAY JUDY, ENERGY SERVICES DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR STATE
        COMMUNITY SERVICES PROGRAMS
        Mr.  Judy. All right, thank you. My name is Ray Judy and I
    am the energy services director for the National Association
    for State Community Services Programs and I appreciate the
    opportunity to come and speak to you today mainly regarding the
    Weatherization Assistance Program, which is near and dear to my
    heart. So I am pleased to submit testimony in support of the
    Weatherization Assistance Program and State Energy Program.
        As some of the numbers that you have already heard we are
    seeking an fiscal year 2018 appropriations level of $230
    million for the Weatherization Assistance Program and $70
    million for the State Energy Program. NASCAP is a member
    organization representing the weatherization grantees and the
    directors in all 50 States, D.C., and five U.S. territories on
    all the issues related to WAP.
        The State office is represented by organization. We would
    like to thank this community for its support of the WAP and SEP
    through the years. Additionally, we would like to share our
    appreciation for the increase in WAP funding contained within
    the omnibus for the fiscal year 2017 funding. I have been
    working in the weatherization program for over 29 years with
    the first 28 years of that being spent in Indiana's
    weatherization program and have witnessed throughout that time
    firsthand the impact that the WAP has on the most vulnerable
    households in this country.
        Weatherization provides a foundation for residential clean
    energy investments that sustain jobs and save families money
    through improved energy efficiency. In its 40-year history the
    WAP has weatherized over 7.4 million homes, helping hard-
    working American families, particularly those that are elderly,
    disabled, and families with children.
        The need for weatherization services is significant. DOE
    estimates that 20 to 30 million families are eligible for WAP
    each year. This represents an incredible opportunity for energy
    savings that cannot be obtained without the WAP.
        Weatherization managers like insulation, air ceiling, high-
    efficiency HVAC systems are investments that pay off for the
    life of the home reducing energy waste and saving families
    money month after month and year after year. With lower energy
    bills these families can increase their usable income and buy
    essentials like food, clothing, medicine, and health care.
        In addition to delivering savings to families, the WAP
    plays a significant role in supporting jobs in workforce
    development and we will repeat the number again that WAP
    supports at least 8,500 jobs in weatherization and thousands
    more across the supply chain and material suppliers, vendors,
    and manufacturers. It is also important to highlight that the
    work performed under WAP meets extremely high quality standards
    set forth by DOE. In recent years, DOE has developed and
    implemented standard work specifications that ensure all homes
    receive the highest quality weatherization services.
        As of 2016, there are over 1,600 building performance
    institute-certified quality control inspectors. This workforce
    of QCIs ensures that 100 percent of the units weatherized with
    DOE funds are inspected for quality. And in addition that
    number, the WAP grantees inspect 5 percent of those units in
    sharing another layer of review during their time in
    monitoring.
        Another critical benefit of the WAP is its positive impact
    on the health and safety of families. You have heard this
    again, but it really bears the repeating these numbers and this
    information. It makes sense that in a home that is cold and
    drafty or full of mold and excess moisture there is an
    increased risk of recurring illnesses.
        What we have learned over the years is that the nonenergy
    benefits of weatherization results in a healthier living
    environment. This was confirmed by the Oakridge National
    Laboratory evaluation which found that residents of weatherized
    homes experience fewer asthma, allergy, and cold symptoms.
    Weatherization mitigates factors that can trigger an asthma
    attack resulting in fewer emergency room visits and
    hospitalizations. WAP measures can also prevent other life-
    threatening events such as carbon monoxide poisoning and fires
    from unsafe heating sources.
        After weatherization families have homes that are safer and
    more livable, resulting in fewer missed days of work and
    school. These outcomes pay off. Again, every weatherization
    dollar spent returns $2.78 in health and safety benefits.
        These economic benefits are even more significant when
    viewed in light of our Nation's staggering healthcare costs.
    According to the Green and Healthy Homes Initiative, $82.4
    billion in healthcare costs are lost each year due to
    inefficient and unhealthy housing. That is 3 percent of the
    total U.S. healthcare costs. The CDC estimates that asthma
    alone costs the United States $56 billion per year.
        Despite the wide range of benefits and proven cost
    effectiveness of the Weatherization Assistance Program and the
    State Energy Program, the administration's fiscal year 2018
    budget blueprint zeroed out both programs, citing a need, ``to
    reduce Federal intervention in State-level energy policy and
    implementation''. However, WAP and SEP are models of success;
    successful Federal, State, and local partnership, not Federal
    intervention. Elimination of these programs will result in loss
    of jobs as well as decreased investment in local businesses,
    which will harm the financial stability, health, and safety of
    families across the Nation.
        NASCAP respectfully urges the subcommittee to fund the WAP
    and not less than $230 million for fiscal year 2018 and the
    funding level necessary to sustain the national program. NASCAP
    also supports the appropriation of 70 million in fiscal year
    2018 for the State Energy Program. And NASCAP also looks
    forward to working with committee members in the future to
    ensure that these programs continue to deliver cost-effective
    results that support our economy and make a difference in the
    lives of the most vulnerable in our communities.
        And to end, we just really appreciate the opportunity to be
    here today and to speak to the benefits of this program.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms.  Kaptur. Mr. Chairman, I want to take just 5 seconds to
    ask the prior witness, Mr. Robinette, and yourself if you could
    submit from that Oakridge study to each of the members up here
    by their State from the inception of the program how many units
    have been weatherized and then the State-by-State achievements
    over that period of time and what remains to be done. I think
    that that would be very--to take the one example you provided
    for Idaho and to extend that to other States, that might be
    very--we have a lot of new members on this subcommittee. Thank
    you.
        Mr.  Robinette. Absolutely, be glad to.
        Mr.  Simpson. Thank you, Ray. Daniel.
                                  ----------

                                                Wednesday, May 3, 2017.

                   NORTHERN MANHATTAN IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION

                                    WITNESS

    DANIEL RIEBER, WEATHERIZATION DIRECTOR, NORTHERN MANHATTAN IMPROVEMENT
        CORPORATION
        Mr.  Rieber. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. My name is
    Daniel Reiber and I am the weatherization director at the
    Northern Manhattan Improvement Corporation in New York City, or
    NMIC as we say. I am here today before this committee to submit
    testimony in support of the Department of Energy's
    Weatherization Assistance Program, or WAP. I respectfully
    request that the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) be
    kept whole and funded nationally at $230 million for fiscal
    year 2018.
        At NMIC we integrate numerous crises innovation services
    under one roof. With their crises resolved our clients move
    seamlessly to capacity building services through our holistic
    programs designed to support individuals and families as they
    develop the tools to transition from crises to self-
    sufficiency. Our weatherization program is a critical piece of
    our mission to serve as a catalyst for positive change in the
    lives of people in our community on their paths to a secure and
    prosperous future.
        The WAP is the largest energy efficiency retrofit program
    in the Nation. The local community action agencies and
    community-based organizations that implement the program are
    skilled, highly trained, and held to higher standards that are
    often required in the commercial marketplace for equivalent
    work. For 40 years the WAP has led the charge for energy
    efficiency and used building science to properly evaluate,
    diagnose, and retrofit houses and buildings so they may become
    more energy efficient and safe. The WAP workforce sustains
    almost 9,000 jobs nationwide. Additionally, thousands of jobs
    are sustained through related industries and the hiring of
    small business contractors.
        NMIC utilizes subcontractors throughout the program year to
    provide windows, boilers, insulation, and ventilation upgrades.
    This workforce can consist of up to 100 works from 8 different
    small business contractors. Over the past several years we have
    seen the availability of affordable apartments become very
    scarce in Manhattan. Accordion to the National Low-Income
    Housing Coalition in the State of New York there are just 35
    affordable units available for every 100 low-income renters.
        As low-income tenants struggle to live in our great city,
    the weatherization program is more important today in helping
    to preserve affordable housing for low-income families,
    especially children, seniors, and individuals with
    disabilities. Most of the buildings we have served in the last
    grant period were extremely inefficient and in desperate need
    of energy conservation measures, causing residents to pay
    significantly more than necessary towards energy costs.
    Additionally, the need for these services is staggering. Our
    organization alone has 800 units in over 20 buildings on our
    waiting list.
        NMIC works with building owners who are committed to
    preserving affordable housing while still running a profitable
    business. Many properties were neglected over time and are in
    great need of assistance. Such things as boilers, pipe and roof
    installation, roof repairs, and windows. WAP helps keep low-
    income people in affordable, safe, energy-efficient, and
    healthy homes.
        Furthermore, weatherization dollars are key to helping low-
    income, tenant-owned buildings survive. These HDFC, or Housing
    Development Fund Corporations as they are known, typically have
    poor cash flow and high energy burden. By assisting these
    buildings, the WAP helps preserve the essence of affordable
    housing in low-income neighborhoods and, at the same time,
    improves the quality of life in our various communities. The
    DOE weatherization program is critical because it provides the
    critical base with which to leverage and combine other funding.
    We utilize a mix of program, owner, utility, and State energy
    office, NYSERDA in this case, dollars to weatherize buildings,
    make them sustainable, safe places to live.
        One thing is certain, should the Federal funds for WAP be
    significantly reduced or zeroed out, the impact would be
    devastating to our community. Building owners will seek out
    repairs and pass that cost on to tenants. This upward pressure
    on rent will force people out of their homes, thus creating a
    vicious cycle of displacement and uprooting of families and the
    elderly. The stress of losing your home through no fault of
    your own is the kind no one should have to endure.
        Furthermore, the nonprofits in support of housing agencies
    that rely on WAP for their clients will most likely defer
    maintenance until they are able to make repairs, endangering
    the health and safety of their residents.
        I will just highlight in my testimony our two case studies
    which show energy-saving reductions in two buildings of 42
    percent and 47 percent, respectively. In both cases the low-
    income residents were direct beneficiaries of an affordable,
    safer, more comfortable home with no fear of a rent increase.
    Founded in 1979, the staff of two with the goal of assisting
    immigrants in northern Manhattan who were at risk of being
    evicted, Northern Manhattan Improvement Corporation has grown
    to be one of New York City's most trusted, innovative, and
    effective poverty fighting organizations. Our programs include
    legal services, social services, education and career services,
    weatherization, and community organizing. The loss of the
    weatherization program would impact our ability to achieve our
    mission as we would no longer be able to provide the
    comprehensive services that makes a difference in the lives of
    the most vulnerable in our community.
        In closing, I urge the subcommittee to fund the WAP at no
    less than 230 million for fiscal year 2018, the funding level
    necessary to sustain a national program. This is a program that
    has proved its worth and effectiveness over 40 years. The WAP
    plays a critical role in providing and preserving affordable
    housing in our community and helps hard-working families across
    the entire country. I thank you and also want to thank you for
    adding 13 million to the FYI 17 Omnibus Bill. We appreciate
    that very much.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr.  Simpson. Thank you. David.
                                  ----------

                                                 Wednesday, May 3, 2017

                   ASSOCIATION FOR ENERGY AFFORDABILITY, INC.

                                    WITNESS

    DAVID HEPINSTALL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ASSOCIATION FOR ENERGY
        AFFORDABILITY, INC.
        Mr.  Hepinstall. Good morning. As the executive director of
    the Association for Energy Affordability, AEA, I represent and
    serve a network of not-for-profit community-based organizations
    that provide weatherization services to low-income households
    throughout downstate New York. AEA is a national weatherization
    training center and a WAP-funded technical services provider as
    well as a direct services subgrantee in New York City.
        In the last 10 years AEA itself has weatherized 9,000
    housing units and completed investment grade energy audits of
    2,400 buildings with over 112,000 units in New York, while also
    every year having trained hundreds of program staff,
    contractors, and building operators in New York and nationally.
    I am here today to urge you to fund the Department of Energy's
    Weatherization Assistance Program at least 230 million and
    DOE's State Energy Program for 50 million for fiscal year 2018.
    Funding at this level is needed to retain the expertise in
    infrastructure that enables weatherization to deliver its
    essential services to low-income households throughout the
    United States and supports State energy programs that work
    collaboratively with weatherization.
        Weatherization employs energy auditors, retrofit
    installers, quality control inspectors, and project managers
    with deep expertise in whole building energy efficiency. In New
    York State alone 736 persons are fully or partly employed
    directly by weatherization and yet even more work is performed
    by local heating, plumbing, electrical, and ceiling contractors
    hired and overseen by weatherization. These local agency and
    contractor jobs affect the local economy. They cannot be
    outsourced.
        WAP also supports accredited training programs conducted by
    training centers like AEA to prepare workers for BPI
    certifications and help program staff and contractors deliver
    deep energy savings. Weatherization in New York also leverages
    substantial private resources from building owners and
    utilities to complete its energy efficiency upgrades helping to
    preserve affordable housing and make a lasting impact on low-
    income communities. Cost-effective, whole house weatherization
    saves money and energy and improves occupant health, safety,
    and comfort for years to come.
        Weatherization enables low-income families to meet more of
    their basic needs despite limited incomes simply by reducing
    energy waste in their homes. Yet the very program that makes
    all of this possible, that has spawned valuable technology
    improvements along the way, that is celebrating 40 years of
    bipartisan support today, finds itself on the chopping block.
    Passing the current CR is a start, but having at least 230
    million in the 2018 budget is the key. If the weatherization
    program were to be defunded or there were major cuts in fiscal
    year 2018 funding, both program staff and contractors would
    experience job loss, many moving on to other types of work.
    This would be a huge loss to their communities and not easily
    reversed if the infrastructure of WAP were dismantled.
        In New York City, only 16 percent of low-income households
    own their own homes compared to 42 percent nationally. Most are
    renters living in older, multifamily buildings. Preserving the
    affordability of their housing requires more than a few low-
    cost measures in their units. Energy-efficient heating, hot
    water, and ventilation systems are needed to control building
    and operating costs.
        Seventy-one percent of low-income households in New York
    City are severely rent burdened, meaning they pay over 50
    percent of their income for rent and utilities. This places
    them at a high risk of becoming homeless. WAP policies and best
    practices in New York contribute to economic and social
    stability of low-income families and neighborhoods by reducing
    the energy and maintenance costs that may otherwise lead to
    rent increases and displace many families from their homes.
        The positive effects of WAP in New York City multifamily
    buildings begin even before retrofits begin because owners must
    ensure code violations and other hazardous conditions
    identified in the building audit before weatherization work can
    even begin. Weatherization helps by simulating owners to invest
    in low-income communities that have suffered from
    disinvestment. Weatherization measures contribute to the health
    and safety of building residents, improving indoor quality and
    removing conditions that trigger asthma symptoms.
        DOE rules permit energy efficiency upgrades to central
    systems in multifamily buildings when the required percentage
    of households in the building is income eligible. This allows
    local weatherization subgrades in New York City to take a whole
    building approach to energy efficiency that helps to maintain
    housing affordability.
        Multifamily weatherization in New York protects low-income
    residents in housing affordability by requiring building owner
    investment of at least 25 percent of the cost of the building-
    wide energy upgrades, prohibiting owners from increasing rents
    based on capital improvements, co-funded by weatherization, and
    preventing displacement of low-income tenants by requiring any
    apartment vacated by a low-income resident to be rented to
    another low-income household for at least 5 years after
    weatherization upgrades have been completed.
        Those are things that have been developed in New York
    specifically coming from below, from subgrantees, and it is
    possible because of DOE regulations as well.
        So I really want to thank you for the opportunity to
    testify today and say I have been in this for 27 years and gone
    to a lot of buildings in New York City, and I remain to this
    day deeply moved by the positive impacts on so many households.
    We have pictures of before and after. We have movies, frankly,
    of that as well, and the impact on households and buildings and
    whole neighborhoods would be far-reaching, adverse, unintended
    consequences if this essential program were to end or be
    crippled by deep funding cuts. Please do not let this happen.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr.  Simpson. Thank you, David, for being here today. We
    appreciate it very much. Dr. Maria Spiropulu
                                  ----------

                                                 Wednesday, May 3, 2017

                       CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

                                    WITNESS

    DR. MARIA SPIROPULU, PROFESSOR OF PHYSICS, CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF
        TECHNOLOGY
        Ms.  Spiropulu. It is Greek. Chairman Simpson, Ranking
    Member Kaptur, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, I
    want to thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am
    here to discuss the importance of the United States in
    leadership in high-energy physics funded by the Department of
    Energy of the Office of Science, and why sustained government
    investment is needed to continue making world-changing
    discoveries.
        The major reasons why we need to sustain our excellence in
    particle physics are, for one, the basic research to understand
    and explain the universe. Secondly, our international
    leadership, our workforce development, and our technology
    breakthroughs. These accomplishments have only been possible
    through the support of your committee.
        In fact, you are the sole sponsor of this curiosity-driven
    research. So, I want to thank you for providing just recently
    $825 million for HEP for fiscal year 2017, and I ask you to
    consider providing the $868 million for fiscal year 2018, to
    advance our ongoing critical research and infrastructure
    projects.
        I have been a particle physicist for 24 years, and I am now
    a professor at Cal-Tech. Back then, we were building for
    discovery, and discovery we did, and Building For Discovery is
    the title and the name of the report that laid out a 10-year
    strategic vision for the U.S. particle physics by what is
    called the Particle Physics Project Prioritization Panel, P5
    for short, which you have heard from before.
        It took the high-energy physics community a good 2 years to
    come up with this P5 plan, and sacrifices were made. We are now
    in the midway of its execution, and I am very glad to report
    that all projects are on time and budget.
        The highest priority in the P5 report is continuing our
    collaboration with CERN, the leading European laboratory, and
    meeting our commitments to the Large Hadron Collider, and the
    associated more than 2,000 American researchers, physicists,
    technicians, students. This will happen by funding the
    upgrades, the upgrade detectors.
        Now, mind you, with the LHC we found a unique particle that
    is necessary to complete our particle physics model of the
    universe, the blueprint of the universe.
        The highest medium-term P5 priority is the Long-Baseline
    Neutrino Facility, or LBNF. Fermilab will host LBNF and lead
    the world's accelerator-based Neutrino Research Program,
    studying the least understood, the most puzzling, and the
    highest abundant matter particles in the universe than
    neutrinos. LBNF will be the largest U.S.-based international
    science facility and the largest research program Neutrino has
    ever undertaken worldwide.
        As part of the detector, which is called the Deep
    Underground Neutrino Experiment, DUNE, Fermilab will shoot
    neutrinos 800 miles from Illinois all the way to South Dakota
    at the Sanford Underground Research Facility where we are
    building four massive detectors that are a mile underground.
    LBNF and DUNE will be for neutrinos what the LHC is for the
    Higgs, namely the mothership of deep exploration and discovery.
        And, very importantly, this international project continues
    to gain financial contributions from many other nations. In
    fact, following a cooperative agreement signed 2 years ago
    here, CERN, our closest collaborator, for the first time
    decided to invest outside Europe and invest on LBNF in South
    Dakota--Fermilab in South Dakota. And as of yesterday,
    additional protocols and agreements were signed at CERN, and
    CERN engineers and technicians started working at Fermilab
    starting already yesterday.
        Now, my testimony comes at a very crucial time for the U.S.
    Particle Physics Program. LBNF and DUNE received approval to
    start construction, and with the Omnibus Bill we can now
    provide sufficient funding for construction. Cessation in
    funding will lead to increased costs and delays and curtailing
    of the current momentum. Sustained funding will signal, in
    fact, to our partners across the wall, that the United States
    is absolutely determined and prepared to lead in science and
    make the case for the future, that science leadership,
    discovery, and innovation are essential aspects of our Nation's
    technological and economical growth.
        And I will take my last minute to talk a little bit about
    technology and workforce development after mentioning that the
    U.S., the United States, in this area, in the frontier of the
    cosmic--what we call in this area--we are already leaders, and
    we are doing dark matter and dark energy exploration and we
    will continue with sustained funding doing so. Dark matter is
    important, because it is the gravitational scaffolding of the
    universe. Without dark matter, galaxies and stars would fly
    away. We must understand what it is.
        Going to the technology, fundamental research is crucially
    dependent on advanced technology. We are adapting right now
    what technology has developed for quantum computers essential
    for these dark matter searches, pushing farther the advancement
    of these technologies, important applications of particle
    physics-spun areas of manufacturing, computation, medicine, and
    national security.
        Particle physics detectors improve homeland security using
    advanced technology and providing new techniques for monitoring
    the core of nuclear reactors. And when the motivation to
    generate new technology lies within deeper scientific
    questions, it is then that we make unprecedented leaps in
    technology and in the domain sciences.
        Finally, particle physics--you probably know it from the
    many times we come in front of you--we are the source of the
    biggest, absolute biggest data, and absolute biggest and more
    complex data architectures. This, as a consequence, that our
    particle physics students and the young researchers today are
    expertly versed in all these artificial intelligence methods
    and tools for science, for basic science.
        I would like to highlight one example of a recent graduate
    of mine, Alex Mott. He received his Ph.D. in 2015 from Cal-
    Tech, and he was handpicked by the Tesla model Autopilot team,
    and he developed from Version 0 to Version 9 now the Autopilot
    for Tesla Motors. This is happening with our students. This is
    just one example. This is happening with our students all over.
        So, in closing, I want to just remind everybody that
    particle physics is the physics of understanding and explaining
    the universe end to end and in its core, and it is curiosity-
    driven and basic science, but we are preparing technology
    advancements and technology breakthroughs in workforce
    development that it is unprecedented.
        And I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify and
    for your continued support to this science.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr.  Simpson. Thank you, Doctor. There are a lot of
    questions that I would like to ask you, but I am just not smart
    enough. It is pretty deep stuff. But thank you for being here--
    --
        Ms. Spiropulu. Thank you.
        Mr. Simpson [continuing]. And testifying on the importance
    of the program.
        Ms. Spiropulu. Thank you.
        Mr. Simpson. Morry Markowitz.
                                  ----------

                                                Wednesday, May 3, 2017.

                   FUEL CELL AND HYDROGEN ENERGY ASSOCIATION

                                    WITNESS

    MORRY MARKOWITZ, PRESIDENT, FUEL CELL AND HYDROGEN ENERGY ASSOCIATION
        Mr.  Markowitz. I want to thank the Chair and the Ranking
    Member for giving me this opportunity to discuss our industry's
    priorities for fiscal year 2018 funding for the Department of
    Energy. My name is Morry Markowitz. I am president of the Fuel
    Cell and Hydrogen Energy Association.
        I previously submitted written testimony to the committee,
    but I would like to have this opportunity to have a
    conversation with you.
        The member companies that make up the Fuel Cell and
    Hydrogen Energy Association range in size from some of the
    best-known household brands in the world to small businesses
    and startups. We also count national laboratories and other
    nonprofits within our family. Looking around at the
    subcommittee, I could see we are well represented here.
        The industry currently employs approximately 10,000 direct
    workers in the United States through manufacturing,
    maintenance, engineering, and supply chain support, and
    thousands more in indirect jobs.
        We often refer to the fuel cell technology as the all-the-
    above technology, meaning it applies to stationary and
    distributed power generation, backup power for
    telecommunications, material handling, and transportation,
    including passenger vehicles, buses, and soon trains and heavy
    vehicles. We utilize all the above fuels because we can drive
    hydrogen from 100 percent domestic resources, including natural
    gas, bio and landfill gas, to renewables such as solar and
    wind.
        Our industry, with the help of the Department of Energy,
    has made incredible strides in developing this transformational
    clean energy technology. Passenger cars are now being sold and
    leased in California. Stationary power is being used by some of
    the leading utilities and companies from around the world. Fuel
    cell forklifts are taking the place of old battery types in the
    largest distribution centers in North America. However, even
    with all this progress, there is still a great deal left to
    accomplish in making this technology more competitive in the
    marketplace. And that is why I am here to speak to you today.
        For fiscal year 2018, our organization is asking that the
    committee positively consider our request for $101 million in
    funding for hydrogen and fuel cell activities managed by the
    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and $50
    million for solid oxide fuel research and development managed
    by the Office of Fossil Energy.
        We know that this is an era of tight budgets. That is why
    our request for fiscal year 2018 EERE budget is identical to
    the appropriated level of this year, and our Office of Fossil
    Energy Funding request is identical to what we requested for
    2017. The members of FCHEA truly appreciate the consistent
    level of bipartisan support given to these programs by this
    committee, Congress, and past administrations.
        If we were to be asked how money for EER would be best put
    to work at the Department of Energy, I would provide you with
    the following response. It is the industry's opinion that the
    bulk of appropriated monies should focus on three main areas:
    hydrogen research and development, market transformation, and
    stationary and storage applications.
        For hydrogen research and development, we ask for funds to
    further enhance hydrogen metering devices, for retail fueling
    stations, improve hydrogen compressors, and reduce the costs of
    storage and transport.
        In addition, the department should identify competitive
    opportunities to help develop robust, affordable hydrogen
    infrastructure components. This would encourage entrance to the
    markets, drive down costs, and speed transition. As a package,
    all these proposed ideas will help in the development of a
    reliable and cost-effective infrastructure. The department
    should also continue modest proof of concept demonstrations.
    These activities have proven successful for material handling
    equipment at warehouses and show significant progress for air
    and sea ports.
        Market transformation funding enables fuel cell and vehicle
    companies to overcome cost-prohibitive steps, that has the best
    chance to perform well against environmentally problematic
    incumbent technology. Within the stationary generation
    application sector, we are encouraged by the committee's
    recognition of the role that fuel cells and hydrogen can play
    in energy storage. Excess power can be utilized to generate
    hydrogen for future electricity generation, transportation
    fuel, and for use in the natural gas pipeline.
        Finally, with regard to EERE, we continue to call for the
    committee to encourage the Secretary of Energy to work with the
    Secretary of Transportation on coordinating efforts to deploy
    hydrogen fueling infrastructure, particularly as part of a
    major investment in U.S. infrastructure.
        Concerning the Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Program managed by the
    Office of Fossil Energy, our request for $50 million would
    continue essential R&D in support of the development of large-
    scale, highly-efficient ultra clean stationary power generation
    fuel cell systems. This program is the only one of its kind
    globally, providing the U.S. with a unique competitive
    advantage over foreign competitors. Solid oxide fuel cells
    utilize domestic fuels that include classified coal, natural
    gas, bio gas, hydrogen, and biodiesel.
        Completion of this work will result in ultra-efficient
    stationary power systems for the distributed as well as central
    power applications. Success continues in reaching performance
    milestones for durability and cost. This essential R&D must
    continue in order to reach the requirements for successful
    introducing of solid oxide fuel cell technology.
        Modern-day fuel cells are the result of American ingenuity,
    which played a key role in our quest in landing a man on the
    moon. We believe that this transformational, clean technology
    will play a role in addressing many of our energy and
    transportation challenges. If we make the right decisions
    today, we will ensure that future high-quality jobs will be
    created here while at the same time improving our economy and
    environment, bolstering our national security, and making us
    energy independent. We look forward to working with you and the
    committee staff as the process continues.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr.  Simpson. Thank you, Morry.
        Mr.  Markowitz. Thank you.
        Mr.  Simpson. And we look forward to working with you. Ms.
    Callahan.
                                  ----------

                                                Wednesday, May 3, 2017.

                            ALLIANCE TO SAVE ENERGY

                                    WITNESS

    KATERI CALLAHAN, PRESIDENT, ALLIANCE TO SAVE ENERGY
        Ms.  Callahan. Hi. Thank you very much. I really appreciate
    the opportunity to testify before you today, Mr. Chairman and
    Ranking Member Kaptur. And I want to lay out and highlight the
    critical and cost-effective, energy-effective energy efficiency
    programs being carried out at the Office of Energy Efficiency
    and Renewable Energy.
        I want to start, like so many others have, in saying thank
    you to you and the other members of the committee for your
    longstanding support of Federal energy efficiency programs. We
    were really encouraged by the Omnibus Bill, which includes
    robust funding for these programs. And to say thank you, I am
    going to try to buy you back a minute or two of the time that
    you are running over today.
        My name is Kateri Callahan, and I serve as the president of
    the Alliance to Save Energy. We are a bipartisan, nonprofit
    organization with the mission of advancing national policies
    that make our economy more energy productive, and that results
    in creation of jobs, reduction of energy costs for consumers
    and businesses, increased global competitiveness, and, of
    course, reduction in the harmful emissions associated with
    energy production.
        The Alliance enjoys the leadership of 13 members of
    Congress who serve in an honorary capacity on our Board of
    Directors. We also enjoy the support of over 120 companies and
    institutions that help us in our advocacy, education,
    communications, and market transformation work. We are
    celebrating our 40th anniversary this year, and over those past
    four decades, we witnessed a remarkable decoupling in the
    growth in energy demand in this country from the growth in our
    economy.
        Today, we are twice as energy productive as we were in the
    late 1970s. What does that mean? That means we are getting two
    times--twice--as much GDP for each unit of energy that we
    consume, so we are much more energy productive. And what did
    that do? In the creation of this real evolution or transition
    in our energy use, we have created an enormous and a domestic-
    based energy efficiency industry.
        You have heard a lot of the other witnesses today talk
    about the 2.2 million jobs that have been created. I brought
    along a visual to just kind of emphasize and highlight this for
    you. You can see that it is 2.2 of the 3 million clean energy
    jobs. But the bigger story is, it is a third of the jobs in the
    overall energy sector in the U.S. You can also see that the
    majority of these jobs are in the construction and the
    manufacturing sectors, so these are largely nonexportable and
    good-paying jobs.
        One thing that others have not pointed out is that it is a
    rapidly growing industry. We realized 6 percent growth between
    2015 and 2016 in this industry, and we are expecting another 9
    percent growth just this year. And these jobs can be found all
    across the United States. It is detailed in my testimony. But,
    for example, in your district, Mr. Simpson, there are over 900
    energy efficiency jobs. And, Ms. Kaptur, in your district in
    Ohio, there are 4,200 energy efficiency jobs.
        Ms.  Kaptur. And I think that is a low number.
        Ms.  Callahan. And I would agree with you, but we always
    err on the side of being cautious and conservative. In total
    for the committee, there are 46,000 jobs that are represented
    just in the districts of the committee members. It is
    impossible to understate the role of Federal policies and
    investment, from building energy codes, to appliance and
    equipment and efficiency standards, to public and private
    partnerships in this remarkable evolution, to an economy that
    is doing much more with less in terms of energy consumption.
        For this reason, we are requesting funding at levels at
    least equivalent to those you included in the Omnibus, and in a
    few instances have suggested slight increases to keep programs.
    As detailed in my testimony, the energy efficiency programs at
    DOE are paying out huge returns to consumers and businesses on
    the modest taxpayer investments. There are just three quick
    examples that I want to call to your attention.
        First is the State Energy Program, or SEP, that is
    currently funded at $50 million. We join with the others in
    requesting a $20 million increase to this program, which is
    delivering direct energy savings of $7 for every $1 of Federal
    support. The second is the Weatherization Assistance Program.
    And you have heard chapter and verse on that. We join with the
    others in requesting a modest increase of $5 million to the
    $230 million level for a program that has a cost-benefit ratio
    of 4 to 1.
        One thing that has not been talked a lot about today, that
    I have heard, is the Building Technology Office. That is where
    we house the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, which
    is saving consumers, through the standards that we put in
    place, $500 a year on their energy bill, and also houses the
    Building Energy Codes Program. New homes that are built to
    codes certified by DOE through that program can expect a net
    savings in as little as 1 to 2 years.
        Again, these are just examples of the programs that are
    detailed. All of them have that kind of cost-effective,
    impactful benefit to our economy, so we urge you to continue to
    provide robust funding in support of these programs. We believe
    the return on investment to our economy and also to our energy
    security and our environment is simply too large to pass up.
    Thank you.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr.  Simpson. Thank you. I appreciate your being here
    today.
        Ms.  Callahan. Thank you.
        Mr.  Simpson. Dub Taylor.
                                  ----------

                                                Wednesday, May 3, 2017.

