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

                      DOE MODERNIZATION: ADVANCING DOE'S
                      MISSION FOR NATIONAL, ECONOMIC, AND
                      ENERGY SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES

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

                                     HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                             SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

                                     OF THE

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                JANUARY 9, 2018

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 115-90

     [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

          Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

                            energycommerce.house.gov

                                   __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    29-537                     WASHINGTON : 2018

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

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                              GREG WALDEN, Oregon
                                     Chairman
    JOE BARTON, Texas                    FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
      Vice Chairman                        Ranking Member
    FRED UPTON, Michigan                 BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
    JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois               ANNA G. ESHOO, California
    MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas            ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
    MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee          GENE GREEN, Texas
    STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana             DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio                MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
    CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington   JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
    GREGG HARPER, Mississippi            G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
    LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey            DORIS O. MATSUI, California
    BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky              KATHY CASTOR, Florida
    PETE OLSON, Texas                    JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
    DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia     JERRY McNERNEY, California
    ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois             PETER WELCH, Vermont
    H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia         BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
    GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida            PAUL TONKO, New York
    BILL JOHNSON, Ohio                   YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
    BILLY LONG, Missouri                 DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
    LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana               KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
    BILL FLORES, Texas                   JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
    SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana                 Massachusetts
    MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma           TONY CARDENAS, California
    RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina       RAUL RUIZ, California
    CHRIS COLLINS, New York              SCOTT H. PETERS, California
    KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota           DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
    TIM WALBERG, Michigan
    MIMI WALTERS, California
    RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
    EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
    JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
                             Subcommittee on Energy

                              FRED UPTON, Michigan
                                     Chairman
    PETE OLSON, Texas                    BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
      Vice Chairman                        Ranking Member
    JOE BARTON, Texas                    JERRY McNERNEY, California
    JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois               SCOTT H. PETERS, California
    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio                GENE GREEN, Texas
    GREGG HARPER, Mississippi            MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
    DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia     KATHY CASTOR, Florida
    ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois             JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
    H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia         PETER WELCH, Vermont
    BILL JOHNSON, Ohio                   PAUL TONKO, New York
    BILLY LONG, Missouri                 DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
    LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana               KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
    BILL FLORES, Texas                   JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
    MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma               Massachusetts
    RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina       G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
    KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota           FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
    TIM WALBERG, Michigan                    officio)
    JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
    GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)

                                 C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Michigan, opening statement....................................     2
        Prepared statement...........................................     3
    Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of Illinois, opening statement.................................     4
    Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Oregon, opening statement......................................     5
        Prepared statement...........................................     7
    Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
      State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................     8

                                   Witnesses

    Dan Brouillette, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy.....     9
        Prepared statement...........................................    12
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   193
    Mark Menezes, Under Secretary of Energy, U.S. Department of
      Energy.........................................................    25
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   266
    Paul Dabbar, Under Secretary for Science, U.S. Department of
      Energy.........................................................    26
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   278
    Frank Klotz, Under Secretary for Nuclear Security, and
      Administrator National Nuclear Security Administration, U.S.
      Department of Energy...........................................    27
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   280
    Thomas Zacharia, Director, Oak Ridge National Laboratory.........    73
        Prepared statement...........................................    75
    Donald Levy, Albert A. Michelson Distinguished Service Professor
      Emeritus, University of Chicago and Co-Chair, Panel to Track
      and Assess Governance and Management Reforms in the Nuclear
      Security Enterprise............................................    92
        Prepared statement...........................................    94
    Sarah Ladislaw, Director, Energy and National Security Program,
      Center for Strategic And International Studies.................   100
        Prepared statement...........................................   102
    Steve Wasserman, Director, Lilly Research Laboratories
      Collaborative Access Team, Advanced Photon Source, Argonne
      National Laboratory, on behalf of the Society for Science at
      User Research Facilities.......................................   112
        Prepared statement...........................................   114
    Dan Reicher, Executive Director, Stanford University Steyer-
      Taylor Center for Energy Policy and Finance and Senior Fellow,
      Brookings Institution..........................................   122
        Prepared statement...........................................   124
    Rich Powell, Executive Director, Clearpath Foundation............   158
        Prepared statement...........................................   160

                               Submitted Material

    Statement of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
      Energy, submitted by Mr. Upton.................................   185
    Statement of the Department of Energy Loan Programs Office,
      submitted by Mr. Upton.........................................   188

    DOE MODERNIZATION: ADVANCING DOE'S MISSION FOR NATIONAL, ECONOMIC, AND
                      ENERGY SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES

                                  ----------

                            TUESDAY, JANUARY 9, 2018

                      House of Representatives,
                                Subcommittee on Energy,
                              Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 in room
    2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Fred Upton (chairman
    of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Upton, Olson, Barton, Shimkus,
    Latta, Harper, McKinley, Kinzinger, Griffith, Johnson, Long,
    Bucshon, Flores, Mullin, Hudson, Cramer, Walberg, Duncan,
    Walden (ex officio), Rush, Peters, Doyle, Castor, Sarbanes,
    Welch, Tonko, Loebsack, Schrader, Kennedy, Butterfield, and
    Pallone (ex officio).
        Staff Present: Ray Baum, Staff Director; Mike Bloomquist,
    Deputy Staff Director; Samantha Bopp, Staff Assistant; Allie
    Bury, Legislative Clerk, Energy Environment; Karen Christian,
    General Counsel; Kelly Collins, Staff Assistant; Wyatt
    Ellertson, Professional Staff, Energy/Environment; Margaret
    Tucker Fogarty, Staff Assistant; Adam Fromm, Director of
    Outreach and Coalitions; Jordan Haverly, Policy Coordinator,
    Environment; A.T. Johnston, Senior Policy Advisor, Energy; Ben
    Lieberman, Senior Counsel, Energy; Mary Martin, Chief Counsel,
    Energy/Environment; Katie McKeogh, Press Assistant; Brandon
    Mooney, Deputy Chief Counsel, Energy; Mark Ratner, Policy
    Coordinator; Annelise Rickert, Counsel, Energy; Dan Schneider,
    Press Secretary; Peter Spencer, Professional Staff Member,
    Energy; Jason Stanek, Senior Counsel, Energy; Madeline Vey,
    Policy Coordinator, DCCP; Andy Zach, Senior Professional Staff
    Member, Environment; Priscilla Barbour, Minority Energy Fellow;
    Rick Kessler, Minority Senior Advisor and Staff Director,
    Energy and Environment; John Marshall, Minority Policy
    Coordinator; Jon Monger, Minority Counsel; Alexander Ratner,
    Minority Policy Analyst; Tim Robinson, Minority Chief Counsel;
    Andrew Souvall, Minority Director of Communications, Outreach
    and Member Services; Tuley Wright, Minority Energy and
    Environment Policy Advisor; and C.J. Young, Minority Press
    Secretary.

       OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

        Mr. Upton. Good morning. Good morning, everybody. Happy New
    Year.
        Today's hearing begins this subcommittee's work in this
    session to identify what steps we need to do to make sure that
    DOE can address the national economic and energy security
    challenges that are going to be confronting the Nation over the
    coming number of decades.
        Recent years, we have been updating certain agency programs
    and authorities to shift DOE's mission focus more fully away
    from the energy scarcity mind-set of its founding back in the
    1970s. We have worked to position the agency more appropriately
    toward the tremendous energy resources now available to our
    country and the economic and geopolitical benefits of those
    resources. We have sought to modernize the Department's
    strategic petroleum reserve and its response capabilities, and
    we have upgraded DOE's emergency preparedness for energy supply
    distributions and its authorities to protect critical
    infrastructure from physical as well as cyber attacks.
        But we are reminded almost daily that more needs to be
    done. Growing nuclear weapons, threats, and tens of billions of
    dollars needed to maintain the nuclear deterrent underscores
    the urgency for creating efficient, effective, and durable
    governance and management of DOE's nuclear security missions.
        So increasingly complex interconnections of our modern
    energy systems propelled by the digital efficiencies of the
    cyber age present new and growing risks. Getting ahead of these
    risks requires secretarial leadership and coordinated attention
    across the agency's many programs and operations. Modernizing
    the Department of Energy means ensuring it has the appropriate
    statutory authorities and sound management structures to meet
    not only the challenges that we know about today, but what may
    be coming over the horizon. It means ensuring agency leadership
    can align with the Department's operations and resources to
    meet those priorities, and it means ensuring the tremendous
    scientific and technological assets of this agency are
    effectively focused for the benefit of the long-term security
    and prosperity of all Americans.
        Our two panels today will help look at what is needed to
    meet current and emerging challenges. We are going to hear from
    the senior leadership of the Department on the first panel. And
    with that, who once served this committee very well as its
    staff director, is the deputy secretary for the Department. He
    is essentially DOE's CEO. So I look forward to hearing his
    plans for aligning the Department to meet the administration's
    priorities and to discuss those priorities.
        He is joined by three Department Under Secretaries
    responsible for the bulk of its missions. Under Secretary of
    Energy Mark Menezes, also a capable alumnus of this committee,
    can help us understand what is necessary to enhance the
    Department's work regarding all of our national energy policy
    interests, and what more may be needed to enhance DOE's
    emergency and cyber functions. General Frank Klotz, who heads
    the Department's nuclear security enterprise, and with several
    years under his belt at DOE, has important perspective on what
    is needed for efficient and effective execution of the
    Department's vital nuclear and nonproliferation programs and
    related work across the DOE's enterprise. And finally, Under
    Secretary of Science Paul Dabbar can help examine how best to
    deploy and maintain the scientific and technological
    capabilities at the national laboratory system and its
    facilities offer to support the Department's missions. He also
    has new responsibilities for the Office of Environmental
    Management which oversees complicated environmental cleanup
    projects that present a host of management challenges.
        The second panel offers broader perspectives to help us
    assess what more is needed to improve execution of the agency's
    mission and to prepare for future challenges. We will hear from
    distinguished leaders and scientists on what is necessary to
    unleash the full benefits of the national lab system. We will
    hear how to ensure appropriate oversight in management of
    projects and programs in the national and nuclear security
    space and across departmental activities. We will hear how
    better to focus DOE's support of innovation and what our era of
    the energy abundance means for DOE responsibilities, both here
    and abroad.
        Our testimony today will start a record to inform our
    modernization efforts and to assist us as we prioritize what
    program authorizations to tackle in this new session of the
    Congress.
        With that, I yield for an opening statement from my friend
    and colleague, the ranking member of the energy subcommittee,
    Mr. Rush, from the good State of Illinois.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:]

                     Prepared statement of Hon. Fred Upton

        Today's hearing begins the subcommittee's work this session
    to identify what steps Congress may take to be sure DOE can
    address the national, economic, and energy security challenges
    that will be confronting the Nation over the coming decades.
        In recent years, we've been updating certain agency
    programs and authorities to shift DOE's mission focus more
    fully away from the energy scarcity mindset of its founding in
    the 1970s.
        We've worked to position the agency more appropriately
    towards the tremendous energy resources now available to our
    nation--and the economic and geopolitical benefits of those
    resources. We've sought to modernize the department's Strategic
    Petroleum Reserve and its response capabilities. And we've
    upgraded DOE's emergency preparedness for energy supply
    disruptions and its authorities to protect critical
    infrastructure from physical and cyber threats.
        But we are reminded almost daily that more needs to be
    done. Growing nuclear weapons threats and the tens of billions
    of dollars needed to maintain the nuclear deterrent underscore
    the urgency for creating efficient, effective, and durable
    governance and management of DOE's nuclear security missions.
        The increasingly complex interconnections of our modern
    energy systems, propelled by the digital efficiencies of the
    cyber age, present new and growing risks. Getting ahead of
    these risks requires Secretarial leadership and coordinated
    attention across the agency's many programs and operations.
        Modernizing the Department of Energy means ensuring it has
    the appropriate statutory authorities and sound management
    structure to meet not only the challenges we know about today,
    but what may be coming over the horizon.
        It means ensuring agency leadership can align the
    department's operations and resources to meet priorities. It
    means ensuring the tremendous scientific and technological
    assets of this agency are effectively focused for the benefit
    of the long-term security and prosperity of Americans.
        Our two panels today will help us look at what is needed to
    meet current and emerging challenges. We will hear from the
    senior leadership of the Department on the first panel.
        Dan Brouillette, who once served this Committee very well
    as its staff director, is the Deputy Secretary for the
    Department. He is essentially DOE's chief operating officer,
    and so I look forward to hearing his plans for aligning the
    department to meet the Administration's priorities, and to
    discuss those priorities.
        He is joined by the three Department Under Secretaries,
    responsible for the bulk of its missions. Under Secretary of
    Energy Mark Menezes, also a capable alumnus of this committee,
    can help us understand what is necessary to enhance the
    department's work regarding all our national energy policy
    interests, and what more may be needed to enhance DOE's
    emergency and cyber functions.
        General Frank Klotz, who heads the Department's nuclear
    security enterprise and, with several years under his belt at
    DOE, has important perspective on what is needed for efficient
    and effective execution of the Department's vital nuclear and
    nonproliferation programs, and related work across DOE's
    enterprise.
        Finally, Under Secretary for Science Paul Dabbar, can help
    examine how best to deploy and maintain the scientific and
    technological capabilities the national laboratory system and
    its facilities offer to support the Department's missions. He
    also has new responsibilities for the Office of Environmental
    Management--which oversees complicated environmental cleanup
    projects that present a host of management challenges.
        Our second panel offers broader perspectives to help us
    assess what more is needed to improve execution of the agency's
    missions and to prepare for future challenges.
        We'll hear from distinguished leaders and scientists on
    what is necessary to unleash the full benefits of the national
    laboratory system. We'll hear how to ensure appropriate
    oversight and management of projects and programs in the
    national and nuclear security space and across departmental
    activities.
        We'll hear how better to focus DOE's support of innovation
    and what our era of energy abundance means for DOE
    responsibilities, here and abroad.
        Our testimony today will start a record to inform our
    modernization efforts and to assist us as we prioritize what
    program authorizations to tackle in the upcoming session of
    Congress.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

        Mr. Rush. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding
    this important hearing on modernizing the Department of Energy.
    I also want to welcome all of the witnesses to this hearing.
        Mr. Chairman, for constituents, such as those I represent,
    one of the most pressing issues regarding DOE involves a matter
    of ensuring that the agency is representative of all
    communities, and that the needs of all citizens are being
    addressed through its energy policy and initiatives including
    the loan and grant programs as well as through engagement at
    the national labs, and access to contracting and vendor
    opportunities. Many of my constituents are constantly seeking
    ways to break into what has essentially become an onerous, good
    ol' boys network.
        As you are aware of, Mr. Chairman, my office worked
    extensively with former Secretary Moniz to establish the
    minorities and energy initiative which was designed to help
    foster increased minority participation in all sections of the
    energy industry. And this initiative, Mr. Chairman, was
    successful in beginning the process of raising awareness and
    engagement between DOE, industry, and minority communities.
    However, Secretary Perry did not seem to even be aware of the
    program, and many of the activities that were established by
    this initiative seemed to have tapered off.
        Mr. Chairman, as we go through this process of modernizing
    the Department, it is imperative that we examine the leadership
    profile of the agency and work to ensure that there is
    diversity at the top where most of the decisions and policies
    are first enacted. We need more people of color in the top
    echelons of the Department from the Secretary's office as well
    as in the Office of Science, which directs billions of research
    dollars to higher education institutions.
        Mr. Chairman, we need more diversity of people, and so, on
    the review boards, and the boards and counselors which are
    responsible for making key decisions regarding the national
    labs, among many other issues. Mr. Chairman, when it comes to
    these same national labs, we need more women and people of
    color running these institutions so that decisions regarding
    increased inclusion and diversity are made inherently, and not
    simply as an afterthought or as a checklist, or as an empty
    token act.
        Additionally, Mr. Chairman, we need to ensure that the
    senior executive staff, or SES, who play pivotal roles in
    running the Department and making important decisions regarding
    the agency's policies and priorities also include men and women
    of color.
        Mr. Chairman, it is easy to overlook the importance of
    these issues if you are not among the groups that have been
    historically excluded. But when we are using taxpayer dollars
    to fund the labs or to dole out loans and grants to the same
    schools, the same universities, or to provide millions of
    dollars to contractors and vendors, then it must be incumbent
    upon us, the policymakers here in Congress, to ensure that
    everyone is given the same opportunity to share in the wealth
    and to share in the resources.
        So, Mr. Chairman, that said, I look forward to working with
    Mr. Martin as well as other members of this subcommittee to
    restructure the Department in a way that addresses the systemic
    and institutional discrepancies that exist in the agency today.
        With that, I yield back.
        Mr. Upton. Thank you.
        The chair will now recognize the chair of the full
    committee, Mr. Walden, from Oregon.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                   CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