                     TEXAS STATE ENERGY CONSERVATION OFFICE

                                    WITNESS

    WILLIAM ``DUB'' TAYLOR, DIRECTOR, TEXAS STATE ENERGY CONSERVATION
        OFFICE
        Mr.  Taylor. Thank you, sir. My name is William ``Dub''
    Taylor and I serve as the State Energy Office director from
    Texas. It is an honor to appear before the subcommittee today
    on behalf of the National Association of State Energy
    Officials, or NASEO. NASEO represents the governor-designated
    energy officials from every State in U.S. territory.
        It is a forum for us to share good ideas on all of the
    above energy solutions and to cooperate regionally and
    nationally. I want to thank Chairman Simpson, Ranking Member
    Kaptur, and the subcommittee for your support of $50 million
    for the State Energy Program, or SEP, and $225 million for the
    Weatherization Assistance Program, and the fiscal year 2017
    House bill last spring and as part of this week's budget deal.
        First and foremost, I am here today asking the subcommittee
    for support of $70 million for SEP in fiscal year 2018. In
    addition to seeking $50 million in base SEP formula funds, we
    think that additional targeted funding to enhance Federal
    energy cooperation in energy emergency preparedness and
    response, including physical and cybersecurity of the energy
    infrastructure, should be provided.
        Energy emergency preparedness is a necessity and is a
    highly interdependent Federal, State, private function,
    covering electricity, natural gas, petroleum, and other fuels.
    In the most recent year in which we have data, nearly 50
    percent of the cyber attacks in the United States were on
    energy infrastructure, with significant activity in the
    petroleum sector, much of that in my own State.
        Second, we strongly disagree with the administration's
    proposals to eliminate SEP and Weatherization on the basis that
    it may interfere with State policymaking. I can tell you, the
    States know SEP as the only daily administered program which
    embodies cooperative Federalism and affords governors control
    of allocating funds within very broad guidelines, as intended
    by the Congress, all without unnecessary Federal Government
    interference in State policies.
        In fact, governor support for SEP and Weatherization is
    extraordinary. This year, the National Governors Association
    called out SEP and Weatherization as top funding priorities in
    the energy area, urging the Trump administration to ``continue
    and expand the Weatherization Assistance Program and State
    Energy Program.''
        Moreover, the Southern States Energy Board, led by
    Governors Hutchinson of Arkansas and Adkins of Kentucky, the
    Governors' Wind & Solar Energy Coalition led by Governors
    Raimondo of Rhode Island and Brownback of Kansas, and the
    Western Interstate Energy Board, led by the energy directors,
    my counterparts, Governors Herbert of Utah and Sandoval of
    Nevada, all call for continued and expanding funding of SEP.
        SEP is a strong Federal-State partnership program and it
    requires matching State funds. According to two Oak Ridge
    National Laboratory studies, one just referred to by Ms.
    Callahan, SEP provides taxpayers with exceptional value. Oak
    Ridge found that each dollar of SEP funds used by States
    leverages $10.71 of State and private funds and realizes $7.22
    in energy cost savings for citizens and businesses.
        In Texas, like most States, we are focused on the role of
    energy and economic development. Diverse energy resources and
    low energy prices provide Texas with an advantage, and we want
    to keep it that way. As an example, in Texas we leverage
    $293,000 in SEP funds to support clean energy technology
    startup companies, which have attracted $7 million in
    investments, created 86 jobs, and resulted in $7.9 million in
    economic impact.
        We have allocated SEP funding to the Texas Industries of
    the Future Program, which has had great success in supporting
    chemical manufacturers and refiners, to decrease the energy and
    water intensity of their Texas operations. And we utilized SEP
    funds to support local building energy code adoption and
    compliance by training homebuilders, contractors, and code
    officials across the State. Each of these successes and others
    are possible using the flexible SEP formula funds, which give
    our States and other States the ability to allocate funding to
    meet our top energy priorities and opportunities.
        In Texas, SEP funds are also used to conduct energy and
    water assessments for public sector, taxpayer-supported
    facilities across the State. Projects identified can then be
    implemented under the State-funded LoneSTAR Revolving Loan
    Program, which offers low-cost financing to K-12 schools, local
    governments, and State agencies. This program has awarded
    almost 300 loans totaling $375 million for projects that have
    saved borrowers $523 million in utility costs, an average of
    18.5 savings annually.
        Finally, we would prefer that all SEP funds come to the
    States through the base formula account rather than the small
    competitive program or technical assistance which DOE has opted
    to undertake at its discretion over the past several years. We
    look forward to working with the subcommittee, with the
    Congress, and the new administration in advancing our energy
    policies and the good work of the States and private sector.
        Thank you and I am happy to take any questions.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr.  Simpson. I appreciate you being here today. We look
    forward to working with you. Robert.
                                  ----------

                                                Wednesday, May 3, 2017.

                                HANNON ARMSTRONG

                                    WITNESS

    ROBERT JOHNSON, VICE PRESIDENT, HANNON ARMSTRONG
        Mr.  Johnson. Good afternoon, and thank you for having me
    here. In the interest of time, I will try to be brief.
        We are a leading venture in the sustainable infrastructure
    and energy business and we are urging your support in funding
    of the Federal Energy Management Program, specifically FEMP. It
    is an important program that oversees and facilitates the
    implementation of energy savings performance contracts, or
    ESPCs as they are known, as well as utility energy services
    contracts, UESCs as they are known; these activities all of
    which are currently contemplated in the 2018 Energy and Water
    Development Appropriations Bill.
        To give you a little background on who Hannon Armstrong is,
    we are a 36-year-old company, New York Stock Exchange listed,
    and ticker symbol HSAI. We invest in energy infrastructure to
    the extent that it is energy efficiency wind and solar
    projects. To give you an idea, we have approximately 23,000
    acres of land that we own underneath wind and solar projects,
    some of which is here with some of the members of this
    committee, Mr. Fortenberry as well as Mr. Calvert. In each of
    those cases, we own approximately 7 megawatts of power that is
    being generated in a distributed manner in each of their
    locations. I, unfortunately, cannot say the same right now for
    the two jurisdictions that we have in attendance today, but I
    am sure that we will over time.
        Ms.  Katpur. Excuse me, sir, you have to deal with the
    birders in Ohio. Yeah, yeah.
        Mr.  Johnson. I apologize. Specifically, I want to talk a
    little bit about ESPCs and UESCs. These critical contracts,
    they enable the Federal agencies to procure energy services and
    projects without relying solely on appropriated funds and they
    come at no added cost to the government. ESPCs and UESCs are
    tools that help agencies and installations replace, operate,
    and maintain aging energy using equipment. They reduce energy
    and intensity, as Kateri had mentioned before, saving taxpayer
    dollars, creating jobs, and in many cases improving the mission
    readiness of the Federal agencies. These innovative contracts
    require that each of the ESCOs that underpin the contracts
    perform annual assurance of the financial savings that are
    realized through these contracts.
        ESPCs and UESCs also have resulted in thousands of jobs
    created. So we have talked about jobs today in a variety of
    contexts. In this context, it is in the Federal ESPC and UESC
    world where the Federal Performance Contracting Coalition, FPC,
    in particular, has estimated that approximately for every $10
    million of investment made in ESPCs and UESCs there are 95
    high-paying jobs available here in the U.S. These jobs work in
    three areas. One is manufacturing, so manufacturing the
    equipment that is put in; two is the installers through
    subcontractors and the like; and three are the ESCOs, or the
    Energy Services Companies, that do the work as a prime
    contractor to the government.
        FEMP in particular is authorized to track agency progress
    on particularly section 432 of the Energy Independence and
    Security Act of 2007. In this capacity, they facilitate report
    findings of implemented projects and report annual building
    benchmarking metrics. In addition, FEMP is authorized by
    statute to appropriate procedures and methods for use by
    Federal agencies with these ESPCs, in particular on 42 U.S.C.
    8287.
        In addition, FEMP's most important effort is the
    coordinated and defined program management of ESPCs for the
    Federal agencies. FEMP staff helps agencies use ESPCs in
    several ways, advising the agencies on scoping and procurement
    activities, helping agencies select third party energy services
    companies, which I mentioned before, finalizing contract terms
    and project approval, and monitoring the project implementation
    and performance of these contracts over the long period of
    time, which can be up to 25 years in many cases.
        FEMP is the program manager for this critical ESPC
    contracting tool used by Federal agencies to implement ESPCs.
    That is the Department of Energy ESPC, what is called an
    indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity, IDIQ, contract. This
    was recently, the third version of this was recently announced
    last week by the Department of Energy where there are 21 new
    contractors now awarded that contract under the DOE ESPC IDIQ.
    This new contract is an essential tool for Federal agencies and
    installations on the military side to continue achieving
    greater savings for the taxpayers and obviously promote the
    additional job creation that we have just mentioned.
        In closing, we strongly urge that the $28 million in
    funding for FEMP that has been proposed in the 2018 budget be
    approved so FEMP can continue its vital work, in particular on
    the ESPCs front with Federal agencies. We thank you for
    providing this opportunity and look forward to any questions
    and comments you may have.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr.  Simpson. Thank you, Robert, we appreciate you being
    here today and we will take into consideration your testimony
    when we put together our budget.
        Mr.  Johnson. And I will report back on any projects we
    have in your jurisdiction.
        Mr.  Simpson. Thank you. Bill.
                                  ----------

                                                Wednesday, May 3, 2017.

                    MID-WEST ELECTRIC CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION

                                    WITNESS

    WILLIAM K. DRUMMOND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MID-WEST ELECTRIC CONSUMERS
        ASSOCIATION
        Mr.  Drummond. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
    Kaptur. My name is Bill Drummond. I am the executive director
    of Mid-West Electric Consumers Association. Mid-West represents
    about 300 not-for-profit utilities that purchase power from the
    Federal hydroelectric facilities on the Missouri River and its
    tributaries under the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program. The
    projects are operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and
    the Bureau of Reclamation and the power is sold by Western Area
    Power Administration or WAPA. This cost-based, renewable, non-
    carbon emitting power is an essential component of my members'
    power supply.
        Mid-West member utilities purchase almost 3,000 megawatts
    of installed capacity and the associated energy under long-term
    contracts, some of which extend beyond 2050. In exchange for
    these long-term commitments to purchase WAPA power, Mid-West
    members pay rates that recover the capital costs of the Federal
    investment plus interest in the hydropower generation and
    transmission facilities. Hydropower's share of the joint costs
    including the dams and the spillways and other project purposes
    costs that are assigned by Congress to hydropower
    beneficiaries.
        WAPA's rates also recover the annual operation and
    maintenance costs of the hydropower facilities. WAPA's and the
    other three power marketing administrations cost-based rates
    are not subsidized by the United States Treasury or the
    taxpayer. Section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 requires
    that the power marketing administrations' market Federal power
    at cost-based rates. Prior administrations have recommended
    raising the power marketing administration rates to market-
    based rather than the present cost-based system. Congress has
    consistently reaffirmed the use of cost-based rates for the
    power marketing administrations.
        There have also been proposals to privatize the PMAs by
    selling them to the highest bidder. Mid-West urges you to
    reject any proposed sale of the power marketing administrations
    or the imposition of market-based rates. These ill-advised
    proposals would have a devastating impact on the fragile rural
    economy of the Upper Great Plains.
        Second, the members of Mid-West want to thank the
    subcommittee for the proposal to reduce WAPA's net zero
    appropriation, also known as offsetting discretionary spending
    in the Omnibus Spending Bill for fiscal year 2017. That
    proposal is a reduction of $37 million from the fiscal year
    2016 levels. We support a continuation of that reduction into
    2018 and beyond to address a double budgeting issue with the
    Parker-Davis Intertie Projects. So unlike a lot of other folks,
    we are actually here requesting a reduction and appreciate the
    subcommittee's support for that.
        Mr.  Simpson. We will mark that down.
        Mr.  Drummond. Finally, Mid-West has a good working
    relationship with WAPA and its sister Federal agencies, the
    Corps, and the Bureau of Reclamation regarding the flow of
    current and rejected financial information. While Mid-West
    members still have healthy disagreements with some of WAPA's
    and the Corps' and Reclamation's spending proposals, we have
    been able to work together to obtain the data we need to be
    able to provide informed comments. We respect the efforts of
    the employees and the leadership of these agencies in managing
    these Federal assets under complicated circumstances.
        So in conclusion, Mid-West members strongly support the
    Western Area Power Administration and will oppose any efforts
    to sell it or the other power marketing administrations or to
    change to market-based rates. We support a $35 million
    reduction in WAPA's net zero appropriation request for fiscal
    year 2017 and appreciate the subcommittee's support of the
    fiscal year 2017 Omnibus Spending Proposal that calls for a $37
    million reduction. And finally, we appreciate the working
    relationship that we have with WAPA, the Corps and the Bureau
    of Reclamation.
        So thank you for the opportunity to testify this afternoon
    and I look forward to any questions you may have.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr.  Simpson. Thank you.
        Ms.  Kaptur. Mr. Chairman, I do have a question of this
    witness. For the record, thank you so much for testifying. I am
    trying to still secure in my own mind the different rates that
    consumers, businesses, industries pay across the country for
    kilowatt hour, for usage, depending on the type of energy
    system that they are subject to. I am wondering sir, if you
    could provide the per kilowatt cost on average to your
    residential consumers, your industrial consumers, and then if
    there are specials in the rural areas, I would like to know
    what those are, and I want to compare those to my region of the
    county, which has a very different energy umbrella than your
    own.
        Mr.  Drummond. Certainly.
        Ms.  Kaptur. That would be very valuable to me.
        Mr.  Drummond. No, I would be happy to provide that. I do
    not have it with me right today. I can tell you that for most
    of my members, the cost of power that they get from their--not
    only the Western Area Power Administration, but also their
    other power suppliers amounts on average to about half of their
    total cost of doing business. The rest of the cost of doing
    business includes distribution systems, the back office that is
    necessary to provide bills, the power management systems, et
    cetera. So that is roughly how the wholesale supply versus the
    other costs of doing business work out. But I can get you our
    average cost of supplying that power. I would be happy to do
    that.
        Ms.  Kaptur. Thank you so much.
        Mr.  Drummond. Yes, ma'am.
        Mr.  Simpson. Thank you. Jorge.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                                Wednesday, May 3, 2017.

              GRAND CANYON STATE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION

                                    WITNESS

    JORGE S. CANACA, DIRECTOR OF FEDERAL RELATIONS AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS,
        GRAND CANYON STATE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION
        Mr.  Canaca. Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member and
    subcommittee members, thank you for holding this hearing and
    providing the opportunity for public testimony. My name is
    Jorge Canaca. I am the director of Federal relations and
    regulatory affairs for the Grand Canyon State Electric
    Cooperative Association. We are a regional service organization
    representing the interests of electric cooperative utilities
    and their customers and submit the following testimony which
    will focus on the Western Area Power Administration's budget
    practices, the need for budget transparency and the need for
    customer involvement.
        We respectfully request the subcommittee provide adequate
    funding for Western to meet its primary statutory obligations
    to market, sell, and transmit preference power. However, due to
    potential agency-wide customer impact and the inappropriate
    nature of double budgeting practices, we recommend that
    Western's net zero request be reduced in the fiscal year 2018
    budget by 35 million and by equivalent amounts in future fiscal
    years until Western corrects the situation through budget
    formulation.
        We further ask the subcommittee to cap the use of net zero
    authority to ensure that it is not duplicative of funding the
    Desert Southwest Region Office already receives through
    prepayment authority. The Grand Canyon Electric Cooperative
    Association is a member organization consisting of six electric
    distribution and generation transmission cooperatives who
    collectively service approximately 500,000 rural residents
    across Arizona. Our member cooperatives are customer-owned,
    not-for-profit utilities and on average one-third of our
    members live at or below the Federal poverty level.
        Now, for 75 years, electric cooperatives have been proud to
    keep the lights on by providing safe, reliable, and affordable
    electricity and America's 838 not-for-profit electric
    distribution cooperatives provide service to 42 million people
    in 47 States, and collectively, their service territories cover
    75 percent of the U.S. land mass.
        Now, under the Reclamation Project Act and Flood Control
    Act, as Bill mentioned earlier, Western is required to market
    preference power at the lowest possible rates to customers
    consistent with sound business practices. Electric cooperatives
    were some of the first purchasers of Federal hydropower
    delivered to homes, farms, ranches, and rural businesses.
        Currently, Western relies on congressional appropriations
    and funds generated directly by customer-owned utilities that
    are power contractors to maintain its capital program mission.
    From a budget scoring perspective, Western is considered budget
    neutral and not a draw on the Treasury. This is only possible
    because preference power customers reimburse the cost of
    Western's capital investment through rates and are thus
    ultimately responsible for repayment of the Federal investment.
    Now, to that end, we support continued funding for Western to
    meet its statutory mission. We believe Western is a valued
    partner. But recently, however, we have witnessed Western's
    financial practices come under scrutiny.
        A 2015 GAO report identified concerns with management and
    size of unobligated balances held by Western and recommended
    that Western implement a strategy and take action to reduce
    these balances. Now, while we applaud Western for addressing a
    self-created financial mismanagement issue, and returning
    hundreds of millions of dollars to the Treasury, the electric
    cooperative customers believe the accrual of unobligated
    balances was a direct result of net zero budget authority
    granted to Western in 2010. So that is the double budgeting
    issue.
        Now, therefore, we also ask the subcommittee to rescind $70
    million in unobligated balances accrued through the use of
    prepayment authority and the net zero appropriations. According
    to its own estimates, Western returned 328 million to the
    Treasury Reclamation Fund in fiscal year 2016 and a total of
    894 in the previous 5 years. Yet, during that same period, our
    electric rates increased by 32 percent. These increases in both
    power rates and unobligated balances occurred during a period
    when the government was operating under continuing resolutions.
        And in conclusion, I would just like to add that Western
    has pursued expanded budget authority while systematic funding
    problems surfaced. With respect to some of Western's major
    projects, customers did not have timely, meaningful
    participation in Western's 10-year planning and Federal budget
    development. And most importantly, much of Western's financial
    processes and decision-making schedules are not transparent to
    the customer. By working together, Congress, Western, and
    preference power customers can address the multiple goals and
    challenges of Federal hydropower resource and maximize the
    benefit of the system for all.
        Now, let me conclude my testimony by thanking the members
    of the subcommittee for their support and special thanks to
    Arizona Congressman Paul Gosar for his continued leadership in
    the House on this important issue to Arizona's electric rate
    payers.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr.  Simpson. All right, thank you for being here today and
    for your testimony, and as you can tell, I have a habit of
    hammering people's names, and I apologize for that.
        Mr.  Canaca. It is perfectly fine, sir.
        Ms.  Kaptur. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I would like to also
    ask this witness if you could provide for the record, follow-up
    on page 4 of your testimony, you say your rate payers paid
    electric rates for cooperative customers increased by an
    average of 6.5 percent each year. Could you provide an updated
    summary for our committee of the per kilowatt cost of energy
    for your customers in the residential and industrial and rural
    consumer arenas? Can you do that?
        Mr.  Canaca. Absolutely. I would be happy to.
        Ms.  Kaptur. Thank you.
        Mr.  Simpson. Thank you. Robert Lynch.
                                  ----------

                                                Wednesday, May 3, 2017.

             IRRIGATION AND ELECTRICAL DISTRICTS' ASSOCIATION OF AZ

                                    WITNESS

    ROBERT S. LYNCH, COUNSEL TO THE IRRIGATION AND ELECTRICAL DISTRICTS'
        ASSOCIATION OF AZ, ROBERT S. LYNCH & ASSOCIATES
        Mr.  Lynch. I am Bob Lynch and I am an attorney in Phoenix,
    Arizona. Let me first talk to you about the net zero concept.
    When it was originally authorized, it was authorized for Pick-
    Sloan, Bill Drummond's group that he represents is the majority
    of their customers. And we went along with it, but it was not
    supposed to apply in the Colorado River Basin. We did not need
    it, we did not want it. And just our way of explaining it to
    you is, well, I have an 8-year-old granddaughter. She is smart,
    she is good looking, she is talented. But if I took her
    shopping, would I give her my credit card? No.
        Well, in our view, the way this worked out in the Desert
    Southwest Region, WAPA has a net zero credit card, except we do
    not get to see the shopping list. All we see is what they
    bought when they hand us the bill. And we are trying to work to
    change that. We established a preference customer committee
    with the co-ops and the MUNIs to try to have a dialogue with
    Western, WAPA, to see if we can straighten this out. But for
    now, we are out of luck. What we found out just recently,
    within the last couple of weeks, is that last spring, the
    Desert Southwest Office started converting all of their
    advanced funding that we had been paying for, including O&M, to
    net zero. And so they were taking, you know, our existing rate
    and paying and we were paying, and we were paying in, and
    paying the O&M and they were converting it to this net zero
    appropriation, which accounts for part of the double budgeting
    issue that you have heard about.
        We think we can fix it, but it is going to require their
    cooperation. And if we do not get the cooperation, I would
    respectfully request the opportunity to come back here and tell
    you all about it and tell you what I think ought to happen to
    them because it is happening to us now and it needs fixing.
        On the transparency issue, WAPA is very transparent about
    what they have done to us. They are just not very transparent
    about what they are going to do to us next. And we have got to
    try to fix that, also. And if we do not get it fixed, we will
    be back again asking for your help. And one of the things that
    has come up in all of this is consolidation. WAPA has
    consolidated a lot of functions in their headquarters. In 2010,
    they had 260 FTEs; starting in fiscal year 2018, they will have
    390. Not all those folks live in Denver. Some of them are in
    Sacramento and Loveland and Phoenix and every other place while
    the problem is they do not talk to us. If you are somebody in
    Sacramento doing something for the whole agency, why do you
    care what people in Phoenix think? And to the best of our
    knowledge, they are not being asked to talk to us. So to us,
    consolidation has turned out to be the enemy of cooperation.
    And we do not know exactly how to fix that, to tell you the
    truth.
        A couple of things happened on Monday that sort of changed
    my testimony. Number one, in the explanatory statement for the
    Consolidated Appropriation Bill, on page 41, there is a comment
    about termination provisions in contracts and you are telling
    Western, give us a report in 60 days. Well, I lived it,
    starting in the 70's, just in case you would like to hear the
    rest of the story, I would be happy to supply it to you.
        The other thing is that there is a $34 million
    authorization for 2017 to reduce unobligated balances, but it
    says ``may.'' Now, in the Clinton administration, a colleague
    of mine who was solicitor of the Department of the Interior
    wrote to Bruce Babbitt and said, if it is in the bill, you have
    got to obey it; if it is in the committee report, you do not.
    So I do not know what ``may'' means or what you think ``may''
    means in that explanatory statement, but I would caution you to
    keep an eye on this because if they do not reduce it, then that
    35 million we are all asking for could be 69 or 70 and we would
    be happy to have it. And to the best of my knowledge, it would
    not bother Western at all in terms of their budget.
        So thank you for the opportunity to be here today and talk
    to you about these important subjects, because they do affect
    the pocketbooks of an awful lot of folk.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr.  Simpson. Thank you. I appreciate your testimony. And
    ``may'' means they may or they may not. And ``shall'' means
    they shall. And the history is, that if it is in bill language,
    they do have to follow it. In report language, it is strongly
    suggested that they follow it because next year they are going
    to have to be answerable for it. So that is kind of where it
    ranks in everything. But we thank you for being here and for
    your testimony. Thank you, sir.
        Nicki.
                                  ----------

                                                Wednesday, May 3, 2017.

                    SOUTHWESTERN POWER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION

                                    WITNESS

    NICKI FULLER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SOUTHWESTERN POWER RESOURCES
        ASSOCIATION
        Ms.  Fuller. Thank you, sir. And I believe I am the last
    person to talk about the PMAs, so you will only have to hear
    about this one more time.
        Mr.  Simpson. Okay.
        Ms.  Fuller. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee.
    My name is Nicki Fuller and I am the executive director of the
    Southwestern Power Resources Association.
        I come before you today as a bit of a unicorn. I am a
    grateful constituent, a happy customer, and we have a Federal
    program that works and pay its own way, without any cost to the
    taxpayer.
        In addition, I am proud of the hard work we have done in my
    region to protect the Federal infrastructure, to ensure we have
    a program that is successful and sustainable.
        SPRA is a non-for-profit organization of rural electric
    cooperatives and public power systems in Arkansas, Kansas,
    Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas, that are customers of
    the Southwestern Power Administration, which is part of the
    Department of Energy. Southwestern markets hydroelectric power
    generated at 24 multipurpose dams in the region. SPRA members
    serve over 8.2 million end users in this region.
        Unlike most Federal programs, the PMAs like Southwestern
    pay their own way.
        Every Federal dollar spent on Federal hydropower program is
    repaid through the rates charged to the customers. This
    includes all costs of generating and marketing the
    hydroelectric energy and capacity incurred by both the Corps
    and the PMA, plus interest on capital costs.
        Southwestern receives a diminishing amount of
    appropriations every year in Congress in the amount of about
    $11 million, or 7 percent of their total operating budget.
        These appropriations plus all other expenses for
    Southwestern and for the Corps' cost for hydropower and a
    percentage of joint use expenses are included in the rates the
    customers pay. The taxpayers do not subsidize or pay for any
    activity of any PMA, including Southwestern.
        As you will likely note from the testimony of other PMA
    customer groups across the country today, each PMA is very
    different. Cooperation between Southwestern and its customers
    is a primary mission of SPRA. Quarterly, Southwestern updates
    my board on all issues of importance and asks for input. This
    transparency is the key to our long and successful relationship
    as business partners. The established practice of frequent
    communication has allowed these issues to be addressed in a
    manner which is fair to all parties.
        Today, I will discuss two issues which are very important
    to SPRA and its members. They are, one, the need for increased
    financial flexibility of Southwestern and, two, customer
    funding of Federal infrastructure.
        One, the system of Southwestern is very dependent upon rain
    and does not have the capacity to withstand a long-term
    drought. Regardless of the water conditions, Southwestern has a
    contractual obligation to my members to deliver the power it
    guarantees. For this reason, during a drought Southwestern must
    purchase power and these costs are passed through the power
    rates to the customers. SPRA has asked Southwestern if there is
    a way to pay for these purchases incrementally in advance to
    reduce rate spikes.
        To achieve this incremental collection, Southwestern would
    need an account in the U.S. Treasury with the authority to hold
    funds across fiscal years with the ability to access it when
    needed. Unfortunately, this financial flexibility that is
    commonsense business practice has not been able to pass the
    legislative hurdles necessary for use. Financial flexibility
    tools such as the one mentioned above are key to the continued
    success of Southwestern. As energy and capacity markets become
    more evolved, Southwestern must have the ability to act
    consistent with sound business principles as it is statutorily
    obligated to do.
        Mr.  Simpson. May I ask you, is there legislation to do
    what you are suggesting here that has been introduced in
    Congress?
        Ms.  Fuller. There was last session and it scored. We are
    not sure why it scored. It is just a savings account in the
    Treasury. So it was not able to pass because of that reason.
        Mr.  Simpson. Okay.
        Ms.  Kaptur. Introduce the legislation, please?
        Ms.  Fuller. Sure. It was in the Senate and it was Cassidy
    and McCaskill from Missouri and Louisiana.
        Ms.  Kaptur. Okay.
        Ms.  Fuller. Thank you.
        The financial flexibility not only makes good business
    sense, it is highly desired by us, the customers, to pay the
    rates.
        My second point, customer-funding. With all the discussion
    of public-private partnerships, or P3, I want to inform the
    subcommittee about a long successful P3 program in our region.
    Beginning in the 1990s, Federal power customers began noticing
    increased outages of Corps hydropower plants which was causing
    the PMAs to have to purchase expensive replacement power.
        Even though there was an increase in outages due to
    maintenance issues, SPRA saw significantly decreased
    appropriations for maintenance of this infrastructure. With
    this in mind, SPRA in partnership with the Corps in
    Southwestern, put together the trust MOA.
        Under this agreement, the customers meet with the Corps and
    Southwestern to determine the funding needs for the following
    fiscal year. This cooperative process allows the customers, the
    ones that pay the expenses, to have input on how their money is
    spent and it allows the Corps to have a predictable revenue
    stream to sustain this Federal infrastructure.
        We have committed to the Corps that we will fund through
    the trust MOA about $2.4 billion for hydropower infrastructure
    over the next 30 years to complete rehabilitation of all 24
    Corps hydropower plants marketed by Southwestern. Through this
    process, we are able to keep local control and oversight,
    sustain Federal infrastructure, and ensure the longevity and
    future of the Federal hydropower program.
        In conclusion, I come to you today in the rare and enviable
    position of a constituent and customer that is happy. Unlike
    other Federal programs, this program costs the taxpayers
    absolutely nothing, yet benefits millions of citizens while
    investing in Federal infrastructure assets. These dams provide
    so many benefits to my region, including navigation, flood
    control, water supply, environmental programs, and recreation.
    Without the Federal hydropower customers paying the bills, more
    of these costs of these joint activities would be borne on the
    taxpayer.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. Thank you for
    allowing me to come here today to discuss this important issue.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr.  Simpson. Thank you, Nicki. We appreciate it.
        Ms.  Fuller. Thank you.
        Ms.  Kaptur. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to ask----
        Ms.  Fuller. Sure.
        Ms.  Kaptur [continuing]. Ms. Fuller, if she could also
    submit for the record the per kilowatt hour cost to your
    consumers, residential/industrial.
        Ms.  Fuller. Absolutely, I would be happy to.
        Ms.  Kaptur. For the record.
        Ms.  Fuller. Yes.
        Ms.  Kaptur. Thank you.
        Ms.  Fuller. Thank you very much.
        Mr.  Simpson. Sheri.
                                  ----------

                                                Wednesday, May 3, 2017.

        OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

                                    WITNESS

    SHERI COLLINS, DEPUTY SECRETARY OF THE OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY &
        INNOVATION, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
        Ms.  Collins. Good afternoon. Chairman Simpson, thank you,
    members of this committee, for allowing me to speak before you
    today and to offer my comments on the important role of the
    Appalachian Regional Commission plays in supporting the 420
    counties across our 13 States. The ARC works tirelessly
    alongside our local development districts, nonprofit
    organizations and the States to bring our respective ARC
    regions into socioeconomic parity with the rest of this great
    country.
        In my capacity, I have the distinct pleasure of serving as
    Governor Tom Wolf's State alternate to the Appalachian Regional
    Commission. For the first time since 1991, Pennsylvania's
    governor is serving as the State's co-chair for the ARC
    program, and we could not be more excited and proud to have our
    governor represent the ARC regions. Governor Wolf sends his
    regards to you, Chairman Simpson, and to members of the
    committee, and appreciates your interest in this program.
        I have been a Commonwealth employee for 30 years; the last
    12 at the Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic
    Development. As deputy secretary for the Office of Technology
    and Innovation, my primary focus has always been on supporting
    Pennsylvania's innovators and entrepreneurs and the programs
    that support them, including the world-renowned Ben Franklin
    Technology Partners.
        In 2015, I was given the opportunity to serve as the
    governor's State-alternate to the ARC program. It was not until
    I started to traverse the Commonwealth, visiting completed
    projects and conducting site visits on those projects to be
    submitted for approval that I fully understood and appreciated
    the ARC program and the impact that this Federal funding has on
    the citizens of Appalachia.
        Oftentimes, I think that those of us who sit near to or
    under the Capitol dome oftentimes fail to appreciate the world
    around us. We get so focused on what is right in front of us,
    that we lose sight of areas like Appalachia and we fail to
    recognize that not everyone in this great Nation has the same
    opportunities afforded to them as maybe you or I do.
        I do myself not hail from Appalachia, but I have become a
    huge supporter of the ARC program. And have seen up close and
    very personal the impact this funding has had on our businesses
    and our citizens alike.
        On a recent visit to the Scranton School for the Deaf and
    Hard of Hearing Children, I was able to see firsthand the
    impact ARC funds are having on our most valuable assets, our
    children. This specialized school, located in Scranton,
    Pennsylvania, is a nonprofit, tuition-free school that serves
    children from birth to eighth grade. The school's mission is to
    prepare each deaf and hard-of-hearing student for all aspects
    of life throughout continuum of high quality individualized
    educational and extracurricular programs and is an active
    partner in resource for the community. The school is committed
    to ensuring that each and every student is capable of achieving
    his or her maximum potential.
        ARC funds in the amount of $25,000, along with a $25,000
    match from the Margaret Briggs Foundation, were used to
    purchase smart panels, specialized lighting, computers, a
    drone, and editing software that allows deaf and hard-of-
    hearing children to improve their skills using technology,
    expressive communication skills using American sign language,
    sign-supported English, and spoken English. This technology
    also allows the students to virtually interact with the student
    body at the Western Pennsylvania School for the Deaf as well as
    a small subset of deaf and hard-of-hearing students from other
    countries, including Sri Lanka and Ireland. This type of
    virtual connectivity allows the students to learn in a fun and
    interactive way and to see that there are children all around
    the globe who are deaf and hard-of-hearing just like them.
        Another example of how ARC funds has impacted the residents
    of Appalachia is located in Sullivan County, Pennsylvania. The
    Sullivan County Dental Clinic provides services to low-income
    patients. A 2010 assessment found that 33 percent of local
    adults had claimed that they had never had their teeth cleaned
    while regional pediatric oral surgeon characterized the area as
    the epicenter of tooth decay in Pennsylvania.
        Chairman Simpson, as a second-generation dentist, you
    surely can appreciate the importance of good oral hygiene and
    the need for accessible and affordable dental care. An ARC
    grant in the amount of $150,000 coupled with the mandatory
    matching funds will support the expansion and renovation of the
    Sullivan County Dental Clinic. This designated health
    professional shortage area will be renovated to allow low-
    income patients access to critical dental services in a private
    and spacious environment as to the current overly crowded and
    open one that they have now. The modifications to the dental
    clinic will help to lower the barriers to dental care,
    improving health conditions for patients and the community.
        And lastly, I would like to share with you a project out of
    Congressman Fleischmann's State, Tennessee. In 2014, in
    partnership with my State counterpart office, the Tennessee
    Department of Economic and Community Development, ARC invested
    $300,000 to the Appalachian Service Project in Johnson City,
    Tennessee to help build homes for low-income homeowners living
    in some of the State's most economically distressed areas. This
    project included veterans and their families. In the first 2
    years of the project, 16 homes were completed, several of which
    were specifically for veterans. In many cases, these homes
    replaced substandard, unsafe, and inefficient housing units.
        In addition to financing the builds, ARC dollars helped
    local partners provide additional supportive services, such as
    financial counseling, reduced cost childcare and job training.
    As President Walter Crouch of the ASP said, when we talk about
    the veterans housing issue, a lot of people think we are
    talking about vets who may be living under bridges and that
    sort of thing, but what they do not realize is many vets and
    their families live in substandard housing or mobile units that
    need a lot of repair. Without support from the ARC, I think it
    goes without saying that these projects would not have come to
    fruition.
        As I close, I would ask every member of the subcommittee to
    take a long hard look at the work of the ARC and its supporting
    partners, such as our Local Development Districts. The work
    that the ARC has done since 1965 has transformed communities
    into vibrant epicenters, pardon me, and has enriched the lives
    of our brothers and sisters in ways that you may not imagine.
    Between October 2015 and January 2017, the ARC has invested
    $175.5 million in a total of 662 projects. The ARC funds have
    been matched by more than $257.4 million and will attract an
    additional $443.3 million in leveraged private investments in
    Appalachia, creating 23,670 jobs and educating over 49,000
    students and workers in the region. While the 13 States that
    embody Appalachia have made great progress, there is still
    plenty of work to do to advance the region. Your continued
    financial support of this program is critical and necessary for
    the citizens and businesses of Appalachia. Thank you.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr.  Simpson. Thank you. Sandy.
                                  ----------

                                                Wednesday, May 3, 2017.

                     OFFICE OF KENTUCKY GOVERNOR MATT BEVIN

                                    WITNESS

    SANDY DUNAHOO, COMMISSIONER FOR THE DEPARTMENT FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT,
        OFFICE OF KENTUCKY GOVERNOR MATT BEVIN
        Ms.  Dunahoo. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of
    the committee. It is a pleasure to be here today. I am
    commissioner for the Department for Local Government in the
    Governor's Office in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. I
    respectfully come before your committee today with over 30
    years of government public service and private consulting in
    the Appalachian region. I have been involved in hundreds of
    millions of dollars of projects created and developed for the
    sole purpose of improving the standard and substandard living
    conditions of the people of Appalachia. Today, I am here to
    share with you a personal story on a personal level regarding
    the work of the Appalachian Regional Commission and the impact
    that it has had.
        My father was born in Owsley County, Kentucky, at the turn
    of the century and he was one of 12 brothers and sisters. They
    lived in a four-room house. They sustained their family by farm
    products. They worked in the fields, they raised pigs, they
    grew crops, and the family lived by selling these products to
    friends and neighbors. There were no opportunities for them to
    earn a wage because there were very few jobs available.
    Educational opportunities were very difficult. No one in his
    family attained an education higher than the eighth grade. So
    eventually, they left Kentucky; they left their home. They went
    to places like Connersville, Indiana; Dighton, Ohio;
    Indianapolis; different communities north to seek jobs, seek
    employment. So eventually, 10 of his siblings left Kentucky. As
    they left to seek their fortune, they never forgot home and
    they always had a yearning to come back. But again, it was so
    difficult; there were no opportunities and they just could not
    do that. But they prospered and they did well, and they were
    hardworking and they were commonsense people, and they attained
    amazingly high levels of wealth just through their hard work,
    commitment, and dedication. Fine folks.
        Today, I manage the family property, the same property
    where my father was born and his siblings grew up. And it is a
    different world today for me and for my young son, and the
    reason for that is the Appalachian Regional Commission. There
    are opportunities available to us today that my family would
    have never dreamed about years ago. We have access to county-
    wide broadband internet; we have clean water, running water in
    our home, city water; we have access to city sewer--it is a few
    miles away, but it is possible to get it there; and the
    children in the community now have opportunities that were
    never available to them before. Some have become lawyers,
    doctors, pharmacists; they move on to levels of higher
    education; they have computers in the school, all because of
    the Appalachian Regional Commission.
        While this sounds wonderful--and it is; it is an incredible
    transformation from where we were when my father lived in
    Kentucky--we are far from being finished with this work. The
    work of the Appalachian Regional Commission still remains. At
    the beginning of the ARC, we had 214 distressed counties in the
    commission. Today, we have 84. Thirty-eight of the 84 are still
    in Kentucky. We are in the heart of Appalachia and we have the
    most distressed counties in the region.
        So what we are doing in our State is taking an aggressive
    effort to try to rectify this situation. We are doing
    everything we can to steward and marshal our resources wisely
    so that we can look toward funding the needs that we have
    within our State. We are looking at the mirror and we are
    taking a hard look at ourselves, and we are determining what is
    our future path going to be, and how are we going to get there,
    and how are going to raise our counties up from the distressed
    status, and we are making progress.
        We are cutting red tape, we are reducing the burden on
    small businesses, we are incentivizing economic development,
    and we are having--beginning to realize growth in the very same
    areas that have been struck by poverty for years. We are,
    again, asking the tough questions, making the tough decisions.
    Sometimes they are not so popular, but we are on the right path
    and we are beginning to realize results in an area that has
    been chronically distressed for years.
        Many people misunderstand the people of Appalachia, the
    strength, the resiliency, the ability to sustain, the ability
    to live with little, but they also misunderstand the value in
    people such as these. We have an incredible work ethic. Our
    people truly are only asking for an opportunity to succeed. So
    my story to you today is, while we have made great strides with
    the Appalachian Regional Commission since the early 1960s, the
    work is far from done, but we are working toward a path that
    someday we hope we can move the rest of these 84 counties to
    sustainability as we have the counties that have been able to
    attain before.
        We would like to thank each of you for your support of the
    ARC in the past and we would like to thank publicly Congressman
    Rogers for his support of the ARC, particularly since most of
    these counties are in his region. And most of all, I would like
    to thank you for listening to our story in Kentucky today and
    hope that we can trust you to help us move forward. Thank you.
        Mr.  Simpson. Thank you, Sandy, and before if you guys
    would stick around for just a minute, I want to get in the
    testimony of Amy from the Delta Regional Commission and then we
    can ask some questions so go ahead Amy.
                                  ----------                              --
    --------

                                                Wednesday, May 3, 2017.

                    ARKANSAS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMISSION

                                    WITNESS

    AMY FECHER, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT OF OPERATIONS, ARKANSAS ECONOMIC
        DEVELOPMENT COMISSION
        Ms.  Fecher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and ranking member. My
    name is Amy Fecher and I represent the State of Arkansas and
    Governor Asa Hutchinson as his Designee to the Delta Regional
    Authority Board of Governors. I am here today to provide my
    testimony emphasizing the importance of the Delta Regional
    Authority and the continued need for investments that it
    provides in the Delta region.
        The Delta Regional Authority is an independent federal
    agency created in Congress in 2000 that serves 252 parishes and
    counties in an eight state region. DRA operates as a federal
    state partnership and works with the governors to improve
    economic outcomes and enhance the quality of life for the
    regions 10 million residents. DRA makes strategic investments
    into basic public infrastructure, transportation
    infrastructure, work force training and education and business
    development with an emphasis on the entrepreneurship to advance
    economic and community development in the region. The lower
    Mississippi River region though rich in natural and human
    resources lags behind the rest of the U.S. in economic growth
    and prosperity.
        In FY 2016, 234 of the 252 counties and parishes within the
    region were deemed economically distressed. 21 percent of the
    region lives in poverty and only 20 percent of the Delta's
    population has a bachelor's degree or higher putting our
    regions workers at a disadvantage completely with the rest of
    the nation. I believe DRA can serve as a valuable tool to carry
    out the goals of President Trump and Congress to strengthen our
    nation's infrastructure and economy.
        DRA receives the majority of its appropriations from this
    subcommittee. Since FY 2002 DRA has invested approximately $163
    million into basic public infrastructure and transportation
    improvements, workforce training and education as well as
    business development projects. These investments have helped
    leverage 3.5 billion in other public and private funds.
        As an independent agency operating as a federal state
    partnership, DRA works closely with each of the eight governors
    and their designees to invest in economic and community
    development projects supporting the needs of their respective
    states. DRA aligns investments with each state's economic
    development goals and per Congressional mandate DRA must invest
    50 percent of its appropriation into basic public
    infrastructure and transportation infrastructure as well as 75
    percent of our allotment in economically distressed areas. The
    infrastructure projects include water and sewer improvements,
    road infrastructure and small inland port maintenance and
    expansion.
        One example in my home state in Helena, Arkansas where DRA
    wrong with public and private partners repaired a damaged,
    closed rail line servicing the Helena Harbor. As of this week
    this port is open again and servicing 40 cars per day. This
    investment immediately saved jobs and has since seen expansion
    from the private sector. One CEO made the statement the rail
    was the critical factor in us locating in Helena, Arkansas.
        Much of DRA's foot print is comprised primarily of small,
    rural communities. Often Delta stakeholders voice their
    concerns regarding the difficulty of navigating federal
    resources from DRA's larger counterparts and do not have the
    capacity to develop and fund projects on their own. DRA
    addressees these concerns by investing in and supporting our
    most rural communities. From 2010 through 2016 59 percent of
    DRA's funds were invested into communities with a population of
    10,000 or less.
        One of the benefits of DRA is its ability to move quickly
    to assist the needs of the Delta communities and the private
    industry. With a rolling application timeline DRA has helped
    Arkansas as well as other Delta states successfully close deals
    that create jobs and grow our states economies. DRA's
    flexibility to help us ensure necessary public safety in the
    aftermath and recovery of natural disasters. Recently DRA made
    an emergency investment last month in Higginson, Arkansas. A
    small rural community of 600 people was hit by a tornado and
    suffered major damage to their sewer plant. DRA provided
    $23,000 to assist with the restoration for these facilities.
    Lastly I would like to emphasize the importance of the Delta
    Leadership Institute. This unique program which I had the honor
    to graduate from in 2013 is training the types of community
    leaders that are running our region's communities often as a
    part-time job with very few resources. DLI is growing the
    knowledge, skill set and dynamic network of leaders that our
    communities and region need to compete in the U.S. as well as
    globally.
        I can personally attest that going through this program has
    helped me in my role at the Arkansas Economic Development
    Commission. I hope the information I have provided today speaks
    to the overwhelming value of the DRA investments throughout the
    Delta region. DRA's primary goal is to help bring economic
    prosperity to one of the most distressed areas in the country
    and it is a successful model of public-private partnerships.
        Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony and
    I urge you to continue funding DRA so that it can continue to
    make strategic investments in infrastructure, businesses, and
    families in the Delta region. Thank you.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr.  Simpson. Thank you for being here. If you guys would
    like to jump up to the table again, if you could because I am
    sure we will have a question. And go ahead and stay there. Pull
    up another chair because I do want to talk about these for just
    a second, if you could.
        And I do not want you to take this as a criticism or
    anything else. I know what you do is important work. In this
    bill, I guess in the Omnibus that we are going to be voting on
    in just a few minutes, or at least the rule for it, there is
    also the Denali Regional Commission, $15 million; $25 million
    for the Delta Regional Commission; 152 million for the
    Appalachian Regional Commission or Association, whatever it is.
        And I understand both the need and why we are doing this or
    why it has been started. And I know why--you do not have to be
    a brain surgeon to figure out why they have been going on.
    Hobson tried to get rid of these for a number of years when I
    was first on this committee when he was the chairman of the
    committee.
        All of the circumstances you just described exist
    throughout this country. You go to Great Lakes and the loss of
    the manufacturing jobs up there. Go to Detroit and look at the
    unemployment. Look at the problems that exist there. You go to
    the Intermountain West, those problems exist there.
        And I am not suggesting that we eliminate these things.
    What I am suggesting is that somehow there needs to be some
    equity across this country. There is no Intermountain Regional
    Commission. There is no Great Lakes Regional Commission. There
    is no Heartland of America Regional Commission. And all of the
    problems that you describe do exist throughout the country.
        When you talk about a dental clinic, I can take you to the
    need for dentistry throughout Idaho. Have you ever been on an
    Indian Reservation? Ethnic population with the highest rate of
    cavities around and no access, in many cases, to dentists.
    These things exist everywhere. Why should we fund these and
    nothing else?
        Anybody care to----
        Ms.  Dunahoo. I would love to answer and I know time is of
    the essence, so we could certainly provide a written statement
    with further information. But I can give you a little bit of
    information and let you know that I have been in my position
    for a year and a half now. And coming new into my position I
    asked many of those same questions even though I had utilized
    the program for years, particularly in Kentucky when we look at
    the dollar amount of the investment that has gone into the
    Appalachian region and why have we not seen more benefit than
    we have?
        And then the next question became are we truly lower than
    the rest of the Nation? So I began looking at income levels,
    per capita income. And we are indeed below the rest of the
    Nation in our 38 stressed counties that I mentioned earlier.
        We have had a downturn in the economy, but in our office we
    also manage Coal Severance and the Coal Program. And I can tell
    you in the year that coal was the greatest in severance dollars
    received by the Commonwealth of Kentucky, we received $313
    million in severance dollars, that our counties were still the
    poorest in the Nation. So that is a systematic problem. And the
    loss of one industry, while it was traumatic, very traumatic to
    our people, we cannot even hope to be as good as we were in the
    good old days because we were still the poorest in the Nation.
        So when we have a situation such as that and then we
    immediately begin to wean the program, the effects are
    devastating. So what we need is to have some time to work
    through, as I said in my statement, to look in the mirror,
    figure out what we can do, find ways to move forward to develop
    our region. We have had great success in the last year and a
    half. We still obviously have a way to go and that is what we
    need to be able to do.
        Mr.  Simpson. Well, and I appreciate that. I mean, as I
    said, I am not trying to criticize anything. I am also
    cognizant of the fact that I have been around for a while and I
    have seen how government programs work. And when you talk about
    ending the need for a program, that is a fantasy. That never
    ends. It goes on and it will go on and you will find new needs
    for it. It is just human nature. It is what we do. It is what I
    do in Idaho, you know.
        But I find it kind of fascinating how we kind of select
    areas and decide that we are going to--and it is because of the
    congressmen at the time or the senators at the time that
    establish this. I mean, I have got to tell you, in all honesty,
    the reason that Chairman Hobson used to try to get rid of them
    because he wanted to get rid of the Denali Commission and
    Senator Stevens was chairman of the full Appropriations in the
    Senate and he just wanted to kind of stick him in the side.
        He did not want to get rid of it, but that was--but, you
    know, I came across last year within the Department of Energy
    where at energy sites across the country they can charge what
    are called PILT payments, payment in lieu of taxes, for the
    energy sites. And it is voluntary between the local energy
    department and that site. And in some areas, communities are
    making pretty good money on PILT payments and in others they
    are not even being paid. And I told them this year we are
    either going to do it uniformly or we are not going to do it at
    all because it needs to be fairer.
        And that is kind of what I am looking at here. How do you
    address those same needs that you have and the rest of the
    country, and maybe it is through something like this. Maybe it
    is through something like this nationally, I do not know. But
    it is a discussion that we all ought to have because I will
    tell you that these programs are in danger, I think. In
    reducing times, budgets being reduced in the future, I can see
    the pressure to unfund these programs, essentially take the
    savings out of that. And so we better have a justification for
    them. And you better be able to make that justification to
    Marcy's constituents and to my constituents and the rest of
    this Congress.
        That is really all I----
        Ms.  Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our chairman is
    someone that one can work with on every issue, but I hear what
    he is saying. And I want to thank you, also, for your
    compelling testimony.
        And as women, I would say, also, you are dealing with some
    of the most intractable issues in terms of economic change. I
    was very impressed, Ms. Collins, with some numbers you provided
    for the region. Appalachia, I mean, just think about this,
    since 2000 has lost, counting manufacturing jobs and coal jobs,
    over 655,000 jobs. Six hundred and fifty-five thousand jobs.
    That is a neutron bomb over a region.
        And I will tell you, we have a struggle here, and the
    chairman puts his finger on it, you know, for regional equity
    and so forth with community adjustment when these massive job
    losses occur. I complained about--I am from northern Ohio, but
    we have Appalachia in southern Ohio, and just to walk through
    some of those communities and to see what they are enduring,
    most people in this Capitol will never get there.
        I just saw the movie ``Hacksaw Ridge'', and I think Desmond
    Doss, he came from Lynchburg, Virginia. And though that is not
    directly in, you know, the states in which you live, I thought
    that is the spirit you were talking about. America really does
    not understand that sometimes.
        And so we do not have a flexible system to target. We do
    not have any program really that deals with this kind of
    economic transformation. I saw where a solar company is going
    to be investing now in I do not know if it is Kentucky or West
    Virginia, I read, for coal adjustment and moving from a coal
    community to a major solar investment. I thought, yeah, okay.
        But we saw them up in auto and steel country. As I sit here
    and listen to you, one of my communities is undergoing hundreds
    and hundreds and hundreds of job terminations because of dumped
    Korean steel and Chinese steel, and we cannot stop it. And it
    is not that the workers there did not try their mightiest, but
    we cannot get the government of the United States to respond
    fast enough to what is occurring there. You know, there will be
    a 2- or 3-year trade proceeding and it will eventually find
    that, yes, in fact, these people were hurt. But by then, they
    are devastated, their communities are devastated, and we do not
    have quickly flexible response mechanisms for economic
    readjustment in many of these places.
        So I guess I would say, Mr. Chairman, in answer to your
    plea, maybe they are representing some of the first ways
    America tried to deal with economic adjustment, but we do not
    have a very good solution.
        Mr.  Simpson. Well, as I said, Marcy, and I agree with your
    comments, it is a tough--and we are voting right now, by the
    way.
        Ms.  Kaptur. Are we? Oh.
        Mr.  Simpson. But it is a difficult issue because I will
    tell you that the lost coal mining jobs in Appalachia region is
    no different than the lost timber jobs in Idaho, and they have
    gone down to where, in my district, we do not have any sawmills
    left. Hell, I am from Idaho, you know. In the other district
    there is not very many sawmills left and there used to be
    sawmills throughout the towns. That was their economic
    development was a sawmill. So the same thing happens in places
    and we have got to find a better way to do it than competing
    against one another.
        But let me tell you, I do appreciate what you do. It is
    necessary and we will continue to work with you, but we need to
    have a broader discussion on how to deal with this.
        So thank you all for being here and thank you for
    testifying today.
        Ms.  Dunahoo. Thank you.
        Mr.  Simpson. You bet.
        Ms.  Dunahoo. Thank you both.
        Mr.  Simpson. The hearing is closed.

                                               Wednesday, May 24, 2017.

       UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (CIVIL WORKS) AND BUREAU OF
                                  RECLAMATION