        Mr. Walden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I want
    to welcome our panelists here today. This is a really important
    hearing for the committee, and it is a goal of this committee
    to begin the process to modernize the Department of Energy, an
    agency that was created in an era of scarcity. And we find
    ourselves in an era of abundance but of new challenges
    involving the environment and energy. And so we look forward to
    your testimony today. In October, we heard directly from
    Secretary Perry on his vision for the Department. Today, we
    will hear from the top leaders of that Department on how the
    Secretary's vision can be advanced and the role Congress is
    being asked to play.
        We also have a distinguished second panel. This panel
    features important perspectives on Department of Energy's
    various operations concerning the national labs, nuclear
    oversight, research, and energy security challenges. So I
    appreciate all of your participation today. It is also always a
    pleasure to welcome back to the Energy and Commerce Committee
    alumni, including both Deputy Director Brouillette and Under
    Secretary Menezes, who served this committee with distinction.
    Dan was staff director and Mark as the Energy and Environment
    chief counsel. So we look forward to having you back. It is
    always fun to question former members of the committee who
    wrote questions for all of us to ask other witnesses in the
    past.
        I also understand that Under Secretary Dabbar visited the
    Hanford site this last week. Thank you for doing that.
    Secretary Perry was kind enough both to come out and visit
    Hanford as well as take a look at McNary Dam, one of our great
    hydro energy, noncarbon-emitting energy sources in the
    northwest last year.
        Hanford is just up the Columbia River from my home and
    across from my district. And all of us in the Pacific Northwest
    are deeply concerned about the cleanup, making sure it says on
    schedule, on budget, and on time. I also want to recognize
    Administrator Klotz's long service to our country, sir. General
    Klotz has served in distinguished positions in both Republican
    and Democratic administrations throughout his career, including
    almost 4 years as NNSA administrator. So we are glad for your
    service and your participation today.
        While the domestic international energy posture is
    substantially different from what it was when Congress
    established the Department more than 40 years ago, the
    importance of DOE's role in serving the national and the public
    interest has only increased. We are reaping the benefits of
    energy abundance. But legacy challenges remain, such as the
    cleanup of Cold War sites and permanent disposal of nuclear
    waste, which my colleague, Mr. Shimkus, has played an
    incredibly important, strong, and dedicated role toward
    achieving permanent and interim storage.
        New risks have evolved, such as cybersecurity threats, the
    electric grid, managing and overseeing the modernization of our
    aging energy infrastructure.
        So our responsibility is to ensure that a modernized
    Department of Energy is fully prepared to meet these 21st
    century challenges. So as we examine the DOE management and
    mission priorities today, we should keep in mind the benefits
    of the interconnected nature of the Department's missions.
    These missions, national security, energy security,
    environmental remediation, and mission enabling scientific
    research across the DOE enterprise, can be difficult and
    expensive to manage.
        I am confident the team of professionals on our first panel
    today are up to this task. This committee will work through the
    remainder of this Congress and beyond to ensure the
    Department's organization and missions are aligned with the
    energy security challenges of the Nation and that we are nimble
    enough to meet the challenges of tomorrow. At my direction, the
    committee has been examining whether DOE resources are focused
    on its core missions. Going forward, we will review certain DOE
    authorizations--by the way, many of which expired a decade
    ago--to ensure proper program alignment.
        I believe in collaboration with the Department of Energy.
    Many bipartisan good government policies can be implemented if
    we work together. So I look forward to continuing a positive
    working relationship.
        The basic scientific and applied energy research conducted
    throughout the DOE lab system is the foundation for new
    technological advances. These advances enable us to remain an
    international leader in innovation, security, and scientific
    know-how. This is the fundamental question before us today: How
    can we best harness the Department's enormous scientific,
    technical, and world-class capabilities to enhance America's
    national, economic, and energy security?
        So I look forward to your testimony today and your response
    to our questions, both this panel and the one that follows.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
    time. And thank you for your leadership on this issue.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]

                     Prepared statement of Hon. Greg Walden

        Good morning and welcome to this morning's hearing as we
    continue our efforts to modernize the Department of Energy. In
    October, we heard directly from Secretary Perry on his vision
    for the department and today we will hear from his top
    lieutenants as to how the secretary's vision will be advanced.
        We also have a distinguished second panel, featuring
    important perspectives on DOE's various operations concerning
    the national labs, nuclear oversight, research and energy
    security challenges. I appreciate all of our witnesses joining
    us today.
        It is always a pleasure to welcome Energy and Commerce
    alumni back to the committee. Both Deputy Secretary Brouillette
    and Under Secretary Menezes served this committee with
    distinction--Dan as staff director and Mark as the Energy and
    Environment Chief Counsel. I appreciate that you know how this
    committee operates, and look forward to accomplishing much
    together.
        I also understand that Under Secretary Dabbar visited the
    Hanford site last week, which I appreciate. Hanford is just up
    the Columbia River from my Oregon district and all of us in the
    Pacific Northwest have a great interest in seeing the cleanup
    there completed. I would also like to recognize Administrator
    Klotz's long service to our country. General Klotz has served
    in distinguished positions in both Republican and Democrat
    administrations throughout his career, including almost 4 years
    as NNSA Administrator.
        While the domestic and international energy posture is
    substantially different from what it was when Congress
    established the department over 40 years ago, the importance of
    DOE's role in serving the national and public interest has
    increased. We are reaping the benefits of energy abundance, but
    legacy challenges remain, such as cleanup of Cold War sites and
    permanent disposal of nuclear waste. New risks have evolved,
    such as cyber security threats to the electric grid and
    managing and overseeing the modernization of our aging energy
    infrastructure. Our responsibility is to ensure a modernized
    DOE is fully prepared to meet these 21st Century challenges.
        As we examine the DOE management and mission priorities
    today, we should keep in mind the benefits of the
    interconnected nature of the department's missions. These
    missions--national security, energy security, environmental
    remediation, and mission-enabling scientific research-across
    the DOE enterprise can be difficult and expensive to manage. I
    am confident that the team of professionals on our first panel
    today are up to this task. This committee will work through the
    remainder of this Congress, and beyond, to ensure the
    department's organization and missions are aligned with the
    energy security challenges of today and are nimble enough to
    meet the challenges of tomorrow.
        At my direction, the committee has been examining whether
    DOE resources are focused on its core missions. Going forward,
    we will review certain DOE authorizations--many of which
    expired over a decade ago--to ensure proper program alignment.
    I believe, in collaboration with DOE, many bipartisan, good
    government policies can be implemented. I look forward to a
    positive working relationship.
        The basic scientific and applied energy research conducted
    throughout the DOE lab system is the foundation for new
    technological advances. These advances enable us to remain an
    international leader in innovation, security, and scientific
    know how. This is the fundamental question before us today: how
    can we best harness the department's enormous scientific,
    technical, and world-class capabilities to enhance America's
    national, economic, and energy security? I look forward to
    hearing from all the witnesses today.

        Mr. Upton. Thank you.
        The chair will now recognize the ranking member of the full
    committee, Mr. Pallone, from New Jersey, 5 minutes.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE
                IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        As we start a new year, it is nice to finally have a full
    panel of agency witnesses before us. Last year, I was
    repeatedly disappointed by the Trump administration's
    unwillingness to send agency witnesses before our committee.
    Today, we have an experienced panel of senior leadership
    officials from the Department of Energy, including two
    distinguished former Energy and Commerce staffers, Deputy
    Secretary Dan Brouillette, and Under Secretary for Energy Mark
    Menezes. I am pleased they are back with us, and I want to
    welcome them, as well as the other agency officials.
        The purpose of this hearing, according to my Republican
    colleagues, is to weigh whether DOE is in need of
    modernization, and what parts of its mission are still
    necessary. Now, publicly, my colleagues have discussed a full-
    fledged effort to reauthorize the Department, an effort that
    has not occurred since the creation of DOE over 40 years ago.
    However, so far, they have been short on details, and I hope to
    learn more today about what my Republican colleagues want to
    achieve in this endeavor. Specifically, we need to know what
    real problems at the Department we are attempting to solve. If
    my Republican colleagues want to take a targeted look at DOE
    programs to see where improvements can be made, then I am open
    to listening to their proposals. We might be able to find the
    areas of agreement where we could work together to enact
    solutions.
        However, if the goal is simply to eliminate scores of
    successful programs and arbitrarily shrink of size of DOE, like
    the unrealistic and flawed Trump budget proposal last year,
    then you are going to find opposition on this side of the
    aisle. Last year, President Trump made his priorities clear by
    proposing a budget for DOE that gutted or eliminated critical
    programs that historically had bipartisan support. The
    President's budget took a hatchet to popular bipartisan
    programs like energy efficiency, renewable energy, the Loan
    Programs Office and the Weatherization Assistance Program.
        If my Republican colleagues hope to work together on this,
    they should know in advance that we will not support any
    reorganization that harms these programs or others which
    benefit consumers and help combat climate change. And
    similarly, we will not support any reorganization that attempts
    to shift some or all of EPA's programs into the Department of
    Energy. I do believe there are ways that the DOE can improve,
    and more successfully, fulfill its mission. And I think we can
    work together to make those improvements. For example,
    according to the Government Accountability Office, DOE's Office
    of Environmental Management and the National Nuclear Security
    Administration have demonstrated limited progress in improving
    contract management and have struggled to ensure that they have
    the financial and staffing capacity to mitigate risk. So we can
    and must develop bipartisan solutions that address these and
    other critically important issues.
        The Department of Energy is a vital part of the executive
    branch, playing a critical role in incentivizing the
    development of clean energy technologies, conducting cutting-
    edge scientific research, and maintaining our Nation's nuclear
    security. DOE is also home to a number of other agencies that
    operate independently and are vital to our Nation's energy
    policy, including the Energy Information Administration and the
    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC. And it is
    critical that the independence of these agencies be maintained.
    I was pleased to see that FERC reaffirmed its independence
    yesterday when the five commissioners unanimously rejected
    Secretary Perry's proposal to provide preferential rates to
    coal and nuclear generation.
        So we have two knowledgeable panels of witnesses before us
    today, and I hope, and I look forward to hearing their
    perspective. And I yield back the balance of my time. I don't
    think any of my colleagues want the time, so I will yield back,
    Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Upton. The gentleman yields back, so we are ready for
    testimony.
        I want to thank you all of you for sending your testimony
    up in advance. We could look at it half-time between the
    Alabama and the Georgia game. And we appreciate that. Your
    testimony will be made part of the record in its entirety, and
    we will give each of you 5 minutes to summarize that before we
    do the questions. You know the drill, and we will start with
    our friend, Dan Brouillette.
        Thank you.
        You have got to turn that--we have new switches since you
    were here.

      STATEMENTS OF HON. DAN BROUILLETTE, DEPUTY SECRETARY, U.S.
      DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; HON. MARK MENEZES, UNDER SECRETARY OF
      ENERGY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; HON. PAUL DABBAR, UNDER
      SECRETARY FOR SCIENCE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; AND HON.
        FRANK KLOTZ, UNDER SECRETARY FOR NUCLEAR SECURITY, AND
     ADMINISTRATOR NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, U.S.
                          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                      STATEMENT OF DAN BROUILLETTE

        Mr. Brouillette. You guys have gotten a little technology
    since I have been here. And I am more accustomed to being on
    that side. The view is a little better from over there.
        Chairman Upton and Ranking Member Rush and members of the
    committee, speaking for myself and my three colleagues, who
    will also testify today, it is on honor to appear before you on
    behalf of the administration and the Department of Energy. This
    is my first opportunity to testify before Congress as the
    Deputy Secretary of Energy, and I appreciate the opportunity to
    update you on our progress.
        I am proud to work for such an outstanding Department, and
    especially under Secretary Perry, who is a true leader with
    exceptional management skills. He has set for us several
    priorities, and we will walk through this today. But just to
    run through them really quickly: Promoting America energy
    security by stressing innovation over regulation; enhancing
    national security through nuclear security; addressing the
    obligation of legacy management and nuclear waste; and the
    topic of today's hearing, modernizing the Department of Energy.
    With my full testimony submitted for the record, allow me to
    briefly discuss these priorities.
        Thanks to continued innovation from our national labs, we
    have ignited a technology revolution which has led to an energy
    revolution that is advancing our national security and our
    energy security. Today, we use energy cleaner and more
    efficiently, we obtain it from a wider diversity of sources,
    and we produce it more responsibly, affordably, and in greater
    abundance than previously predicted. We are closing in as a
    country on full energy independence, and we are on a path to
    achieving the administration's goal of energy dominance.
        For far too long, U.S. energy policy has been hampered by a
    false choice between two goals: growing our economy or
    protecting the environment. The result was an overload of
    regulations that drastically reduced energy production. Our
    administration and the Department of Energy are working to
    replace the ``or'' with an ``and.'' We are reducing unnecessary
    regulations on American energy, and in so doing, we are
    allowing our Nation to benefit fully from technological
    breakthroughs that reduce pollutants while dramatically
    increasing production.
        We are also focused on ensuring the reliable delivery of
    electrical energy to the American consumer for years to come.
    America's electrical grid is strong and reliable because it is
    powered by a diverse mix of energy sources. These sources work
    together to mitigate disruptions and increase resiliency when
    periods of extreme temperatures, like the one we just recently
    faced, affect supply and demand.
        As you know, last fall, Secretary Perry proposed that FERC
    consider establishing new pricing rules that factor in the
    important contributions of baseload generation to ensure long-
    term grid resiliency and reliability. FERC responded yesterday
    with the unanimous decision to direct regional transmission
    organizations and independent system operators to proactively
    evaluate the resilience of the bulk power system. We are
    encouraged by this action, and we look forward to working with
    FERC and the individual commissioners on this important issue.
        But taking steps to ensure the grid's diverse energy supply
    is but one aspect of DOE's critical mission. Today, the
    Secretary of Energy is responsible for a broad range of
    national security, scientific, and environmental activities. A
    key challenge for any large enterprise with such a broad
    mission is that it remain agile enough to adapt to tomorrow's
    challenges. Last month, the Secretary announced his intention
    to modernize the Department, to return it to its statutory
    framework, and to enable us to deploy resources more
    effectively and efficiently.
        The modernization plan directs several key changes. First,
    we have separated the Office of the Under Secretary of Science
    and Energy into two Under Secretary positions, and we restored
    of three Under Secretaries that are outlined in statute. The
    Under Secretary of Energy, the Under Secretary of Science, and
    the Under Secretary of Nuclear Security and administrator of
    the NNSA, all of whom who are here today to address this
    subcommittee and respond to your questions.
        The new Under Secretary of Energy, Mark Menezes, will focus
    on energy policy, technologies, security, and reliability, and
    certain departmental management functions. While the new Under
    Secretary for Science, Paul Dabbar, will focus on innovation,
    basic research, and environmental cleanup. General Klotz from
    NNSA, who will soon be retiring, as was mentioned by the
    chairman, is here today as well. And I would like to also
    publicly take this opportunity to thank him for his service to
    our Nation nearly 40 years, where he has served with honor and
    distinction, both in and out of uniform.
        In addition, elements of the former Under Secretary for
    Management and Performance portfolio will now fall under my
    responsibility as the Deputy Secretary. These changes are a
    vital first step to better organizing the Department to carry
    out its broad mission and to get much needed results for the
    American people. We will continue to look at ways to maximize
    our effectiveness, and we look forward to working with Congress
    and, in particular, this committee. We look forward to
    consultations with you toward that end.
        In conclusion, I would like to thank this subcommittee once
    again for inviting us to testify today. I believe each of the
    Under Secretaries has brief opening statements, and then we
    will all look forward to answering any questions that you may
    have.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Brouillette follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Brouillette.
        Mr. Menezes, before you start, I just want to again thank
    you for your time that you spend with us on a bipartisan
    delegation trip to look at the terrible circumstances of the
    hurricane impact in both Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.
    You may want to update us from when we went together down last
    month. But thank you for appearing before us, and we look
    forward to your testimony and your responses to our questions
    as well.
        Mr. Menezes. Thank you. And I look forward to giving you an
    update on the Puerto Rico situation, should the committee
    desire.

                     STATEMENT OF HON. MARK MENEZES

        Chairman Upton, Vice Chairman Olson, Ranking Member Rush,
    Chairmans Walden and Pallone, and members of the subcommittee,
    thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today,
    along with my colleagues, on behalf of the administration and
    the Department on the Department's modernization and
    realignment efforts.
        Support of the administration's goals of energy dominance
    and economic competitiveness are realized through this
    realignment effort, which more carefully aligns the resources
    and efforts of the Department to promote the responsible
    development of resources, as well as to ensure the reliability
    and the resiliency of our electrical grid. Returning to this
    committee room, I am reminded of the work accomplished on
    behalf of the American people by the members and the staff of
    this committee, some of whom are here today, and with whom I
    have had the pleasure to work when I served on the staff. In my
    2-month tenure as Under Secretary, I have had the pleasure of
    meeting with and speaking to a number of former colleagues and
    friends in endeavor to keep the lines of communication open as
    we continue to evaluate the progress made with this
    realignment.
        As Chairman Upton mentioned in early December, I was
    invited to travel with Chairman Walden's codel to Puerto Rico.
    It was my fourth trip to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands,
    along with eight members of this committee. And we saw the
    damage firsthand that Hurricanes Irma and Maria brought to
    these territories. Seeing the devastation to the electricity
    delivery system as well as to the healthcare and other
    services, serve as a reminder of the important work that we can
    do to ensure reliable and resilient electricity delivery which
    is critical to the lives of so many millions.
        The President's America First Energy Plan rightly calls for
    utilizing all of our energy resources in an all-of-the-above
    strategy to achieve energy security and economic strength at
    home and energy dominance through exports to markets abroad.
        Let me give a few examples of how the Department is working
    to promote the responsible development of these resources as
    well as to ensure the reliability and resilience of our
    electrical grid. DOE is the lead Federal agency for supporting
    energy infrastructure owners and addressing cyber threats to
    the energy sector. We partner with the private sector to
    prepare for, protect against, and reduce the impact of cyber
    threats. We are a member of the National Security Council, and
    bring the deep technical expertise from our 17 national labs to
    recognize and respond to cyber threats.
        The Office of Fossil Energy's national energy technology
    laboratory rare earth elements program focuses on developing
    technologies that be help recover rare earth elements from coal
    and coal by-products. The development of a domestic supply of
    rare earth elements that is economically competitive will help
    fuel our Nation's economic growth, secure our energy
    independence, by reducing our reliance on foreign rare earth
    element sources and increase our national security.
    Additionally, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory has
    conducted research that has delivered 6 cents per kilowatt hour
    utility scale solar 3 years ahead of the Department's goal.
    This success allows us to focus our research priorities on a
    more significant and long-term challenge, integrating variable
    renewables into our electric grid.
        Reliability and affordability paired with grid security
    enhancements will provide a more resilient energy
    infrastructure for the Nation. Improved policies for the
    development of energy infrastructure, including gas pipelines,
    smart grids, small modular nuclear reactors, energy storage,
    along with public-private partnerships with our national
    laboratories, bringing research technology to market, will help
    us address our Nation's energy challenges.
        The Department appreciates the committee's interest in our
    realignment, and we look forward to continuing to work with you
    on this and other opportunities to foster and promote
    responsible energy development and promote energy dominance.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to be here today, and I
    look forward to your questions.
        Mr. Upton. Thank you.
        Mr. Dabbar, welcome.

                     STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL DABBAR

        Mr. Dabbar. Thank you, Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Rush,
    and members of the committee. I am honored to highlight the
    mission of the Under Secretary of Science, which includes the
    Office of Science, the Office of Technology Transitions, the
    Office of Environmental Management, and of Legacy Management. I
    could say much about our priorities in those areas, but I will
    instead focus my remarks today on basic research, market-driven
    innovation, and environmental cleanup.
        In the area of basic research, let me highlight two near-
    term projects and programs. One of the main priorities of the
    Office of Science is the accelerated deployment of the first
    U.S. exoscale-capable super computer with the intent to deploy
    the first of the three machines in 2021, maintaining our global
    leadership in computing since its inception. Computer modeling
    and simulations are vital in this era of big data and complex
    systems. And exoscale computing, which will be at a billion
    billion calculations a second, that is 10 to the 18th,
    represents the next step. The evolution of super computing
    includes advances into physical sciences and high technology
    areas. This area is of intense international competition, and
    it is key that this project will maintain our global
    leadership.
        The second project area I would like to highlight is the
    Long-Baseline Neutrino Facility and the Deep Underground
    Neutrino Experiment, LBNF DUNE, at Fermilab outside of Chicago.
    It is another important priority for our Department. Once
    completed, this international center for neutrinos will study--
    will pair the world's highest intensity neutrino beam at
    Fermilab outside of Chicago with massive cryogenic detectors
    installed deep in a former mine in south Dakota. Completion of
    this project will cement U.S. preeminence in neutrino science,
    one of the frontiers of high energy physics. I can report to
    you today that America's global leadership in science remains
    dominant, as it has for the last century. In the area of
    enhancing technology transitions, the mission of the Office of
    Technology Transitions is to expand the commercial impact of
    R&D and the DOE portfolio by facilitating partnerships with
    industry and investors in close coordination with the DOE
    programs in the national labs.
        Additionally, OTT is responsible for commercialization
    activities across all the DOE programs. Commercialization is a
    high priority of mine and the rest of the management team. I
    look forward to working closely with the Energy Investor
    Center, as well as with other DOE programs and our national
    labs to continue facilitating engagement with investors and
    with industry, and expand the pool of potential investment
    capital in DOE technologies.
        In the area of environmental management, the government's
    nuclear weapons program has made significant contributions to
    our Nation's defense. But this legacy includes significant
    obligations to address liquid radioactive waste, spent nuclear
    fuel, special nuclear material, transuranic and mixed low level
    waste, contaminated soil and water, and thousands of access
    facilities. As a former radiation control worker, I am
    particularly sensitive to our obligations in the area, as well
    as the health and safety of those executing on the program.
        We look forward to successful completion of key projects
    around low activity waste vitrification in Hanford, as well as
    salt waste treatment in Savannah River. This can significantly
    demonstrate risk reduction and progress in addressing cleanup
    obligations. The new alignment of the Offices of Science and
    Environmental Management reporting to the Under Secretary of
    Science, myself, will create additional momentum in
    environmental cleanup by further leveraging the experience of
    the national lab complex, and exploring various potential
    alternatives for science and environmental management, project
    management, and contract approaches. And we hope to better
    manage costs and solve the environmental management challenges
    while ensuring the highest level of safety for our Federal and
    contract employees, the public, and the environment.
        Thank you, and I look forward to answering your questions.
        Mr. Upton. Thank you.
        And Mr. Klotz, welcome.