                                   WITNESSES

    DOUG LAMONT, SENIOR OFFICIAL PERFORMING THE DUTIES OF THE ASSISTANT
        SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (CIVIL WORKS)
    LIEUTENANT GENERAL TODD SEMONITE, COMMANDING GENERAL AND CHIEF OF
        ENGINEERS
    SCOTT J. CAMERON, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR WATER AND SCIENCE,
        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
    ALAN MIKKELSEN, ACTING COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
        Mr. Simpson. Good morning. This is our first hearing since
    the release of the fiscal year 2018 budget request. Although we
    just received the President's budget yesterday, we begin our
    oversight hearings today.
        As we do every year, we will work to understand what is
    contained within this proposal, and ensure that the fiscal year
    2018 Energy and Water Appropriation Bill provides responsible
    funding for the programs under our jurisdiction. We are here
    today to look at the fiscal year 2018 budget request for the
    Civil Works Program for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and
    the Bureau of Reclamation.
        I would like to welcome our witnesses, Doug Lamont, senior
    official performing the duties of the Assistant Secretary of
    the Army for Civil Works; Lieutenant General Todd Semonite, the
    Commanding General and Chief of Engineers; Scott Cameron, the
    Acting Assistant Secretary for Water and Science of the
    Department of Interior; and Alan Mikkelsen, the Acting
    Commissioner for the Bureau of Reclamation.
        The Bureau of Reclamation and Corps' Civil Works Programs
    include a wide variety of water resources and power activities
    essential to the public safety, economic, and environmental
    goals of our Nation. This committee works hard each year to
    build an appropriations bill that provides strong support for
    these programs, and that strikes a good balance across mission
    areas.
        The omnibus included $1.3 billion for the Bureau of
    Reclamation and provided more than $6 billion to the Corps.
    Funding within the Corps met the new Harbor Maintenance Trust
    Fund's targets established under WRDA, and made full use of the
    estimated annual revenue of the Inland Waterway Trust Fund.
    Congress clearly recognizes the importance of both of these
    programs.
        While I was disappointed to see that the budget request has
    proposed to cut the Corps' funding, the good news is that this
    is the better Corps number than we saw during the last several
    years of the Obama administration. I am hopeful that this is an
    indication that this administration recognizes the importance
    of this infrastructure work.
        I look forward to hearing from each of you on this budget
    request and learning more about the priorities included in this
    proposal, and how you plan to address the various challenges
    facing your agencies. Again, I would like to welcome our
    witnesses to the subcommittee. I would ask all of you to please
    ensure that the hearing record, questions for the record, and
    any supporting information requested by the subcommittee are
    delivered in final form to us no later than 4 weeks from the
    time you receive them.
        Members who have additional questions for the record will
    have until the close of business Friday to provide them to the
    subcommittee office.
        With that, I'll turn to Mr. Aguilar for an opening
    statement, if he has one.
        Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the
    witnesses for appearing today. Unfortunately, Ms. Kaptur had
    another obligation. I am happy to be here, looking forward to
    the exchange that we are going to have on these important,
    vital programs, and we will do our best to use the process of
    questions for the record as well for those members who are not
    attending. Thank you so much.
        Mr. Simpson. And let me just say that this is--you are
    going to see members coming in and out today because there are
    several hearings going on in various committees. In fact, I
    have got to step out to ask the Secretary of Education a couple
    of questions when that hearing starts over there for a few
    minutes. So, you will see members coming and going to a variety
    of hearings.
        Mr. Lamont, I understand you are first.
        Mr. Lamont. Good morning, sir. My name is Douglas Lamont. I
    am the senior official performing the duties of the Assistant
    Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. I must say that this has
    been an extraordinary year and I want to apologize to the Chair
    and to the committee for last-minute details on release of the
    President's budget and also on the work plan.
        We will work with the committee. We will work with Chairman
    Simpson here to ensure that General Semonite and I provide you
    the information that you require.
        I want to thank you for the opportunity to present the
    President's budget for Fiscal Year 2018. The Fiscal Year 18's
    Civil Works budget reflects the Administration's priority
    through targeted investments that will reduce the risk of flood
    impacts to communities, facilitate waterborne transportation,
    restore aquatic ecosystems, and support American jobs.
        The budget emphasizes maintaining the water resources
    infrastructure that the Corps owns and manages, and on finding
    innovative ways to rehab it and hand it over to others, or
    retire it. Here are some funding highlights.
        The 2018 Civil Works budget provides $5.002 billion in
    gross discretionary appropriations for the Army Civil Works
    Program, focusing on investments that will yield high economic
    and environmental returns in order to address significant risk
    to public safety. The budget focuses on funding our three major
    mission areas and allocates 42 percent to commercial
    navigation, 20 percent to flood and storm damage reduction
    projects, and 7 percent to aquatic ecosystem restoration.
        Other sound investments include allocating $247 million to
    hydropower, $118 million to clean up sites contaminated during
    the early years of the Nation's nuclear weapons program, and
    $200 million for the Corps' regulatory activities.
        The budget does not propose any new starts, choosing to
    focus instead on advancing ongoing work and maintaining our
    existing infrastructure. It funds 26 feasibility studies to
    completion, and funds one construction project to completion.
    The budget funds inland waterway capital investments of $175
    million for the ongoing work at Olmsted Locks and Dam of which
    $26 million will be derived from the Inland Waterways Trust
    Fund.
        The budget also includes $299 million, including $34
    million for the dam safety remaining item, for the overall dam
    safety program.
        This funding will enable the Corps to evaluate and
    implement effective risk reduction strategies and measures at
    dams where needed. The budget prioritizes funding to operate
    and maintain water resources infrastructure by providing $3.1
    billion in the Operations and Maintenance account, and $142
    million for operation and maintenance in the Mississippi River
    and Tributaries account.
        Funding for maintaining commercial navigation, flood and
    storm damage reduction, and hydropower projects are informed by
    assessments of a risk-based nature on project condition and
    consequences of failure. The budget includes $765 million for
    operation maintenance of inland navigation projects and $654
    million for operation maintenance of flood risk management
    projects, excluding remaining items.
        These funding levels will enable a continued reduction of
    unscheduled lock closure due to preventable mechanical
    breakdowns and reduce risk at flood risk management projects.
    The budget provides $965 million from the Harbor Maintenance
    Trust Fund to maintain coastal channels and related work, which
    is the highest amount ever budgeted.
        The budget supports a Corps program that has a diverse set
    of tools and approaches to working with local communities,
    whether that means funding projects with our cost-sharing
    partners or providing planning assistance and technical
    assistance to help our communities make better informed
    decisions. Other funding Corps efforts include mitigation of
    impacts to fish on the Columbia River Basin, and priority work
    in the Upper Mississippi River and Missouri Rivers.
        I look forward to working with the committee to advance the
    Corps' Army Civil Works Program. Thank you, sir.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Lieutenant General.
        General Semonite. Chairman Simpson, Ranking Member Kaptur,
    and distinguished members of the subcommittee, I am Lieutenant
    General Todd Semonite, Commanding General of the Corps of
    Engineers and 54th Chief of Engineers. I am honored to be here
    today accompanied by Mr. Lamont to provide testimony on the
    President's fiscal year 2018 budget for the Civil Works Program
    for the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
        I have been in command of the Corps for just over a year,
    and I continue to be amazed by the breadth and complexity of
    the Civil Works Program, as well as the expertise and
    dedication of the professionals that work in our organization.
    While this is my first time appearing before this subcommittee,
    I have had the opportunity to work with a number of you
    individually, and I look forward to continuing to build our
    relationship during my tenure as Chief of Engineers.
        It is my belief that the credibility of the Corps is
    measured by our ability to deliver results that are on time, on
    budget, and of exceptional quality. To do this and to maintain
    our status as a world-class organization now and into the
    future we are focusing on three fundamentals we call strengthen
    our foundation, deliver the program, and achieve our vision.
        I want to give you some highlights of my fundamentals.
        First, as with any structure, our foundation must be our
    strength, the bedrock upon which our present rests and our
    future is built. For the Corps, this means having the
    discipline to accomplish routine tasks to a high standard. It
    means demonstrating that we are reliable and competent
    partners, assisting in shared efforts to be responsible
    stewards of the Nation's water resources.
        We are committed to transform our processes, invest in the
    technical competency of our most valued asset, and that is our
    people, and to be collaborative and transparent. Our strength
    is validated by earning trust in all we do, by demonstrating
    technical expertise, competence, and professionalism across our
    organization.
        We earn our credibility, our reputation, and our value by
    delivering the program, our second big fundamental. This is our
    lifeblood. This is our passion. This is our mission and this is
    our number one priority. In all that we do we strive to ensure
    that cost, timelines, and expected quality are understood
    upfront and successfully accomplished in the end.
        And finally, in order to achieve our vision, we endeavor to
    anticipate the conditions, challenges, and opportunities in an
    uncertain future by taking prudent, logical, and decisive steps
    today to prepare. We do this by implementing strategic
    transformation within the Corps, continually pursuing four
    goals outlined within our campaign plan, and an aim point of
    2025.
        Our first campaign goal is to continue to work across the
    globe with a presence in more than 100 countries supporting
    national security and the combatant commanders in civil works,
    military missions, and water resource research and development
    expertise.
        We are proud to serve this great Nation and our fellow
    citizens, and we are proud of the work the Corps does to be
    able to support America's foreign policy.
        Our second major goal is to continue to work at making the
    Corps more efficient and effective while delivering integrated
    water resource solutions for national missions and to address
    infrastructure challenges. This involves modernizing the
    project planning process, enhancing budget development for a
    more holistic outcome, and making better risk-informed
    investment decisions, as well as improving delivery
    methodology.
        Our third major goal is to continue to be proactive in
    reducing disaster risk and responding to disasters under the
    national response and recovery support framework, as well as
    within our authorities for flood risk management. I am very
    proud of our team for the work we do with FEMA and our fellow
    partners, as well as with State and local agencies in this
    area.
        And our fourth and final goal is preparing for tomorrow,
    which focuses on our people and ensuring we have a pipeline of
    the best engineering and technical expertise, as well as a
    strong workforce development and talent management program. We
    continue to tailor development programs to employ aspirations,
    to retain talent, and insulate culture that embraces a career
    of service.
        In closing, I would offer that our excellence demands
    commitment of every Corps employee. As Chief of Engineers I am
    striving to develop what General Shinseki, former Army Chief of
    Staff, called irreversible momentum towards being a world-class
    organization.
        World class means that the Corps must continue to be able
    to engineer solutions for the Nation's toughest challenge. That
    is our vision. You have my commitment that the teammates of the
    Corps have a passion to achieve that vision. Thank you for
    allowing me the time to be able to address the committee today.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Mr. Cameron.
        Mr. Cameron. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
    subcommittee. I am pleased to discuss with you today the
    President's budget request, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the
    Central Utah Project Completion Act. My name is Scott Cameron.
    I'm the Acting Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Water
    and Science.
        Secretary Zinke appreciates the subcommittee's ongoing
    support of our programs. The overall Department of the
    Interior's 2018 budget request is $11.7 billion, which
    emphasizes Interior's crucial role in promoting economic growth
    across America while also protecting the Nation's natural
    resources and cultural heritage, furthering the America First
    national energy goals, providing scientific information for
    responsibly managing our resources and energy development, and
    honoring our trust responsibility to Native American Tribes.
        The Department's diverse mission affects the lives of all
    Americans. For example, in 2016, Interior's programs were
    associated with an estimated $250 billion in economic output,
    and supported 1.6 million jobs and activities that included
    outdoor recreation and tourism, energy development, grazing,
    and timber harvesting.
        The Bureau of Reclamation's activities, including
    recreation, contribute over $48.1 billion in economic activity
    and support over 388,000 jobs each year. The Department,
    primarily through the Bureau of Reclamation, works with States,
    Tribes, local governments, and nongovernmental organizations to
    pursue a sustainable water supply for the West by providing
    Federal leadership and assistance on the efficient use of
    water.
        The 2018 budget continues these efforts to address the
    challenges of water availability. Interior's $1.1 billion
    budget request for Reclamation invests in our water and power
    infrastructure, facilitating the delivery of water to 31
    million people in the West.
        In addition, our programs focus on the protection and
    restoration of aquatic and riparian environments influenced by
    our facilities and operations. It is critical that Reclamation
    continues to invest in ecosystem restoration if we are to
    continue to supply water and power reliably.
        This budget also continues to strengthen our Tribal Nations
    by implementing Indian water rights settlements. We are
    proposing that Reclamation invest $151 million in Fiscal Year
    2018 toward fulfillment of this Indian trust responsibility.
        These activities include projects and actions to implement
    Indian water rights settlements, provide technical assistance
    to Tribes, and for ecosystem restoration.
        Interior's budget furthers our commitment to developing
    domestic energy resources in order to make America stronger and
    boost the Nation's economy. Hydropower is a renewable and
    reliable resource providing clean energy to the Western United
    States. It is the Nation's largest renewable energy resource,
    and the Bureau of Reclamation is the second largest producer of
    hydropower in the United States, second only to my colleagues
    to my right.
        We support the President's effort to create a leaner, more
    efficient government, and the Bureau of Reclamation will be
    actively involved in bringing forward the most promising ideas
    to improve government effectiveness and efficiency, and to spur
    economic growth.
        For example, Reclamation is developing a legislative
    proposal to facilitate the transfer of title of certain
    Reclamation projects and facilities when such transfers are
    beneficial to all parties. While Reclamation has engaged in
    efforts related to title transfer in the past on a case-by-case
    basis, this broader initiative will go further to facilitate
    greater local control of water infrastructure to allow local
    water managers to make their own decisions to improve water
    management at the local level while allowing Reclamation to
    focus management efforts on larger projects with a greater
    Federal nexus.
        As part of this effort, Reclamation will engage with water
    users to identify projects and facilities that may be good
    candidates for such a transfer.
        Finally, Interior's budget request includes the Central
    Utah Project Completion Act Office, which falls under the
    direct jurisdiction of the Assistant Secretary for Water and
    Science at the direction of Congress a number of years ago. The
    2018 budget for this office is $9 million.
        Of this amount, $4.8 million will be available for planning
    and construction activities administered by the Central Utah
    Water Conservancy District, continuing our partnership and the
    ongoing construction of the Utah Lake System's facilities.
        In addition, about $900,000 will be transferred to the Utah
    Reclamation, Mitigation, and Conservation account for use by
    the Utah Reclamation, Mitigation, and Conservation Commission.
    The 2018 budget also includes Interior's required program
    oversight activities and Endangered Species Recovery Program
    implementation through the Department's CUPCA Office.
        The Central Utah Project provides 62,000 acre feet of water
    for irrigation of over 30,000 acres, and 100,000 acre feet for
    municipal and industrial purposes. This water will help address
    the water demands of the growing population in the Wasatch
    Front, one of the fastest growing areas in the Nation.
        Thank you, again, for the opportunity to explain the
    President's budget request of the Bureau of Reclamation. I
    would be pleased to answer any questions the subcommittee might
    have at the appropriate time.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Mikkelsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ranking members,
    and members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to discuss
    with you the President's budget for the Bureau of Reclamation.
    I am Acting Commissioner Alan Mikkelsen. Reclamation's Fiscal
    Year 2018 budget allocates funds to projects and programs based
    on objective, performance-based criteria. This allows us to
    most effectively administer Reclamation's responsibilities for
    our water and power infrastructure in the West. By doing so,
    the Bureau has become a leader in efforts to improve Western
    water management, confront growing imbalances in water supply
    and demand, and address past environmental harms.
        Our budget continues to emphasize the following principles.
    First, shared responsibility through collaborative partnerships
    with non-federal partners. Second, merit-based funding through
    the awarding of grants and contracts based on published
    criteria. The selection of awards is guided by high-quality,
    evidence-based research and performance measures. And third,
    the importance of increased storage capacity. The Bureau
    recognizes the important goal of increasing and improving
    storage where it is both feasible and where there is
    significant stakeholder support.
        Let me take a moment to provide you with an understanding
    of some of the exciting projects that we have under way. In our
    Great Plains Region, home to Representatives Fortenberry and
    Granger, we continue collaborating with our stakeholders to
    manage, develop, and protect water resources throughout the
    region, including the development of several rural water
    systems. Reclamation is also coordinating with numerous local
    entities to improve drought resiliency.
        In the Upper Colorado Region, we request funding for two
    Indian water rights settlement projects: the Navajo-Gallup
    Water Supply Project and the Aamodt Litigation Settlement.
    These settlements provide permanent water supplies by building
    and improving water systems for sustainable municipal,
    industrial, and domestic water supplies in these communities.
    Of course the Upper Colorado is the home of Glen Canyon Dam and
    beautiful Lake Powell.
        The Lower Colorado Region encompasses the Lower Colorado
    River Basin and is home to the Hoover Dam and includes the
    districts of Representatives Calvert, Roybal-Allard, and Mr.
    Aguilar. Given the ongoing drought in the Southwest, the
    priority focus here is the annual delivery of 7\1/2\ million
    acre feet of water to California, Arizona, and Nevada, with
    another 1.5 million acre feet to Mexico.
        Nearly 80 percent of this region's budget is either paid
    for directly by our partners or through the sale of hydropower
    generation. In addition to struggling with the worst drought in
    more than 100 years, the region is also looking at additional
    ways to assist California with their implementation of other
    important water irrigation and conservation initiatives.
        The Mid-Pacific Region has suffered from its own unique set
    of drought-related problems. Recent precipitation has
    alleviated some of the emergency water supply issues, but one
    good year, I want to emphasize, will not solve all problems
    related to a multiyear drought. Additionally, recent heavy
    rains have caused flooding concerns and have highlighted the
    importance of maintaining Reclamation's infrastructure and
    continuing feasibility studies for additional storage. The
    region works with a diverse group of stakeholders to implement
    water management solutions with a goal of balancing human and
    environmental needs for water.
        Finally there is the Pacific Northwest Region, home to
    Grand Coulee Dam, one of the largest hydropower facilities in
    the world. In addition to yourself, Mr. Chairman, this region
    is represented by Representatives Herrera Beutler and Mr.
    Newhouse. Our focus here for the coming year will be on the
    Boise River Feasibility Study. That research is designed to
    increase storage opportunities at the Anderson Ranch, Arrow
    Rock, and Lucky Peak Dams. It will guide us as we continue
    construction of the Cle Elum fish passage as part of the larger
    Yakima integrated plan. We will continue with the design and
    implementation activities at the Lewiston Orchards Water
    Exchange.
        And finally, we will implement multiple biological opinion
    actions as part of the Columbia and Snake River salmon recovery
    programs operating under the Federal Columbia River power
    system.
        2018 promises to be another exciting year for Reclamation.
    I again thank the committee and am prepared to answer any
    questions you may have about the Bureau's Fiscal Year 2018
    budget request. Thank you.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Simpson. Thank you all for your testimony and, again,
    thank you for being here today. Just to get a bit of
    housekeeping out of the way, first, Mr. Lamont, can you tell
    the committee when we can expect to receive the fiscal year
    2018 budget justification materials, including the J sheets?
        Mr. Lamont. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We are working diligently to
    get those to you as soon as possible. I regret that we are in a
    position that we have not been able to get them to you. We are
    working diligently with the Corps and with my staff and
    obviously with the Administration to get these cleared and get
    them to you as soon as possible. You have my commitment to do
    that.
        Mr. Simpson. Any idea what length of time we are looking
    at?
        Mr. Lamont. We are hoping, if you will allow us, to provide
    you the first batch next week.
        Mr. Simpson. Okay, thank you. For both the Corps and the
    Bureau, the Trump administration as well as the former Obama
    administration has promoted alternative financing as a tool for
    infrastructure development. This committee has been supportive
    of exploring this option but has also made it clear that
    Federal policies should be fair and equitable. We should not
    operate a system whereby a wealthy non-Federal sponsor receives
    a disproportionate share of Federal assistance.
        For all four of you, do you agree that we should avoid
    policies that allow non-Federal sponsors to buy their way to
    the front of the Federal funding line and how have your
    agencies been taking these equity concerns into consideration
    as you explore alternative financing options? Go ahead.
        Mr. Lamont. Mr. Chairman, I will take that first. Clearly,
    with constrained Federal resources we are looking at every
    opportunity to partner in a cost-shared environment not only
    with our studies but obviously with our construction program.
    There is no preferential treatment to the project sponsors that
    may have resources that others may not have. We want to make
    sure that we are looking clearly at the need for the project
    and that we can defend it in addition to economics, but also
    from a public safety and health standpoint.
        General Semonite. Mr. Chairman, I will just add that the
    fiscal year 2017 appropriations bill specifically says that we
    need policy in this area. We are a big advocate of P3s; we
    think there is a lot of merit here. On the other hand, we would
    like to be able to make sure that we understand what those
    rules are and how do we do this in the right way to avoid
    exactly what you are asking. So right now we are working with
    Mr. Lamont's office, to continue to be able to figure out how
    can we put some policy in effect. That language was very
    specific. Other than Fargo Moorhead, we are basically on a hold
    right now until that policy is done and we would like to work
    throughout the Administration and with your staff to continue
    to figure out what should that policy look like.
        Mr. Simpson. Appreciate that.
        Mr. Cameron. Mr. Chairman, fundamentally, it is the
    technical and economic viability of a project they need to
    control, so we look at those aspects certainly first and
    foremost. We are also, much like the Corps, promoting public-
    private partnerships (P3). In fact, on May 9 in Denver, we held
    a daylong session with an overflow crowd of I think more than
    200 individuals from a wide variety of sectors, who are
    interested in having conversations with us about public-private
    partnerships and, you know, we look forward to leveraging
    everyone's dollars to move forward on good projects for the
    country.
        Mr. Mikkelsen. And as part of the P3 conference that we
    held in Denver, in conversations with people on sidebars, we
    also came to the understanding and realization that we have
    some folks out there, like you are talking about, that have
    access to private financing. And we would like to actually
    promote those opportunities for those particular people as much
    as possible so it actually frees money up for those people who
    may not have those same income streams or those opportunities
    for financing.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you. And I agree with you, General. We
    need to develop a policy in this area because otherwise, while
    I am very supportive of P3s and attracting private funding to
    some of these opportunities and for infrastructure projects and
    stuff like that, if the people that have those resources
    available move to the front of the line, it would be
    devastating I think across the country and a bad policy. So we
    need to sit down and figure out how we are going to do this and
    how we are going to include that, those opportunities.
        For the Corps, over the past several years the committee
    has worked to increase funding for the Corps to supplement
    inadequate budget requests. Congressional intent has been for
    the agency to use these funds for additional work in the year
    provided on a broad array of projects, not to forward fund
    fiscal--figure fiscal year needs of a limited number of
    projects. Do you expect to make any allocations of the fiscal
    year 2017 funds that will not be obligated by the end of this
    year?
        Mr. Lamont. Mr. Chairman, we have been putting together the
    work plan. We are looking at what we could obligate and what we
    could do for the remainder of the fiscal year. There is the
    possibility there could be funds that could slip into the next
    fiscal year, but that was not our intent, to focus on
    prefunding, if you will, for '18.
        Mr. Simpson. But you were going to try to use those funds
    in this fiscal year to the extent you can?
        Mr. Lamont. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Simpson. Okay. As you are all well aware, invasive
    species can cause significant economic and environmental
    damage. In the Western United States, the spread of quagga and
    zebra mussels are of particular concern. Can you please discuss
    the ongoing efforts at each agency to address the concerns and
    prevent the spread of these invasive species?
        Mr. Cameron. I will start off from the Interior
    Department's perspective. Secretary Zinke is very personally
    aware, given his own experience in Montana, of the risk of
    invasive species, both aquatic such as zebra and quagga mussels
    while also forest insect pests and in rangelands weeds as well.
        We, early in the Administration, heard from Governor Otter
    in Idaho expressing his great concern about the Columbia River
    Basin potentially being infected by zebra and quagga mussels.
    We have been working very closely with the Western Governors
    Association and those Pacific Northwest governors' offices to
    cooperate with the Corps, with our sister Federal agencies, and
    with the State governments in an effort to keep zebra and
    quagga mussels out of the Columbia River Basin.
        Regional estimates are that it would represent about a
    half-a-billion-dollar annual hit to the Pacific Northwest
    economy, on par with the damage that they have done in the
    Great Lakes where zebra and quagga mussels fully infest the
    region. The Secretary is one of the three co-chairs of the
    National Invasive Species Council along with the Secretary of
    Agriculture and the Secretary of Commerce.
        We actually plan on having the first meeting in a decade of
    the National Invasive Species Council in conjunction with the
    Western Governors Association meeting in Whitefish, Montana, on
    June 28, to talk about regional efforts in collaboration. More
    specifically, the Bureau of Reclamation's budget includes a
    four-and-a-half-million-dollar increase to try to protect the
    Columbia River Basin, realizing that some of the best ways to
    do that are to keep the mussels from moving north out of Lake
    Mead or Lake Powell or Lake Havasu, for instance.
        So the Department's budget as a whole exceeds $100 million
    for invasive species. We recognize that it is a significant
    ecological issue. More than 40 percent of our endangered
    species are endangered because some invasive has done something
    to them, for instance.
        So I appreciate the question, Mr. Simpson, and look forward
    to working with you and all members of the subcommittee to
    address this significant national problem.
        General Semonite. Chairman Simpson, really the accolades
    here go to the Department of Interior and the States for the
    great work we have done. We are just in support and this is
    mainly a program for watercraft inspection. Last year we had
    $3.75 million in it. This year there is $5 million to be able
    to make sure that we have water inspection stations in the
    States of Idaho, Montana, Washington, Wyoming, and Oregon.
    Those stations are up and running. The first one turned on in
    February. They came on from March to May, and this is the
    ability to be able to get down and check the boats and be able
    to make sure that we are doing every single thing preventative
    we can so we do not have a problem down the road. We do not see
    any problems. We are very, very strong supporters of that
    program.
        Mr. Simpson. We do have, those are inspection stations, but
    we do have the wash stations installed and so forth at Lake
    Mead and----
        General Semonite. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Simpson. Okay. Mr. Aguilar.
        Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General, you talked
    in your testimony about modernization and I wanted to shift a
    little bit to some local permitting. Any modification, as you
    know, to facilities constructed by the Corps requires a 408
    permit. The county I live in, San Bernardino County, currently
    has thirty 408 permits submitted to the Corps. The vast
    majority of these are related to projects from cities and
    developers such as storm drain connections, bridge widening,
    utility lines. That has taken serval months for these permits.
        What type of thought can the Corps give to streamlining the
    process and making it a little bit more simpler for something
    like a storm drain connection that was planned in the design of
    the facility?
        General Semonite. Representative Aguilar, great question.
    We are committed to try to figure out how we can continue to
    push delegations down to be able to streamline this more. The
    challenge you have if you push everything down to the lowest
    level, there is some chance that you might have people making
    different decisions and we could be accused of not necessarily
    being consistent. If you retain everything at the highest
    level, then obviously everything is going to take an awful long
    time. So where is the sweet spot of how much you delegate down?
        Right now we have five major issues we look at in 408s. We
    have already delegated three of those back down to either
    Division Commanders or District Commanders, and our staff is
    committed to continue to figure out where else can we continue
    to delegate. We also have a special focus now on how long does
    it take to do some of those 408s. Some, as you might imagine,
    might have national precedent, so those are the ones we have to
    keep at Headquarters, but you have my commitment to continue to
    look across the board on how we can empower, delegate, and set
    up our subordinates to be able to work this faster, not just in
    408s, but the entire regulatory program. Our regulations and
    our permitting are taking too long and we have got to figure
    out how to continue to be able to support the taxpayers of
    getting those decisions earlier.
        Mr. Aguilar. When it comes to 404 permits for you or Mr.
    Lamont, has the Corps looked at exempting maintenance work on
    constructed facilities that are maintained by local agencies
    needing 404s as identified as necessary during Corps inspection
    process?
        General Semonite. Sir, I do not know the exact answer to
    that, but I would love to get with you and figure out exactly
    where that applies and then come back and have my team lay out
    the 404 process. The 404s are other ones we are looking at
    continuing to try to expedite, but I am not sure exactly the
    cause of your question and I want to make sure I get you a good
    answer.
        Mr. Aguilar. We can put some more detail and submit it to
    you as well.
        General Semonite. Sounds great, sir.
        Mr. Aguilar. For everyone. Many of the Western States have
    experienced extreme swings in precipitation recently from
    severe droughts in the past few years to above average rainfall
    and snowpack. How does this extreme shift in precipitation
    affect Corps and Reclamation projects and how have your
    agencies responded to these circumstances and the funding
    implications based on that weather?
        Mr. Cameron. I will take the first shot at that. So there
    is great deal of regional variability. As you know, Mr.
    Aguilar, California got a lot of rain this winter.
    Unfortunately, most of that rain went into the Pacific Ocean.
    So one of the things that we are talking with the State of
    California very aggressively about is exploring opportunities
    for new storage, so that if we are lucky enough in future years
    to have a wet, rainy winter, we can store more of that water so
    that it is available for California cities and California's
    farmers during the summer.
        In the Colorado Basin, we had a good snowy winter in the
    northern part of the basin. However, we still have drought
    conditions in the Colorado and we are working very closely with
    all the Colorado Basin States on a drought contingency plan,
    realizing that we cannot assume that next winter will be as
    snowy in the Rockies as this winter. And it is really important
    for all the States and the Federal Government to coordinate and
    move ahead aggressively, domestically and with Mexico, on the
    drought contingency plan.
        General Semonite. And, sir, let me follow up on Mr.
    Cameron's answer. Really three things we are looking at:
    extreme rainfall, sea level rise, and prolonged droughts. What
    that is really causing, is for us to be able to go back and
    look at what are the historic trends. What are we doing to look
    at our predictive models that are out there and how do we
    utilize policy tools to be able to make sure that we can
    continue to be informed to put operational solutions in?
        We have the ability to be able to do short- or long-term
    deviations as to how to operate these big systems. We have what
    is called a Water Control Manual for basically any big river
    system. We have, you know, very, very deliberate processes for
    how much water do you let in and out. But exactly what Mr.
    Cameron said, we must be adaptive to a degree to figure out how
    can we optimize the ability to be able to take care of water
    that we do have and continue to be flexible. And if we are so
    locked into a bureaucracy that says do not change because it is
    too hard to do that, we must continue to be able to make sure
    we are responsive based on the needs of the climate conditions.
        Mr. Aguilar. And, Mr. Chairman, if I could, one year of or
    a good winter of rain and snow does not necessarily alleviate
    all of our concerns following some of the worst drought that we
    have seen in about 160 years. As of mid-May, Lake Mead was 136
    feet below full pool and is just under 40 percent full and over
    the last 10 years its averaged 1,100 feet elevation and it is
    20 feet below that right now. That is only 5 feet above our
    trigger point where we have to start taking actions on our
    drought contingency plan.
        Lake Powell is also suffering. It rests at just under 3,600
    feet which is 108 feet below full pool. So we are not, we are
    definitely not, out of the drought cycle or situation,
    particularly in the Colorado River.
        Mr. Aguilar. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, sir. Wish to thank each and
    every one of the panelists today for your testimony. And
    General Semonite, I thank you so much for your vocal support
    for critical projects like the Chickamauga Lock, which is in
    district, and for visiting with me personally and for your
    commitment. As a matter of fact, I believe you have actually
    visited the Chick Lock, so I thank you for stepping up in a
    very short period of time of this prioritization.
        If I may, sir, Chickamauga Lock is a very important
    project. It is an integral component of the inland waterways
    system and it would keep 150,000 trucks off of our roads, keep
    the cost of shipping of goods low for the many businesses that
    rely on it, and it is, of course, a very environmentally sound
    and safe inland waterway transport system that it would
    support. While I am excited about the ongoing work, I think we
    have received funds I believe over the past 3 years and I have
    actually witnessed the progress at new Chick Lock, I am
    concerned that the fiscal '18 budget does not include full
    funding for the inland waterway trust fund and the funding
    would be limited to the Olmsted project in Ohio. That means the
    Chick Lock is not currently slated to receive the critical
    funding needed to build on the current momentum. Please explain
    if you will, sir, the reasoning behind the amount allocated for
    these projects, sir.
        Mr. Lamont. Mr. Fleischmann, I will be happy to take that
    question.
        Mr. Fleischmann. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Lamont. I had the opportunity back in late February to
    actually visit Chickamauga Lock myself. And I understand, as a
    professional engineer, the situation there, basically a concern
    with the aging in infrastructure; I think that typifies it
    around the Nation.
        To be frank with you, sir, in formulating the President's
    budget, what we were looking at is the high-performing broad
    projects, which basically comes down to the benefit-cost ratio
    being 2.5-to-1 or greater at a 7 percent discount rate. And
    that has been the criterion within this Administration and
    prior Administrations.
        And I would say that it is not only the economics, but I
    alluded to this earlier with Chairman Simpson, we would need to
    look at, with each individual case, the condition of the
    infrastructure and whether there is imminent danger or failure,
    for example.
        So, that is the one message I want to deliver, is that it
    is not based purely on economics, but we would also look, I am
    talking globally of our infrastructure in the Corps of
    Engineers, if there is any imminent failure, we want to make
    sure that we are funded to do the proper rehab.
        Mr. Fleischmann. Yes, sir. And I am sure you are aware the
    existing lock is an older, antiquated New Deal structure, and
    it has had some failures. Actually the Corps has done a very
    good job in maintaining that. It is like a sick patient. So, I
    look forward to working with the Corps towards getting a new
    Chick Lock completed hopefully by 2022 or 2023, and we look
    forward to working together with you.
        Mr. Lamont. Yes, sir. I witnessed the deflections with the
    miter gate and I saw the post-tensioning 10 feet apart, and
    that is pretty significant. I agree with you.
        Mr. Fleischmann. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. One follow-up
    question. I believe one of the reasons it is important that we
    return to regular order is to provide certainty for critical
    infrastructure projects, such as the Chickamauga Lock. My
    question, and either one of the gentlemen can answer this, will
    the Corps be able to release the funds in time for fiscal '17,
    so that projects like Chick will be able to provide funds
    before the contract runs out?
        Mr. Lamont. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you. I appreciate that. At this time
    I would like to recognize, Mr. Joyce, the gentleman from Ohio,
    5 minutes.
        Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lamont and General
    Semonite, thank you for being here. I have a few questions
    pertaining to the dredging issue in Northeast Ohio. By way of
    background, the maintenance of the Cleveland Harbor, which
    includes the Cuyahoga River shipping channel, is vital to
    Ohio's and Cleveland's economy and many thousands of good-
    paying jobs. As is the case at other ports on the Great Lakes,
    dredged sediment in Cleveland has been placed upland for
    reasons of sediment quality.
        That has been the practice for decades. More recent
    developments include the enactment of the State of Ohio law,
    which prohibits the placement of dredge material in Lake Erie,
    effective in 2020. The State's findings that the dredged
    sediment does not meet State water quality standards and would
    harm the fishing industry by raising PCB levels in fish, the
    judgment opinion and order of the U.S. District Court judge in
    favor of the State's position with respect to fiscal year 2015
    dredging, successful efforts by the port to maintain confined
    disposal facility capacity, and the enactment of Section 1189
    in WRDA 2016, pertaining to the Federal standard.
        Given all of this, I feel strongly that the Army Corps
    should work with principal stakeholders to craft a long-term
    solution for upland placement and sediment reuse whenever
    possible.
        First of all, the fiscal year 2017 funding level for the
    Cleveland Harbor is 5.85 million. I see the recently released
    Civil Works budget calls for 6.2 million for operation and
    maintenance of the Cleveland Harbor. Is that sufficient funding
    to dredge the Cleveland shipping channel and complete the
    upland placement of the dredged material this year?
        General Semonite. Sir, first of all, I agree with you, we
    definitely need a long-term solution. We cannot continue to be
    able to work this way and let the courts make these decisions.
    We must be able to bring all the people together to figure out
    what is in the best interest of both the State and the Federal
    standard.
        As you know, there is a decision out there. The Corps has
    not finalized a decision as to what we are going to do with
    respect to the judge's decision in May. We are still working
    with the Department of Justice as to what exactly our position
    is going to be. Once we determine that, then we will have to
    figure out what the bill is that will be incurred, and then how
    are we going to be able to care of that bill?
        Right now in the '17 budget and the '18 budget we have not
    budgeted money for the judge's decision. We will have to go
    back in and figure out what happens based on how the Department
    of Justice and the Corps' litigation continues to play out.
        I have been on the ground, I have a General Officer now
    down there working every couple weeks with the district, to get
    with the port to be able to make sure we can figure out what is
    in the best interest of the Federal Government and the State
    government in order to meet those requirements and to be able
    to continue to be able to work this out.
        The challenge we could have is that if, in fact, we have a
    higher standard, that is going to cost more money. Right now
    the normal way we dispose of dredged material in the Cleveland
    Harbor costs $9 a cubic foot. If we were to go to an upland
    placement across the board, the cost is $21. So it is more than
    twice the amount. We are trying to make sure that we are doing
    what the Federal regulations require, and so, therefore, do not
    impose additional costs back on the taxpayers. We are committed
    to continue to work with you and your team, so to be able to
    find a consensus here.
        Mr. Joyce. I appreciate that, but the court order was
    fairly clear, was it not?
        General Semonite. Sir, and again, this is where we have to
    figure out what we are going to do with respect to the court
    order. We have not made that decision yet.
        Mr. Joyce. Again, the court order was fairly clear. Was it
    not, General?
        General Semonite. It was with specific respect to Cleveland
    Harbor for the fiscal 2015 dredging year.
        Mr. Joyce. Okay.
        General Semonite. It only was a very, very targeted
    decision.
        Mr. Joyce. I appreciate that, because it was a limited
    issue at that time that the court had to consider.
        Second, I recall that when dredging finally got started
    last December, only a portion was completed before the weather
    and equipment brought a halt to the dredging, which finally
    resumed earlier this spring. What is the timeline for
    completing the dredging of the Cleveland shipping channel this
    year?
        General Semonite. Congressman, I can get back to you with
    specific details, but my staff has told me that we will meet
    the December dredging timelines, and we should be able to make
    the standard that we have communicated to the port that we will
    continue to come through and have that dredging done by
    December.
        Mr. Joyce. Finally, the most recent surveying by the Corps
    reveals that significantly more sediment will need to be
    dredged from the river than was anticipated last year. How does
    the Corps plan to manage the increased load in terms of
    funding, the actual mechanical dredging process, as well as the
    CDF storage site?
        General Semonite. As far as additional funding, if it is
    the same standard, we will be able to accommodate that in our
    budget. The challenge will occur if, in fact, there is a higher
    standard where everything will have to be placed upland. And so
    I really want to come and work with you to be able to tell you
    exactly what our numbers are. I have no interest in holding
    anything back. We will lay this out to you so you know exactly
    where we are.
        And a lot of it goes back to the standard that we are
    applying, which is an EPA and Corps of Engineers Federal
    standard as to where things should be placed. And that is what
    we utilize.
        Mr. Joyce. Well, I appreciate that. And somewhere in the
    city right now is the CEO of ArcelorMittal, and they cannot be
    held hostage because they cannot get the ships down to the----
        General Semonite. Sir, that is never the intent. We are
    certainly not going to hold that up.
        Mr. Joyce. I appreciate that, and I am not saying you are,
    but, while there is a feud between governmental agencies, they
    still have, people working and steel to be produced, which is
    very important activity for the United States.
        General Semonite. Congressman, the dredging will happen.
    The question is, where does that dredge material go? That is
    the only issue. So the people that are using that channel are
    certainly not going to be held hostage. We will commit to
    ensure that we are dredging on our timelines, unless there is
    some natural reason why we cannot dredge.
        Mr. Joyce. Great.
        General Semonite. We owe that to you, and the shipping
    industry has to have some predictability. It is certainly not
    our intention to cause any kind of confusion that would not
    allow that predictability.
        Mr. Joyce. I am not saying you are trying to cause any
    confusion, I am just trying to clear this up, because
    governmental agencies should not be the cause of any of these
    problems.
        General Semonite. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Joyce. We need to have everybody work in concert. That
    is why we have the GLRI, which under Chairman Calvert's
    authority does so well at making all of the agencies work
    together.
        I see I am out of time, Mr. Chairman. I apologize.
        Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. I
    recognize Ms. Herrera Beutler for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All right,
    this is more specifically for you, General, with regard to
    biological opinion. Recent district court decisions have
    significant implications for the Columbia River Federal Power
    System, affecting my district and actually Mr. Newhouse's and
    others here.
        Could you, please, discuss briefly the status of the court
    ordered buy-up for the Columbia River Federal Power System, and
    what are the funding implications of this court order?
        I also have a follow up about NEPA and additional spill to
    get in here. If you would like I could give them now, and you
    could hit it all at once.
        General Semonite. No, if you want to give me your second
    question first, then I will answer the other one.
        Ms. Herrera Beutler. The District court order directed a
    comprehensive environmental review of the operations related to
    the system. The court and reclamation, along with BPA, are co-
    leads on this environmental impact statement process. Can you
    please describe the current status of the effort, the expected
    schedule for major milestones, as well as funding requirements
    for each agency?
        General Semonite. We just closed the comment period. All
    three agencies are working very, very well together. We
    received over 400,000 comments, so what we are continuing to
    work through that judge's order to be able to make sure that we
    are transparent and we are taking all those pieces back in.
        I do not have the exact date here, and I will find it in a
    minute. I think we are right on schedule; it was going to be
    the end of June of '17, to be able to continue to get a
    preliminary investigation, and then I think it is December 17
    for the final investigation. I will double check and make sure
    I get you exactly the update of that status.
        Ms. Herrera Beutler. And let us see, spill, additional
    spill. The court recently ruled on a motion for injunctive
    relief ordering the agencies to work with the plaintiffs to
    develop a plan to implement increased spill in 2018. Can you
    please provide an update on activities to date? Are there
    concerns, and what is being done and what can be done to
    alleviate this issue? And do you know what funding will be
    necessary to implement these efforts?
        General Semonite. And Congresswoman, I am not aware of that
    one, so I am going to have to get back with you on exactly the
    details of that specific issue.
        Ms. Herrera Beutler. Well, I mean, it is pretty--the
    injunctive relief motion was somewhat recent, but it is pretty
    critical for talking about spring 2018. So, yes, I would love
    to have an update on that.
        I mean, we spill a lot as a region. Ratepayers pay a lot to
    protect those wild runs, but we also expect to rely on that
    power, and protecting that access and that resource is very
    important to the folks and me, in the region. I still have a
    couple minutes, so I am going to move on.
        Earlier this year, and this is for you, General--you are
    really important to our way of life as you have noticed; we pay
    a lot of attention to you all--the District Court ordered to
    develop a process and a schedule for sharing information on
    planned capital projects at the four Lower Snake River Dams, in
    case plaintiffs wanted to file to stop these projects while the
    NEPA review of operations of the power system is ongoing.
        Mr. Lamont, this could go for either of you. Has the Corps
    developed this process, and has the court approved it? If so,
    please briefly describe what would be required of the Corps.
        Mr. Lamont. Congresswoman, as General Semonite has
    indicated, I do not want to misspeak on this one. What we would
    like to do is work with your staff and understand the concern a
    little better, and we will get back to your staff immediately.
        General Semonite. We are definitely very aware of the
    decisions. The Lower Four Snake Dams: we are tracking exactly
    what we need to do to be able to lay out what the future
    conditions of those dams could be. But as to the spill and some
    of the other issues, I would much rather come and give you
    exactly where we are on this and lay this out to you and your
    staff in great detail.
        Ms. Herrera Beutler. I would appreciate that, in part
    because we have seen this movie before with regard to requiring
    basically more of an effort to look at the dams and whether
    they should be there. And getting this right and being on top
    of this, each of these questions, these are all going to be
    used. So, I want to make sure that you are following this very
    closely, and I would expect a detailed update on this.
        And I am out of time. So, with that, I thank you, Mr.
    Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back. At
    this time I would like to recognize Chairman Calvert for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There was an incident
    in 1993 and caused about $22 million in damage to Old Town
    Temecula in my district. Today, those damages would be much
    greater. We are in construction with the Corps on a project
    which will provide 100-year flood protection with the cities of
    Murrieta and Temecula.
        Please understand that these populations have quadrupled
    since the project feasibility study where significant numbers
    of homeowners, businesses, infrastructure which remain
    vulnerable to flooding, and we need to address this as soon as
    possible. To continue construction and keep this project on
    schedule we need $2 million in fiscal year 2017 continuing
    construction funds to complete the second reach of phase 2
    project, and to complete the LRR.
        Mr. Lamont, General, can you comment to me what you will
    include in this fiscal year 2017 funding in your work plan? And
    we will send the reprogramming request forward as quickly as
    possible to keep the Murrieta Creek Project on schedule.
        General Semonite. Congressman, we are very aware of this
    project and the importance of this. We have spent over $20.4
    million on this, and agree that the last $2 million are very
    important. Right now it is our recommendation that that is
    funded in the fiscal year 2017 work plan to be able to take
    care of that $2 million.
        And there is also that $400,000 to be able to continue to
    be able to reevaluate the benefit-cost ratio. Obviously Reach 4
    is the one that is hard to do here, so that is where we are
    going to study to see if maybe the economics could make it
    happen. I have to be honest with you, though, that is probably
    a stretch on the benefit-cost ratio.
        Mr. Calvert. I have been working on this since I have been
    in Congress, 25 years, and I would like to get it done in my
    lifetime. This is an important project to the region. I think
    once the LRR is complete, it will prove up that this is a
    viable project and the cost-benefit ratio is there. Thank you
    for your answer, and I appreciate you working with me to get at
    least this reach complete.
        I also have a Reclamation issue. As you are aware
    Reclamation has reinitiated consultation with CVP and SWP,
    smelt and salmon biologic opinions, for operations for those
    projects. As you know, the recently enacted WIN act requires
    that Reclamation ensure that any project contractor that
    desires will be included in the reconsult as described in
    section 4004.
        Have any of the contractors made such a request and
    Reclamation provide assurance that any requesting contractor
    will be included as an applicant?
        Mr. Cameron. Mr. Calvert, we have had conversations with a
    number of the contractors. We are aware of the provision that
    you just described. We are, in fact, planning a meeting in the
    next week or two with interested contractors, to hear from them
    exactly how they would like to participate in these processes
    going forward.
        We definitely plan to engage with them much more heavily,
    and much more substantively than they have had an opportunity
    in the past under the previous legal environment.
        Mr. Calvert. Now, we have been waiting in California for a
    long time to increase our water supply and build more storage,
    which was referenced just a while ago. Can you update me on the
    status of the storage feasibility studies, since we started
    those 20-some years ago, and when will we be finally done with
    them?
        Mr. Cameron. As you know, Mr. Calvert, there are several in
    queue. The feasibility report on raising Shasta was actually
    delivered to Congress. We are actively exploring cost share
    partners for the Shasta Project that would cost roughly $1.3
    billion, so we would not plan on taking it all out on Mr.
    Simpson's budget. So we are looking for some cost-sharing
    partners there.
        Probably one of the most promising opportunities is the
    Sites Reservoir, which is north of the delta, as you know. For
    both the Sites and also the Temperance Flat opportunity on the
    San Joaquin, there are active consortia of water users in
    California who are pursuing potential funding through the State
    water bond that was recently passed. And we are working very
    closely with those project proponents. Our goal is to make sure
    they have the information they need when they need it so they
    can apply for and hopefully secure State water bond funding for
    those two projects.
        We are also looking at the Los Vaqueros expansion project.
    That one is on a somewhat slower track and we are also
    exploring some changes in the San Luis Reservoir, a number of
    issues there, both water quality and potential water storage
    enhancement. It looks like from the State's perspective, Sites
    and Temperance Flat would appear to be the highest priorities,
    so we are trying to be responsive to the priorities as defined
    by the water users in California.
        Mr. Calvert. Right. Thank you. Just one quick question.
    This is on Oroville Dam and the issue of safety of dams in
    general. In February, as you know, Oroville Dam almost
    crumbled, which would have been a disaster certainly in
    Northern California. And we are lucky that the dam did not give
    way.
        In light of this can you and the Corps and the Bureau talk
    very quickly about dam safety programs? What assurances can you
    offer that facilities that are owned and operated by both
    Reclamation and the Corps are safe? I mean, obviously, nobody
    saw this on Oroville Dam a year ago. And this, this could have
    been a complete disaster. General?
        General Semonite. Sir, I will give you an update. I did
    testify in the Senate a couple of months ago on dam safety and
    I got very, very up to speed on our dams. We have 715 dams. I
    feel very confident that we will be able to continue to address
    the ones that are the highest risk. We rank our dams one
    through five. We have a very few that are in the worst category
    and we are fully funding those to continue to get those dams
    repaired. We have a few more, maybe 10 or 12, that are actually
    DSAC Level 2 dams. We continue to be able to rank those high up
    in our budget.
        Right now, I think that the main thing is as you talked
    about safety. It really goes back to the risk out there, and
    how do we continue to manage that risk, be able to make sure we
    are either putting more engineering solutions there, or to be
    able to advise people where that risk is. And a lot of that
    goes with how do you operate that dam and how much water do you
    hold?
        We are committed. We have over 1,500 people that are dam
    certified safety experts. While Oroville is not a Corps of
    Engineers dam, we are deeply involved in order to advise and
    also to learn what could we take from Oroville to make sure we
    are looking at our dams to be able to take the lessons learned.
    We are working on a dam in Mosul, Iraq, right now, to try to
    continue to figure out how to fix dams.
        Mr. Mikkelsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Very briefly,
    Reclamation has probably one of the most state-of-the-art
    facilities for safety of dams work in the world. The Dam Safety
    Program continues to be one of our highest priorities. We
    inspect all of our dams, we conduct safety evaluation of
    existing dams, and then our safety of dams (SOD) program makes
    sure that those priorities are implemented on a regular basis.
    We have got about I think, without looking, we have got about
    $90 million in the budget this year for our Safety of Dams
    program. And the very first question I asked when I arrived in
    town was does Reclamation have any Orovilles? And I was assured
    that we absolutely do not.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
        Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At this time, I
    would like to recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr.
    Serrano, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry I was
    late. I was at another hearing, which is the story of our
    lives.
        Gentlemen, I wanted to remind you and thank you on behalf
    of my constituents for the great work you have done on the
    Bronx River. I usually do not use these hearings to talk about
    my district, but rather in general about our country and how it
    affects my district. But it is really incredible, 15, 20 years
    ago, when you started helping us clean that river up, we found
    things in there that I cannot mention in public, many illegal
    things and even a Jeep. And now a beaver has returned and a
    second beaver returned. I do not know why, but they named the
    beaver Jose. And so you can figure out for yourself.
        But I understand that the war continues and it has just
    become an area that you did not believe you could have inside a
    city. I mean, with running ways and places on the side, it is
    just wonderful. Anything new in the budget that speaks to the
    Bronx River and what the timeline is?
        General Semonite. I do not have any new information, but we
    will certainly come and lay this out for you. I am not prepared
    to talk about the Bronx River today.
        Mr. Serrano. Okay.
        General Semonite. I am not aware of any other budget
    updates.
        Mr. Serrano. I saw something, but I did not want to tell
    you I saw it.
        Mr. Mikkelsen. Sir, I echo General Semonite's situation
    here. I am not aware of that either, but I will work with the
    Chief of Engineers to make sure we are working with your staff.
        Mr. Serrano. Okay.
        General Semonite. I will tell you, though, sir, when I was
    a Division Commander at Fort Hamilton back in '06 to '09, we
    found the first beaver and you and I were here about 7 or 8
    years ago, talking about that beaver. So it goes back to the
    potential. There are a lot of opportunities to be able to
    continue to make these river systems better across the board,
    not just for water quality, but for recreation and for economic
    development.
        Mr. Serrano. Absolutely, and to our colleagues, the whole
    story of the beaver, which one of our colleagues knows about,
    is that a beaver--New York City was a beaver pelt colony in its
    beginnings, and a beaver had not returned to New York in 200
    years until these folks and the community and the folks cleaned
    up the river. And so it became a major story, National
    Geographic, the whole thing.
        And so they now find a second beaver, right. So they tell
    me to name the beaver. Now, I do not want to be a wise guy and
    name the beaver, so I tell them, no, why don't you name the
    beaver to the Bronx Zoo? They put it on the Internet. You know
    what they named the beaver? Justin Beaver. Yeah. And I lost all
    my publicity very quickly.
        General Semonite. Congressman Serrano, there is money in
    the budget for maintenance. It is not an awful lot, but I will
    have my staff come lay out to your staff exactly what, not only
    this year, but long term, how we see the Bronx River, and we
    will give you a full update.
        Mr. Serrano. Thank you so much. I do not know if you are
    familiar with the Cano Martin Pena in Puerto Rico, my other
    congressional district. And I wanted to congratulate you and
    the local folks, ENLACE, for the strong efforts in dredging the
    Cano, which is just a big issue, a monumental issue on the
    island. When do you expect this project to be completed and
    what are you asking for to complete it, if you are?
        Mr. Lamont. Mr. Congressman, preconstruction engineering
    and design has been initiated and it is continuing. There are
    no funds in the President's budget for any preconstruction
    engineering and design right now nationwide. What we are doing
    is focusing on completing our 16 feasibility studies where
    there have been funds appropriated over the last 2 fiscal
    years, and we are focusing also on the continuing construction
    and completions of our projects. I will work with you sir, on
    looking at Cano Martin Pena as far as any additional needs, and
    the potential for any reprogramming that might be needed to
    move this project along. I understand your concerns and the
    situation down there.
        Mr. Serrano. If I heard you correctly, you said there is no
    new money for these kinds of projects in the President's
    budget, but you have an opportunity to complete the ones you
    started already? Is that what you are alluding to?
        Mr. Lamont. The emphasis is on the prior appropriations
    that have been made in trying to complete or continue PED
    nationwide on the projects that would hopefully compete for new
    start construction consideration in the next budget cycle.
        Mr. Serrano. All right, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, sir. At this time, I would like
    to recognize the ranking member of this subcommittee, Ms.
    Kaptur.
        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
    apologize for being late for this distinguished panel. I had to
    testify this morning at the Department of Commerce on a very
    daunting situation that faces our steel industry and it affects
    thousands of workers in my State, so I had to be there.
        I read your testimony, gentlemen. Thank you so much for
    your service to our country and the great work you do. Each of
    us can point to successes in our own particular States and
    regions that you and the Corps have been a part of, so we value
    your work.
        I also hope you will be a major player as the President
    proposes a new infrastructure bill, whatever that is. And I do
    not agree with Mr. Mulvaney's decision to cut your budget by $1
    billion-plus and I am hoping that some of that can be changed
    as a result of our action and work on the infrastructure bill.
    It is one of the greatest job creators we could have in this
    country.
        I wanted to, also, General Semonite, you talked just
    briefly referencing a dam in Mosul. I wanted to ask you, would
    it be a lot of work or could you provide me some information
    about how the Corps links to other countries around the world
    in civil works projects. Just a brief summary, for example, I
    am particularly interested in places that are tender, such as
    Ukraine, and whether or not there have been any Civil Works
    agreements, either working with other parts of the military
    like our State partnership programs. Do you ever link to Guard
    Civil Works units that are doing work in those places? I do not
    really understand that set of relationships and I would really
    like to. Is that a hard thing to produce?
        General Semonite. Not at all, ma'am. We do this all the
    time. We are in 110 countries. We work for obviously the
    ambassadors out there, for Department of State. We work for our
    combatant commanders, the four-star generals that are actually
    out there that are warfighters. They give us security
    cooperation requirements, then we go back out. The Civil Works
    team may go and do a climate change seminar in China. Right
    now, we are working in Vietnam to be able to help Vietnam to
    work in the Mekong Delta, because we know how to do it from
    Mississippi River.
        There is money that is actually given to us in the budget,
    called ``234'' money, a very small amount, but it allows us to
    be able to take some of the things we have learned in this
    country with Civil Works and to be able to use that in the
    interest of diplomatic relations with other countries. We will
    lay this out. We do this every month on a regular, normal
    rhythm for the rest of our combatant commanders. We are very
    proud of what we do in other areas.
        Ms. Kaptur. I am very, very interested in this,
    particularly as concerns Ukraine, Lebanon, and Jordan. And so
    you may not be doing anything there, but if you are, I would
    like to know what it is and enhance my own understanding. So I
    thank you very much for mentioning that this morning. I want to
    associate myself with the questioning and the concerns of
    Congressman Joyce. Both of us share the Lake Erie coastline in
    one way or another and the issues of dredging. We have talked
    about this in many of our private meetings with you. But I
    really hope that we as a country can come to a place where we
    look at the beneficial reuse of sediments, whether they are
    those dredged through your good works or coming at us through
    various municipal treatment plants, be it water or sewage. The
    world is starved for organics. We in the Lake Erie region have
    the largest dredging budget singly because of the topography
    and the fact God gave me the largest watershed in the entire
    Great Lakes. So we have challenges.
        But I keep looking at this and thinking of a private
    company like Scott's, for example, on steroids to deal with the
    volumes that we are talking about. And with modern technology,
    isn't that possible for us to find a market solution to these
    vast amounts of material?
        So this is the 21st century. Over at EPA, they have this
    under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, RCRA, they
    have the authority to try to work on beneficial reuse. Those
    titles have not been exercised, zero, in several decades. So I
    am just one of the members out there looking at this amazing
    resource between Erie, Pennsylvania, as you may know, and
    Kalamazoo, Michigan, in that big smile. It is the largest
    landscape industry in the United States of America and they
    need material all the time. And I am just thinking there has
    got to be a market solution here that benefits many players.
    And I appreciate what you have been doing with Cleveland Harbor
    and trying to crawl our way to some other way of behaving. I do
    not know if you have a comment on this, but in the area of
    beneficial reuse, it is really strikingly important in a region
    like ours.
        Mr. Lamont. Representative Kaptur, when I met you about a
    month ago, we talked about this very subject. I agree with you,
    this is a wasted resource. It is an opportunity, depending on
    the quality of the resource, for beneficial reuse. If it is a
    polluted sediment, that might be another consideration.
        But up and down our coasts, we have heard from a number of
    project sponsors asking while you are dredging your harbors, is
    there the opportunity to put sand on the beach if it is of
    suitable quality? Now, that is not exactly your issue, but in
    your district, and certainly the sediment relative to the
    landscaping industry, there is a potential opportunity, I
    agree.
        We have looked into our existing authorities, if there is
    an opportunity, for example, hypothetically, the dredgers would
    want to partner with the landscape industry or nursery industry
    and then partner with the State and the State could partner
    with the Corps of Engineers to maybe have a win-win situation
    here.
        General Semonite. And just to add on to that, ma'am, WRDA
    2016 directed us to do 10 pilots in this area. We are very
    excited about those pilots. We have gotten letters in from
    different States and we are going to make a decision by the end
    of '17. We are going to have a series of webinars to discuss
    the criteria, how are we going to decide what the pilots will
    be. We are going to be very, very open and transparent. But
    these are great opportunities to do exactly what we are doing.
    I am violently agreeing with you because we must figure out how
    we can use that material beneficially to save all of us money.
        We are doing a pilot right now in Toledo that is working
    very well. We want to be able to figure out how we can save
    taxpayers money and maybe even get public interest in this so
    we can then empty some of these areas that are full of dredge
    material over the years.
        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you for your aggressive leadership on
    this, General. We truly, if there is some way I can help,
    please let us know, and I know Mr. Joyce would feel that same
    way. Am I out of time?
        Mr. Fleischmann. I would be glad to let you ask another
    question, sure.
        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. You know, I
    am going to go to the Asian carp and we do not want this
    critter in our Great Lakes, $7 billion fishery. And when we
    last met, Mr. Lamont and I, thank you for meeting with us, you
    indicated you are waiting for a new Assistant Secretary for
    Civil Works to be confirmed before releasing the report. Is
    that still your position today and to your knowledge, has
    anybody been nominated yet?
        Mr. Lamont. No, ma'am, unfortunately, no one has been
    nominated to date. I continue to check with our White House
    liaison on this matter every week, every Monday, in fact, and I
    am hopeful that we are able to release the report. I share your
    concerns about the economic and environmental consequences of
    the Asian carp migrating up into the Great Lakes system.
        Ms. Kaptur. Do you actually need that Assistant Secretary
    to be in place in order to release the report?
        Mr. Lamont. What I am trying to do is to work that so that
    is not the case, so that we are not in a delay situation, which
    we have been, unfortunately.
        Ms. Kaptur. And my understanding is correct, the report is
    complete?
        Mr. Lamont. The report--it is a draft report, ma'am, which
    would still need to go out for public review. And I want to
    work with our counterparts and the White House to make sure
    that we get that opportunity to get the report released.
        Mr. Joyce. Will the gentlelady yield?
        Ms. Kaptur. I would be pleased to yield to the gentlemen.
        Mr. Joyce. Can you elaborate on this or any other Army
    Corps efforts that you may have underway to prevent the further
    spread of the Asian carp?
        Mr. Lamont. We have met with the folks who have asked that
    this report be put on hold. We have expressed our concerns
    relative to the ability to get all sides of the story out
    there. What I mean by that is to get a draft report out on the
    streets so that the folks who are in favor of, for example, a
    modification to the Brandon Road Lock, would be able to comment
    on it, and the opposing interests would also be able to do
    that. I think we have made inroads, they understand that
    shareholder input and stakeholder input, if you will, is
    critical to the ability to complete this report. I agree with
    you. I am trying to do everything I can to convince the
    Administration that this needs to be done.
        Mr. Joyce. Thank you, I yield back.
        Ms. Kaptur. I just wanted to say that at one point you
    stated the release of the Brandon Road Report has been deferred
    pending further coordination and, in a way, you tried to answer
    Mr. Joyce there. What is the coordination? You say a draft
    report. What has to happen in order to release it? If it were
    not so vital to the entire Great Lakes, I would not be
    pressing, but it is.
        Mr. Lamont. No, I understand fully your concern. I share
    that concern, and I want to do everything I can, and hopefully
    I am not dancing around this. I am trying to do everything I
    can to convince the Administration to release the draft report,
    to elicit all stakeholder input on this, so that we can come to
    a potential solution that would serve everyone's interest. That
    is critical.
        Ms. Kaptur. All right. And I would just state for the
    record to the members that may not be aware of this. In the
    President's budget submission, he has eliminated the Great
    Lakes Restoration Initiative, and that is where the money is
    coming from to date, and it is not the right place to fish out
    the carp south of Chicago--move them 30 miles south just for
    the moment--but we do not have a regular funding source without
    a biological control to keep these things out. So, one of my
    questions is, either directly now or in an answer back to us,
    assuming that we cannot fix the Great Lakes Restoration
    Initiative--I hope we can--what area of your budget could we
    plus up in order to move those fish back down the Mississippi?
    We have to.
        Mr. Serrano. Will they kill the beaver? I will take them.
        Ms. Kaptur. I was going to ask, can you send us some
    beavers? I do not know.
        Mr. Serrano. I am saying, if they kill the beaver, I won't
    take it, but I will take them if they do not kill the beaver.
        Mr. Lamont. Representative Kaptur, we do have enough funds
    to complete the draft report to get to a final feasibility
    report. That is one critical step. We might be able to work
    with you and your staff on looking at our Operations and
    Maintenance account on possible opportunities there.
        Ms. Kaptur. All right.
        Mr. Lamont. General Semonite and I would be happy to meet
    with you on that.
        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Simpson. Mr. Fortenberry.
        Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you Mr. Chairman. My questions will
    be directed to you, General Semonte. I am sorry, Semonite.
        Mr. Fortenberry. I am sure you have been challenged quite a
    bit on the 408 permitting process. In Nebraska, we have a very
    unique situation in which we have municipal authorities called
    the Natural Resource Districts, which are taxing authorities,
    which are held accountable by elected officials who run for the
    Board of the NRDs, in which we call it. There are various
    regions of the State. They do an outstanding job of flood
    control, meeting the demands for recreational projects as well
    as environmental restoration. A number of their projects enjoy
    extraordinary high numbers in terms of the benefit-to-cost
    ratio. You have supplemented their efforts on a number of
    occasions.
        There is a debate, of course, about the 408 permitting
    process as going beyond the original intention of the law in
    interfering, potentially, with the expedited issuance of
    initiation of new projects. That is one concern.
        Second is, is there consideration in which you can enter
    into joint financing agreements so that projects that are
    already evaluated by our municipal taxing authorities,
    governance structures, that are shovel-ready and ready to go,
    could be entered into with a supplement from the Federal
    Government and jointly shared by, again, the local taxing
    authorities so that we can expeditiously move shovel-ready
    study versus waiting for piles of money to be set aside and the
    huge opportunity cost that results from a slow progress on
    important projects?
        General Semonite. Congressman, we are very concerned about
    the speed of which we are doing permits, whether it is a 408 or
    all of the rest of the permits that we do under NEPA and 404.
    We have committed to be able to delegate some of these
    decisions. That allows the local commanders, the Colonels out
    there on the ground, to be able to make some of these
    decisions. There are about five different types. We have
    already delegated three of those down to the field, and our
    staff is looking at how we can continue to empower the team on
    the ground. The other thing is there are authorizations to be
    able to allow us to take monies; and what I probably need do,
    because it is a complicated area, is to ask my regulatory staff
    to come meet with your staff and look at the specific boards
    you are talking about and what can we do when it comes to
    funding. I do not want to get ahead of the P3 discussion here,
    because it is really not P3, but if there are some ways we can
    expedite it, anything that we can do to speed up the process,
    we are committed to do that.
        Mr. Fortenberry. Well, two things. In the 408 permitting
    process, there is a debate about whether you have taken
    authorities beyond where they were originally intended, which,
    again takes away authority from local initiatives.
        General Semonite. True.
        Mr. Fortenberry. Second is the aggressive partnering, and
    perhaps a new innovative way that would allow, again, municipal
    structures like we have uniquely in Nebraska that are dedicated
    to the similar mission. So these are held accountable to the
    public through elected officials and, again, they have their
    own taxing authority in which if there could be joint
    financing, we are ready to go and go quickly, that would meet
    the same objectives as the Corp of Engineers has.
        General Semonite. And sir, we want to work with you on
    this. We just have to make sure we have figured out what our
    authorities are, what can we do, and if we can find better ways
    of doing things for the right reason, we are all in.
        Mr. Fortenberry. So, are you indicating a shift of culture
    in the Corps in this regard? Are you looking at specific
    changes in the regulatory atmosphere, or all of the above?
        General Semonite. I think talking, personally, very
    holistically--I have been in the Army 37 years; I have been in
    the Corps 12 years. Over time, we have moved to where an awful
    lot of things come to Washington, D.C., for decisions. And so,
    in my 4 years, on my watch, wherever I can continue to make
    those decisions at the right level, that people are informed,
    they have the capacity, they have the authority to be able to
    do that, whatever I can do on my watch to streamline, we want
    to be able to do that.
        Mr. Fortenberry. Well, again, I am talking about governance
    authorities that have the same mission, or similar parallel
    missions that you do, that are ready to go, and, obviously,
    this affects us the most, so we are going to try to do it
    right.
        General Semonite. And sir, it is just a very complicated
    area. I do not want to get in front of anything we are doing
    for EPA or anything on which the Committee has given us other
    guidance. I just want to make sure we research this and figure
    out how can we find a common path ahead.
        Mr. Fortenberry. Okay, can we then see your staff within
    the next month or so?
        General Semonite. Yes, sir, the next couple of weeks, 2
    weeks.
        Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, General. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Mr. Simpson. Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My initial
    question is of Assistant Secretary Lamont and Lieutenant
    General Semonite because I am kind of at a loss here. Because
    it appears that funding for other ecosystem restoration work by
    the Corps in South Florida, including the Everglades Ecosystem,
    you know, the non-CERP South Florida ecosystem restoration
    funding has been cut by nearly $30 million. Are we really not
    funding non-CERP projects under the Corps construction account
    at all or is it that the Corps is supposed to perform all the
    construction work on non-CERP projects with only the $1 million
    allocated by this budget?
        Mr. Lamont. Ma'am, if I could get some clarification? You
    say, ``non-CERP,'' could you give me an example?
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Like the C-111 South Dade project
    which helps to prevent groundwater from seeping out of the
    Everglades National Park. I mean, that is an example of a non-
    CERP project.
        Mr. Lamont. There is not a concerted effort to slow down
    the Everglades work and related work in that area. What we are
    trying to do is to continue an orderly process. And I know you
    may be looking at the top line number, for example.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Yes. But here is why, Mr. Lamont,
    because non-CERP projects in fiscal year 2017 were funded at
    $30.5 million, and that still was not enough. How is the Corps
    going to continue to work on these vital projects with $1
    million? I mean, really? We are never going to finish
    restoration of the Everglades if----
        Mr. Lamont. My understanding is these non-CERP projects are
    anticipated to complete with prior year funds. That has been
    the emphasis. I do not want to give you the impression that we
    are trying----
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Are you suggesting----
        Mr. Lamont [continuing]. To slow things down.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz [continuing]. There are enough prior
    year's funds? There were not in fiscal year 2017.
        Mr. Lamont. Ma'am?
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. There are enough prior year funds to
    complete non-CERP projects?
        Mr. Lamont. Yes.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Well, not so far.
        Mr. Lamont. If you need additional information, I will work
    with you on that.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. If you could show me, that would be
    wonderful.
        Mr. Lamont. Okay.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And then I have a question for both
    of you about Port Everglades. Because you are zeroing out new
    starts, and we need construction funding for these projects
    across the country, the proposed budget requests a steep
    decrease in overall Corps construction funding.
        For example, Port Everglades, in my district, requires
    widening and deepening. We are authorized in the water bill. It
    is critical to our region that the Port Everglades Channel is
    widened and deepened. We have to go from planning, and design,
    and engineering to the construction. How many new starts does
    the Corps need to address all navigation construction projects
    that should be started in fiscal year 2018, including Port
    Everglades? And, also, how much construction funding would be
    required to appropriately address all of these projects in
    fiscal year 2018?
        Mr. Lamont. Let me try to address first your concern on
    Port Everglades. As with all Civil Works projects, they need to
    compete, and the competition is based on a benefit-cost ratio
    at a 7 percent discount rate. No matter what Administration,
    that is the criteria we must deal with.
        My understanding is on Port Everglades that preconstruction
    engineering and design is fully funded in the work plan for
    $2.8 million. We are trying to keep this project moving along.
    It has already been authorized. I worked personally on
    defending the Chief's report on this project in my former
    position, so I know exactly what you are saying. I have been to
    Port Everglades. I have seen the amazing amount of traffic
    through that small port.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And if you recall, we were
    significantly delayed by an error in the formula that the Corps
    made themselves. And so, we are already behind the eight ball,
    significantly behind where we should be, where construction
    funding should be in the pipeline already because we should
    have made the last water bill.
        Mr. Lamont. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And it was because of the Corps'
    error that we did not.
        Mr. Lamont. Along with, unfortunately, all the mitigation
    requirements that the project----
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Yes.
        Mr. Lamont [continuing]. Drew out through our coordination
    process. I agree with you.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And lastly, you mentioned in your
    statement, Lieutenant General Semonite, that the budget gives
    priority to coastal ports with high levels of commercial
    traffic. Again, Port Everglades is one of the top 10 busiest
    ports in the United States, but the budget allocates only
    $420,000 in Corps' Operations And Maintenance. What criteria
    was used in crafting the amounts allocated in this budget?
    Because I can tell you right now, $420,000 is sorely
    insufficient for the operation and maintenance of such a vital
    port like Port Everglades. Either one of you can answer.
        General Semonite. Congresswoman, there is a large backlog
    in O&M. It is over $2 billion right now, so it is just that we
    cannot do all the things we need to do across all the ports.
    And if there is anybody that is a fan of both the coastal ports
    and the inner waterways when it comes back to the imports and
    the exports and the economic value of this country, it is me. I
    have been involved in a lot of them. This is when we must keep
    pushing to try to get all the right funds we need to get to
    these projects.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Would you gentlemen mind, as I wrap
    up, Mr. Chairman, coming in and giving me a more granular
    briefing?
        General Semonite. Not at all, ma'am, that would be great.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you so much. I yield back.
        Mr. Simpson. Mr. Lamont and General, can you please discuss
    the status of the Columbia River Treaty? I know you got a new
    line item in this budget, $9.5 million for Columbia River
    Treaty, 2024 implementation. Where are we on that?
        General Semonite. Sir, I will give you more details, but
    our staff, Major General Spellmon up in the Northwestern
    Division, is working this to be able to continue, to be able to
    stay on track, to be able to get the plan in place.
        Right now, we are looking at some challenges with the
    storage and what is in the old plan with prepaid storage and
    what is going to happen with new storage. We are concerned
    about how that is going to work, and we have got to be able to
    make sure that we can set the conditions in the next couple of
    years so that we do not lose any equities with the United
    States as we continue to renegotiate this with Canada. But, I
    will certainly come in and lay this out or have the Division
    Commander do that as well.
        Mr. Simpson. Okay.
        General Semonite. It is ongoing. We have the best team
    working it up in the Northwestern Division to be able to ensure
    we are protecting the equities that we have had in some of the
    prior treaties.
        Mr. Simpson. I would appreciate an update on where we are
    on the Columbia Treaty negotiations. But the $9.5 million is
    just to do the work necessary? Continuing to negotiate this
    treaty and being involved in it and so forth?
        General Semonite. That is my understanding.
        Mr. Simpson. And what we have done in the past has just
    come out of the Army Corps budget, and this time we have line
    itemed it out?
        General Semonite. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Because there is so
    much extra effort that is really required. We have a lot of
    people working this, so I think that is where there is a
    delineation now to be able to make sure that we have dedicated
    funding so we do not end up somehow getting that effort cut.
        Mr. Simpson. Okay.
        Mr. Cameron. If I could, Mr. Chairman. The Department of
    the Interior is coordinating with the Corps and the State
    Department as well, because we clearly have interest in this
    issue.
        Mr. Simpson. Yes. Mr. Mikkelsen, you mentioned in your
    testimony that the flooding that is going on currently in
    Western States, if it is not a drought, it is a flood. It seems
    like nothing in between. And as you know, we had a record
    amount of snow in a lot of the Pacific Northwest and,
    unfortunately, the melting pattern has been rather rapid.
        What is the Bureau and what is the Army Corps doing about
    the flooding that is going on, particularly in Idaho and other
    Western States? As you know, we have had washouts of roads and
    everything else. It is a mess up there right now.
        Mr. Mikkelsen. Mr. Chairman, Reclamation has been
    monitoring reservoir elevations, reservoir levels in
    conjunction with releases ever since we started with runoff
    this spring. And to the maximum extent possible, given the
    limitations of the system and the existing snowpack, we have
    probably minimized flooding to the tune of hundreds of millions
    of dollars at this point.
        For instance, just in Idaho, on the Boise River we are
    running about 9,700 cubic feet per second (CFS) through
    downtown Boise. That is about as much as we can run, but we
    have been running that for a long time to just make sure that
    we do not have to have any surge events happening.
        Mr. Simpson. Good.
        General Semonite. Mr. Chairman, very, very similar. A lot
    of it is, pre-storm, pre-event, how we can continue to be able
    to draw down to the right level.
        Our teams are out on the ground working very, very closely
    with local and State authorities. If there is damage out there,
    then we can utilize our FCCE money that has been appropriated.
    We are able to ensure that we are able to repair some of those
    damages if that is the case.
        I think the main thing also is being very transparent, and
    we have a lot of systems that we can put on the web, so
    everybody can see where we see the water going, and continue to
    try to be advised of what is out there.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Who is next? What order are we in?
    We are going to start the second round. Ms. Kaptur.
        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General Semonite, I
    might ask your help in the following way. I know that General
    Toy is going to be doing hearings throughout the Great Lakes,
    and I would like to use this opportunity to see if you might be
    able to help me.
        The dates we have been given are dates that it is
    impossible for a member to be there because we are voting, and
    I would very much like to gather all of the mayors from my long
    district along the lake to meet with him and deal with some of
    the significant issues we face on our watershed.
        So if you could just take--maybe you could help make that
    happen if there is some way to reschedule or add another day or
    something. There is really a lot of pent-up desire to meet with
    the general. So perhaps you could take that message back for
    me?
        General Semonite. We will definitely take it on, ma'am.
    Whatever we can do if it is General Toy, or if we need to have
    other people there. If you want me to fly in, it is no problem.
    We would love to be able to meet with the stakeholders.
        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much. I have a couple of other
    questions, if I could here. Do you, General Semonite, do you
    have any relationships on the Great Lakes related to energy
    production?
        General Semonite. So I probably need to get back with you
    on the details. There are a lot of areas where we might have a
    dam where we have a lock, let's say, and we allow a private
    vendor go in and put a small hydro in one of those. A good
    example, on Lake Erie, I know we have one of those.
        That way we are able to save the taxpayers money because we
    take some of the electricity that that vendor uses, and we run
    our piece, and we do not have to pay O&M to some other power
    vendor. And therefore, he is able to do O&M for the lock and
    dam. This is something that is probably 20 or 30 years old.
        But there are probably a lot more of those that are out
    there, but wherever we have been able to find ways of bringing
    in private entities, we have certainly done that. Of course, we
    do the same thing for recreation. I know your question is
    really on energy, but if you want I will have General Toy to
    lay out the information for the whole Great Lakes region and
    figure out where are we, and then if you think we should be
    doing something more than we are doing within our authorities,
    I am more than willing to look at those opportunities.
        Ms. Kaptur. All right. Well, you know, we call our
    committee Energy and Water, and I am very jealous, really, of
    other parts of the country when I see what is going on and some
    of the challenges we face. But with new energy technologies and
    so forth I do not know how the Corps really thinks about that,
    and I would be very benefited by a briefing on that and
    examples from our region, and perhaps a few examples from
    others.
        They are very different systems, but with some of the
    technologies and facilities that you manage it might be very
    interesting to look at the energy piece, even though albeit it
    very small, in the Great Lakes. But nonetheless, it would be
    interesting to see your history there.
        General Semonite. This goes back to a question the Chairman
    asked earlier about P3, and I do not know if everybody was
    here, but we need to have policy on this. We have a lot of
    people that walk in, private companies, and say we would like
    to be able to tack something on the back side of your dam
    because we are able to make money on the use of the water.
        Well, that is great, but, on the other hand, I need to make
    sure that the interests of the Federal Government are taken
    care of as well. So there cannot be any free lunch. We must be
    able to figure out how to share that risk. And if there is a
    way, without damaging the capabilities of the project, that we
    can continue to be able to get some degree of private funding
    if that would then bring down the O&M budget.
        We are looking at a lot of these things now. It does go
    back to the fact that we must have some good policy on exactly
    how do we take the P3 piece and work that, even at a much
    smaller level.
        Ms. Kaptur. All right. Do you have any relationships with
    the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation either
    related to the lock operations or energy production?
        General Semonite. I know that our Commanders have
    relationships. I think they are actually on the Commission, so
    they continue to look at water flow, ecosystem restoration,
    both our Buffalo district, as well as General Toy and his role
    there as the Lakes and Rivers Division Commander.
        I am not sure of the formality of exactly what that gives
    them with respect to authorities, but I know that we have a
    very close relationship with the Commission.
        Ms. Kaptur. All right. I would be very interested in a
    briefing perhaps with our Great Lakes members to hear a little
    bit more about what that is, how that works.
        General Semonite. Yes, and maybe the best thing we can do
    is if there is ever a time where you have either the Governors
    together, or the stakeholders together that we fly in with a
    team and lay out what we are doing in ecosystem. What we are
    doing on energy.
        We are systems people. We want to look at everything
    because it all works together, and whatever we do for
    navigation has impacts back to the ecosystem. The more that we
    can talk about all the variables that are in these systems,
    then everybody does not take a parochial viewpoint as to the
    one thing that they care about.
        They must understand there must be plusses and minuses
    across the entire system.
        Ms. Kaptur. All right. My final question relates to the Soo
    Lock and we wrote a letter to the Corps expressing our concerns
    about how you were conducting the economic reevaluation of the
    Soo Lock. Could you comment on the methodology that is being
    used in the reevaluation, and if that reevaluation will be
    finished within the 2-year time schedule?
        General Semonite. It will be done within the time period.
    We are working funding issues right now. We want to make sure
    that it gets the money it continues to need to be able to
    finish. There is just a small amount of money there.
        As far as the exact methodology, it includes consideration
    of a conveyer system consistent with approaches taken on other
    navigation lock projects throughout the Corps. We are looking
    at least cost, technically feasible alternatives. Again, this
    is another thing that is a relatively complex brief, but if you
    want to, we can certainly schedule some opportunity to lay out
    exactly what that methodology is.
        And, again, we want to be informed. If there is something
    that we should be doing that we are not, we want to make sure
    that we are listening to the bright ideas of where, other
    people need us to go. I think we have been very transparent,
    but that is a relatively regional area, and I just do not have
    the expertise at this level to answer your question.
        Ms. Kaptur. All right. I know that Congressman Joyce and I
    co-chair the Great Lakes task force, and Congressman Huizenga
    is the representative from the House on the International Joint
    Commission now, and all of us have a deep interest in the Soo
    Lock and its future.
        General Semonite. I will get you a factsheet right away. I
    have my factsheets here that I can walk you through. It is
    relatively detailed, so we can give you something in a couple
    days, and then if you think you want a lot more, we will come
    and walk through exactly where we are going to go on this.
        Ms. Kaptur. All right. Thank you. Thank you very much.
    Thank you, gentlemen.
        Ms. Simpson. Mr. Aguilar.
        Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my
    understanding that the Army Corps has played a role
    historically in past Department of Homeland Security-related
    border infrastructure projects along the Southern border of the
    United States assisting with technical expertise, testing
    oversight, and contracting out certain assignments. Could you
    give us a run through of those past efforts, what you
    anticipate your role will be in fiscal year 2018?
        General Semonite. Congressman, you are right. We have
    worked very closely with the Customs and Border Patrol not only
    in the United States, but where they have gone to other
    countries and tried to help. We have built border stations in
    the country of Georgia, for instance.
        What we have done recently is mainly repair work on what we
    call ``the fence.'' There were some smaller portions, both
    personnel fences and vehicle fences, that were put in by us
    back in 2006. Some of those need maintenance or need additional
    work. Some of those were not completed in their entirety.
        Right now we are working for the Customs and Border Patrol
    to go back into existing areas and mainly replace or finish the
    type of construction that was done back in 2006 to 2009. Again,
    we work for Customs and Border Patrol.
        I do have seven large laboratories that are very good when
    it comes to hydraulics, when it comes to things like tunnel
    detection, when it comes to geospatial information. We have
    been asked by Customs and Border to partner and to be able to
    use the technology in those laboratories as they look at what
    the options are on a future construction of the potential wall.
    So right now we are offering our services to Customs and Border
    mainly in a design and technical advice type realm.
        Mr. Aguilar. What do you anticipate for fiscal year 2018
    that support to Customs and Border Patrol being?
        General Semonite. I think right now they have asked us to
    do about $11 million in '17. I do not have the '18 number. I am
    sure that is in the budget. I just did not pull that for this
    hearing. We can certainly tell you that, but it is strictly a
    reimbursable basis.
        The money would go to Customs and Border, and then they
    would contract us to do----
        Mr. Aguilar. You are a contractor for services?
        General Semonite. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Aguilar. In providing that, if you are asked to flex up
    or directed to provide additional support it would come through
    that same similar type of line item, through CBP, appropriated
    and authorized through CBP, and then you would then contract
    that piece out? Whether it is the labs or whether it is, you
    know, physical construction for the repair portions?
        General Semonite. Correct. If it is done in-house, we do
    not contract it. We would task our guys and then reimburse
    them. But what you are saying is correct. We would then acquire
    those services either with an independent contractor or with
    our own in-house staff.
        Mr. Aguilar. Okay. Well, I think that we will probably dig
    a little bit deeper on this discussion and ask you additional
    questions as we move forward.
        General Semonite. And, Congressman, as we move forward we
    would provide whatever you want. I would just ask that when we
    do that, that we continue to be able to have the Customs and
    Border team there. We are very committed to be able to work
    underneath their direction and not to get out ahead of them.
        Mr. Aguilar. Sure. I appreciate it. Thanks, General.
    Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you. And I thank all of you for being
    here today and for your testimony. As the ranking member said,
    this is the Energy and Water Committee, and obviously water is
    a very important aspect of the bill that we put together. And
    we have over the years been very cognizant, I think, as a
    Committee and really as a Congress on a bipartisan basis of
    sometimes the insufficiency of the request from either the
    Obama administration or from this administration and stuff.
        And, you know, we have got a WRDA target that is about $375
    million or something like that, a million above what the
    request was for, and this Committee has worked very hard to
    make sure that we give adequate funding to the important work
    that you do. And it is not because you all have sterling
    personalities, although you do. It is because of the important
    work you do and the recognition by members of Congress on both
    sides of the aisle that infrastructure is very important. So we
    want to work with you to try to devise a budget that is best
    for the Nation and the work that you do.
        So I thank you all for being here today and we look forward
    to working with you.
        Hearing is adjourned.
        [Questions and answers submitted for the record follow:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                                Tuesday, June 20, 2017.