                     STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK KLOTZ

        Mr. Klotz. Thank you. Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Rush,
    Chairman Walden, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for
    the opportunity to represent the women and the men of the
    Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security
    Administration. We greatly appreciate your interest in and your
    strong support for NNSA missions, its major programs, its
    infrastructure modernization projects, and, most importantly,
    its people.
        As America's highest ranking military leaders have
    repeatedly said, nuclear deterrence is the bedrock of our
    national security. NNSA was established by the Congress in the
    year 2000 as a separately organized agency within the
    Department of Energy to carry out three vitally important and
    enduring missions that directly relate to nuclear deterrence.
    The first of these is maintaining the safety, the security, the
    reliability, and the effectiveness of America's nuclear weapons
    stockpile. The second is to reduce the threat of nuclear
    proliferation and nuclear terrorism at home and abroad. And the
    third is to provide nuclear propulsion to the U.S. Navy's
    aircraft carriers and submarines.
        NNSA relies heavily upon the scientific, technical, and
    engineering talent and capabilities at its national
    laboratories and its production plants in fulfilling these
    national security missions. Secretary Perry has described these
    unique facilities as our nation's crown jewels. And they have,
    indeed, done a remarkable job in applying leading-edge science
    to address the Nation's most urgent security needs.
        That said, we continue to face important challenges as an
    enterprise, and we clearly have work to do. For example, it is
    absolutely imperative that we repair and modernize NNSA's aging
    infrastructure, over 50 percent of which is more than 40 years
    old, and some facilities even date back to the World War II and
    post-war Manhattan project.
        We must also continue to improve project management and
    conduct of operations by our contractors who manage and operate
    our sites. Our initiatives, to this end, have been informed to
    either findings and recommendations of recent congressionally
    mandated and internal reviews, and include such measures as
    establishing clear lines of authority and responsibility;
    adjusting contract incentive structures; holding contractors
    accountable for safety, security, and performance; and assuring
    appropriate levels of oversight.
        The results, I think, over the last several years, speak
    for themselves. Since we created an office for project
    management in NNSA in 2011, the administration has delivered
    its $1.4 billion capital construction project portfolio, 8
    percent under the original budget. And just this year, we
    delivered the High Explosive Pressing Facility at Pantex in
    Amarillo, Texas. We delivered the TRU Waste Facility at Los
    Alamos in New Mexico. The Deputy Secretary and I cut the ribbon
    at the construction support building at the Y-12 production
    plant in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. And we are just about to finish
    the administrative support complex at Pantex, which will house
    about a third of the Pantex workforce later this year.
        Additionally, I am proud to say all of NNSA's weapons life
    extension programs are on schedule and on budget despite the
    fact that we are in one of the busiest periods we have been as
    an enterprise since the end of the Cold War. It is worth
    emphasizing that NNSA collaborates closely with other DOE
    organizations on several fronts to execute its missions. The
    three national laboratories for which NNSA has responsibility,
    Sandia, Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore, not only support NNSA's
    missions, they also support other DOE programs.
        Likewise, the other 14 national laboratories within the DOE
    complex do substantial work in support of NNSA's missions
    because of the unique skills and resources they possess.
    Together, the 17 DOE national laboratories are greater than the
    sum of their parts creating a world-class scientific complex of
    unparalleled capability.
        One of these areas, as already mentioned by my colleague,
    is in developing exoscale computing capability. We are doing
    this jointly with the Office of Science. The project will
    dramatically advance the Nation's capabilities in science,
    medicine, applied energy technology, and national security. It
    will also ensure that America remains a world leader in the
    highly dynamic and competitive field of computational
    technologies. For this reason, this exoscale project ranks as
    one of the Department's highest priorities.
        Again, thank you for your very strong support, and I look
    forward to answering any questions that you may have.
        Mr. Upton. Well, thank you all for participating and being
    here this morning. And we wish Secretary Perry well for sure.
        Mr. Brouillette, as the DOE's chief operating officer, I
    know this is the budget time. I am a former OMB official a lot
    of years ago. And the timeframe is a little bit different than
    it was when I worked for President Reagan in that the budget
    had already been up by the first week of January, and now since
    then, Presidents have sent their budgets up a little bit later.
    Given the huge demand for resources in your important
    department, I don't know if they have actually done the
    passback yet from OMB back to DOE, but how is your relationship
    with those folks down at the old executive office building in
    terms of their response to the Secretary's budget priorities?
        Mr. Brouillette. Well, sir, Mr. Chairman, our
    relationship----
        Mr. Upton. They are not in the room. They are watching.
        Mr. Brouillette. They are watching. Yes, I will be graded
    on this response, I am certain.
        Our relationship with Director Mulvaney has been strong. We
    are fortunate to have him as an OMB Director. As you well know,
    he is your former colleague, he comes from the Congress, he
    understands the budget process very, very well.
        With regard to our processes internally, we are in active
    conversations with the OMB. We have not yet completed the
    budget process. We do expect to see the final product of their
    work very, very shortly. And we expect it will be sent to
    Congress very, very shortly as well.
        Mr. Upton. The Department's role to maintain the Nation's
    nuclear deterrent is obviously a very important and vital
    mission. Recent reviews have found that the structure of the
    NNSA has sometimes isolated DOE's work from the needed cabinet
    level leadership. Can you commit to us, and certainly Mr. Klotz
    as well, that you will be working to ensure appropriate
    secretarial leadership and management support to enhance that
    vital mission?
        Mr. Brouillette. Yes. Absolutely. As you know, Mr.
    Chairman, this committee was instrumental in 1999, in the
    general time frame, in the creation of NNSA. So we understand
    full well what the direction of the U.S. Congress is toward the
    Department. It has given us the ability to work closely
    together. The Department and the NNSA collaborate very, very
    closely on the national security mission, and as well as other
    missions, which includes environmental cleanup, the cleanup of
    those sites.
        I will defer if General Klotz has any further comments that
    he might want to make about that collaboration. But I can
    assure you and this committee that we are working closely
    together.
        Mr. Upton. General Klotz.
        Mr. Klotz. Chairman, I would echo everything that the
    Deputy Secretary said. I think we have a very close working
    relationship. We had one in the previous administration. We
    certainly have one in this administration as well.
        One of the things that Congress did in creating the NNSA
    and the position of the administrator of the NNSA is they made
    that same individual also an Under Secretary within the
    Department which allows that individual to work very, very
    closely with the colleagues and throughout.
        I might add, one of the points that I really want to foot
    stomp in my oral statement applies to that part of the DOE
    complex out in the laboratories, the 17 laboratories. And as I
    indicated, we work very, very closely together. The non-NNSA
    laboratory support us significantly in our national security
    work, and we do an awful lot of basic science research that has
    relevance to the work they are doing as well. So I think this
    is a win-win organizational structure which has been created.
        Mr. Upton. My remaining comment, I would like each of you
    to respond just briefly with regard to the cyber threats, not
    only on DOE, but obviously the facilities that you oversee. So
    we know that there had been a number of briefings, public and
    private, over the years in terms of the increasing cyber
    threats. We know that literally hundreds of times daily it is
    the--likely attempts. And what can we do to ensure the safety
    for all of our citizens?
        Mr. Brouillette.
        Mr. Brouillette. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Cybersecurity is one of
    our highest priorities. The Department of Energy is the sector
    specific agency responsible for cybersecurity within the energy
    community, or energy industry, I should say. One of the first
    steps that the Secretary directed me to take as the Deputy and
    as the chief operating officer was to ensure that our own house
    is in order. We are obviously going to work with the industry,
    work closely with what is known as the ESCC, the Electric
    Sector Coordinating Council, to take input from our industry
    partners. I am aggressively focused at the moment on our
    inside-of-the-house activities. So working closely with our own
    CIO to make sure that our Department, our complex is protected
    on cyber matters.
        Mr. Upton. And do you have any recommendations for us in
    terms of trying to make your job easier?
        Mr. Brouillette. I will happily come back to the committee
    and share with you some additional thoughts once I can get my
    arms around this complex. But, sir, at the moment, I can't
    think of anything that I would need from this particular
    committee or the Congress.
        Mr. Upton. I know my time has expired.
        Do you have something you would like to add to that
    response? If not, go ahead, Mark.
        Mr. Menezes. One thing that we are doing, in Office of
    Electricity, we are actually running a nationwide grid system
    evaluation, really, if we can continue to supply the national
    critical assets with the power and eliminate the potential risk
    of cyber attack. This has not been done, and so this will be
    done by our Office of Electricity.
        Mr. Upton. I think there was an exercise that was supposed
    to take place not too long ago.
        My time has expired. Let me----
        Mr. Menezes. Grid X. We did----
        Mr. Upton [continuing]. Yield to the ranking member of the
    subcommittee, Mr. Rush.
        Mr. Rush. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. To all of the
    witnesses, I want to ask questions. If you don't have answers
    to the questions in that I only have 5 minutes, I want to allow
    you to respond in writing. As a matter of fact, that would be
    good.
        Deputy Secretary Brouillette, last week, my office reached
    out to staff at DOE in preparation for today's hearing
    inquiring about the percentage of minorities and the senior
    positions within the agency as well as it is much easier for
    the agency to consider policies and initiatives that address
    the needs of minorities when there are minorities at the table
    when decisions are being made.
        Are you prepared today to share some of these figures with
    the subcommittee? Specifically, can you provide a percentage or
    number of minorities in leadership position within the
    Secretary's office, the review boards, the boards and council,
    and among the SES staff?
        Also, can you, or Under Secretary Dabbar, share with us a
    number of minority directors at the 17 national labs and on the
    percentage of senior minority staffers in leadership positions
    at those labs?
        Mr. Brouillette. Yes, sir, I would be happy to provide
    those to you. I am aware of the question. I will respond to you
    formally in writing and make those numbers available to you.
        I would also like to share with you, at least, some of my
    early experiences at the Department. My first impressions----
        Mr. Rush. Mr. Secretary, I only have a few minutes.
        Mr. Brouillette. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Rush. Let me ask Mr. Dabbar.
        Mr. Dabbar, can you answer the question? How many minority
    directors of the 17 national labs, and on the percentage of
    minority staffers in leadership positions in the labs?
        Mr. Dabbar. I apologize. Could you repeat? Someone was
    coughing.
        Mr. Rush. Can you or Under Secretary share with us the
    number of minority directors at these 17 national labs and on
    the percentage of senior minority staffers in leadership
    positions at those labs?
        Mr. Dabbar. Thank you, Congressman Rush.
        No. I will be glad to share that information with you. I do
    not----
        Mr. Rush. OK. Thank you. You don't have them.
        All right. Secretary Brouillette, are you familiar with the
    minorities energy initiatives that were created under former
    Secretary Moniz?
        Mr. Brouillette. Yes, sir, I am.
        Mr. Rush. What are your plans for moving forward with that?
        Mr. Brouillette. We are going to continue that important
    program. I understand its importance to not only Congress, but
    the communities that are served by that program. We have every
    intention of continuing it.
        Mr. Rush. Now, then, the Office of Economic Impact and
    Diversity have been moved to the Deputy Secretary level.
        What are the plans for, in this office, moving forward?
        Mr. Brouillette. The same answer, sir. We are going to
    continue that. It is a very important program. It is vital to
    the communities that it is serves. And we see its continued
    importance to the Department.
        Mr. Rush. In your response in writing to me----
        Mr. Brouillette. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Rush [continuing]. Be very specific. I would like to
    know what plans and the implementation schedule, what those
    are?
        Mr. Brouillette. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Rush. Secretary Dabbar, your jurisdiction within the
    Office of Science includes responsibility for doling out
    taxpayer research dollars in the form of grants to institutions
    of higher learning.
        Can you provide this subcommittee with a list of schools,
    universities that have received funding over the past 10 years
    from your Department as well as the amount distributed to each
    institution? Also, do you know the percentage of funding that
    is loaned to minorities serving institutions, including
    historically black colleges and universities, and Hispanic-
    serving institutions over the past 10 years?
        Mr. Dabbar. Congressman Rush, yes. About $3 billion a year
    is distributed through various FOAs out of the Department. It
    is a very large portion of the budget. The vast majority of the
    $3 billion across all our various programs goes to
    universities, and I would be glad to follow up with the
    specific information in writing that you are asking for.
        Mr. Rush. And I want to know about black-serving
    institutions and historically black colleges and universities
    and Hispanic-serving institutions.
        Mr. Dabbar. Yes, sir, we will do that.
        Mr. Rush. Mr. Chairman, I have just one more question for
    Mr. Dabbar.
        You oversee national labs. Can you provide this
    subcommittee with the approximate dollar amount of contracts
    that the labs dole out to private companies and vendors? Is
    their goal to include minority contractors? Have the labs
    reached that goal? And if not, is there a plan in place to
    increase minority participation for contracting and vending
    opportunities within the labs?
        Mr. Dabbar. Yes, we will.
        Mr. Upton. Thank you. Thank you all. The gentleman's time
    has expired.
        The chair would recognize the chair of the full committee,
    Mr. Walden.
        Mr. Walden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And, again,
    thank you all for being here. We look forward to your written
    responses to Mr. Rush's questions.
        The Office of Environment Management oversees the
    environmental remediation projects at some of our nation's most
    contaminated sites, including the Hanford reservation which I
    referenced earlier, located just up the Columbia River from
    where I live.
        In 2013, then-energy Secretary Moniz moved the
    environmental management out of the responsibilities of the
    NNSA administrator to a newly created Under Secretary for
    Management and Performance. And DOE's recent realignment
    shifted the office to now be managed by the Under Secretary for
    Science. So it seems like it has been moving around a bit on
    who has the responsibility. Those of us in the northwest care
    deeply about that and even more deeply about getting it cleaned
    up and protected, especially given some of the failures that
    have occurred eventually in some of the tanks and all.
        So Deputy Secretary Brouillette and Under Secretary Dabbar,
    will you please describe the reasoning for this shift, and, for
    example, what expertise is aligned with the Office of Science
    that may prove beneficial to similar large project management
    challenges that are associated with the EM's mission and give
    us an update on the latest at Hanford and where that waste
    would go if we ever get Yucca open. So, Mr. Brouillette, maybe
    you'd like to start out.
        Mr. Brouillette. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I will share with you some of the thinking that we had
    behind that particular move. And it starts with some of the
    first comments that I heard when I became a young staffer on
    this committee back in 1989. And that was along the lines of
    Hanford is very complex. Hanford is very complicated. It is a
    technical issue and, therefore, we haven't cleaned it up yet.
        And Secretary Perry has heard those very same arguments.
    And the thought process that we went through was how can we
    figure out how to fix this problem. And we have some of the
    best, some of the brightest scientists in the world working at
    the Department of Energy. So we thought that perhaps by
    combining these programs and forcing some collaboration between
    the environmental management program and these scientists would
    allow us to find the technical answers that we need to find to
    begin the actual cleanup of that site as well as other
    environmental management sites throughout the country. I will
    defer to Mr. Dabbar as to what the specific steps that we will
    take. But that was the initial thought.
        From a management standpoint, you should also know, too,
    that the Office of Science within the Department of Energy
    stands head and shoulders above many Federal agencies in its
    ability to conduct proper, efficient, and effective contract
    management. They do that very, very well. So we want to avail
    ourselves to those talents as well within the Department of
    Energy.
        Mr. Walden. Thank you.
        Secretary Dabbar.
        Mr. Dabbar. Yes. Chairman Walden, as the Deputy Secretary
    mentioned, I think there are two major buckets of reasons
    that--in terms of the specifics why the coordination can help
    in the execution of the mission of environmental management
    upon this reorganization. The first is technology. There are a
    number of different areas within the national lab complex that
    have linkages to the mission of environmental management. As
    you know, within the BES area, the Office of Science, we have
    chemistry. And a large portion of the issues associated with
    environmental management are radiochemistry issues. And
    obviously, between the chemistry functions as well as the
    nuclear side, nuclear physics side of the Office of Science,
    there is an awful lot of technology overlap. On top of that,
    there are other examples such as computer modeling of various
    disposition of various radionuclides, which we can use our high
    performance computing for. So it is a great degree of
    opportunity.
        And then the other bucket is project management. As the
    Deputy Secretary mentioned, the Office of Science is one of the
    three major areas that deal with project management, and it
    generally executes on time and on budget. And we think that the
    project management skills associated with other areas including
    the Office of Science.
        Mr. Walden. So you were just out there, right?
        Mr. Dabbar. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Walden. Can you give me, in the 45 seconds left, your
    update? Are we still on target?
        Mr. Dabbar. So there are things that we are moving along
    with that we are very excited about and we think are very
    positive. And there are some areas that have challenges. In
    terms of the positive areas, finally, we are moving down the
    road of making glass at the plateau. The DF LAW, which is the
    low activity waste treatment plant, is coming online. And we
    are going to make some glass, and we are going to clean up some
    tanks.
        We are also looking at closing out our first tank farm,
    possibly, first time ever. And we are looking to ship some
    waste off sight, first time ever. So there is some very
    positive things that we are executing on.
        Mr. Walden. When and where?
        Mr. Dabbar. Well, there are some options around TRU. TRU
    Waste is the things that we are looking at, and there is a
    couple different options very specifically that we are looking
    at. We have not identified exactly which one, but there are
    specific locations. And for that shipment portion example that
    we are focused on, we are focused on TRU.
        Mr. Walden. All right. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Upton. You are recognized, Mr. Pallone, from New
    Jersey.
        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        My questions are of Mr. Brouillette.
        I was pleased to see FERC yesterday unanimously terminated
    the grid resiliency rulemaking that Secretary Perry proposed
    last year. And that flawed proposal would have subsidized
    certain coal and nuclear plants under the guise of a grid
    reliability crisis. And this is chiefly a policy matter, in my
    opinion, that should be left to Congress and to the states.
        On October 12 of 2017, I sent a letter to Secretary Perry
    requesting additional details regarding the development of this
    proposed rulemaking, including a list of DOE staff who put
    together the proposal and a list of all meetings where DOE
    staff or leadership discussed the proposal with outside
    organizations. And I saw that photos were published recently
    showing Murray Energy's CEO Robert Murray handing Secretary
    Perry a so-called action plan last March, a portion of which
    states, ``Immediate action needs to be taken to require
    organized power markets to value fuel security, fuel diversity,
    and ancillary services that only base-load generating assets,
    especially coal plants, can provide.''
        And so, these photos made me question how much outside
    influence went into the preparation of the proposed rulemaking
    and who those outside parties were.
        Now, Mr. Brouillette, I haven't received response to my
    letter, which was sent nearly 3 months ago, so I wanted to ask
    first: Do you know the status of DOE's response to this letter?
        Mr. Brouillette. No, sir, I don't, but I will happily look