                              DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                                    WITNESS

    HON. RICK PERRY, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
        Mr. Simpson. The hearing will come to order.
        It is my great pleasure to welcome Secretary Perry to this
    first meeting with the Energy and Water Subcommittee.
        Secretary Perry, congratulations on your selection as the
    14th Secretary of Energy, and thank you for your continued
    service to our country.
        We have a lot to discuss today, so I will keep my remarks
    rather brief.
        This budget request reflects the importance of the
    Department of Energy's national security responsibilities. The
    budget request proposes a strong increase, $994 million, for
    the nuclear weapons activities, and we need to ensure the
    effective nuclear deterrence now and for our future. This
    program and other defense activities for this bill are and will
    remain a high priority for this committee.
        I am also pleased that this budget request proposes
    appropriate funding for Yucca Mountain. The previous
    administration made the costly, and I believe wrong, decision
    to abandon the Yucca licensing application, changing courses on
    this program, and ignoring the law.
        The President's budget proposal proposes a $3.5 billion
    decrease for energy programs, reflecting the Administrations's
    decisions to focus resources on early stage research and
    development. That is a substantial reduction, a reduction this
    committee must carefully review in order to understand the
    impacts to the important programs and activities within this
    bill.
        Like the President, we want to eliminate waste and
    duplication, and ensure the best use of each and every taxpayer
    dollar. This hearing is an important part of our oversight
    process.
        I appreciate you being here today and hope that we can work
    together to move forward on a budget that will ensure our
    energy independence and keep consumer prices affordable.
        Please ensure that the hearing record, questions for the
    record, and any supporting information requested by the
    subcommittee are delivered in final form to us no later than 4
    weeks from the time that you receive them. Members who have
    additional questions for the record will have until close of
    business on Thursday to provide them to the subcommittee's
    office.
        With that, I will turn to my ranking member, Ms. Kaptur,
    for her opening statement.
        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I don't know if I can be as brief, but I want to welcome
    the new Secretary, someone who has experience as an
    appropriator himself, and also a Governor, former Governor,
    from a very important energy State. You have a lot of
    experience and we need it all.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding the time, and
    Secretary Perry for joining us today in your very first hearing
    before this committee, which you will come to like.
    Congratulations on your confirmation.
        The budget request for the Department of Energy, while
    providing healthy increases of 9 percent to defense accounts,
    unfortunately slashes the nondefense energy accounts by more
    than one-third, of which science is cut by 17 percent.
        To speak to the energy and science accounts for a moment,
    initial estimates are that this budget request, if enacted,
    would result in the loss of approximately 7,000 highly skilled
    technical experts in job positions at the Department's world
    class National Labs. This is a big worry, this is a big class
    worry.
        Given that the labs have a multiplier effect on jobs in
    their communities, somewhere in the range of two to three, the
    total job loss would be in the range of 14,000 to 21,000 jobs.
    In addition, initial estimates are that the reductions to just
    the energy efficiency and renewable energy and science
    accounts, the sector inventing our future and of diversified
    energy production in this country, will result in some $2
    billion less in Federal support to universities and other
    research institutions essential to nurturing America's future
    scientific expertise. This is another world class worry.
        The United States remains, despite recent efforts to reduce
    funding, a leader in innovation. But this budget, I fear, cedes
    that leadership to China and nations in the energy and basic
    science sectors. China has already monetized the solar panel
    industry, and I could talk to you for hours about that,
    appropriating American innovation and cornering the market in
    manufacturing for the industry with a lot of intellectual
    property theft going on at the basis of that. While this budget
    proposes to cut funding for clean energy, China is prepared to
    spend $360 billion by 2020 on clean energy, while creating 13
    million jobs and dislocating millions more of ours. This is
    anything but an America First policy.
        This budget request also moves the Department's focus to
    early stage research, terminating all later stage research,
    which frankly I can't understand, along with any deployment-
    related activities. While we have struggled with the
    appropriate split between early and late stage R&D, along with
    which deployment activities to support, my fear is that this
    approach will result in a cornucopia of good ideas residing at
    the labs in a form still insufficiently mature for private
    industry to take over. We must have attention to this segment
    of the budget. We have been, for years, talking about what we
    can do to accelerate the development of technology originating
    in our labs; this budget would be a step back.
        Let me end with this: Turning to the Office of Energy
    Efficiency and Renewable Energy, I would like to read from a
    letter written to our subcommittee, which I would like to
    associate myself with. The letter is right here. It says: We
    are the entire group of Senate confirmed Republican and
    Democratic Assistant Secretaries of Energy who led the DOE
    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy between 1989
    and 2017. We are particularly concerned about the
    administration's recent proposal to cut the EERE budget by 69
    percent from fiscal year 2017 enacted levels.
        While we have not always agreed on the relative emphasis of
    various elements of the EERE budget, we are unified that cuts
    of this magnitude in the proposed fiscal year 2018 budget will
    do serious harm to this office's critical work and America's
    energy future. EERE supported research development and
    demonstration and energy efficiency, transportation, renewable
    energy, clean energy, manufacturing, and electric grid
    modernization are critical to encouraging U.S. innovation,
    creating good paying jobs, cutting pollution, and ensuring
    American global competitiveness.
        Other important EERE programs with similar benefits focus
    on setting efficiency standards for appliances and equipment,
    helping States deliver energy efficiency improvements, leading
    the Federal Government's efforts to reduce its own $23 billion
    of annual energy bills, and cutting energy use in low-income
    homes.
        Mr. Chairman, I would ask permission to enter the entirety
    of this letter into the record.
        And with that, I will close my remarks.
        Mr. Simpson. Without objection.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you once again, Mr. Secretary, for being
    here with us today, and we look forward to your testimony.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the time.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you. We are also glad to have the
    chairman of the full committee and the ranking member of the
    full committee with us today.
        Mr. Frelinghuysen.
        Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Secretary, good afternoon. Mr.
    Chairman, thank you for the time. I also welcome Secretary
    Perry to the Appropriations Committee. We look forward to your
    testimony in hearing your frank and candid views on many
    issues.
        Today's hearing is an important part of the oversight
    duties of the committee. After all, the power of the purse lies
    in this building. It is the constitutional duty of Congress to
    make spending decisions on behalf of the people we represent.
        As you referenced in your testimony, Mr. Secretary, you
    must annually certify to the President the American nuclear
    weapons stockpile remains safe, secure, and reliable. I think
    there is no more important responsibility. I think you know
    that.
        These are nuclear systems that are part of our national
    defense, and they are essential to meeting our commitments to
    our allies and showing resolve to our adversaries. The
    committee has always provided vigorous support to the nuclear
    weapons stockpile. I am pleased to see that the administration
    recognized that with this budget request. And may I also say
    that I am a strong believer in nuclear power as being one of
    the solutions to our vast energy needs, and the fact that you
    recognize that yourself I do hope is true.
        Your proposal of the Department also takes great strides to
    deliver our exascale computing system. This is an area where
    the United States has been losing ground to China and others. I
    agree with you, we must take back American primacy in computing
    science. The United States has correctly invested heavily in
    scientific research. This work has produced dramatic scientific
    breakthroughs and innovation, and in the process, created high
    quality jobs for Americans. We know you have a lot of difficult
    decisions to make.
        I do have some concerns about cuts to the fusion program
    and to certain aspects of nuclear energy. As you may know, the
    committee has repeatedly endorsed moving forward in the area of
    fusion energy. The proposed decreases, which are pretty
    dramatic, will inevitably delay some of the progress we are
    making in this exciting field, including in my home State of
    New Jersey, at the Princeton Plasma Physics Labs.
        I look forward to hearing more about these proposed cuts,
    and like the Chairman and other members, it should come as no
    surprise, we are very supportive of the work we need to do at
    Yucca Mountain. It's huge, billions of dollars of investments
    there. We need to get it open and use it as a proper depository
    for the future.
        Again, thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mrs. Lowey.
        Mrs. Lowey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
    Kaptur, for holding this hearing. And I would like to join my
    colleagues in welcoming you, Secretary Kerry, before--Perry,
    Secretary Perry, before the committee.
        The Department of Energy has a critical role in America's
    national security and its economic prosperity. Its focus on
    research, development, deployment of clean energy, and
    efficient technologies makes the Department a leader in
    scientific innovation, job creation, and the battle against
    climate change.
        The President's fiscal year 2018 budget requests $28
    billion in discretionary spending, a reduction of $2.6 billion
    from the fiscal year 2017 enacted level. On its surface, this
    funding level may not sound as drastic as the cuts proposed for
    other agencies, but increases 11.2 percent the National Nuclear
    Security Administration, 9.3 percent for atomic energy defense
    activities, which means the energy and science programs would
    be decimated with a 30 percent cut.
        While you no longer propose to eliminate the Department of
    Energy, your budget request would do grievous harm to American
    families by abandoning scientific innovation and ignoring the
    pressing threat of climate change. Carbon emissions are
    creating holes in our ozone layer and contributed to changing
    and often dangerous weather patterns around the world. Climate
    change has manifested as catastrophic events that threaten our
    national security and the livelihoods of American families.
        We are at a pivotal moment in world history, as there is
    still time to protect our planet from the disastrous impacts of
    climate change. Yet your budget proposes to reduce energy
    efficiency and renewable energy by a staggering $1.43 billion,
    or 69.3 percent.
        In addition, the National Academies of Sciences,
    Engineering, and Medicine just released a study finding that
    ARPA-E has successfully advanced American innovation, and yet
    your budget would terminate the program. These two offices
    contribute to important scientific research, reduce our
    dependence on foreign oil, and create 21st century clean energy
    jobs.
        There are more than 678,000 jobs in renewable energy in
    this country, and that number could be much higher if the
    Department of Energy continues to invest in energy research.
    Unfortunately, your budget is filled with false choices and by
    reducing investments in clean energy jobs. Just another broken
    promise by the Trump administration.
        The Department of Energy should be looking forward, paving
    the way to create new, clean, renewable energy technologies, to
    create American jobs, foster American energy and dependence,
    not cede the innovation frontier to other nations, with China
    leading the charge to undermine American leadership.
        I do hope Congress will work together. My friends on both
    sides of the aisle, I hope, will reject the Trump
    administration's misguided budget proposal in favor of a
    spending bill that works for all Americans.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
        Again, Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here today. We
    welcome you. And let me say on a personal note, thank you for
    getting out. I know you have been active in the first few
    months in getting out and seeing the sites and the laboratories
    and what the DOE does. And thanks for coming to Idaho and Oak
    Ridge and other places. It is very nice to have a very active
    Secretary that is going to get out and investigate what this
    incredible Department does.
        So the time is yours.
        Secretary Perry. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and to
    all the Members. Ranking Member Kaptur, Mrs. Lowey, thank you
    for your remarks. And it is--I was just sitting here thinking
    as you all were speaking that this is the first time I have
    ever been on this side of the table, so I think I may like this
    side better.
        With that said, let me just share with you what an honor it
    is for me to be sitting here on this side to discuss President
    Trump's fiscal year 2018 budget request. I hope you know what a
    great privilege it is for me to serve this country one more
    time as the 14th Energy Secretary. And as you rightfully point
    out, I was a former legislative appropriator and a Governor,
    and I am very respectful of the budget writing process. I know
    the importance of the work that you are undertaking.
        And, Mrs. Lowey, again, I look forward to working with you
    and the members of this committee and the rest of our friends
    here on the Hill to finalize a budget that we can all be proud
    of and that serves the taxpayers well.
        In my three and a half months as Secretary of Energy, I
    have seen the firsthand impact of the Department's leadership,
    both domestically and internationally. I have traveled around
    the country to many of the National Labs, some based in your
    districts, and met with the brilliant minds that are driving
    their missions. And I look forward to visiting every one of
    them.
        These labs are truly national treasures. They are the
    future of innovation in this country. I have been in awe at the
    diverse scope of the Department's mission, this consequential
    work that we are charged with overtaking, overseeing. And I
    have also traveled oversees representing the United States both
    in Rome at the G7 and China a couple of weeks ago for the clean
    energy mission innovation ministerials.
        I had the opportunity to visit Japan on that trip to China
    and met with their leaders and their stakeholders about the
    future of our energy partnership. And on a pretty somber note,
    I toured the site of the Fukushima disaster and recognized what
    a monumental task they have before them.
        Interesting in my trip, and coincidently I guess you could
    say, that trip to China began on the day that President Trump
    announced that he would officially withdraw the United States
    from the Paris Agreement. I delivered his message to the world
    that, even though the United States was no longer a part of the
    Paris Agreement, we are still the leader in clean energy
    technology and we are committed to that mission.
        The Department of Energy does many things, many things
    well. And America has been remind--I should say it has remained
    on the forefront of technology for over 40 years because of the
    amazing men and women that work both at our headquarters and at
    these National Labs and men and women who are stationed with
    the Department of Energy overseas. They wake up every day
    knowing that they will make a real difference in people's
    lives.
        I told them on my first day that the greatest job I ever
    had was being the Governor of Texas. But after working here, I
    have come to realize that being the Secretary of Energy is now
    officially the coolest job I ever had. Under my leadership, our
    experts at DOE are going to continue to work for the benefit of
    every American and our allies alike.
        As Secretary of Energy, I am also a member of the National
    Security Council, and this council obviously is supported by
    the DOE and its mission to keep our Nation safe. President
    Trump's fiscal year 2018 budget request for the Department of
    Energy provides $28 billion to advance our key missions and
    focuses on important investments, including ensuring the safety
    and effectiveness of our nuclear weapons arsenal, protecting
    our energy infrastructure from cyber attacks and other threats,
    achieving exascale. That is so important, focusing the amazing
    network of our National Laboratories on early stage research
    and development.
        And my goals are straightforward: Advance our Nation's
    critical energy and scientific R&D missions, strengthen our
    nuclear security, fulfill our environmental management
    commitments.
        Mr. Chairman, I have just painted a rather rosy picture, a
    bright picture. And while there is a lot of good news to
    report, there are other hard conversations that we need to
    have. As you are well aware, there are approximately 120 sites
    in 39 States that are storing spent nuclear fuel or high-level
    waste. Every member on that dais has waste in your State. We
    have a moral and national security obligation to come up with a
    long-term solution, finding the safest repositories available.
        Listen, I understand this is a politically sensitive topic
    for some, but we can no longer kick the can down the road. As a
    former legislative appropriator, as an agency head, as the
    Governor, I understand following the rule of law is important.
    I have been instructed to move forward towards that goal. The
    President's budget requests $120.7 million to resume licensing
    activities for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository and
    to initiate a robust interim storage program.
        Now, in addition to that challenge, Congress has spent $5
    billion, taxpayer dollars on the MOX project that is way over
    budget with no end in sight. The Army Corps of Engineers
    estimated a cost of $17.2 billion and a completion date of
    2048. The money appropriated for this project is money that
    could be used towards other priorities, like national security
    or cleanup at other sites. There is a better, there is a
    cheaper, there is a proven way to dispose of plutonium. In
    fact, we are already doing it.
        I look forward to having an ongoing dialogue with many of
    you about these tough but important issues in the days and the
    months to come. This budget proposal makes some difficult
    choices, but it is paramount that we execute our fiduciary
    responsibility to the American taxpayer.
        The President's proposal prioritizes the core mission of
    the Department by consolidating duplications within our agency
    in order to respect the American taxpayer. He deserves credit
    for beginning this discussion about how we most wisely spend
    our scarce Federal resources.
        As for me, this isn't my first rodeo. During my 14 years as
    Governor, I managed some tight budget circumstances. And I will
    suggest successfully, Alison, and I will do the same as the
    Secretary of Energy. Faced with limited resources, Texas became
    a shining example of energy growth, economic growth, higher
    educational standards, and important improvements to our
    environment. And we did it by all working together, Democrats,
    Republicans, folks that didn't want to be associated with
    either political party for that matter, but they loved their
    State. And just like you in this room, we love this country and
    we will find the solutions together, because we will set clear
    goals. We will manage the best and the brightest to achieve
    those goals and we will spend those scarce resources wisely.
        So with your help, I believe we can attain many positive
    outcomes at the Department of Energy on behalf of the American
    people.
        I thank you again for the opportunity to be in front of
    you, and I will attempt to answer your questions as well as I
    can.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        My first question was going to be to ask you about your
    vision for the Department of Energy, but I think you pretty
    much described that in your opening statement.
        Secretary Perry. Thank you.
        Mr. Simpson. So I will forego that question and get into
    some specifics. I was glad to see that you put money into, as I
    said in my opening statement, into Yucca Mountain. That is
    something that this committee has put money into for the last
    several years, and it always gets dropped in conference between
    the confrontation, I guess is the best word, between the House
    and the Senate on this issue. I noticed you also put money in
    for interim storage.
        First of all, despite the current law, the previous
    administration shut down the activities at Yucca Mountain. And
    can you briefly discuss your plans to move forward with Yucca
    and what you can do now to get things going while we await the
    additional funds from Congress? And tied with that is, what do
    you plan to do on interim storage when the current law and the
    thing that keeps us from moving there--and you mentioned how
    you always want to follow the law--but the law says licensing
    conditions for interim storage. Any license issued by the
    commission for a monitored or achievable storage facility under
    this section shall provide that, one, construction of such
    facility may not begin until the commission has issued a
    license for the construction of the repository under section
    115(d), on and on----
        Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Simpson [continuing]. At Yucca Mountain.
        Secretary Perry. Yes, sir. Thank you. I am not sure there
    is an issue that is any more politically sensitive. I mean, you
    all have been dealing with this for years. But I think it is
    important for us to step back and look at the kind of the
    global aspect of--and I think it is so important for the
    Members of Congress to be substantially a part of this
    solution, because it is your citizens that have the most to
    lose if we continue to leave this waste in your districts. And
    in sites that are--Mr. Aguilar and I were just talking, over in
    the Inland Empire you are right next to a nuclear facility.
        When I was at Fukushima and we were talking about both the
    construction and the geology, if you will, the geography as
    well, and having those spent fuel rods in those cooling ponds
    in a region of the world that is inside that ring of fire, as
    they call it, and the potential to have a geologic event, and
    we could have a repeat of what happened at Fukushima to some
    degree. I mean, we have a moral obligation, as I said in my
    remarks, to remove this from as many of these sites as we can
    and put it in the safest repository.
        I went to Yucca. The first trip I took as the Secretary was
    to go to Nevada, to see that facility, to talk to the men and
    women that have been working on it for, in some cases, decades,
    and recognize that that is the proper place for long-term
    storage.
        So for us to do our duty, to follow the law, to put a plan
    into place, I think it is very important, Mr. Chairman. And the
    funding of NRC is important, because their licensing process,
    you know--from my perspective, this is a--this is a dual track.
    We need to be doing what we are doing, stand up the office,
    move towards having an orderly transition back to following the
    law, while the NRC is following their licensing. You can kind
    of help me on this one, but their funding is not in our----
        Ms. Doone. Correct.
        Secretary Perry. They have their own funding, and so they
    will be over here asking you for that.
        Mr. Simpson. Yeah.
        Secretary Perry. But anyway.
        Mr. Simpson. Let me ask you, is there anything you can do?
    I would like to believe this budget will become the law of the
    land by October 1. I am not sure that is the reality, and we
    may end up in CRs and all sorts of things like that. We hope
    not, it is not our goal. Is there anything we can do between
    now and when this 2018 budget becomes law to help stand up the
    office and start moving forward on Yucca?
        Secretary Perry. We have some funds available to do that.
    And I am comfortable that that is our goal, to stand the office
    up, to clearly send the message that, that is the direction.
        You asked another question, Mr. Chairman, if I can briefly,
    you asked, rather, about interim storage. And I happen to be
    one of those that think that you can do and we should do both
    interim storage as we are working towards standing Yucca
    Mountain back up and getting it operational and following the
    law.
        The interim side of this, again, and I know we are going to
    talk about MOX later, but WIPP in New Mexico, a waste control
    specialist in the western side of Texas; those are both
    places--and I happen to think out at the Nevada test site--and
    again, I am not wanting to, stir something up here just for the
    sake of stirring something up, but if we are truly looking for
    the proper places to interimly store some waste, that test site
    has the potential to do that as well.
        And so there are a number of ways to deal with this. And I
    think it is so important to have the discussion with the
    Members of Congress so that they can share with their
    constituents why this is so important, that we move as much of
    this waste, whether it is transuranic waste or whether it is
    high-level waste, out of their districts to appropriate either
    interim, or in the case of Yucca Mountain, permanent storage
    sites.
        Mr. Simpson. I appreciate that. And I happen to be one that
    agrees with both interim and Yucca Mountain, that we need both
    of them. If we opened Yucca Mountain tomorrow, it would be
    filled if we put everything in there.
        Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Simpson. So we have got to have interim storage. It
    would require to move forward with constructing an interim
    storage facility to changing the law. So we need to be working
    on that. So I know the Senate, Lamar and some others in the
    Senate, are working on some language. But anyway, we will work
    with you on that.
        Members, I am going to try to keep the questions to the 5-
    minute rule, especially through the first round, because we do
    have many members here today.
        So, Marcy.
        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you.
        Mr. Secretary, I come from the industrial heartland, Ohio.
    Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Indiana carried for the
    President. And so my question really concerns the proposed cuts
    in advanced manufacturing, which bite very hard in our region.
        In my district alone, I represent the Ford EcoBoost engine
    manufacturing facility at Brook Park; the largest truck
    facility for Ford at Avon. This is their heavy truck facility,
    the 750s and so forth; General Motors premier transmissions
    facility globally at Toledo; the entire--the largest Fiat-
    Chrysler manufacturing platform at Toledo for the Wrangler and
    Cherokee and so forth; and of course, major steel industries
    like ArcelorMittal, Republic, and U.S. Steel, which are
    undergoing enormous pressure because of dumping.
        I wanted to be direct--we can all get acquainted here. And
    obviously, you are from Texas, I am from Ohio. But your
    budget--the President's budget makes a 68 percent cut to this
    advanced manufacturing office at DOE. And I would really ask
    you, as we move forward with this budget, to work with us on
    this. Because when I spoke to one of the CEOs, and I am not
    going to tell you which one, for all North American operation,
    I said, what can I do to help you bring jobs back to this
    region? And his answer was, energy, energy. Find me a way to
    cut my costs in energy by one-third. By one-third.
        So we need--this is a tiny office compared to some of the
    other ones. But I just wanted to ask you where should I direct
    industries in my district if the energy audits and other
    support services that DOE currently offers, which are not
    sufficient, where are we supposed to send them?
        Secretary Perry. Ms. Kaptur, thank you. If there is one
    thing I have been a proponent of, and that is creating jobs and
    how to do it in States, and we--while I was a Governor, we were
    able to lure manufacturing jobs to the State of Texas, Toyota.
    As a matter of fact, every Toyota pickup truck--you know, there
    are lots of good brands of pickup trucks to drive. I am not
    picking them out. I mean, they were just a company that we were
    able to recruit and come to the State of Texas.
        And so I live and breathe competition every day. So I
    completely and totally respect what you have just said. With
    that, I would like to remind people that I am very--I am fairly
    versed in the budgeting process, and I know how this works.
    Again, it is the first time I have sat on this side of the
    table, but I know that the flexibility that you all can give to
    an agency head will be very, very helpful.
        So being able to prioritize where we focus our efforts,
    where we--being able to reduce duplication, being able to find
    places to save dollars, at the same time being able to deliver
    the product that the citizens want. Your constituents, I think
    they want to be able to know that there is an agency that,
    number one, is going to be responsive to their request, if it
    happens to be with energy efficiency or if it happens to be
    with--you know, is there a better way to deliver to your truck
    manufacturers some technology, innovation, partnerships? That
    is what we are going to be working on. Is it going to be in the
    structure that the previous administration or the previous
    administration from before them?
        Ms. Kaptur. Mr. Secretary, we invite you to the automotive
    heartland.
        Secretary Perry. Yes, ma'am, I will be there.
        Ms. Kaptur. We will have the CEOs all there.
        Secretary Perry. I want you to know--
        Ms. Kaptur. My time is running out, and I have to get in my
    second question, but I appreciate your openness.
        Secretary Perry. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Kaptur. I appreciate your openness and your support of
    private sector manufacturing.
        My second question, you know, you come from down the
    southwest. It was just 122 degrees in Arizona. And up where I
    live, we are up against the Canadian border. And as a
    representative from what is called the cold weather State, I am
    especially fond of the weatherization program which your budget
    zeros out. Here is another area where I think you need our
    help. And that particular program has weatherized over 7
    million homes and saved an average of $283 a year, which
    doesn't sound like a lot of money in Washington to the average
    consumer, but in my area, that is big savings. And the Mulvaney
    budget completely eliminates this program.
        So we hope that, as we move forward, that we will be able
    to resume the activities that we believe are very important for
    home weatherization in these older parts of the United States
    that are leaking energy. And we know that with good
    conservation we can save 40 percent of the energy we use, so it
    makes sense. I am sure as Governor you managed those programs.
        Secretary Perry. Ms. Kaptur, I--that is a statutory
    program. And the funding for weatherization has been cleared
    through our review process, and the 2017 budget and those are
    going forward.
        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you.
        Secretary Perry. And these are words that are going to make
    their way through the regular financial assistance system to
    get to the States. But I will assure you that I will work with
    you. We will come. And again, you are going to hear me say this
    a number of times here today, but I know--this is the first
    step in a long process. And I was a Governor long enough to
    know that Governor's budgets don't always come back to you the
    way that they start. And I think that is probably a fair
    statement.
        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
        Secretary Perry. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Simpson. Mr. Calvert.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I heard--the Secretary mention Toyota. Obviously, I have
    fond memories of Toyota. They used to be in California.
        Secretary Perry. It is doing really well, by the way.
        Mr. Calvert. Yeah, I know.
        On the topic of Interim storage. I used to represent San
    Clemente, CA. Darrell Issa represents the area now. He has a
    bill on interim storage, H.R. 474. Obviously, this is a concern
    in California that he has mentioned to you. A concern to me and
    all Californians is getting that material out of California
    into a safe interim storage facility. At the same time, the
    Chairman mentioned we are going to do what we can in congress
    to resolve the Yucca Mountain licensing issue that has been
    festering here for a number of years.
        If you put together a program for--for interim storage as
    called for in your Budget request, I hope there are some
    facilities that are on the top of the priority list. I think
    California would be right up there, because of as you
    mentioned, the ring of fire and the earthquake zone. San
    Clemente is right there; Camp Pendleton is right there in the
    middle of that region. So I hope you would take a look at the
    possibility that some sites would receive priority for interim
    storage.
        Secretary Perry. Well, obviously, Mr. Calvert, we would
    rely upon a lot of the expertise there at the DOE from the
    standpoint of, you know, which is going to move first. And
    obviously, I would suggest you all may have a bit of a say in
    that as well. I know that Senator Feinstein has the same
    concerns that you do, and a supporter of moving that waste with
    the greatest expedition that we can.
        So again, you know, how you prioritize which of those you
    would move first, I will try to work with the experts on that.
    But I think what is more important is that we agree that it has
    to be moved first. I mean, I think that is----
        The other issue is hydrogen fuel cells. Secretary, a number
    of States have imposed zero emission vehicle standards on the
    industry. And as you may know, the fuel cell vehicle technology
    option is there. The State of California has been pushing that
    pretty hard. They are very bullish on hydrogen. Currently the
    technology is such that hydrogen fuel cell refueling areas,
    which could refuel about the same time as conventional gasoline
    engines, are feasible.
        Your budget has cut more than 50 percent for fuel cell
    activities, even though your Department has been pushing for
    fuel cell technology in the past. How do you feel about
    hydrogen as a potential fuel? And will your Department be
    working with industry to ensure a successful rollout of the
    hydrogen industry?
        Secretary Perry. Yes, sir. Mr. Calvert, I am--and the
    message that will come out of DOE is we are pretty much all of
    the above. Hydrogen being one of the all off the aboves. And I
    think working with our National Labs, working with our
    universities, working with the private sector--I am a big
    public-private partnership proponent, supporter. My 14 years as
    being the Governor, one of the reasons we were successful is
    that we, you know--inside that State, we removed the regulatory
    burdens. We tried to put tax structures into place. We worked
    towards having that skilled workforce so that those private-
    public partnerships could flourish.
        And you will see us pushing a lot of our innovation,
    hydrogen fuel cells being one of those, to the private sector
    to try to commercialize those technologies. We think that is--
    Ms. Kaptur asked the question earlier--or she didn't ask the
    question, she made the statement earlier about the reductions
    in late--in our late modeling of our projects. And the fact is
    that is where those need to be pushed out to the private
    sector.
        The early stage basic research, that is our core
    responsibility. That is what the DOE was set up for back in the
    late 1970s to do and going forward, and we will continue to.
    You know, I think we do need to have a conversation about late
    stage development and what is the appropriate amount of dollars
    that we spend. How do we coordinate that? How do we find the
    private sector partners to come in and then commercialize that
    and make it work? I would suggest we are probably--I mean,
    again, without having the experts here whispering in my ear
    that here is exactly where we are, my instinct is that hydrogen
    fuel cell technology is getting close to that point to being
    able to push it out to the private sector, to see if it is
    going to be able to stand on its own from the standpoint of a
    commercialized technology. If it does, it is another
    opportunity for us to create jobs. It is another opportunity
    for us to show the world our commitment to the environment. It
    is another opportunity for America to lead on this climate
    issue.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Simpson. Mrs. Lowey.
        Mrs. Lowey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you again,
    Mr. Secretary.
        I just want to say I appreciate your comments regarding
    interim storage sites, because as we know, Yucca Mountain is so
    controversial. And even if it is built, it is still a year away
    from being functional. And in my district, we have the Indian
    Point Energy Center, which is scheduled to cease operations in
    2021. And as I am sure you know, without a central repository
    or interim storage sites for the waste, the spent fuel rods are
    stored in dry casts onsite at decommissioned plants. And this
    is key because we are all talking about creating jobs and
    economic development. And these sites just cannot be
    redeveloped into productive properties because of the storage
    there.
        Secretary Perry. Yes, ma'am.
        Mrs. Lowey. So I just want to mention that I appreciate
    that. You are supportive, and I hope we can move forward.
        I wanted to ask you a question about our Nation's electric
    grid, because you and I know it must be upgraded to address
    reliability and security issues. And given the fact that the
    grid is arguably the most complex and critical infrastructure
    in our Nation, upgrading it will be a monumental challenge.
        How would your budget request address this issue? Have we
    anything to show for our recent efforts? What are the most
    pressing issues we should be addressing? And what kind of
    public-private partnership is the Department involved in to
    accelerate efforts for the grid of the 21st century? I must
    say, as you know, I am a New Yorker, and I often think about,
    oh my, what would happen if this grid goes down? So I
    appreciate your response.
        Secretary Perry. Mrs. Lowey, I think you are very prescient
    in having this issue at your forefront. And you are absolutely
    correct, the chaotic event, if we were to lose one or two of
    our grids in the northeastern part of the United States and a
    massive amount of people without electricity, without the
    ability to communicate, without our hospitals being able to
    operate, I mean, the stunning impact that it could have on our
    country, I am not sure that most Americans really understand
    the potential.
        And one of the core responsibilities at the Department of
    Energy, by an executive order that was signed by President
    Trump, with the Department of Homeland Security, being able to
    have a cybersecurity study to make sure that this country is as
    protected as it can be from individuals who would do harm to
    our citizens through compromising our electrical grid.
        There is--at this particular point in time, I want to
    bifurcate just a bit and talk about, there is a grid study
    going on now at the DOE to look at all of our ability to
    deliver electricity in a sound and a thoughtful and a stable
    way. And that is ongoing. We should be having that available at
    the end of the month. And that is a question about do we have
    the base load, or all of our different forms? Where does
    nuclear come into this? Where does our renewables play? What
    role does carbon capture, utilization, sequestration of coal
    plants have to play in the base load? And then are we going to
    be able to have a secure electrical grid, not just in the case
    of protecting it against nation states or bad actors out there
    that are digitally trying to penetrate into that. We have seen
    what happened to Saudi Arabia with Aramco. We saw what happened
    to Ukraine as there were some bad actors that attacked their
    power.
        And so DOE is comitted to that. When I was at Los Alamos,
    when I was at Oak Ridge and INL, you have a test grid at the
    chairman's lab. There is a lab, Mrs. Lowey, that is in place,
    that is an operational grid, where we literally can come in and
    break things and know how to patch them up or to keep those
    types of attacks from occurring.
        With that said, I have concerns--that is a priority, Mrs.
    Kaptur. I mean, grid security is a priority of the Department
    of Energy. It is one of the reasons that we have asked--well,
    that I will ask at the appropriate time on the funding side to
    make sure that that part of our responsibility is appropriately
    funded and making it as efficient and as effective as we can.
    Because you are absolutely correct, if we don't get that right,
    it can be devastating for our citizens.
        Mrs. Lowey. Thank you, Secretary Perry.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Simpson. Mr. Fleischmann.
        Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Welcome, Mr. Secretary.
        Secretary Perry. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Fleischmann. And thank you very much for stepping up
    and assuming this wonderful position as Secretary to the
    Department of Energy. And I thank you for all of your past
    service and current service, sir.
        As part of my representation of the people in the third
    district of Tennessee, I represent the great City of Oak Ridge.
    It is the birthplace of the Manhattan Project. We have Oak
    Ridge National Lab, Y-12 National Security Complex. We are
    building the uranium processing facility. We have a large EM
    mission. Literally, the city of Oak Ridge touches the
    Department of Energy in many ways.
        I also want to thank you for your visit. We had a great
    visit, and I appreciate you addressing all of the different
    issues we have there.
        If I may, sir, I have a few questions. Several years ago,
    the Department of Energy consolidated the management of the Y-
    12 plant in Oak Ridge with Pantex in your great State of Texas.
    From what I understand, that effort is now reaping benefits
    through efficient execution of the mission for the Nation and
    has saved several hundred millions of dollars. It took a lot of
    foresight on the part of DOE to conceive of this contract. And
    while it has not always been easy, we are clearly seeing the
    benefits that we were promised.
        Do you envision those cost savings continued? Are you
    pleased with what you are seeing on the efficient delivery of
    the mission at Pantex and Y-12, sir?
        Secretary Perry. Yes, sir. There is a number of examples.
    All too often, we talk about the challenges that we face. We
    talk about, you know--we discuss or spend enough money in a
    particular line item and what have you. There--as I have become
    more and more familiar with the DOE's history and with their
    budgeting process, there are multiple examples of where we have
    been successful in what either you all or together we have come
    up with ways to be more efficient.
        I will take a little bit of a detour here, but the
    nonproliferation side. I mean, we are now--I think there are 40
    countries in Eastern Europe that no longer have highly enriched
    uranium because of the work that DOE has done, and so we are
    able to reduce the spending there. So there are a lot of
    successes. That is not to say we don't have these challenges,
    as you all are very good about pointing out. But the point is
    this is one of those, thank you for pointing out a success
    that, you know, all too often, government doesn't get patted on
    the back and say well done.
        Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, sir.
        The uranium processing facility is a one-of-a-kind project
    that you recently visited at the Y-12 Security Complex.
    According to NNSA reports, it is close to the next phase.
    During the construction, UPF will require a sharp funding
    increase. Is the Department still prepared to build UPF at $6.5
    billion by 2025? If so, how do you plan to handle the top
    funding years, sir?
        Secretary Perry. Yes, sir. The NNSA remains committed to
    completing the UPF and ceasing the EU programmatic operations
    in that old building 9212 by, I think, no later than 2025, and
    at a cost of $6.5 billion. The commitment is contingent on
    predictable and stable appropriations, as requested in the
    budget. So it is--you don't hear this very often, but it
    appears on budget and on time.
        Mr. Fleischmann. Yes, sir. Thank you.
        Mr. Secretary, I am concerned that vital DOE missions to
    support the national security and economic security of our
    country are targeted for deep cuts or elimination in the budget
    proposal. It is important to note that national security and
    economic security often overlap in today's world. Few program
    examples that are funded through EERE and could not be
    duplicated by the private sector are dark net research project
    to protect utility customers and especially the electric grid
    from cyber attacks; the manufacturing demonstration facility,
    which you saw firsthand recently, that is helping U.S.
    manufacturers solve difficult problems and, as a result,
    flourish and add more jobs; the critical materials hub
    targeting the scarcity of rare metals that could pose at risk
    to technology.
        How does the Department plan to support critical projects
    within programs that are targeted for cuts, sir?
        Secretary Perry. Again, Mr. Fleischmann, this is a straight
    down the middle of the plate, this is about prioritization.
    This is about picking and choosing those projects out there and
    making sure that they are funded. And again, we may have a
    healthy discussion about your priorities versus my priorities
    versus, you know, President Trump's priorities.
        From my perspective, this is right down the line of which--
    the way we get back to our core responsibilities at the
    Department of Energy. We fund those core responsibilities. We
    may not get every program that you and the members of the
    committee want to be funded at the level you want to be funded.
    But I am comfortable that with the right leadership, that we
    have a budget in totality that we can address the needs of this
    country, that we continue to be cutting edge technology.
        You know, we haven't even talked about exascale computing
    yet. I know it will come up here in part of the conversation,
    but there is a great example; we are probably going to ask you
    for more resources there.
        Today, we just found out, the United States is not number
    one in super computing. As matter of fact, we are not even
    number two. We are not even third. The Swiss passed us up
    today.
        Ms. Kaptur, I am not happy about the Swiss passing us up.
    That is like--well, I won't even get into a State to State. I
    will just get into trouble if I do that comparison.
        But the point is our future and our ability to be able to
    be competitive in the economic field, as well as the national
    security field, deals with this innovation. And our funding
    those innovations, our funding of those projects is important,
    but doing it in a way that is responsible and efficient.
        Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I appreciate
    your responses.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Simpson. Mr. Aguilar.
        Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you, Ranking Member.
        Congratulations and thank you for being here, Mr.
    Secretary.
        I appreciate you mentioning California. I am going to keep
    my first question specific to NNSA. I won't talk to you about
    California and our GDP growth of 2.9 percent last year versus
    Texas at 0.4----
        Secretary Perry. I am not Governor anymore.
        Mr. Aguilar. I am not going to quiz you on those, or in
    2015 when it was 3 to 1.5 percent.
        I will ask you, following up with what Mr. Fleischmann
    talked about with NNSA--and I know Ranking Member Kaptur
    mentioned it too--the budget that was submitted shows a
    significant increase in fiscal year 2018. There are significant
    reductions in other parts of DOE's budget, including the
    science accounts that were highlighted. But my question here
    is: Many of the labs that are funded through the science
    accounts also support the nuclear mission. Will this shift in
    funding out of science and into weapons activities undermine
    the nuclear enterprise and nonproliferation goals in the long
    run?
        Secretary Perry. The short answer is no. But you need to
    hear more than just no. And the point is that, again, I ask you
    humbly to allow me to show you I know how to manage. And I am
    not asking that just in the dark. I mean, I have got a 14-year
    record of being able to manage a rather large entity. And it
    wasn't all blue skies and smooth sailing. We had massive
    turndowns in the early 2000s in my home State of Texas. We had,
    I mean, a huge, 15, 20 percent, budget shortfall in totality.
    And so knowing how to move those parts of the puzzle around--
    that is not to say that everything is going to be whole cloth.
    But it is to say that I am going to work with you, sir, to find
    the resources to consolidate, to be able to show you that we
    are working in really good faith to meet the requirements, to
    meet the desires of the Members of this Congress--or this
    committee and of Congress and the general public and to be
    responsive to the taxpayers. So I am comfortable we can do this
    in a way that does meet our nonproliferation requirements, that
    does meet this lifetime extension program effort that we need
    from our national security standpoint and to continue to have
    the innovation and technology that can drive our economy.
        Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, sir.
        My second question: You talked about, in your response to
    Mrs. Lowey, about cyber attacks and with respect to the grid
    and outages seen in Ukraine, you highlighted, in 2015. In
    recent days, we have seen reports of hackers reportedly aligned
    with the Russian Government developing cyber weapons, dubbed
    Crash Override and Industroyer, which could potentially disrupt
    the U.S. grid. Our modern, internet-based, internet-connected
    economy depends on a stable, efficient electrical grid for its
    productivity. With growing reports of cyber intrusions, many
    likely sponsored by foreign governments seeking ways to damage
    the ability of our grid to function, why has the DOE chosen to
    reduce funding for the cybersecurity and energy delivery
    systems, that line item, by 32 percent from previously enacted
    levels of 2016 and 2017? How would this affect the DOE's
    ongoing cybersecurity efforts in the energy sector?
        And before you answer, you mentioned current labs and
    exercises being done throughout the country. Those labs and
    those exercises are being done based on fiscal year 2016 and
    fiscal year 2017 investments. Why shouldn't we make similar
    investments in fiscal year 2018 if this is a priority?
        Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
        Number one, it is a priority. And the President's executive
    order clearly made it a priority. Here is what I would ask you
    and the committee members to keep in mind, that just because
    there is a line item that says--and has a particular name in it
    and a particular direction, that we somehow or another are just
    going to back away from that effort. We are not. When I sit
    here before you and commit to you that we are going to put into
    place the resources in both the dollars and the staff that is
    required to make America as secure from a cyber attack
    standpoint as we can, that is what we will do. Does that mean
    we are going to have to, move dollars around in a budget and
    prioritize? Yes. That is exactly what it means.
        And, again, I know that this budget is the first step in
    the process. But I shared in my opening remarks that the life
    extension programs over at NNSA with our weapons system, that
    exascale computing, that cybersecurity, those are three of--not
    all of, but three of--the most important responsibilities that
    the Department of Energy has. And we are going to work with the
    private sector. We have got three of our labs that are part of
    what is called CyberCorps. And they are working on the
    cybersecurity issue now. We are in the process of talking to
    private sector entities that have deep tentacles into the cyber
    world. So my hope is that we are going to be able to leverage
    some private sector funding with our funding to find the
    solutions to these challenges on cybersecurity that confront
    us.
        Mr. Aguilar. A lot of questions and more follow up, but I
    am out of time. Thank you so much. I appreciate it, Secretary.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
        Ms. Herrera Beutler.
        Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Secretary, it is a pleasure to have you with us. I have
    a couple of questions. I am going to attempt to get through
    them and then throw it open to you--
        Secretary Perry. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Herrera Beutler [continuing]. And request your
    comments, if that is possible. And they are a little divergent,
    but I want to get them all in.
        The first one is regarding Hanford and the nuclear site. My
    district is downstream of Hanford. So, for me and my
    constituents, the cleanup effort is vital to protecting the
    Columbia River and southwest Washington communities from the
    millions of gallons of nuclear waste currently stored in
    underground tanks at Hanford. And, as you know, last month,
    thousands of Hanford workers had to take cover after a Cold
    War-era tunnel used to store contaminated, radioactive
    materials collapsed, which led to mass evacuations and serious
    concerns about contamination. Thankfully, no radiation was
    detected. But this kind of scare highlights how important it is
    that we get this work done.
        And I would like to underscore this is a Federal Government
    responsibility. We talk a lot about taxpayer dollars. It does
    cost money to get this taken care of. But this wasn't something
    this community did on its own. This was a Federal Government's
    wartime effort. So it is our responsibility to take care of
    this and take care of it well.
        I know that you have received an invitation to come out to
    Hanford. I am sure my colleague will reiterate that. We invite
    you to come. It is important. And I wanted to just ask for your
    commitment to maximize the Federal Government's role in
    cleaning up this site in a safe, effective manner. And let me
    move on really quickly, and then we can come back.
        The Bonneville Power Administration. The proposed budget
    calls for divesting the transmission assets of Bonneville Power
    Administration. And I will tell you I love how the President is
    focusing on infrastructure and getting America working again.
    It is music to my ears. This is an area where I believe--that I
    would submit for your consideration that BPA is self-financed
    and has made in excess of $32 billion in payments to the
    Treasury by selling power. And a quick $4.9 billion sounds like
    a lot. But that credit from the divestiture of those assets I
    think would be a poor tradeoff. Much of my district is rural
    and sparsely populated, but they receive reliable power because
    of the Bonneville Power Administration infrastructure. And the
    ratepayers of our region are the ones that pay for that. And so
    I wanted to ask if you had taken a position on BPA's
    divestiture of the transition assets.
        And, finally, there are reductions--and I agree with you,
    Mr. Secretary, every area of this budget should be combed, this
    budget and across the Federal Government, because we should be
    finding waste or inefficiencies. And I applaud the President
    for looking at that. One area where I want to submit for your
    reconsideration would be with regard to hydropower. You know,
    there are reductions in the budget for the Department's water
    power program. And in southwest Washington producing clean,
    reliable, efficient hydropower has been a staple of our energy
    supply since the early 1940's. And to cut the Federal
    investment in hydropower is concerning for our region, in part
    because it is such a good--I mean, to replace the Bonneville
    Power Administration, what they generate would take about 16
    coal-fired plants. And here we have this amazing renewable
    energy source. And on a global scale, China plans to invest
    $360 billion in renewable power generation by 2020, including
    $73 billion for hydropower alone. I just feel like they are
    gobbling up assets in this area, and they want to eat our lunch
    and pop the sack. And we need to take this back, especially
    when we are talking about a renewable, load-bearing source of
    energy.
        So that is a lot to throw at you. But I wanted to get all
    three of those in because they are so important to my neck of
    the woods. And I thank you for your time.
        Secretary Perry. Yes, ma'am.
        Let me address the first one, and that is Hanford. This is
    one of those classic examples of the Federal Government working
    with the State government working with the local government. I
    mean, the agreement that has been signed there, particularly
    working with Governor Inslee, and going forward, not only do I
    look forward to coming out to your district to tour Richland
    and the Hanford site and to get a really good, hands-on look, I
    have been briefed relatively extensively about the project out
    there, about the progress that is being made. You know, I hope
    to be out there before the summer is up. But then in
    September--I think it is in September, this fall, at least, you
    know, you are going to celebrate a pretty big milestone in the
    above-grade demolition of the old plutonium finishing plant.
    That is going to be completed out there. So, you know,
    retrieving and packaging that highly radioactive sludge that is
    stored in the basin along the river on the central plateau, for
    instance, I mean, they are making some good progress. I mean,
    none of us like to have to deal with when, you know, Murphy and
    Murphy's law comes into place and something happens and you
    have to deal with it, that kind of came out of left field, with
    the tunnel collapsing. But, again, I think we got to see the
    real professional response, and no one was--you know, there was
    no individual harmed by that activity. So our continued focus
    on the cleanup, which is the Federal Government's
    responsibility, obviously coordinating with the local State
    government and doing it in a way that is appropriate, that
    remediation is going to take some time. But this country is
    committed to it. We will continue to do that.
        The second thing you asked about, which was the power
    agencies, I will be brief on this one. That is an interesting
    idea that has been discussed many times before, and I look
    forward to the continuing discussion and debate. So you make
    some very strong arguments about what they are doing, how they
    function.
        And just on hydro in general, just let me say, we will work
    with you, and the agency will be very open to your ideas and
    your directives relative to--I agree with you that we need to
    be looking at all-of-the-above energy approach and not taking
    anything--you know, unless it is just a straight-up economic
    issue, if it just won't work, it won't work--but not for any
    political reasons do we need to be removing any sources of
    energy. We are going to need them all to be competitive.
        And there are good points you make about the Chinese and
    what they are doing and what they appear to be committed to. So
    we have got our challenges out there. And I think taking a
    source of energy, particularly good, clean, low-emission, no-
    emission energy, off of the playing field is not wise for a lot
    of reasons.
        Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you.
        With that, I yield back.
        Mr. Simpson. Mr. Newhouse.
        Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Secretary Perry, welcome to the Appropriations
    Subcommittee. My colleague from her district downstream
    mentioned Hanford. And I am proud to say that my congressional
    district is home to Hanford as well as the Pacific Northwest
    National Laboratory, as well as many other companies that work
    very closely with the Department of Energy.
        We only have a few minutes here, but I want to make sure
    and just reiterate that you are cordially invited to come and
    visit. It sounds like you have plans to do so this fall
    perhaps. As a followup to my earlier invitation, just let me
    say I will work with you in your schedule to make that happen
    and look forward to doing that.
        A couple of things I wanted to touch on, and there are
    several more that we will submit for the record as well. As you
    know, there are approximately 56 million gallons of waste held
    in temporary underground storage tanks at Hanford, and adequate
    funding is certainly going to be needed to continue to design
    and construct the waste treatment plant. The request provides
    $8 million for WTP commissioning, although additional funding
    will also be needed as commissioning and startup begins.
        What do you envision WT's funding needs will be,
    particularly over the next 5 years, in order to meet the court-
    mandated timeline for its full operation by 2026?
        Secretary Perry. Mr. Newhouse, my instinct here, is that
    looking 5 years down the road--or, for that matter, looking 9
    years down the road--is always a tricky thing in this business.
    But I would suggest to you that the funding levels that we see
    currently are most likely the minimum that would be required to
    reach the goals that they are looking for.
        Mr. Newhouse. I certainly appreciate your underscoring the
    Federal Government's legal and moral obligation here, and then
    that answer helps as well.
        As I said, also, the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
    is in my district, and I am very proud to be able to say that.
    It is a powerhouse of innovation in addressing pressing
    national challenges. So, as you can understand, I am very
    concerned about the impact of the President's proposed budget
    as it relates to the PNNL. If enacted, the budget cuts of
    approximately $200 million, let me just tell you what that
    means in human terms: That would be a loss of about 1,000 jobs.
        So let me just ask, as you talked about earlier in your
    opening comments, what is your vision for ensuring the
    Department's strong, vibrant science and energy programs, and
    with those cuts, how does the administration plan to maintain
    our position as a world leader in scientific research?
        Secretary Perry. Yes, sir. Mr. Newhouse, as I said in my
    opening remarks, the commitment to science, to innovation, to
    technology, that is a major priority, obviously, and will
    continue to be. I might just add that I made mention of three
    laboratories that we are working on that that will be tasked--
    already are tasked, but will be prioritized as we go forward on
    the issue of cybersecurity. PNNL is one of those.
        So your concern about your constituents, your concern about
    the observation that there could be massive loss at a lab, I
    don't necessarily agree with that reflection. And the reason I
    don't agree with that reflection is because it doesn't take
    into account our being able to manage, our being able to use
    year-end expended balances. It doesn't take into account--I
    think it is a very cold look, if you will, and I don't want to
    belabor that word. But I think it is just a very sterile look
    at: Here is what the budget says, here is going to be the
    result.
        You know, my intention--you know, there is not any of these
    labs that are going to be shut down, obviously. These labs are
    going to be continuing to be the future of this country from
    the standpoint of innovation and technology. I am comfortable
    that we will manage these labs in a way that continues to keep
    the employment levels at the level to deliver the innovation
    and the technology that this country is going to need. So I
    fully respect your concern and, rightfully so, as an elected
    citizen to represent your constituents. But I hope I can give
    you some good comfort that, from a management standpoint, we
    are going to do everything we can to make sure that we keep our
    labs functioning at the level of which I think the American
    citizens need and deserve.
        Mr. Newhouse. I appreciate that commitment on your part and
    look forward to working with you----
        Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Newhouse [continuing]. To make sure those don't equal
    the drastic numbers of loss of human resource.
        Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Newhouse. So I appreciate that.
        Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, again, for being here, and look
    forward to your visit in September.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Simpson. Mr. Joyce.
        Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Good afternoon, Secretary Perry.
        Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Joyce. Just before, you brought up the study you
    initiated in April to explore the critical issues central to
    protecting the long-term reliability of the electric grid. I
    understand the study will examine the evolution of wholesale
    electricity markets, adequate compensation for onsite fuel
    supply, and other factors that contribute to grid resiliency,
    and the effect of the continued regulatory burdens on base load
    power plants.
        I think the more we know here, the better. So I am glad to
    hear your Department is conducting this study. The safety and
    security of our communities depend on the resiliency of the
    electric grid. As you said in your April memo about this new
    study, we must provide American families and business with an
    electric power system that is technologically advanced,
    resilient, reliable, and second to none.
        In my district, the Perry Nuclear Plant has played a
    critical role in the economy of eastern Lake County for
    decades. The 1,284-megawatt power plant employs more than 700
    workers and, in 2016 alone, contributed $14 million in State
    and local taxes to support local schools, police and fire
    departments, and other vital public services. The Perry plant
    is one of the largest plants of its type in the U.S. and
    produces enough electricity to power more than 1 million homes
    daily.
        Mr. Secretary, what potential problems or challenges would
    our Nation face should our base load power plants, particularly
    our nuclear plants, be shut down?
        Secretary Perry. Mr. Joyce, not just our nuclear plants,
    but I think any plants that are able to run that base load, we
    need to give appropriate oversight and concern about from the
    standpoint of keeping them operating.
        And I think it is 122 degrees somewhere in Arizona today. I
    know, yesterday, it was 117 degrees in Las Vegas. We may get a
    test this summer from the standpoint of our reliability. I hope
    that is not the case. I hope we don't see, brownouts in your
    home State, Mr. Calvert, or, for that matter, in my home State.
    But it is the preparation that we do today. It is the--not
    picking winners and losers from a political standpoint, but
    looking at, how do we make America's energy reliable,
    affordable, and sustainable? We know that requires a base load
    capability that can run 24/7.
        You know, and with that said, we are all of the above. You
    know, nobody expanded wind energy more than we did in the State
    of Texas while I was Governor. We became the number one wind-
    energy-producing State in the Nation. As a matter of fact, we
    produce more wind than all but five other countries. So I
    understand about having that diverse portfolio.
        But base load, if we are going to continue to reach out to
    companies and say--yesterday, I was with Secretary Ross, and we
    had a foreign direct investment conference. And we are talking
    to individuals from around the globe about coming to the United
    States and investing in our country and all the different
    opportunities that were there. If we cannot guarantee them that
    when they build a $1.8 billion facility here, that the power is
    not going to be available 24/7, then we are not going to be
    successful in that. So, not only is this about, as Mr.
    Fleischmann said, our national security, it is also about our
    economic security--and not shying away from and not trying to
    pick winners and losers. Just let the facts fall where they
    may, that if you are in the coal side of things, you are in the
    natural gas side of things, if you are in the nuclear side of
    things, you are in the hydro side of things, you are in the
    wind side of things, you are in the solar, or whatever other
    renewable that we would be looking at, we are going to need all
    of these. But it is really important, from my perspective, that
    we don't shy away from and talk about how important base load
    and that guaranteed base load is if we are going to be
    successful economically in this country.
        Mr. Joyce. And for what it is worth, Mr. Secretary, as Ms.
    Kaptur pointed out, we live in sort of a cold area of the
    country up there in Cleveland where we get the snow that comes
    down through Canada. And so, while we now require the air
    conditioning that you point out, we will also require a lot of
    heat. We have been darn close to brownouts because of the
    shutting down of the coal plants. And the ability to produce
    energy and have a grid that can maintain it and hold all that
    is produced from wind and the other ways we got it is very
    critical, as you well know, to the United States. So I applaud
    your efforts in taking this challenge forward.
        I have exceeded my time, and so I can't yield any back to
    you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
        Mr. Simpson. Mr. Fortenberry.
        Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary, good afternoon. Thanks for appearing before
    us. I am sorry I didn't have the benefit of your earlier
    testimony. I got here as quickly as I could.
        I understand, though, that you made some very firm comments
    about MOX. I have a number of items here. I would like to go
    through them----
        Mr. Perry. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Fortenberry [continuing]. And perhaps you could respond
    one at a time.
        I applaud that. And this is not meant to be an indictment
    of anybody's past judgment as to how we were going to deal with
    spent fuel and in agreement with the Russians. But,
    nonetheless, year after year, we have sat on this committee and
    committed millions of dollars each year to something called
    cold storage. Well, that is a cold decision. It is not getting
    us anywhere. It is a waste of money where there are significant
    other priorities. And, as you said, some sort of orderly
    process to wind this down, perhaps some appropriate transfer of
    the facility to another use, in fairness to the people of that
    State, is absolutely necessary.
        Now, there is an issue in trying to secure the proper
    location in New Mexico. There is a residue of some type of
    complicated commitment to the Russians. That is a dynamic here
    that I would suggest perhaps we can go into another time. That
    is one consideration.
        The second, though, is related to the last comment. Is
    there any remnant of scientific cooperation between the
    Department and the Russians continuing? This is a legacy
    program that goes back to Nunn-Lugar, where the opportunity
    presented itself to try to secure dangerous loose nuclear
    materials. It is a proxy, potentially, for other--if it is even
    possible--reestablishment of some working relationship with
    that country. That is difficult to say in this moment. I get
    that. It is my understanding this is all but dead. I would like
    to hear if there is any remnant of cooperation going.
        Third, the International Atomic Energy Agency, its mission
    is developing in a very important, critical way. It is moving
    from just standard for nuclear security to a verification
    mission, which I think is absolutely essential. Now, like the
    Iran agreement or not--I didn't vote for it. Many people voted
    for it. Some voted against it. Many of us voted against it.
    Nonetheless, they are playing a critical role right now in
    assuring verification. And if we could ever break the impasse
    with North Korea, I would anticipate the IAEA would play a
    critical role as well. I think a continuing emphasis in
    investment in that important multilateral institution is not
    only in our own national security interests, it is in the
    absolute interest of international stability. If we are going
    to try to be a leader in nonproliferation, I think this is a
    gateway to doing so.
        I will stop there. And I have a few others, if we have
    time.
        Secretary Perry. Let me just quickly address the issue of
    MOX. And in my opening remarks, I made comments about that it
    is--and, again, I am like you. I have been here for coming on 5
    months, and previous decisions, previous Congresses, previous
    Secretaries of Energy, I don't want to cast any aspersion on
    them at all. I have got a job to do. And we have analyzed this.
    And I cannot in good faith say that going forward with that
    program is wise in a number of ways, the least of which is not
    from a financial standpoint and from the fiduciary
    responsibility that we have.
        Dilute and dispose is a process that is proven, and it is
    substantially cheaper. Again, you know, I have had pretty
    lengthy conversations with Senator Graham, and will continue
    to, and the delegation from South Carolina. There are some, you
    know, possible legacy programs where the people of South
    Carolina won't feel like that, you know, here you have--you
    know: Thank you, Federal Government. You have strung us along
    here for these many years, and you are going to jerk this out
    from under us.
        But the more important part of this is that we do have a
    process that works. I think WIPP has already taken five of
    those deliveries. And so you asked if we have had any
    conversation with the Russians. And they announced in, I think,
    October of last year and then they reiterated in May of this
    year that they were suspending the PMDA and based on a number
    of strategic issues unrelated to the disposition of plutonium.
    But they basically have--from my perspective, they walked away
    from the deal. And so any useful discussions at this particular
    point in time, I think, are----
        Mr. Fortenberry. It is over.
        Secretary Perry [continuing]. Useful--excuse me, useless.
        Mr. Fortenberry. There is no conversation going on?
        Secretary Perry. That is correct. And the----
        Mr. Fortenberry. IAEA.
        Secretary Perry. Oh. Well, I can tell you I agree with your
    comments. I think that, you know, a relationship with them,
    continual engagement with the IAEA, for a lot of different
    issues, not the least of which is JCPOA, and----
        Mr. Fortenberry. If I could make one suggestion, Mr.
    Secretary, even though the door with the Russians is locked,
    and, again, in this climate, and this--or it is shut, let me
    put it that way.
        Secretary Perry. I think that is a better descriptive term.
    It is just--it may not be. There may be a crack. Who knows.
        Mr. Fortenberry. Yeah. Because once we get through the
    current political turmoil and tensions, again, the cooperation,
    potentially, on loose nuclear materials, and the whole
    architecture of nonproliferation is going to depend, obviously,
    on other key international players, including the Chinese. And
    residues of cooperation on spent material can serve, I think,
    as a proxy to potentially rebuilding relationships in addition
    to being important in and of itself.
        Secretary Perry. Yes, sir. And I am not sure you were in
    when I made a statement about one of the successes that we have