    into it and make sure that you are responded to.
        Mr. Pallone. I appreciate that. Obviously you are making a
    commitment to ensure I receive a total response, and you will
    do that.
        Mr. Brouillette. I was just handed a note, sir. It seems
    that our lawyers, our GC office is responding to your note,
    preparing a response, but I will ensure that you receive it.
        Mr. Pallone. I appreciate that. Thank you. Now, let me go
    to the second thing that I want to talk about, and that is this
    Secretary of Energy Advisory Board panel. I would like to ask
    about that and its current status. As far as I can tell, the
    board, which has historically provided advice and
    recommendations to the Secretary on key DOE issues has not been
    reconstituted under Secretary Perry; in fact, the DOE website
    still shows members of the board that served under the Obama
    administration, including one of the witnesses on our second
    panel today, Dan Reicher.
        Now, Secretary Menezes relied heavily on advice and
    guidance from this advisory board, which put together several
    comprehensive reports during his tenure, and it seems to me, my
    opinion is that Secretary Perry, who had little experience on
    national energy issues before taking the helm at DOE, and even
    proposed eliminating the Department all together, when he was a
    presidential candidate, would benefit from such a group of
    advisors.
        So my question first is, am I correct that the Secretary of
    Energy Advisory Board has not been reconstituted under
    Secretary Perry? Is that accurate?
        Mr. Brouillette. I think it is accurate to say that it has
    not been disbanded. The Secretary's advisor board still exists.
    The Secretary is still in the process of evaluating membership
    on that board. But at this moment in time, I don't think he has
    made any decisions with regard to that particular board in
    terms of its membership. But I can tell you that it is an
    important component of the advisory function at DOE, and I
    think he has every intention of maintaining it.
        Mr. Pallone. So from what you said, and I don't want to put
    words in your mouth, you are saying that he does intend to keep
    it and appoint some members, it is just that he hasn't gotten
    around to it.
        Mr. Brouillette. I think that is correct.
        Mr. Pallone. I just think it is important that the
    Secretary have the guidance of a body like that.
        Mr. Brouillette. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Pallone. As he makes key decisions.
        Mr. Brouillette. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Pallone. And obviously, you agree.
        Mr. Brouillette. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Pallone. And hopefully, he is going to move ahead with
    that.
        Mr. Brouillette. Yes, sir, he will.
        Mr. Pallone. OK. Thank you so much. I yield back, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Mr. Upton. Mr. Barton.
        Mr. Barton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to this
    subcommittee. Two of you, especially, should be very familiar
    with this room. You worked with a lot of the portraits that are
    up on the walls. So it is good to see you all back. I don't
    know whether to congratulate you on progress or to commiserate
    with you on regression, but I am glad to see you.
        Before I ask my questions, I doubt that too many people--
    General Klotz was talking about Pantex, and one of the unknown
    stories in my life is that in 1972, I was offered a job at
    Pantex as an industrial engineer with a company called Mason &
    Hanger, which was a contractor. It is the weirdest plant
    interview I ever did. They said, we can't let you see the
    plant. We can't tell you what we make. We can't tell you what
    you are going to do, but we really want you to come to work.
    And I asked a couple of questions, and they just said, we can't
    tell you.
        So then when I left the office, out in Amarillo, or outside
    of Amarillo, I saw this big bomb casing, big, big bomb casing.
    I said, well, that gives me a clue as to what they do here. But
    not too many members probably know what Pantex--I don't know
    what they do now, but then they actually made some of our
    nuclear weapons, and maybe they still do or they just maintain
    those.
        Mr. Klotz. Well, two thoughts, sir. One is, your career
    turned out OK, even though he didn't come work for us. And,
    two, the Pantex is the one facility where all the various
    components that make up a nuclear weapon are shipped, and it is
    the highly skilled workforce of people in the panhandle region
    that----
        Mr. Barton. Well, I know they are very proud of it.
    Chairman Thornberry is very proud that that facility is in his
    district. Well, I have a number of questions in terms of the
    Department's structure and reauthorization. Chairman Walden has
    asked that I try to lead an effort to reauthorize the
    Department on a bipartisan basis. So I just have some kind of
    general questions I want to ask Deputy Secretary Brouillette.
        What is the number of direct personnel that is actually
    working at the Department right now, not contractors, but full-
    time Federal employees?
        Mr. Brouillette. Sir, it is approximately 13,000. Just
    north of 13,000.
        Mr. Barton. How many contract employees does the Department
    have authority over?
        Mr. Brouillette. The approximate number is going to be just
    north of 100,000.
        Mr. Barton. 100,000. OK.
        Mr. Brouillette. Yes.
        Mr. Barton. Do you know in terms of the contractors how
    many of the primary contracts are competitively bid as opposed
    to no bid contracts, sole source contracts?
        Mr. Brouillette. No, sir. In terms of an absolute number, I
    can't give you that, but I am happy to respond for that on the
    record. We will do the research and provide that information to
    your office.
        Mr. Barton. OK. Again, in terms of these contracts, I know
    some of them are long-term contracts. Do you have any idea what
    the average length of the prime contracts are?
        Mr. Brouillette. It really depends on the work that is
    being done, but I will defer to the two Under Secretaries who
    may be able to provide you with a more precise answer. Paul.
        Mr. Dabbar. Yes, Chairman Barton. It does depend on which
    ones, but in a typical science contract, many of them are 5
    years with a 5-year extension. That is a typical contract.
    Obviously, within a lot of our national labs, some have very
    long-term relationship needs and are linked to universities.
    Some of them are more engineering and construction jobs, so if
    you take environmental management or some of the general areas,
    those are very project specific. So depending on the length of
    the project, many times they could be 3 or 4 years. And some of
    the very longer term ones, such as at Hanford, they are a bit
    longer, given the length of the construction.
        Mr. Barton. Could the Department give the committee a list
    of these large primary contracts and when they are next
    scheduled to be up for renewal?
        Mr. Dabbar. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Barton. If we are going to do a reauthorization bill,
    that is some information we would need.
        Mr. Brouillette. Yes, sir, we would be happy to provide
    that to the committee.
        Mr. Barton. One of the things that now Senator, then
    Congressman, Ed Markey, and I worked on 10 or 15 years ago was
    the creation of a northeast gasoline reserve in fuel oil
    reserve. And I notice those have now been established in almost
    every State in the northeast--has either/and a fuel oil and a
    gasoline reserve--are these facilities similar to tank farms
    where you actually store fuel onsite, or is it a contractual
    arrangement where the private sector has to provide the fuel if
    it is called on to?
        Mr. Brouillette. Sir, with regard to the strategic
    petroleum reserve, we actually retain the fuel onsite.
        Mr. Barton. So these gasoline reserves and fuel-off
    centers, like in Massachusetts and New York and New Jersey,
    they actually have the fuel onsite?
        Mr. Brouillette. I will check on the gasoline reserves in
    the northeast to ensure that this answer is correct. It is my
    understanding that at least partially those fuels are stored
    onsite. But with regard to the strategic petroleum reserve----
        Mr. Barton. I know the crude oil is.
        Mr. Brouillette. Yes, it is.
        Mr. Barton. My last question is. Is the Department and the
    Trump administration supportive of a Department of Energy
    reauthorization bill in this Congress?
        Mr. Brouillette. Sir, I am sorry, the question is, do we
    support a reauthorization bill?
        Mr. Barton. I have had informal contact and discussions
    with Secretary Perry, but I have never asked for a formal
    response on the record, so I am now doing so.
        Mr. Brouillette. Sure. We would be very enthusiastic about
    working with Congress to reauthorize the programs. With regard
    to the actual policy, OMB is going to be a part of this process
    as well. But as a Department, I can assure you that we stand
    ready to assist the committee if it proceeds.
        Mr. Barton. I appreciate that. And I yield back, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Mr. Upton. Thank you. Mr. Peters.
        Mr. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to the
    witnesses for being here. Mr. Deputy Secretary Brouillette?
        Mr. Brouillette. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Peters. You said something that I have said in my
    campaign speeches for 20 years, 15 years, however long I have
    been doing this, which is that the choice between a clean
    environment and a prosperous economy is a false choice. And I
    wanted to follow up just in terms of the Department's policy
    with respect to that.
        I read through the testimony, I saw some stuff about
    environmental cleanup, but what I didn't see was reference to
    some of the more current discussion around greenhouse gases.
    And I just wanted to ask you, is it a policy in any respect of
    the United States Department of Energy to limit the emission of
    greenhouse gases and short-lived climate pollutants, including
    methane and black carbon?
        Mr. Brouillette. Is it the policy of the Department to
    limit it?
        Mr. Peters. To limit those emissions.
        Mr. Brouillette. Well, we are not the regulator, if that is
    your question. We don't regulate those types of emissions, that
    falls more to the EPA. But with regard to finding technological
    solutions, using the scientists in our labs to develop new
    technologies, that would limit those types or reduce those
    types of emissions. Absolutely, that is part of the
    Department's mission.
        Mr. Peters. Would that be a reference to carbon capture
    specifically, or do you mean----
        Mr. Brouillette. Yes, it is. The Secretary has been very
    gauged on that issue. He just returned, as a matter of fact,
    from overseas, where he was part of a clean energy ministerial.
    We have been working with our international partners around the
    world to see that technology further developed and utilized in
    other countries around the world.
        Mr. Peters. Beyond that, are there any other technological
    solutions the Department is pursuing to reduce or limit
    greenhouse gas emission?
        Mr. Brouillette. I might defer to our Under Secretaries as
    they run those programs.
        Mr. Menezes. Specifically, our Office of Fossil, for
    example, is developing new technologies on small coal units,
    for example, where one of the criteria is reduced emissions. So
    it is actually in the production of electricity is where the
    technology is focusing on, not just post-combustion where you
    capture it and store it.
        We are developing really, across the broad spectra, we are
    looking at fuels that can be produced and used at the front end
    to lower emissions than during the actual combustion process
    itself to reduce emissions, and then post-combustion capture
    and sequestration.
        Mr. Peters. Mr. Deputy Secretary, let me just say, is it
    fair to say that, in developing resiliency and energy security,
    it is not part of your calculus to determine which energy
    sources are cleaner than the other, to be abbreviated about it?
        Mr. Brouillette. I think the Nation is served by the all-
    of-the-above strategy. I don't know that we are going to pick
    and choose the generation sources or the energy sources, that
    is where the American people--for other policymakers. But if
    your question is related to our support of an all-of-the-above
    strategy, the answer to that is clearly, yes, we do support
    renewables, we support wind, we support solar, we also support
    nuclear, as well as coal and natural gas.
        Mr. Peters. Do you have a position on the Tax Code's
    treatment of any particular energy source?
        Mr. Brouillette. No, sir.
        Mr. Peters. I guess the other question I have is with
    respect to energy. First of all, I was struck by what we all do
    agree on. We talked a lot in this committee about cybersecurity
    and grid security, we want solid distribution, and basic
    research. And I pointed out before that the ARPA-E program, I
    think, since it was created in 2009, has provided $1.5 billion
    in funding to more than 580 projects that has led to the
    formation of 56 new companies, 68 projects with other
    government agencies, including Defense that has attracted more
    than $1.8 billion in additional private sector investment.
        Mr. Dabbar, is that the kind of investment you want to see
    continued when you talk about basic science research?
        Mr. Dabbar. Overall, we are very supportive of the programs
    that we have at the Department around commercialization. ARPA-E
    is certainly a portion of it. If you think about the large FOA
    bucket, which is a grant bucket, we have about $3 billion a
    year across our various different areas. And ARPA-E is about
    $300 million of that, so it is about 10 percent.
        Mr. Peters. I was concerned that the President's initial
    budget zeroed it out. And I spoke to the Secretary about it
    when he was here. He indicated that maybe he didn't agree with
    that, I certainly don't. I want to say that I am sympathetic to
    all the agencies that come testify for us in the wake of this
    so-called tax reform that added at least $1 trillion to a
    national debt. And we are looking at $1 trillion deficits going
    forward. I think it puts a lot of pressure on that. But I do
    want to highlight that as something that I agree deserves our
    support as a Congress and hope that we can figure out a way to
    responsibly fund that.
        With that, I yield back.
        Mr. Upton. Yield to Mr. Olson. Thank you.
        Mr. Olson. I thank the chair, and welcome to our four
    witnesses. A great panel. Two neighbors from Louisiana,
    Secretary Brouillette and Secretary Menezes. A Naval Academy
    graduate, a fellow sailor, a submariner, Mr. Dabbar. And
    Lieutenant General Klotz, who has the high honor of being a
    native born Texan, Lubbock, Texas. Welcome.
        As a former naval aviator, over 1300 hours of P-3 Orion
    submarine hunter, I was trained to track, attack, and destroy
    Russian ballistic missile submarines. And while I can never
    confirm nor deny that I flew with nuclear weapons, we were
    qualified to drop what is called a B-57 nuclear death bomb.
    That bomb was designed to destroy Russian submarines where it
    created a big wave of air on the break and keel by the weight
    of the boat. That bomb has since been retired. But as you all
    know, we still have nuclear weapons as part of our strategic
    deterrence.
        My first question is for you, General Klotz. DOE and NNSA
    has the task of keeping, as you said, our nuclear weapons safe,
    reliable, and effective. And you have years of experience
    administrating the nuclear security programs of the Department.
    You understand the challenges to this complex mission.
        My question is, please discuss the role of the national lab
    system, not only the weapons labs, but the whole system in
    maintaining our nuclear deterrent and national security?
        Mr. Klotz. Thank you, sir. That is a wonderful question.
    People often ask me what was I most surprised about coming into
    this particular job 4 years ago, and one of my answers is, I
    understood how the three national laboratories, which NNSA has
    responsibility for, contribute to that mission. What I didn't
    realize, until I went out and visited all of the other 14
    laboratories is how much work is being done throughout the
    entire system. We use the other laboratories because of the
    special scientific and engineering skills that are resident in
    those laboratories, some of the unique equipment that they
    have. But I would say of all 17 laboratories, we have direct
    funding going to the vast majority of them. And even those
    laboratories that we do not directly fund, many times they are
    subcontractors to other laboratories doing work for the NNSA,
    both in the weapons activity account, and in the defense
    nuclear non-proliferation account, as well as naval reactors.
        Mr. Olson. Thank you. My next question is for Secretary
    Brouillette and Secretary Dabbar. Houston, my home town, is the
    oil and gas capital of the entire world. I am proud of that. As
    we say in Texas, that ain't changing any time soon. Natural gas
    is now very abundant, and it has now become the core of
    electric grids across the country. At the same time, though,
    the fastest growing jobs in Texas are actually in wind power.
    We are exploding, number one in America in production of wind
    power.
        We have an important role to play, but some have said that
    unlocking that source of energy, it is right, will have to have
    better batteries, better transmission lines, and also the wind
    is always blowing when we need it and where we need it.
        Could you talk about how DOE balances and supports new
    developments like wind, a crucial source of energy, while
    moving forward with research to alternative energy?
        Mr. Brouillette. Yes, sir, I can. As you know, sir, as a
    Texan, and as a part-time resident of Texas myself for 12
    years. I was down with USAA in San Antonio, Texas. I understand
    the record of Secretary Perry, I wanted to call him Governor
    Perry. But as Governor of Texas, he approached this with an
    all-of-the-above strategy. Texas is now the largest wind energy
    producer--one of the largest, I should say, in the United
    States. It is a very, very important component of our diversity
    mix for the purposes of generating electricity.
        What we are doing at the Department of Energy is trying to
    find ways to manage the variability of those intermittent
    sources on the grid, as well as using the science labs to
    develop the next stage, the next level, if you will, of battery
    storage, of battery power. And I will let Under Secretary Paul
    Dabbar speak to the specific activities that he has undertaken
    as the head of our science labs.
        Mr. Olson. Commander Dabbar.
        Mr. Dabbar. Thank you, Congressman. As someone who grew up
    in Oklahoma and saw the wind come over from Texas, I am very
    much appreciative of that--we kind of caught the tail end of
    what wasn't used in Texas.
        One particular area of the Office of Science, and this goes
    back to our previous question around renewables, is in the
    battery area. One of the big strengths of what the Office of
    Science does is in the area of battery technology beyond
    lithium. Actually, at our laboratory in Oregon, they branded
    the chemistry area for batteries beyond lithium. So there is at
    least a little bit of marketing in the science organization.
        There is a number of different batteries that we are
    working on: multiple batteries, including magnesium ion, which
    includes solid state that we are working on at a very early
    stage; flow batteries, which can be used for grid applications;
    and next generation lithium ion, using our light sources and
    other modeling techniques on the computer side to improve upon
    existing lithium ion.
        We think this is a major idea in terms of being able to
    take applications from technologies in the Office of Science
    and really move forward and really leverage renewables from an
    intermittent source to something that can be more 24 by 7.
        Mr. Olson. Thank you, my time has expired. USAA member for
    life. I yield back.
        Mr. Upton. Mr. Doyle.
        Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to the
    witnesses here today. Secretary Brouillette, in your testimony,
    you highlight the importance of energy security and explain
    that this energy security, as well as our economic prosperity
    depends on continued American ingenuity and innovation. And you
    continue by saying that Secretary Perry and yourself are very
    proud of the advancements that DOE's research and development
    has spurred. That DOE-funded R&D is truly inspirational. I want
    you to know that we all agree with that statement, however,
    many of my colleagues and myself are greatly concerned by the
    budget request we received from the Department of Energy
    earlier this year.
        And I just have a few yes-or-no questions about the budget
    proposals for you. For instance, you emphasized the importance
    of reliable electricity, but the proposal proposes cutting
    electricity delivery and energy reliability budget from $206
    million to a $120 million, which is a decrease of over 40
    percent. Can you tell me just yes or no, do you anticipate
    revising that cut for this year's budget request?
        Mr. Brouillette. It is hard for me to answer yes or no,
    sir, because we are going through the process that is ongoing.
        Mr. Doyle. Try your best to do that because our time is
    limited.
        Mr. Brouillette. Sure. I think this office is very
    important. We are going to work with OMB to find an appropriate
    number.
        Mr. Doyle. OK. Thank you. Also, President Trump's repeated
    promises on clean coal throughout the campaign and presidency,
    I want to point out that many members on both sides of the
    aisle support technological innovations that aim to achieve
    that goal.
        In fact, my colleague on this committee, Representative
    McKinley and I, lead a letter each year that would boost
    funding for that research. Last year, we proposed increasing
    the funding for fossil R&D by over 30 percent to $829 million.
    However, the Department of Energy's budget request proposed
    cutting the fossil energy R&D budget by $352 million. That is
    an over 55 percent cut down to $280 million. And it is Mr.
    Reicher's testimony that we will hear when the second panel
    gets here highlights, it actually cuts R&D funding for CCUS
    specifically by nearly 85 percent.
        Do you anticipate increasing the Department's budget
    request for fossil R&D, and specifically, for CCUS next year?
        Mr. Brouillette. I anticipate that the Congress will want
    to support that at a higher number.
        Mr. Doyle. Yes. Yes, they will.
        Mr. Brouillette. That is exactly right. That is exactly
    right.
        Mr. Doyle. Your testimony also sings the praises of energy
    and technological innovation. But the budget proposes, as Mr.
    Peters pointed out, eliminating ARPA-E. This is very perplexing
    to a lot of us. The nonpartisan National Academy of Sciences,
    Engineering, and Medicine released a report last year that
    analyzed ARPA-E, a congressionally-authorized program. And that
    report says ARPA-E is, in many cases, successfully enhancing
    the economic and energy security of the United States by
    funding transformational activities. And it continues to say,
    importantly at this early stage, the committee has found no
    signs that ARPA-E is failing to deliver on its mission and