    had at the DOE is in our nonproliferation. I think there is
    some--is it 30 countries? Forty. There are 40 countries that
    have had that highly enriched uranium removed. And so we have
    got some good stories to tell out there about the
    nonproliferation side of what we have been conducting.
        Mr. Fortenberry. Hopefully we will continue to project
    significant leadership in this area. There is a Nuclear
    Security Working Group here in Congress, just for your
    information. We look forward to----
        Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Fortenberry [continuing]. Potential dialogue with you
    on creative policies that continue to show leadership in this
    area.
        Secretary Perry. Consider it done.
        Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry.
        And thank you for bringing up MOX. I knew you probably
    would. Now let me tell you the other side of the story.
        The past administration has proposed shutting down MOX and
    going to dilute and dispose. We have asked for the last couple
    of years for the Department to give us a rebaselining of MOX.
    They failed to do so. So we have a hard time comparing what the
    costs are. And I can tell you that when they did the cost
    estimates--this is a statement more than it is a question.
        Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Simpson. When they did the cost estimates and they said
    dilute and dispose is going to cost X much versus something
    else, I can tell you that is not an accurate comparison,
    because there is a lot of things that they left out of the cost
    of dilute and dispose, such as transportation, such as keeping
    WIPP open and the long-term storage at WIPP, and so forth. My
    concern has been--and I am not advocating for MOX. I am not
    advocating for dilute and dispose. I want to do things in the
    most economical way possible.
        One, we do have a treaty with Russia. Russia did not walk
    away from the treaty. They asked to go to a fast reactor rather
    than the MOX facility in Russia, and we agreed. If we are going
    to walk away from the treaty with Russia, then let's declare it
    and just walk away from it. But let's not try to go around it.
    We have got to do one of the two. We have got to talk to the
    Russians at some point in time.
        Secondly, have we got the okay of the State of South
    Carolina?
        Thirdly, do we know that it can go into WIPP? While they
    have put small quantities of the same type of material in WIPP
    so far, that was authorized at the beginning. I don't know that
    all of the material that MOX is supposed to take care of can
    fit in WIPP without additional land withdrawals. If so, have we
    talked to the State of New Mexico? Are they okay with this? How
    about the two Senators from New Mexico? Are they okay? The one
    thing I do not want to have happen, as has happened so often
    with agreements with the Department of Energy and when they
    have moved down these paths, because these are long-term
    things, that 10 years from now, the chairman of this committee
    will be sitting here going: Well, we shut down MOX, and we got
    racquetball courts there, and they are real pretty--because
    that is how we can repurpose that building, make beautiful
    racquetball courts; I don't know what else you would do with
    it--but we shut down MOX. The State of New Mexico is holding us
    hostage. The State of South Carolina is fining us. And the
    State of New Mexico says: Well, we will do a land withdrawal,
    and we will go along with that okay, but we want every road in
    New Mexico paved.
        I don't want to be held hostage to that. And before we walk
    away from something that we are in the middle of, we ought to
    have the plan to move forward and be sure that we can do it.
    Otherwise, we will be sitting here in 10 years with our fingers
    in the air wondering what the heck we are doing and where we
    are going to go next. It is not that I am opposed to dilute and
    dispose. But I think you have got to have an honest cost
    comparison. And I do believe that you have to do an honest--I
    talked to some people at the MOX facility: 70 percent complete.
    Talked to some DOE people: 10 percent complete.
        Now, wait a minute, somebody is wrong here.
        Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Simpson. So we need an honest assessment of what this
    is going to be. And I think to--we talk about cost overruns. I
    mean, I look at this budget. Frankly, and we are asking for--
    what is it? Let me see if I can pull it up real quick.
        Oh, it is in your phone.
        Yeah. Last year, we required you to, when you do your
    budget, to give us a 5-year budget plan for NNSA. I suspect
    that will be coming. Last year, the 5-year budget plan that
    puts out what the budget request is going to be for the next 5
    years, 1 year later, this year, is $225 million above what it
    was last year. Cost overrun, I guess you could call it that. I
    don't know. But we will be looking forward for a cost estimate
    for the 5 year for the NNSA, in the near future, when you
    provide that to the committee.
        The second thing I would like to talk about for just a
    second is nuclear energy in general. I do have some concerns
    with the budget because it is going to be difficult to be
    supportive of the license renewals that are going to be
    necessary for the current reactor fleet while also providing
    support for the next generation of nuclear reactors under the
    current budget. You talked about the need for the base load,
    and nuclear energy is obviously one of the things that provides
    an environmentally friendly, no-hydrocarbon-emission base load
    that is absolutely essential, I think, for the future.
        What is your strategy for ensuring that our research
    infrastructure provides adequate support for our current
    nuclear technologies while also enhancing the technological
    advances for the future reactor fleet? And along that same
    line, I was glad to see you put $10 million in here for
    developing the technical capabilities that would be needed for
    developing a fast reactor. I really think we need a fast
    reactor in this country. If we had a fast reactor, we wouldn't
    be talking about dilute and dispose or MOX.
        Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Simpson. You know? So, anyway.
        Secretary Perry. I think your focus on nuclear energy from
    the standpoint of small modular reactors may be the next gen,
    if you will, the next generation, that can take us to where--I
    am not sure--well, yes, I am. I am sure you cannot go forward
    with these massive, big nuclear energy power plants that cost,
    you know, $6-plus billion. That is not feasible. We see the
    problems that we have with it now.
        I think for America to be stable in the nuclear, civil
    nuclear side of things--and the civil nuclear side of things
    goes to our ability to have our national security both--not
    only in the form of a steady form of energy, but also the
    technology that is driven in the civil nuclear side is also--
    will be driving our weapons technology, as well, and vice
    versa. And, I mean, one of my great concerns about what is
    happening and Westinghouse and the challenges that we have
    there, knowing that the Chinese and the Russians are more than
    happy to step in, around the world, and take on the mantle of,
    ``We will build your nuclear plants for you,'' because, you
    know, America doesn't have the ability to do that. You know,
    two plants down in the southern part of the United States, they
    couldn't finish those. So, you know: Trust us; we will be there
    for you.
        That is a really bad message, and it is a really bad advent
    if that is where we end up. And my goal is that is not where we
    end up, that we, obviously, find the solutions for the
    Westinghouse issue in the short term and the long term, and we
    transition in this country to small modular reactors. That is
    being developed out in your part of the world. And, you know,
    we got--and, again, we are at the point, I think, Ms. Kaptur,
    when we talk about--we have been investing in NS on the basic
    research side, and Mr. Gates and NuScale, they are at the point
    of being able to move this to the commercialization side of it.
    And I think if we are successful and we continue to support the
    small modular reactor, that it can be a game changer in the
    nuclear side of things and bring America back to a preeminent
    role as leaders in the technology and innovation and nuclear
    energy.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        And I didn't mean to sound so vehement on MOX. I am just
    saying that there is always--everybody always looks at it as
    just a cost issue----
        Secretary Perry. Yes sir.
        Mr. Simpson [continuing]. And there is more to it.
        Secretary Perry. I don't disagree.
        Mr. Simpson. And every year in conference between the House
    and the Senate, this becomes an issue between us. And I have
    always said: Hey, I am willing to go there, but you got to
    answer these questions for me, and you got to show me that you
    got an agreement with the State of New Mexico, and you got to
    show me that South Carolina is going to be okay with this. And
    you got to show me that you at least talked to the Russians; if
    not talked to them, then decided that we are going to walk
    away.
        Secretary Perry. I don't want to get in trouble.
        Mr. Simpson. One of those two. I know what you mean. So I
    appreciate that.
        Ms. Kaptur.
        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary, thank you for your time today. I was glad to
    hear you talk about the issue of civil nuclear power
    production. I come from a State where this is a big issue.
    Congressman Joyce and I understand it well. And I really
    believe that the sort of current solution, which is let these
    sick fish fall on the States, isn't working. And someone has to
    think about the defense industrial base of this country and the
    component supply chain relative to that. And I would hope, as
    you think about this sector--and I have encouraged the industry
    to think about some of the workouts that we have had in other
    troubled sectors, including the automotive sector. I am
    concerned about what I see happening out there, and I don't
    really see a workable solution yet. And I am concerned about
    it, and I represent a region heavily impacted by it. It
    provides opportunity. But I don't see the leadership that I
    think is necessary to really help us to stabilize this
    industry.
        Maybe I am wrong. Maybe I just haven't talked to the right
    people. But I have talked to a lot of people. So I think your
    leadership might be vital.
        In terms of the discussions up here on base load power, we
    agree that investments in energy storage are critical. In terms
    of the study that will evaluate future technologies, such as
    distributed--will distributed energy and storage be a part of
    that study for the base load power work that is being done?
        Secretary Perry. Yes. I mean, the short answer is yes and,
    this goes back to what we happen to think, and I have for some
    time, well before I took this current position I am in, that
    storage is kind of the Holy Grail. And if we figure out how to
    store energy, at that particular point in time, it gives us
    such a broad, but, again, we don't yet, and there is still
    research going on. There is still Jell-O being thrown at the
    wall, so to speak. But, you know, we support that.
        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. I may be the only member of this
    panel that is concerned about the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
    But I do want to make a comment about it. And I don't want us
    to be a country that is penny-wise and pound-foolish. We have
    been at war 16 years now, and one of my objectives in serving
    on this subcommittee is to make sure that we aren't just 100
    percent energy independent here at home, but 125 percent. Okay?
    So that is my goal.
        The Strategic Petroleum Reserve has played a role. We know
    that every time gasoline goes over $4 a gallon in this country,
    we go into deep recession; my part of America gets really
    walloped hard. And so I become very uncomfortable with
    proposals to sell off the majority of crude oil. A, we are at
    war. B, we have real enemies. And we can't anticipate what will
    happen in the future. So I just wanted to say that I have a
    concern about this particular proposal in your budget. You are
    on the National Security Council. You can raise a lot of
    questions there. But I am very uncomfortable with this. So I
    just wanted to express that opinion. You don't have to answer
    any questions.
        I think it is a mistake. And it is certainly a mistake to
    sell it at low prices. But when you are at war, I think that
    you can't anticipate what is going to happen out there.
        Secretary Perry. Ms. Kaptur, not as much to answer, I am
    very familiar with that facility because part of it is in Texas
    and part of it is in Louisiana. There are four of them and I
    think the idea of being able to consolidate down to two rather
    than four, there is some sensibilities about that because of
    the cost to upkeep.
        But here is another--this is coming back to you and the
    committee more as a question about what do you all think about.
    If we consider pipelines to be a form of storage, if you will,
    if there is crude oil in a pipeline, then I consider that to be
    again, this is not apples and oranges but if your point is we
    need to have this access to our crude that we have control of.
    The world has changed in the last 10 years, and America's
    ability to go retrieve these molecules, these hydrocarbon
    molecules, from places that we never thought we could get them
    prior to 10 years ago because of hydraulic fracturing and
    directional drilling. And so, and, again, I think the Dakota
    Access pipeline, full, is like 5 million barrels. If we are
    building more pipelines in this country so that we have better
    transportation and we have connectivity and we have the ability
    to deliver product to different places and economic development
    comes because of that and what have you, then maybe that does
    soften a little bit your concern about, you know, reducing some
    of the supply.
        I am not asking, you know, for an answer here. I am just
    saying, should we think about that as an opportunity? My role
    is to look at ways that we can consolidate that we can save
    some money. This may be one of them. Just a statement.
        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you.
        Secretary Perry. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much. I think we need more
    review on that one. And I appreciate your openness.
        Let me ask the Department, in terms of how you will respond
    to congressional inquiries as Secretary, is there a policy that
    you have been given or guidance that would prohibit you or
    delay responses if, for instance, I were to send a letter over
    to the Department of Energy, versus our chairman, someone who
    is on a subcommittee or a full committee? So is there any
    guidance that has been given that you must adhere to that we
    might not be aware of?
        Secretary Perry. My history as a chief executive, being the
    Governor of the State of Texas, is when a member of the
    legislature asked me for something, I got it to them on a
    timely basis. I have no reason to think that, quite frankly,
    any reason, if you send a letter asking for information to the
    Department of Energy, and you didn't get a response, I hope
    what you will do is call me first, and then we will go find out
    who didn't write you back in a timely way.
        Ms. Kaptur. Okay. But there is no policy or guidance
    prohibiting or delaying responses to Democratic Members of
    Congress?
        Secretary Perry. You know, I used to be a Democrat.
        Ms. Kaptur. We will invite you back at the right moment.
        Secretary Perry. I was going to tell you: There is still
    time for you, ma'am.
        In all seriousness, not at all. If you find that the agency
    is not responsive, seriously, a phone call to me is all that
    will be required.
        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Simpson. Mr. Calvert.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        You mentioned the small module reactors. As a Nation, we
    have spent a considerable amount of resources into research on
    fusion. I know that the results from that have been less than
    spectacular. But, as you know, you were in France recently, we
    have a Project ITER, international thermonuclear reactor, that
    we have put a lot of resources into--and along with a number of
    other nations. I just bring this up hoping at some point in the
    future we can resolve this issue of fusion--which, you know,
    from President Eisenhower on, we have been looking to resolve.
        On the issue of computer capability. I would assume, and I
    would hope, that the Department of Energy works closely with
    NSA and the Department of Defense on what they are doing to
    develop computer technologies and I hope there are no
    redundancies in research that is being conducted as far as that
    is concerned.
        Secretary Perry. Mr. Calvert, I wanted to turn over here
    because I want to give you some numbers that I think are really
    important about exascale. And you are absolutely correct. And
    it is not just about, you know, wanting to wear the crown of
    having the fastest computer with the most capacity. What our
    national labs and the partnerships that we see out there, and I
    will give you one example of something that I would suggest
    every one of you is supportive of, and that is our veterans.
    The national labs are partnering with private sector and with
    other agencies of government, because of this massive computing
    capability that we have and our ability to keep up, whether it
    is on the NNSA side with our weapons, or the VA who came to us
    last year, well before I got there. My support of veterans is
    known. When I found out that we had the potential here--it is
    called the Million Veteran Project. We are asking 1 million
    veterans to give blood and volunteer their medical records so
    that we can do DNA testing. VA is running that program using
    DOE computing capability so that we are going to be able to
    tell a million veterans: Such as a young female military
    veteran, who has a DNA marker for breast cancer or for cervical
    cancer, or a young man who has the potential in his DNA marker
    for prostate cancer and how they could prepare for that. I
    mean, this is really life-changing and a quantum leap forward
    from a medical standpoint, from my perspective. And DOE's
    computing capability is a quality of life issue for our
    citizens. And then you take it over into the scientific side,
    there is this issue of fusion that you talked about. And, you
    know, again, that is kind of a Holy Grail on the side of
    energy, as well that we have been pursuing for a long time. But
    our supercomputing capability may be what allows us to crack
    that. And so our investment in that is really important. We are
    requesting $508 million. That is $249 million over fiscal year
    2017 to accelerate the delivery of an exascale computer by
    2021. That is going to Argonne. And then by 2022, there is a
    second machine going to Oak Ridge. And it is totally different
    architecture. I mean, that is kind of the fascinating thing, is
    so you have got exascale, which is going to Oregon; then you
    got the next gen, which is going to Oak Ridge. That will,
    again, put the United States in its rightful place, from my
    perspective, as being the most technically advanced
    supercomputing Nation on the globe.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Simpson. Mr. Fleischmann--or, Mr. Aguilar. Sorry.
        Mr. Aguilar. No problem. No problem. Happens all the time,
    Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Simpson. You are so far down there.
        Mr. Aguilar. It is like a 5-9 caucus he and I occupy. Don't
    worry. Yeah.
        Voice. You guys look alike, right?
        Mr. Aguilar. I appreciate it.
        Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        I wanted to get specific on something I saw in an appendix
    to NNSA. A recently released GAO report raised some concern
    about cost estimates associated with our nuclear modernization
    programs and said they might be understated. I will use the B61
    life extension program, B61-12, as an example. One cost
    estimate produced by NNSA Office of Cost Estimating and Program
    Evaluation points out that it could cost $2.6 billion more than
    previous estimates to complete this program. But the original
    baseline from NNSA's fiscal year 2017 Stockpile Stewardship and
    Management Program Plan was just released in March of 2016.
        So here is my question: The discrepancy between these, in
    such a small window of time, do you feel that program cost
    estimates provided by the Office of Cost Estimating and Program
    Evaluation show that it is improving the program and it needs
    to change or expand? As a followup, what are some of the
    implications to the variety that we see in the cost estimating?
        Secretary Perry. Mr. Aguilar, let me get back with you on
    that----
        Mr. Aguilar. Sure. We can put something into the record and
    ask----
        Secretary Perry. I want to give you an answer, but I can't
    because I am not privy to the discrepancies there.
        Mr. Aguilar. Sure. And we will put it into the record----
        Secretary Perry. Yes, sir, please.
        Mr. Aguilar [continuing]. And ask your staff to get back to
    us.
        Sticking with nonproliferation, the fiscal year 2018 budget
    shows a reduction in these programs, as we have highlighted.
    Will these reductions continue in future budgets? The chairman
    alluded to a multiyear outlook that the agency will provide.
    Does this say anything about U.S. policy towards nuclear
    nonproliferation? And is NNSA--do you feel this sets us down
    the right path?
        Secretary Perry. Here is one of the things, and I mentioned
    this earlier, that because of our successes that we had with
    some of the nonproliferation programs and I think the backing
    out of those, and what I am talking about are 40 countries and
    the eastern European countries that have had successful
    reductions of that highly enriched, and materials removed from
    them, that there is some reductions in the nonproliferation
    budget because we have been successful.
        Now with that said, I am not telling you that going forward
    we are going to continue to have reductions. What I will tell
    you is that the agency is as committed to nonproliferation as
    its ever been. We will manage the dollars and we will manage
    the programs and, obviously, working with the Members in
    Congress, in a way that is acceptable to you and to our
    partners in this.
        Mr. Aguilar. I appreciate it. Thank you.
        Continue down to the electrical grid that we have discussed
    about. As we have talked, the electric power system is vital
    and efficient to our economy and the capabilities of our
    system. The smart grid improvements are widely considered
    essential. DOE has changed the smart grid research and
    development program to the resilient distributions system
    program and decreased its budget by 71 percent, compared to
    fiscal year 2016, enacted, and 80 percent from fiscal year
    2017, enacted.
        Given those considerations, can you talk about the
    rationale for the proposed reduction under this category, the
    smart grid category?
        Secretary Perry. Yes, sir. Obviously, managing the agency,
    and again, I go back to I hope that the committee will have
    some flexibility when it comes to being able to move dollars
    around line item to line item. I am a big supporter of smart
    grid. We did some major projects in the State of Texas.
        You know, I think one of the things that we do need to do
    is, not necessarily from just a straight up funding standpoint,
    but best practices go back to the States and have the Governors
    and the legislators aware of the programs that are out there to
    be able to let them manage their grids in particularly smart
    meters and those types of technologies that we can get out into
    their hands.
        So to answer your question about are we going to be able to
    address the smart grid, you know, the smart meters, the
    different innovations and technologies, I feel comfortable that
    we will. And again, this being the first step in this budgetary
    process, I feel comfortable.
        Mr. Aguilar. I appreciate your answer. And this is the
    second time you have mentioned, you know, the flexibility. And
    I want to let you know and convey that I trust your management
    ability, but I do feel, you know, there are rules within the
    committee, and that is between the ranking member and the
    chairman and your agency, on how money gets moved around based
    on those priorities.
        Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Aguilar. That is why we take this budget process so
    seriously.
        Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Aguilar. That is why we dig in and we want to get this
    right, because we want to give the guidance to your agency so
    you don't have to come and ask for movement. But that is your
    prerogative and we trust that leadership. So thank you so much.
    I appreciate the time.
        Secretary Perry. I look forward to working with you, sir.
        Mr. Simpson. Mr. Fleischmann.
        Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary, I would like to thank you for a very
    positive, insightful, and thoughtful hearing today. And my
    colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I think we did an
    outstanding job. And we have touched on the depths and the
    breadth of all the different things that the Department of
    Energy touches, so I want to thank everybody for that.
        An important issue I promoted, Mr. Secretary, for years is
    a closer working relationship to alleviate some of the
    Department of Energy's unintended consequences on local
    communities, especially sites that are close to population
    areas. Land transfers, aging infrastructure, like the Oak Ridge
    water plant, and environmental challenges require a closer
    partnership between DOE and its host communities. I would like
    to see the Department do more.
        Mr. Secretary, will you and your staff work with me to
    encourage innovative solutions and more effective partnerships
    between the Department offices under you and our local
    community, sir?
        Secretary Perry. Yes, sir. And, you know, having visited
    with Oak Ridge and both spent the night there and driven
    through the community and recognizing how it is not unlike what
    I think I am going to see when I go to Richland. These are
    communities that are symbiotic. The city of Oak Ridge and the
    Y-12 facility, the uranium processing facility, exist because
    of each other. And I think having a respect, both ways, is
    really important. And you have my commitment that not only am I
    going to be open to your suggestions, but the Mayor of Oak
    Ridge, the Governor of Tennessee, and the Congressman that
    represent that area, to manage the challenges, but to also
    recognize the extraordinary potential that is there for those
    communities as well as to coordinate with them and not be
    making decisions unilaterally. There is a great opportunity and
    I am very open to let's talk.
        Mr. Fleischmann. Mr. Secretary, thank you so much. And it
    is mutual. You will find that not only from me, from our
    Senators, and also from our local communities and elected
    leaders. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
        Mr. Simpson. Mr. Newhouse.
        Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary, I appreciate the extra time here so we can
    really drill down into some deep parts of the Department's
    responsibilities.
        I wanted to talk a little bit about the building
    technologies office, which as you probably know, has saved many
    Americans, over time, billions in energy costs. It certainly
    has been able to bring together a collaboration between, in my
    State, the University of Washington, WSU, as well as the
    Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in helping connect
    campuses to test energy savings technologies.
        So could you talk a little bit and explain how these
    programs are going to be able to continue under the current
    budget proposal in order to see the benefits in both private
    and public sectors?
        Secretary Perry. Yes, sir. And I will be pretty brief and
    straight to the point here. You know, these funding opportunity
    announcements that will continue to come out of the agency and
    working with the local universities, and the private sector,
    you know, are we going to have a reduction of the total number
    of dollars? Yes. But I think that is where it gets down to us
    working together and prioritizing what are the real core
    missions of the Department of Energy, and are these projects,
    you know, worthy to go forward?
        And I did that, Mr. Newhouse. As the Governor of Texas, we
    had a number of programs, both with emerging technology, in
    particular, where we had basically a private sector review
    board that looked at the projects, made the decisions about,
    you know, whether or not they should go forward and did they
    meet the standards that we put in place. I know we have a group
    not unlike that. I may want to fine tune it. I may want to, you
    know, ask for the input of the committee here as we go forward
    as we do that. But we will continue to be looking.
        I think the core mission of the Department of Energy is to
    promote innovation and technology. I understand the NNSA's role
    and what they have to do, but those National Labs, and working
    in concert with our universities and the private sector out
    there, they have the potential to continue to really make a
    difference in people's lives. Does that mean we are going to
    get every one of these projects right? Does it mean that every
    one of these is going to, you know, commercialize into some
    great next big thing? No. But I think it is our responsibility
    and I think it is our duty to continue to look for the ways to
    promote innovation, technology. And, you know, that is my
    philosophy.
        I am historically used to doing it and, you know, not every
    project is going to get funded. I understand that. And I look
    forward to folks coming forward with their best ideas and their
    best ideas about how to fund these projects, and then we will
    collectively make a decision about what direction we will go.
        Mr. Newhouse. I appreciate that.
        I also had one question too on payments in lieu of taxes,
    the PILT program that has been in place for many decades. I
    believe it is significantly reduced or even eliminated at least
    four counties surrounding Hanford reservation. Could you talk
    about your philosophy there and perhaps the rationale behind
    that?
        Secretary Perry. Well, since I didn't completely write all
    of this budget, sir, I will, in that particular area, if you
    will allow me the flexibility one more time to get back to you
    and give you an appropriate answer, rather than just taking a
    wing at it here.
        Mr. Newhouse. Okay. We will have a lot of time to talk when
    we are touring the Hanford site.
        Secretary Perry. Yes, sir. That we will. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Newhouse. All right. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Simpson. Mr. Joyce.
        Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary, I am troubled that the United States no
    longer has any capacity to enrich uranium, and the current plan
    is not to restore this capacity for 21 years. Do you agree that
    uranium enrichment is vital for our national security, and that
    restoring enrichment capacity in the near term is in the
    national interest?
        Secretary Perry. As a general rule, yes, sir, I do. I think
    that, from a national security standpoint, that having the
    ability to do that is in our national security interest.
        With that said, I think we have a fairly robust stockpile
    at this particular point in time. But if we are to go forward
    with these life extension programs and, for that matter, on the
    civil nuclear side, we are going to have to have a conversation
    here in the Halls of Congress about when and if and how that
    does go forward.
        Mr. Joyce. Well, if, in fact, you were going to have that
    conversation, there are certainly some fellow Buckeyes in
    southern Ohio, from the Piketon plant, who would love to have
    that conversation with you, as well as Ms. Kaptur and Mr. Ryan,
    who are also on appropriations.
        Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Joyce. Thank you. I yield my time back.
        Mr. Simpson. Mr. Fortenberry.
        Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary, I just want to turn very briefly back to
    MOX. What I don't want to see--please, I am just lowering your
    temperature--what I don't want to see is what the chairman
    alluded to, another conference committee this year that says,
    oh, well, we just couldn't make a decision and let's put
    another $300 million more into it, when we have got all kinds
    of other places to park that kind of money for important
    national values and objectives.
        So to the chairman's point, we don't want to waste money;
    the projection of the project is very tenuous. Yet the deeper
    answers just seem to be allusive, will New Mexico take it. Is
    there a dormant agreement with the Russians which will be
    complicated by this? Is the fast reactor a more medium-termed
    decision that could unwind some of the complexities of this?
        Why don't we just make a commitment quickly to get some
    answers to these things so we have a true cost comparison
    versus treading water, throwing more hundreds of millions of
    dollars at it, with an ever increasingly remote possibility
    this thing will ever get built. I think that is just the best
    thing to do.
        Secretary Perry. Yes, sir. And to direct answer that, that
    is what we are attempting to do. I mean, we are----
        Mr. Fortenberry. Okay. We have got about 90 days.
        Secretary Perry. Right, I understand that. And I have had
    multiple meetings. I have been on the job now since the 2nd day
    of March. And MOX is--I know more about MOX than I ever thought
    I would and ever wanted to know, to tell you the truth.
        Mr. Fortenberry. Well, I feel the same way. I am just going
    down line items, what is this?
        Secretary Perry. That is beside the point. You are
    absolutely correct that we as a country need to get the
    answers. We need to know how much this is going to cost with
    some amount of certainty.
        And, Mr. Chairman, you are right. I mean, it is stunning
    the difference in the numbers that you can get. You know, the
    Corps of Engineers has their estimates. And, you know, I want
    to sit down with the contractor, and you know, Senator Graham
    shares with us this is what the contractor has said that they
    can get this done for. And then we have letters that basically
    do not agree with that. So--
        Mr. Fortenberry. Well, you can imagine our frustration----
        Secretary Perry. Yes, sir. We need to get some people in a
    room and figure this out.
        Mr. Fortenberry. Okay. The second point. Back to
    nonproliferation. We have also had this conversation last year.
    This is a hallmark, I think, of smart, prudent public policy to
    have an accent mark on the--again, an architecture for
    nonproliferation. If one of these things goes off in the world,
    it doesn't matter the healthcare debate, it doesn't matter the
    budget. Just one. And the purpose of a nuclear weapon is to
    prevent nuclear war. And so yet nuclear weapons are back.
    China's increasing, Russia's increasing, we know the situation
    in North Korea. And other areas of the world, actually, over
    the last 25 years, thankfully, have pulled back from the
    precipes, leaving us with spent nuclear material, leaving us
    with dangerous material out there. And a number of these
    programs have been very successful in pulling that back, which
    again is related to mitigating a terrorist threat. But it all
    gets combined, I think, into creating a culture in which this
    is a decided priority, and we project that on the international
    stage.
        So in that regard, please, let us think creatively with
    you. I completely agree with the last administration's emphasis
    on nuclear security summits. I think those were successful.
    They began to get more and more multilateral buy-in to the
    issue of securing material, but it also creates, again, the
    gateway of the raising of consciousness internationally as to
    just how dangerous of a situation we are entering into with
    international stability and more and more weaponization and the
    technology readily coming out of the bottle.
        Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Fortenberry. So if there is one thing that you can do
    as Secretary to pull us back from this precipes, we will do
    whatever we can to creatively think with you. I think that is
    the most valuable thing we could do together.
        Secretary Perry. Yes, sir. Consider us being a partner.
        Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
        That was a good idea. If you have a MOX summit, I will be
    there, because we have been debating this for so long and we
    need to make some final decisions. But I would point out that
    we don't save $340 million by not funding MOX. There is still
    $270 million in there for cold storage, so--and put it in cold
    standby or whatever. So it is a perplexing problem. And Mr.
    Alexander, Chairman Alexander and I have spent a lot of time
    debating and arguing and so forth. I understand where he is
    coming from, he understands where I am coming from, but we need
    to make some decisions.
        Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Simpson. We need to make some decisions on that. We
    need to make some decisions on a few other things that are
    perplexing within the complex.
        And I want to tell you that we when you decide to go to
    Hanford, I would be happy to go with you. That is a great place
    to go. I know a great restaurant. We can have some good times.
    You know, everybody--when we think about Hanford, we always
    think about the cleanup, and it is huge cleanup issues up
    there. But we forget about PNNL. PNNL is a great laboratory. It
    does some great work. So I was glad to see that Mr. Newhouse
    brought that up.
        But thank you for being here today. We look forward to
    working with you as we go through and address some of our
    concerns and some of your concerns within this budget, that we
    will get a budget that you can work with and do the job that
    you have been hired to do. We appreciate it. Thank you.
        Secretary Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
    members.
        Mr. Simpson. The meeting is adjourned.
        [Questions and answers submitted for the record follow:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]