    goals, or is on a path to failure, or is in need of reform.
        Do you plan on revising your budget requests for next year
    with regards to ARPA-E?
        Mr. Brouillette. That is a decision, sir, that is going to
    be made by OMB. But there are differences of opinion about
    whether or not the Department should be in that particular
    business. We have offered a proposal to the Congress, but I
    will assure you the Congress funds the agency or funds ARPA-E,
    we will execute to the letter of the law.
        Mr. Doyle. Yes, we will be doing that, too. Thank you. I
    want to also highlight a DOE study published in 2016 that
    highlights the importance of CCUS technologies. In it, the
    authors describe the industrial CCUS as the low-hanging fruit
    among CCUS projects, because many industrial processes produce
    relatively pure streams of CO2.
        DOE has previously funded industrial CCUS pilot projects
    through the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act. And though
    there have been proposals to delineate natural gas CCUS
    technology and coal CCUS technologies in the previous
    administration's budget request, would you support separate R&D
    funding source for industrial CCUS?
        Mr. Brouillette. I would, sir, but again, that is a final
    decision that is going to be made by OMB and the Congress
    itself.
        Mr. Doyle. Thank you. And let me just finish by saying that
    I am pleased to participate in an energy efficiency and
    manufacturing roundtable hosted by Scott Energy Innovation
    Institute at Carnegie Mellon this coming Friday, and
    Representative McKinley, a leader on this issue, will be
    joining me, as will many manufacturers and energy companies in
    my district.
        President Trump has placed a special emphasis on the
    manufacturing sector, and understandably so, as the industry
    has been suffering for too long. In this proposed
    reauthorization of DOE, would you want to change the Advanced
    Manufacturing Office or the Clean Energy Manufacturing
    Initiative, and if so, what kind of changes would you foresee?
        Mr. Brouillette. As a former executive at Ford Motor
    Company, I understand full well and understand keenly the
    important work that is done by the advanced manufacture and
    technology folks at DOE, and I happen to support what they do.
    With regard to future changes, I would like to work with you
    and this committee to determine what those might be. I have not
    given it significant thought before you asked me the question,
    but I will do so.
        Mr. Doyle. Thank you. We appreciate you being here today,
    and we look forward to working with you.
        Mr. Brouillette. Thanks.
        Mr. Doyle. I yield back.
        Mr. Upton. Thank you. Mr. Shimkus.
        Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is great to have
    you all here. I am going to try to go quick. I have got four
    short questions.
        First, Dan, Secretary Perry has stated that it is the
    Federal Government's legal and moral obligation to permanently
    dispose of spent nuclear fuel and defense waste. If Congress
    provides the funding, is DOE prepared to reconstitute the
    Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, which we call
    OCRWM, and resume its statutorily required regulatory review of
    the Yucca Mountain license application?
        Mr. Brouillette. Yes, sir. If you provide the funds, we
    will execute to the letter of the law.
        Mr. Shimkus. Great. Thank you. I have been flipping around.
    Mr. Dabbar, just because you mentioned it. I understand what
    making glass means in this whole Hanford debate. Had we not
    broken the law with the last administration, and had we kept to
    the timeframe per the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and its
    amendments, where would that glass go?
        Mr. Dabbar. Thank you, Congressman. So the vitrification I
    was referring to for DF LAW, which is the new vitrification
    facility which is coming on line, is low activity waste. That
    can be stored onsite at Hanford. It does not need to go to----
        Mr. Shimkus. What part of the Hanford waste is designated
    to go to the final repository? And you can name that for me.
        Mr. Dabbar. Yes, sir. That would be the high level waste,
    which that building is still under construction, but that also
    is planned to be vitrified in the future, and that would need
    to be disposed of offsite.
        Mr. Shimkus. And if we were on schedule, per the law, where
    are you and DOE designing the cast and the delivery systems to
    finally go to? There is an easy answer.
        Mr. Dabbar. So, in general, there has been, I think, a lot
    of debate by this House about whether----
        Mr. Shimkus. I am not asking about the debate by this
    House, I am asking about the Department's position and current
    law.
        Mr. Dabbar. Yes. The previous analysis of where it was
    supposed to go was to go to the Yucca Mountain site.
        Mr. Shimkus. That is where it is supposed to go per law.
    And had we not broken the law and not derailed the timeline,
    that is where it would be going. So, thank you, that was a lot
    harder than I thought.
        Let me go to Mark real quick. Under the Office of Energy
    Efficiency and Renewable Energy, they are doing a study called
    Co-Optima. I am not sure if you are aware of that. I would ask
    you to look into it and report back to me on this. It is
    basically an energy efficiency in transportation vehicles.
        Actually, Secretary Brouillette might know a little bit
    about it, but it is going to be very, very helpful to us as we
    try to thread the needle on this RFS debate. And it is really a
    high-efficiency, high-octane research project that you all are
    doing. And I need to know when you are going to be done with
    that, and that will be very, very helpful in this. So could you
    get back to us?
        Mr. Menezes. We will. We will look into it and we will
    provide the response.
        Mr. Shimkus. Dan, do you want to add anything to that since
    you----
        Mr. Brouillette. No, sir. I know that this is an ongoing
    conversation between you and the administration and others in
    Congress, and we will get right back to you on the results of
    that study, or at least the progress of that study.
        Mr. Shimkus. Yes, because that study I think it is linchpin
    on how we can thread the needle on this, if it comes out the
    way I think a lot of us have hopes and expectations. Mark, I
    want to go back to you--and maybe there will be some other
    folks that this kind of addresses some of the other agencies
    here. Secretary Perry signed a--this is on the uranium market,
    and Secretary Perry, let me see the--I have the Honeywell
    Conversion Facility in Metropolis, Illinois that is idle
    because we think--part of the reason is the DOE's activity and
    the uranium market through the Uranium Bartering Program,
    Secretary Perry wrote a letter last year in reference to how
    that should not affect uranium mining, and our individual
    processing facility, and our ability. We think it is. Can
    anybody comment on this because of the idling of that?
        Mr. Dabbar. I would be glad to take that, sir. I think, as
    you know, a previous administration had looked at funding part
    of the Portsmouth D&D through funding of sales of uranium, and
    that there is a requirement that the Department does an
    analysis on the impact of those sales. That current program is
    expected to be completed in 2021. And the Department earlier
    this year, and the Secretary signed off on a detailed analysis
    that took down the amount that we are selling this year to 1200
    MTU. And that is the current plan. Once again, the current plan
    is that it will end by 2021.
        Mr. Shimkus. I would just say, it is impacting the jobs and
    the economic activity in my district in this plan. I would hope
    you all would take that into consideration.
        Mr. Upton. Ms. Castor.
        Ms. Castor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Menezes, in
    Puerto Rico, over 40 percent of the electricity customers have
    been without power now for about 4 months. And I understand
    that that is well over half a million American citizens. I was
    surprised that in the emergency aid package, what was proposed
    by the Trump administration, and passed at the end of the year
    in the House, it did not include a lot of direction and
    flexibility for the Department of Energy working with FEMA and
    the Army Corps of Engineers to build the more resilient grid
    that we discussed in this committee.
        Can you give us an update on what is happening right now
    and the division of labor to help get the power back on, and do
    it in a resilient way that protects the American taxpayer in
    the future?
        Mr. Menezes. Let me use this as an opportunity to just
    update with the numbers. As of the 6th, we have 80.8 percent of
    the normal peak load restored, and now we have 60 percent of
    the customers with power--that is 885,000 homes and businesses.
    We have 87 percent of the substations that are operating. And
    we still have 3,000 personnel down there working every day to
    restore power to the people of Puerto Rico.
        With respect to the request for assistance, that is going
    to be an OMB, I think, agency answer to provide for you. I know
    we certainly gave them----
        Ms. Castor. Do you feel like you have the authority,
    working with the Army Corps and FEMA, to build a more resilient
    grid, to not just build back what was there that was outdated
    and it was bankrupt, but to do something to protect taxpayers
    in the future?
        Mr. Menezes. Yes.
        Ms. Castor. Or do you need additional authority from the
    Congress to do that?
        Mr. Menezes. Well, again, I can't speak for the
    administration, but from my own personal observations of having
    been involved in the Puerto Rico efforts since I have been
    sworn in, it is clear that DOE's expectations of what it can do
    exceeds its authorities and the resources that are provided to
    it, particularly----
        Ms. Castor. I think I understand your question that you
    need greater authority.
        Mr. Menezes. Particularly on the resiliency, though,
    however, we are leading the interagency effort to model to
    determine how when we move toward--after restoration toward
    rebuild----
        Ms. Castor. I am afraid it might be too late by that point
    if we are doing the modeling now, because we have the
    technology. The national labs and industry have all the tools
    at their disposal. But if we are just going to restore power
    the way it was, it is not going to work as well.
        I want to move on. I heard what you all said, you are
    committed to innovation, you are committed to diversity of
    sources, but everything going on at the Department of Energy
    just belies that fact when you look at the very significant
    proposed budget cuts by the Trump administration last year. A
    $2.7 billion decrease, including drastic cuts in clean energy,
    electric grid operations, next generation energy technologies.
    That is not a recipe for innovation.
        And then, thank goodness, the FERC unanimously rejected
    Secretary Perry's proposal yesterday to give financial relief
    to some sources of energy when we need really a competitive
    wholesale market. And resiliency and reliability doesn't mean
    you just double-down on what has been our energy sources of the
    past, but to look at all the energy sources for the future.
        Then you add on the Department of Energy's backpedaling on
    our very popular and cost-effective energy efficiency appliance
    standards. That is not a recipe for innovation and diversity of
    sources. I hear what you are saying, that the policy is
    dominance, but I think that all of this added together is
    taking America backwards at a time when other countries and
    businesses across the world are investing. Thank goodness
    America still remains the leader in research and development,
    and there is fantastic research going on in the national labs,
    in our higher education institutions, and with business.
        But I think when you backpedal, when you say, we are not
    going to invest in the science that we have in the past, you
    are just weakening our ability to compete with companies like
    China. They want to be the world leader now. And it is no
    secret.
        All of that put together, Secretary Brouillette, how do we
    keep America's competitive edge in all of these sources of
    energy, all of the technology, when policies of the Trump
    administration seem to be going backwards?
        Mr. Brouillette. Thank you for your question. I hear your
    concern, I am not sure I agree with every premise, but I do
    hear your concern in your argument. Let's just start with the
    NOPR, with regard to what the Secretary in proposing a rule to
    the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the point of that
    rule was not to pick winners and losers as it has been
    described or to subsidize in certain cases certain forms of
    energy. What it was proposed for and the rationale behind it
    was to preserve baseload generation, which provides, in many
    respects, the resiliency and the reliability that we currently
    enjoy with our grid.
        Ms. Castor. But weren't you then asking customers across
    the country to pay for more expensive sources of energy, and
    that would cost customers billions and billions of dollars?
    That doesn't seem like a path for innovation and diversity
    sources.
        Mr. Brouillette. Sure. Well, in some respect, it wasn't the
    Department of Energy asking, it was the people who actually run
    the grid, the PJM folks, in particular, and others who were
    asking for changes to their market rules because they,
    themselves, acknowledge, in certain cases, the providers of
    this type of electricity are not properly compensated for the
    services that they provide. So they have sought changes as well
    to their own market rules, and that is what we were
    participating in, was that conversation to do exactly that.
        So it wasn't an effort to subsidize dirty fuels or to take
    a step backward, if you will, it was to provide a more
    appropriate compensation for services that are provided each
    and every day. So that was the intent behind that rule.
        With regard to the budget and the science and the
    innovation that the Department is currently undertaking, in
    certain cases, while we may see some reductions in certain
    areas of the Department, it is the focus of the Secretary and
    the focus of the administration to have the Department focus on
    basic science rather than applied science. So to the extent you
    see some reductions in areas, it may be that you are looking at
    reductions in applied science, simply because we want the focal
    point to be basic research, which we feel is a very strong
    point of the Department of Energy. We feel that they do that
    very, very well, and we want to encourage those activities.
        Mr. Upton. The gentlelady's time is expired. The gentleman
    from Ohio, Mr. Latta.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you very much
    for our panel for being here, it is very, very interesting and
    informative, so I appreciate your time here today.
        In recent Congresses, this committee has taken steps to
    give DOE new authorities that modernize its energy security
    missions. Response for enacting legislation in the FAST Act to
    give the agency additional critical infrastructure protection
    authorities, particularly for the electric grid. We also
    enhance authorities for emergency preparedness for energy
    supply disruptions.
        And in my district, again, to give you an idea, northwest,
    west central Ohio, I have got 60,000 manufacturing jobs and a
    couple--several years ago, not too many years ago, we had a
    very, very tough winter, and we were fearful that we might have
    some energy disruptions. When you got 60,000 type manufacturing
    jobs out there doing everything from float glass to steel and
    everything else, you just can't shut down lines. So we are
    heavily dependent on baseload capacity out there to make sure
    we can keep things running.
        It is also interesting in the last year, year and a half,
    that they have been out, not only talking with all of my folks
    from my electric co-ops to my municipal electrics and you go on
    down the line, that not only talking with customers, but also
    the individuals that work and run the facilities. There is a
    lot more concern out there about cyber attacks, and what could
    be happening out there.
        And, Mr. Menezes, I understand that you have received the
    Cyber and Emergency Energy Supply Responses functions in the
    Department; is that correct?
        Mr. Menezes. With respect to the program in the Office of--
    --
        Mr. Latta. Let me ask you this: In your experience with the
    emergency responses in recent months, do you believe the
    Department should have a larger role in energy and cyber
    emergencies at this time?
        Mr. Menezes. Again, it has been my experience since being
    with the Department that the expectations do exceed the
    authorities that we have. We see it in all emergency response
    across the board. We are looked at to provide answers and
    expertise, which we have in support of rebuild efforts,
    protection efforts, et cetera, as I mentioned. We are on the
    NFC, which gives us insight into certain classified information
    that others do not have. And, yet, when you look at our
    authorities, it is limited.
        Mr. Latta. All right. Let me ask you this then. As you talk
    about that limited authority that you have, are you committed
    to work with this committee to identify and enhance your
    authorities, and really work with us to say, what are the tools
    out there that you need to have to make sure that you can do
    your job?
        Mr. Menezes. Yes, sir. We are committed to working with
    this committee as long as you let us bring our OMB counterparts
    with us.
        Mr. Latta. OK. General Klotz, again, as from the other
    members on the committee, thank you very much for your service
    to our Nation. And with your responsibilities to cover
    emergency response relating to radiological emergencies. Is
    that correct?
        Mr. Klotz. That is correct, Congressman. Although, most of
    the work in terms of emergency response is a responsibility of
    state and local responders or National Guard. Our primary
    function is to support them by, one, training them, and two,
    being there with the tools that are necessary to measure and
    characterize any radiological or nuclear release.
        Mr. Latta. Let me follow up with that then. When you are
    out there training, especially the National Guard and local
    responders, because that is, again, who I hear from the most
    because I am out in my district all the time. Do they feel that
    they are getting the information that they need to have from
    you all to make sure that they can get the tools that they need
    for these responses that they might have to deal with?
        Mr. Klotz. Sir, the feedback I get is very, very positive,
    that this is a very useful course. In fact, we usually get
    asked to come back and either expand the number of people we
    reach in our particular courses, or go through a program of
    training the trainer so that they can do that themselves.
        I might add, one of the other things we do is because this
    is the season for large sporting events, we are also the
    organization that goes out and measures the radioactive
    characteristic picture of a given community before an event. So
    if there is an event, we can very quickly home in on that. So
    you may see, from time to time, a helicopter or aircraft flying
    over areas where that is being done, that is the NNSA out there
    doing that work.
        Mr. Latta. With my last 17 seconds that I have left, just
    to follow up real quick. Now, who pays for the local response?
    Is it through you or----
        Mr. Klotz. No, I think that that comes through a different
    funding stream. What we basically do is we fund the training,
    as I said. We have teams at each of our national laboratories,
    and I mean the broader DOE complex of national laboratories,
    which can be deployed with equipment to support state and local
    or military responders, and so we fund that part of the
    process.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, my time
    has expired.
        Mr. Upton. Yes. Mr. Tonko.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First, I thank all of the
    Secretaries for being here this morning. Secretary Brouillette,
    thank you for reiterating a point that Secretary Perry made
    when he testified before this subcommittee last year. Spurring
    energy innovation is an essential part of the Department's core
    mission.
        The national labs are often rightly called the crown jewels
    of America's research infrastructure. They produce major
    achievements in advancing science, energy innovation, and
    national security. Much of their work is cross-cutting and
    promotes all of these goals. I saw this firsthand when I
    visited Brookhaven last year.
        When Secretary Perry appeared at our hearing earlier, he
    expressed his support for ARPA-E. However, the budget request
    from the administration, which included the virtual elimination
    of ARPA-E and 70 percent cut to the Office of Energy Efficiency
    and Renewable Energy, did not reflect, in my opinion, the
    importance of innovation in DOE's role in supporting the next
    generation energy technology.
        So, Secretary Brouillette, do you believe a robust R&D
    budget, as well as a qualified DOE workforce, are critical to
    maintaining U.S. leadership in science, energy, and security?
        Mr. Brouillette. Yes, I do. Do you want me to elaborate?
        Mr. Tonko. Just quickly.
        Mr. Brouillette. Sure. Yes, sir, I do. Sir, as you and your
    colleagues begin this budget process, it is going to be a
    negotiation between you and the White House, and I just want to
    assure you that at some point, the Congress and the White House
    will come to an appropriate funding number for those labs, and
    we will honor those commitments.
        Mr. Tonko. I would hope the message from the agency will be
    forceful----
        Mr. Brouillette. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Tonko [continuing]. In making certain that progress is
    the----
        Mr. Brouillette. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Tonko [continuing]. Is the mission here. As this
    committee and DOE's leadership consider the future of the
    Department, can you explain your vision for the R&D portfolio
    for the next 3 years? What are the goals and what are the
    priorities?
        Mr. Brouillette. Sure. I will also defer to Under Secretary
    Dabbar, as the new Under Secretary of Science, he has some
    specific things that he would like to share with you. But I can
    tell you that we will continue the progress that has already
    been made by those 17 national laboratories, they are, in fact,
    crown jewels. I appreciate the fact that you would take the
    time to visit Brookhaven. I would also like to invite you to
    attend and to visit the rest of the laboratory system so that
    you can see firsthand the rest of the work that is being done
    there.
        With that, I will defer to Under Secretary Dabbar.
        Mr. Dabbar. I thank you, Congressman Tonko, and I remember
    following your energy work prior to this particular role
    throughout New York. Across the whole complex, including New
    York, the Department is very much focused on innovation. As you
    know, Brookhaven is one of our premiere laboratories, as well
    as our other complex that we have through NNSA, SPRU, West
    Valley through NYSERDA, there is a lot of focus that we have to
    the state, and of course, to the whole Nation.
        The Office of Science is obviously the preeminent position
    in the world across all the different areas of physical
    science. The particular areas that we are focused on, as were
    mentioned earlier, was on exoscale computing, that has the
    ability for us to really move the ball forward across a number
    of the areas of physical science. In the areas of particle
    physics, we are obviously moving forward, and LBNF/DUNE, which
    is out of Chicago, as well as a number of other high energy
    particle physics that spread in Michigan from Chairman Upton's
    area.
        So there is a number of areas that we are focused on. I
    also mentioned batteries with Brookhaven, the chemistry side,
    which we think has particular potential advantages across a
    number of energy areas.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you. Thank you very much. I am
    particularly concerned about the proposed elimination of the
    Weatherization Assistance Program, which is among the
    Department's expired authorizations. And I urge this committee
    to examine reauthorization as part of this effort. We just
    experienced dangerous winter conditions throughout much of the
    country. Wind chills were as low as negative 30 degrees for
    sustained days in my hometown in upstate New York. In the
    Adirondack to the north of my district, the temperature, in a
    number of places, never got above zero degrees for several
    days. People deserve a response from a weatherization program;
    those especially who live in poverty, who live paycheck to
    paycheck and still have a difficult time providing for their
    energy cost.
        Not only are the energy efficiency benefits from WAP
    critical to low income families budgets, but these homes are
    often unhealthy and unsafe.
        Through WAP, DOE provides funding to states, tribes, and
    U.S. territories. So whether it is the weatherization program
    or the State Energy Program, do you believe DOE should play a
    role in supporting state energy offices and the work they do?
    Senator Brouillette or Senator----
        Mr. Menezes. Well, again, just to echo the comments of the
    Deputy Secretary, we look forward to working with this
    committee and the appropriators, to reach an appropriate
    number. The organization is alive and well now at DOE under the
    CR, and we look forward to working with a number and then
    carrying out the intent of Congress on that.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Secretary. And last year the House
    passed the reauthorization of state energy programs. Would the
    Department welcome Congress taking a look at how to improve the
    weatherization program?
        Mr. Brouillette. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Tonko. I believe my time is up, but I yield back, Mr.
    Chair.
        Mr. Upton. Time is up. Mr. McKinley.
        Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess probably,
    Brouillette, it is to you on this. If I could just get this
    question out, where I really want to go. I have been over to
    the NETL Laboratory in Morgantown. I know Mike Doyle has got a
    facility up in the Pittsburgh area, and we have one in
    Morgantown. There has been a request to do a mission alignment
    study under DOE. Can you give me an update on where that might
    stand?
        Mr. Brouillette. With regard to the structure of the labs
    or----
        Mr. McKinley. Yes. Over the years, people talk about
    consolidation.
        Mr. Brouillette. Yes, sir.
        Mr. McKinley. And I think the uncertainty is still swirling
    there to give them comfort. Secretary Chu had said there will
    not be a consolidation at Morgantown with anyone else. Mooney
    said the same thing. I am just curious----
        Mr. Brouillette. And I am unaware of any plan to
    consolidate those two facilities.
        Mr. McKinley. OK.
        Mr. Brouillette. We are looking at missions throughout the
    Department. It could be that we utilize NETL's resources in
    both locations to attack a singular problem, but I am aware of
    no plan in terms of a reorganization to combine the two
    organizations.
        Mr. McKinley. Thank you. To the core, last month when we
    had a hearing with DOE, some folks that we were talking, it
    opened up a different subject, and that was the importing of
    energy from Canada, particularly in the northeast. I was
    unaware of that. I think most of the people here in this group
    in Congress were unaware of the amount; 76 gigawatts of power
    coming in from that.
        My concern was--76 gigawatts of power, on average, may be
    100 power plants that aren't existing in America because of
    that, bringing in Canadian-subsidized utilities. I want people
    to understand the impact of that.
        Just if you take at NEI's, their own website, with a
    nuclear, they are talking about, for each nuclear power plant,
    it generates around $16 million of taxes, local taxes, and to
    the Federal Government; it is $67 million for each one. We are
    short about 100 power plants because importing the Canadian-
    subsidized or government-owned, where they are creating excess
    electricity.
        I am curious, from DOE's perspective, when the negotiations
    are underway under NAFTA, or when they get taken place, will
    this be taken into consideration so that we might be able to
    see some consideration for that where we are supporting
    Canadian energy producers rather than American?
        Mr. Menezes. Well, regarding----
        Mr. McKinley. It shifts over to you then.
        Mr. Menezes. First of all, I definitely agree with your
    comments on the amount of energy that we actually import from
    Canada, it is a huge amount, and it is one of our largest
    trading partners in energy. Most of it is into the tight power
    pools in the northeast, it doesn't surprise anyone where.
    Regarding----
        Mr. McKinley. My concern is that when we do that, that
    means we are not--our local tax base is--it is non-existent.
    There are the things that take care of our schools, our roads,
    our infrastructure. We are supporting the infrastructure of
    Canada rather than having 100 power plants in the United
    States.
        Mr. Menezes. Yes. And our research is aimed toward smaller,
    like small modular nuclear, for example, as well as I had
    mentioned before, some of the smaller coal facilities, the low
    emission, zero emission coal facilities. This would allow you
    to put smaller units closest to the load pocket. And whereas it
    is difficult to build interstate transmission lines, as we
    know, but if you can't increase the transmission lines, you can
    at least begin to site clean generation closer to the load
    pocket. That would minimize our dependency on interstate
    transmission----
        Mr. McKinley. If I could reclaim--I am holding my time
    here. As long as we are continuing to import something that is
    government-owned, and it is cheaper when it comes in here, they
    are competing unfairly with America energy producers.
        All I am asking is that when we hit with NAFTA, that we
    have some discussion about the importing of all of this 76
    gigawatts of Canadian power at the expense of American jobs.
        Mr. Menezes. You have our commitment, and we are certainly
    monitoring the NAFTA situation.
        Mr. Brouillette. Congressman, if I could add just real
    quickly. You do have our commitment on that. The Secretary did
    initiate a conversation with Minister Carr of Canada and his
    counterpart in Mexico. Recently, he held a meeting in Houston,
    Texas, among the three energy ministers, I will commit to you
    that we will ensure that this issue is discussed in those
    conversations.
        Mr. McKinley. Thank you very much. I yield back.
        Mr. Flores [presiding]. Mr. Loebsack is recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Loebsack. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank all of
    you for being here today, obviously, and I always learn a lot,
    I don't get to ask questions until the end here, but it is
    really great for me to listen to my colleagues ask questions
    and to hear your answers, I do appreciate that very much. But I
    want to follow up on what Mr. Tonko asked about weatherization.
        First, I just have to say for the life of me, I cannot
    understand why anybody could possibly propose dramatic, drastic
    slashes in a weatherization program as this administration did,
    it is completely beyond me. If anybody has ever, as I have,
    visited any of the local community action programs, for
    example, that implement weatherization programs and gone to
    homes of seniors or low income folks or disabled folks who have
    benefited from weatherization, and it is not just in the
    winter, it can be in the summer as well in either the midwest
    or in the southern parts of our country, we can see that there
    is job creation. They employ local folks to weatherize homes.
    Sometimes they have even high school kids, for example, who are
    trying to learn a trade who participate in this kind of a
    program.
        So for the life of me, I just don't understand why there
    was this proposed cut on the part of the administration. And
    Mr. Brouillette, sorry, I was not here when you were here or on
    this committee, I should say. Can you give me some
    justification or rationale as to why those cuts were proposed
    in the first place?
        Mr. Brouillette. Well, I don't think it is because we
    disagree with the ultimate goal of those programs. And I can't
    speak to your specific concern on the specific program or this
    specific amount that you are proposing--there are better ways,
    sometimes there are different ways to achieve the same
    outcomes. And I can commit to you that we at DOE are attempting
    to do those things.
        I was just fortunate enough to attend the solar decathlon
    out in the western part of the U.S., and I saw many of the kids
    that you were referencing in your comments. They built homes
    that were energy efficient; they built homes that were safe;
    they built homes that were frankly astounding in their
    technological advance. We want to continue to support those
    types of activities.
        Mr. Loebsack. Can we get your commitment that you will
    press as hard as you possibly can----
        Mr. Brouillette. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Loebsack [continuing]. On this front?
        I realize it won't be--make the final decision, but----
        Mr. Brouillette. It is always a negotiated effort, sir, but
    you have my commitment.
        Mr. Loebsack. Because it is important, as it is with so
    many other programs, that we get that commitment from you folks
    as part of the administration.
        And with respect to the reorganization that is being
    proposed, how will that play out when it comes to something
    like this to make sure that the weatherization program--let's
    assume that we do get adequate funding for it--that it is
    implemented properly and that it continues as it has been?
        Mr. Brouillette. Yes, sir. I don't see any changes. The
    reorganization does not fundamentally alter or change the
    direction of these particular programs that were set up by
    Congress.
        Mr. Loebsack. That is good to know.
        Mr. Brouillette. We are simply changing an organizational
    chart and providing a different structure by which we manage
    the agency.
        Mr. Loebsack. Thank you.
        I would like to go back also, if I could, to the question
    having to do with storage for electricity, if I can, Mr.
    Dabbar. Is that how you pronounce it?
        Mr. Dabbar. Thank you.
        Mr. Loebsack. Naval Academy grad, you said? Is that
    correct?
        Mr. Dabbar. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Loebsack. Yes. My stepson and his wife are both Naval
    Academy grads and Active Duty Marines at the moment. So thank
    you for your service.
        But it is true that Texas does produce the most wind energy
    of any state. But Iowa produces the largest percentage of its
    electricity from wind, and it is upwards of 37, 38 percent.
    Could you give us some kind of a timeframe to follow up on Mr.
    Olson's question? Because it is great that we are seeing--you
    mentioned beyond lithium--a lot of R&D, a lot of work going
    into how we are going to store this electricity so that we can
    do more with respect to wind energy or with respect to solar
    energy. But can you give us a timeframe down the road what kind
    of number of years we are talking about?
        Mr. Dabbar. Yes, Congressman. The time is now. It is one of
    the most exciting areas within the Office of Science, dealing
    with applied energy in terms of developments of something that
    can be sent to the grid.
        I mentioned a number of technologies in my previous
    conversation. I won't go through it. But the list of companies
    that we are working with specifically on those various
    different types of technologies is vast. We are working with
    big companies such as United Technologies and Dow and Johnson
    Controls and General Motors. We are working with startup
    companies. The list that is across our various labs that deal
    with chemistry in the battery area is, give or take, around 80
    different companies today.
        And so there are various different types of technologies
    that have different uses in terms of weight-to-power ratio. And
    some are better for transportation. Some are better for utility
    scale. And so we intend to push that very hard on the basis of
    what we have been developing, and so we look forward to doing
    that promptly.
        Mr. Loebsack. Thank you so much.
        Thank you so much, and I yield back.
        Mr. Flores. Mr. Kinzinger is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for
    being here, again, spending some time with us on these
    important issues.
        I would like to start by commending all of you, led by the
    Secretary, for your renewed focus on the vital role of the DOE,
    our science and energy workforce, and our energy resources have
    to play in national security. It has been an area that I think
    has been way underdiscussed when it comes to issues of
    countering Russia, countering our enemies overseas, et cetera.
    It is something I have often stressed in this committee, and I
    look forward to continuing to work with all of you on it.
        To Mr. Brouillette and Menezes, did you guys get the
    hardest names possible to come here? I thought Kinzinger was
    tough.
        In the hearing with Secretary Perry a few months ago, I
    raised concerns that DOE was not always fully represented or
    engaged on energy matters pursued by the State Department due
    to the establishment of an energy bureau at State.
        Will you discuss the value of DOE engagement
    internationally. When the U.S. meets with other nations' energy
    ministers, why is it important for DOE to be at the table?
    Either one of you can start.
        Mr. Brouillette. Sure. Well, sir, as I leave for Saudi
    Arabia and UAE tomorrow, I can speak firsthand to the
    importance of those conversations. I did return from several
    overseas trips. I represented the President and the Secretary
    in Kazakhstan; Tokyo, Japan; and Santiago, Chile, just
    recently.
        Each one of those conversations brought new ideas. They
    brought a richness. And, candidly, I know some concerns were
    raised here about U.S. interests. It gave us an opportunity to
    articulate and, in some cases, to protect U.S. interests with
    regard to energy development and security.
        We value those conversations very deeply. The Secretary
    does. I do. We do have a very robust and a very aggressive
    international affairs department within our organization. It is
    led by an assistant secretary. He is not yet confirmed or she
    is not yet confirmed. I don't know who the nominee will be, but
    it will come forward shortly to the U.S. Senate. But we hope to
    have that position filled very, very shortly. We are going to
    continue these conversations around the world.
        With regard to our State Department colleagues, we interact
    with them very closely. I never travel internationally without
    collaborating with the State Department and, in many cases,
    integrating our work. So that process----
        Mr. Kinzinger. All of us, when we travel, we work with
    State. But do you send silos? Are there areas we need to break
    through those silos where there is duplicative action or
    counter action?
        Mr. Menezes. Well, we work closely with our State
    Department colleagues, as the deputy said. We are trying to
    enhance our collaboration so that we can have much fuller
    communications between the two. Because in the past, there
    really has been a break, at least with respect to the energy
    component at the State Department. There appear to be sometimes
    conflicting missions. And so we are now working, taking
    positive steps to try to see and understand what they do. We
    know what we do. And so we hope that we can work together to
    achieve some efficiencies and really gain an understanding of
    what they are doing and what they hope to accomplish.
        Mr. Kinzinger. Good. Thank you. I am also on this
    committee, but I am also a member of the Foreign Affairs
    Committee, so I have traveled a lot in that capacity. And it
    really does blow me away the number of times. And I get that we
    have a government but that I see sometimes State countering the
    message of other parts of government. So I think the more you
    guys can coordinate and work together, the more beneficial it
    is not for DOE or State, but for America.
        General Klotz, and thank you for your service to the
    greatest branch of the military. On the nuclear security front,
    I understand that DOE and the National Nuclear Security
    Administration have done considerable work to enhance detection
    of radiological smuggling from former Soviet states, along with
    almost 60 partner countries. Can you provide an update about
    the process of the Nuclear Smuggling Detection and Deterrence
    program and what you are doing to ensure that we can safely
    transition to a model where countries fully fund the
    sustainment and maintenance of the equipment we supply? And I
    want to add on that, that is something that people don't think
    about much anymore because it is just out of our purview, so--
    --
        Mr. Klotz. Well, thank you very much for that question. The
    nuclear detection and smuggling program is one of the most
    important ways in which we try to work to make sure that
    special nuclear materials do not get in the hands of bad guys,
    whether the bad guys are a rogue nation that wants to develop a
    nuclear weapon or a terrorist that wants to use nuclear
    radiological materials in an improvised bomb to sow terror and
    panic.
        We have worked, as you said, with a number of different
    countries. Our business model, basically, is to go in, deploy
    technology that has been largely developed through our national
    laboratories, including the non-NNSA national laboratories,
    train the individuals who operate this, help them for a period
    of basically 5 years. And over that 5-year period, the
    objective is to transition the maintenance, the
    recapitalization, and the training necessary to operate that to
    the host countries.
        We have sent a couple reports, since I have been in the
    seat on, where we are doing that, when the progress is. And I
    would be happy to make sure your staff gets the most recent
    copy of that.
        Mr. Kinzinger. Again, thank you all for being here.
        And I yield back.
        Mr. Flores. Mr. Schrader, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Schrader. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Brouillette, the administration last year proposed
    privatizing transmission assets owned by the Bonneville Power
    Administration. The proposal to sell off BPA's assets
    represents about three-quarters of the grid in the Northwest,
    was supposedly a major savings reform effort offered by the
    administration in its fiscal year 2018 budget. As you can
    imagine, those of us in the Pacific Northwest are pretty
    concerned, Chairman Walden, Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, and myself
    here on the committee.
        Frankly, BPA manages the majority of the transmission in
    our neck of the woods. It is clean energy. It seems very
    misguided since Federal hydropower actually makes us money,
    doesn't cost us money, some upfront money, but with interest it
    gets paid back. I don't understand the logic of that. We are
    totally against that idea, very concerned about that, would
    hope that your agency as well as the administration might
    commit here and now not to pursue that in this coming budget.
        Mr. Brouillette. Thank you, sir, for that question. I am
    aware of the concerns of the delegation throughout the
    Northwest. I have met with Chairman Walden as well as several
    Senators to discuss this issue in my confirmation hearings. And
    as I said there, and I will say here again publicly, the
    Congress really does control whether or not we actually sell
    anything with regard to those assets. So without some statutory
    change by the Congress, I can assure you that nothing will be
    sold.
        Mr. Schrader. All right. I appreciate that. I assume you
    yourself think it is a wise asset to retain?
        Mr. Brouillette. It has provided cheap energy in the
    Northwest. We enjoy our relationship with the PMAs. We are
    looking at them very closely, frankly, to learn from them as we
    address issues like cybersecurity and other matters.
        Mr. Schrader. Sure.
        Mr. Brouillette. DOE is uniquely positioned with both a
    science agency and a research agency. We are also an asset
    manager and owner through the BPA, and others, SWPA and WAPA,
    and whatnot. But we enjoy our relationship. We look forward to
    working closely with them.
        Mr. Schrader. That seems to fit into all the above energy
    strategies using different types of components.
        Mr. Brouillette. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Schrader. Along the same lines, BPA currently reports
    to you, as I understand it. And given the size of the agency
    and the importance, as I just outlined, to the 12 million
    people in the Pacific Northwest, we consider it very important
    to have the ear of someone higher up in the agency. There was a
    proposal, as I understand, to change that. Maybe have BPA
    report another under secretary or something along those lines.
    Could you commit today to maintaining the current
    organizational structure with regard to how BPA reports
    directly to the deputy?
        Mr. Brouillette. Well, sir, I would be hesitant to commit
    to any future plans we might have simply because I want the
    opportunity to review the entire department. The PMAs have
    reported to the deputy secretary for some time. There was a
    time in the past when they reported actually to an assistant
    secretary within the Department. So I would like the
    opportunity to continue reviewing the department and perhaps
    report to you on my findings and work with you on any future
    changes that we might make or we may not make.
        Mr. Schrader. If you could commit maybe to at least
    consulting the delegation before you made a final decision----
        Mr. Brouillette. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Schrader [continuing]. We could give a little input.
    Given the nature of energy security these days, it is more and
    more important, I think, to make sure we have direct access to
    people and power that make these----
        Mr. Brouillette. I can assure you they will always have
    direct access. And I will give you a commitment to work closely
    with you.
        Mr. Schrader. Thank you.
        Mr. Menezes, given the climactic changing events we have
    had this past year, huge floods, huge hurricanes, the big fires
    out West all the way from the Canadian border down to
    California, very concerned about grid reliability and the
    hardening of the grid. There seems to be diverse opinions about
    what that hardening the grid means. Some would say it is a lot
    more renewable energy. Others would say making sure we have the
    redundancy and the assets we have on the ground, as was alluded
    to in some earlier questions, or rebuilt to withstand some of
    these huge events, these devastating nature events that we
    haven't seen in the past.
        Where is the Department going with regard to reliability?
    Where are we going to put most of our efforts and our funding?
        Mr. Menezes. Well, currently, we had the modern grid
    consortium, the laboratory consortium, where we have been
    modeling how to make grids more resilient. We are bringing that
    to bear in Puerto Rico where we are going to make
    recommendations when we begin to rebuild and restore in Puerto
    Rico.
        The advent of integrated microgrids, for example, is a key
    component of that. In New York and other states they have been
    looking at this. And our labs have been doing modeling. And in
    Puerto Rico, we are actually going to find three pilot
    microgrids so that we can bring the actual research that the
    labs have been doing and put them into action in Puerto Rico.
    In my response to Representative Castor, we had run out of
    time. But I wanted to tell the committee that we are actually
    using the work of the labs to actually model and to build more
    resilient grid structure.
        Mr. Schrader. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Flores. Mr. Johnson, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Johnson. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank our
    panel for being with us today.
        The United States is currently positioned well to utilize
    our vast energy resources, including oil, natural gas, and
    coal, as a positive geostrategic tool to advance our Nation's
    interests globally. It is also important that we enable
    domestic nuclear technologies to compete in the international
    market to assure we have a seat at the table on critical issues
    relating to peaceful use of civilian nuclear technologies and
    nonproliferation.
        The Department of Energy plays an important role in that
    process through what is known as the Part 810 approval process.
    Recently, Secretary Perry affirmed his commitment to streamline
    the regulatory review process. NNSA is responsible for
    overseeing the approval, while consulting the Office of Nuclear
    Energy and the DOE general counsel in addition to interagency
    coordination.
        So, Deputy Secretary Brouillette and Secretary Menezes and
    Administrator Klotz, do you recognize the importance of U.S.
    engagement in the global civil nuclear market? And can you
    assure me that you will continue to implement greater
    efficiency in this program?
        Mr. Brouillette. Yes, sir, on both accounts. We recognize
    full well. We are engaged in several conversations around the
    world, in essence to create opportunities for our civil nuclear
    programs and our industry partners throughout the U.S.
        I will defer to General Klotz, perhaps, for a more detailed
    discussion on 810 and NNSA's role.
        Mr. Johnson. OK.
        Mr. Klotz. Congressman, I think the premise of your
    question is extraordinarily important, and that is if we want
    to be leaders in nuclear security, nuclear safety, nuclear
    safeguards, and nonproliferation, then we need to have a seat
    at the table. And the only way you get a seat at the table is
    to be a knowledge leader in this particular industry.
        You also touched on--we hear the frustrations from the
    commercial companies about how long it takes to do 810
    processing, and we share that frustration. It is true the DOE
    and the NNSA are the stewards of this process, but we are not
    the owners of the process. And the long poles and the tent many
    times are outside our control. In particular for those
    countries which require a specific authorization, the State
    Department has to get assurances from the host government that
    the requirements will be followed by the host government.
    Sometimes those take 12, in some cases even 18 months.
        So we are working very hard. We continue to work very hard
    in a process improvement program that you know about for the
    810 process. In the areas where we can cut down and make this
    much more streamline and efficient, we will continue to push on
    that.
        Mr. Johnson. OK. Good.
        Mr. Menezes, do you have any comments to add to that, or do
    you concur with what they have said?
        Mr. Menezes. I certainly concur with them. We at the DOE
    are uniquely positioned to see the importance of maintaining
    global leadership in this. And that was, frankly, part of our
    domestic electricity policy. Our 403 letter meant to ensure
    that our base load nuclear units continued to run economically,
    because we are losing the leadership certainly on the civilian
    side. And as we see other countries developing civilian nuclear
    fleets, we want to be there. We do not want to be on the
    sidelines.
        Mr. Johnson. Can any of you identify further policy and
    process options to assist our domestic nuclear industry to
    remain competitive in the international market? And we will
    just go right down the line with the three of you again.
        Mr. Brouillette. Sir, I think Under Secretary Dabbar wants
    to chime in, being a Navy nuke.
        Mr. Johnson. OK. All right. Go ahead.
        Mr. Dabbar. Congressman, one additional point I think
    addresses that specific question is that the White House has
    actually convened a cross-agency group, specifically in these
    particular areas. And we have participated in that. But it also
    includes Defense, it includes State, and a number of other
    areas. And there are very specific verticals in the areas that
    you listed. They are being evaluated by groups. So
    participation in the fuel chain. Participation and
    commercialization on an international basis, on security of the
    fuel chain. And so we are participating and getting very much
    into the details, along with other members across agencies on
    this topic.
        Mr. Johnson. OK. I don't have time to get into my other
    question, because it is fairly long. Let me just paraphrase it
    real quickly and get your affirmation.
        LNG exports, big, big deal for us, big geopolitical
    leverage point for the United States. I have got legislation
    that is designed to help expedite the permitting process. I
    know the Secretary and I have talked about this. Are you folks
    committed to working with us to expedite this as well?
        Mr. Brouillette. Yes, sir, we are. We have taken some
    initial steps. We look forward to working with the committee to
    further refine the permitting processes.
        Mr. Johnson. OK. Great.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Flores. Mr. Long, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Oh, Mr. Welch. I am sorry. You are recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Welch. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        I wanted to ask Mr. Brouillette and Mr. Menezes a few
    questions. Energy efficiency, incredibly important, enormous
    bipartisan support for it on this committee, a lot of
    leadership on both sides of the aisle. We are going to be
    hearing, I think from the next panel, about some things like
    master limited partnerships, like energy saving performance
    contracts. Mr. Kinzinger has been a big champion of those,
    along with me. So I will wait for the next panel.
        But one of the questions is about efficiency standards. And
    there is some debate on this because it does involve
    regulations. And there is general skepticism about regulations
    in the new administration, and some of it well-founded. But it
    is standards, like applying standards have been extremely
    helpful to industry and to consumers in saving money. And there
    is a number of deadlines that Congress had set for efficiency
    standards, and some estimates indicate that could be about a
    $43 billion annual savings by 2035. But the latest regulatory
    agenda, as I understand it, that has been released by DOE,
    removed the target completion date for these standards and put
    them in a, ``longterm action section,'' a category that OMB has
    said is specifically for rules where no action is really
    intended. And there have been five deadlines, I think, since
    2017.
        So my question here is what is your position, and what do
    you intend to do to comply with the law to complete these rules
    by the established deadlines?
        And again, the premise of my question is that these rules
    actually are helpful to industry and helpful to consumers. We
    might have some debate on it. But if the regulations are well-
    designed, then I think they achieve the positive goals of
    energy efficiency. So could you both comment on that?
        Mr. Menezes. I am happy to start. Certainly, when I was
    here with the committee, energy efficiency and applying
    standards were a key part on the major legislation that we
    passed in 2005. And Congress set a lot of the deadlines that
    the Department had to meet. Some think that they were
    aggressive or not. But in my 2 months since being there, a lot
    of things had been piling up and coming across my desk. And a
    couple of them are on the mandatory reports to Congress that
    this committee had put in the legislation back then to provide
    the very reports that you are probably looking at.
        I will be honest, I had not seen them before. And we very
    clearly set forth those deadlines that we had met, those that
    we still hadn't met. And as you had said, we are not shy about
    it. We actually admit some of the difficulties that we have
    had. The goal is to, of course, meet the statutory deadlines
    and obligations.
        I know the other body is looking at some legislation that
    would give us a little flexibility, I think, to look at this to
    be able to meet those deadlines. But the Department is
    committed to following the law to have these standards in
    place, according to the deadlines that are set in the statute.
    And I know that you have the same report that I just reviewed
    probably a few days ago. And I have been in discussions with
    the general counsel's office on how we can improve this.
        Mr. Welch. I think I am being reassured here. You are
    telling me that full speed ahead on meeting the standards, not
    a detour to slow walking the standards or not implementing them
    altogether.
        Mr. Menezes. You do have our assurance of that. It is quite
    stark when you see our very own reports that are very clear on
    when we have met them and when we haven't.
        Mr. Welch. And I am taking from this a full-throated
    support for efficiency standards and the benefits that they
    provide in savings to consumers and, of course, incidental
    reduction in carbon emissions.
        Mr. Menezes. Well, certainly, in meeting our statutory
    deadlines, you have my full-throated support on that, because
    the hallmark of this administration is to comply with the laws
    that are applied in the Department.
        Mr. Welch. OK. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Flores. The gentleman yields back.
        Mr. Long, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Long. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And, Mr. Menezes and Mr. Dabbar, you are responsible for
    some scientific and nuclear office labs that are examining
    hardening of the grid from a tax such as electromagnetic pulse,
    EMP, incidents, which is something I have been harping on ever
    since I arrived in Congress.
        What activities are priorities for the Department to ensure
    the industry can benefit from your research and infrastructure
    capabilities?
        Mr. Menezes. Well, as we have said in response to other
    questions on this, our labs are doing quite a bit of research
    on making the grid more resilient, particularly with respect to
    the EMPs, and the GMDs for that matter. We have been working
    with Oak Ridge and EPRI in the industry to identify ways to
    ensure that we had the sufficient transformers necessary in the
    event that there be such an event. Our laboratory consortium is
    also looking at this issue. And that, together with our efforts
    in cyber, we hope will eventually, you know, provide us the
    information to make the grid even more resilient.
        Mr. Long. Mr. Dabbar?
        Mr. Dabbar. I have nothing more to add on that, sir.
        Mr. Long. OK. EMPs can happen in nature or through
    malicious acts, correct?
        Mr. Dabbar. That is correct.
        Mr. Long. Pardon?
        Mr. Dabbar. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Long. OK. And, General Klotz, the broad crosscutting
    nature of the Department's mission is evident in my home State
    of Missouri. The National Nuclear Security Administration, or
    NNSA, maintains the Kansas City National Security Campus, which
    is responsible for manufacturing and procuring components for
    the nuclear weapons programs. Additionally, the Department of
    Energy helps support the University of Missouri's MURR nuclear
    research reactor. The MURR reactor is seeking approval to
    produce lifesaving medical isotopes in partnership with NNSA
    and is currently studying a partnership with NNSA to convert
    the reactor to use low-enriched uranium instead of highly
    enriched uranium.
        Will you please describe NNSA's programs to convert
    research reactors to this low-enriched uranium?
        Mr. Klotz. I would be delighted to. But first of all,
    thanks for mentioning our Kansas City plant, which produces all
    the nonnuclear components that go into a nuclear weapon, which
    is about 80, 90 percent of what goes in there. And for members
    who have not had a chance to visit that, it is an example of
    the kinds of things that can be achieved by recapitalization of
    this 40-, 50-year-old enterprise that I talked about earlier.
        But specifically for the reactor conversion, as I said
    earlier, sir, one of our strategies is to prevent terrorists
    from getting their hands on special nuclear material or rogue
    nations getting their hands on special nuclear materials from
    which they could make an explosive device. One of the ways we
    do that is to help research reactors and other institutions
    stop using highly enriched uranium, which can be used in a
    nuclear weapon, for the research purposes to use low-enriched
    uranium.
        We have already worked with, converted, or verified the
    shutdown of over 100 facilities worldwide in transitioning
    either no longer using any uranium or using low-enriched
    uranium. And our current efforts include close cooperation with
    Missouri University Research Reactor, MURR, to qualify a new
    high-density, low-enriched uranium fuel that can be used to
    convert that particular reactor.
        Mr. Long. OK. And what proliferation challenges keep you
    awake at night?
        Mr. Klotz. I think--that is a good question, and I think
    about it a lot. My sense is nuclear terrorism remains among one
    of the most significant threats to the security of this
    country, to the security of our allies, and the security of our
    partners. So making sure that we have done all we can do to
    lock up, safeguard these materials that are an important part
    of our civil nuclear industry, both here and abroad, is one of
    the things I worry the most about.
        Mr. Long. And how does a highly enriched uranium conversion
    program fit within NNSA's mission relating to nonproliferation?
        Mr. Klotz. Well, again, it is one of many arrows in the
    quiver or one of many of a multifaceted strategy to make sure
    that those special nuclear materials, like highly enriched
    uranium, their use is minimized and that people convert to
    using low-enriched uranium or other types of phenomenon to do
    their research.
        Mr. Long. OK. Thank you all for being here today.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Flores. The gentleman yields back.
        Dr. Bucshon, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Bucshon. Thank you, Chairman.
        Secretary Brouillette, the Department's 17 national
    laboratories are the boots on the ground, so to speak, that
    execute the activities that enable DOE to fulfill its missions.
    Have you engaged with the lab directors to assure the
    Department's alignment, or alignment readjustment, will be able
    to fully unleash the potential of the national labs?
        Mr. Brouillette. Yes, sir, I have. We have done that both
    directly and as a collaborative group effort. We have within
    the Department of Energy known as a lab operations board. And
    we have a smaller executive council made up of lab directors
    that both advise me and the Secretary. I have consulted with
    the lab directors, and I think you will hear from one on
    another panel about this reorganization plan and perhaps what
    it should look like. And they have submitted ideas, many of
    which we have accepted.
        Mr. Bucshon. OK. So then you can probably share some of the
    recommendations from the lab directors that were provided to
    you and some of the specifics of that with the committee?
        Mr. Brouillette. Sure. Absolutely. Yes, sir, I think I can.
        Mr. Bucshon. Just for the record, as we look to maybe a
    reauthorization, that is maybe some information on how the labs
    in the Department----
        Mr. Brouillette. Sure. Would you like me to do that
    formally, sir, in writing? Would you like me to----
        Mr. Bucshon. Yes, that would be great.
        Mr. Brouillette. Yes, sir, I will do that. I will follow up
    with you.
        Mr. Bucshon. Thanks.
        This is for a number of people, but a frequent concern
    raised by DOE labs and contractors relates to the burdens of
    unnecessary oversight that detracts from effective and cost-
    effective mission performance on the other hand, sound
    oversights necessary to ensure safety and security and protect
    taxpayer interests. The development of mature contractor
    assurance systems has been identified in congressional reports
    and in this committee's work as critical to enabling a more
    efficient oversight framework that will help unleash the
    benefits of the labs and other programmatic work.
        So I guess, Secretary Brouillette, you can comment first.
    What can you tell us about what you are doing to ensure more
    mature contractor assurance system? Basically, effective and
    efficient oversight versus onerous and top-down oversight.
        Mr. Brouillette. Well, we have looked at the design
    standards within the Department. For instance, I will just give
    you an example. We just went and visited a facility in Oak
    Ridge that is a multimillion, billion dollar project. What we
    are looking for is making sure that our processes internally
    inside of the Department of Energy don't require certain things
    of contractors that either slow down the process or make things
    just exorbitant in terms of cost.
        So if we are going to build, for instance, a simple office
    building, something you have seen a million times in your
    practice, it is simply there to house reception staff, we
    probably don't need a 90 percent design build plan in place
    before we allow the contractor to begin the initial stages of
    that work. If we are going to talk about a nuclear facility,
    however, we want to be very, very careful. It is looking at
    simple things like that and working with the contractors
    directly that we hope to bring some efficiencies and perhaps
    some better processes toward the Department's efforts.
        Mr. Bucshon. Anybody else have any comment?
        Mr. Dabbar. Yes, sir. I will go ahead and add the reference
    that the Deputy Secretary made about the lab operations board.
    And one of the initiatives that the Secretary wanted to take
    onboard and for us to execute on, and we are now in the second
    wave of that, is basically a management and an efficiency
    review at a very specific level along the lines of what he just
    described. And the lab operations board actually includes lab
    directors, people from inside DOE headquarters, contractors
    across all of our various different labs and programs. And what
    we have been doing is looking at not only general points, but
    actually very specific points along the lines of what stands in
    the way of accomplishing the mission.
        I will give you an example of one of the things that came
    up and we have changed. The labs were required to submit 15
    different human resources reports a month. And what we decided
    was do we need all 15 of those or were there some overlap? As
    you could probably guess, there was some overlap. And we have
    actually consolidated some of those. And I believe we are down
    to 10. So it is shorter than 15 a month, and we are now down to
    10 a month.
        But we are doing that in collaboration, to your particular
    question, with the lab directors for us to review what is
    really required in terms of our oversight requirements for, in
    this case, human resources, but want to make certain that it is
    not overlapping, that things that had been added over the years
    were maybe duplicative.
        Mr. Bucshon. Yes. And I would say I know a number of people
    have talked about budgetary concerns. And from my viewpoint,
    every Federal agency that does this, that makes themselves more
    effective and efficient, also utilizes taxpayer resources in a
    more effective and efficient way. And in that vein may not
    necessarily need as many resources.
        With that, Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Flores. The gentleman yields back.
        I will recognize myself for 5 minutes.
        Secretary Brouillette, one of the questions I want to talk
    about is budget itemization and micromanagement. The Department
    has a heavy reliance on outside contractors using M&O contracts
    to conduct DOE's research and development activities that
    manage your facilities and perform environmental cleanup
    projects. Any time you have this government public-private type
    of relationship, it results in a high degree of transactional
    activities, both internally within the Department and
    externally with these outside entities.
        Recently, the Commission to Review the Effectiveness of the
    National Energy Laboratories, or CRENEL for short, identified
    transactional compliance and budget itemization, as they called
    it, as a costly burden that inhibits DOE from fully realizing
    the benefits of the contractor model. According to the CRENEL
    report, the chief financial officer maintains thousands of
    control points which, in turn, require management approval and
    disbursement at the expense of DOE's overall efficiency. This
    is not something that rose on your watch, but it is something
    that has crept into the Department over years, if not decades.
        So my question is this, Secretary Brouillette: Do you
    acknowledge that the cost and burdens associated--or do you
    acknowledge the costs and burdens associated with budget
    itemization?
        Mr. Brouillette. Yes.
        Mr. Flores. OK. Will you work with the CFO and the relevant
    program offices to reduce this micromanagement policy?
        Mr. Brouillette. Yes, sir, I will. And I am familiar with
    the CRENEL report and its findings. And I look forward to
    working with the committee and the Congress overall to help
    implement those.
        Mr. Flores. That was going to be my next point. To the
    extent that you need additional support from Congress to--if
    there is something Congress has done that has created that,
    then let us know and we will try to help fix that.
        Mr. Brouillette. Yes, sir, I will point those out.
        Mr. Flores. My next question is for Under Secretary
    Menezes. This has to do with low-enriched uranium fuel. As you
    know, the new technology, nuclear reactors may use innovative
    fuels to improve reactor efficiency and safety. Currently,
    commercial nuclear fuel that is available is generally enriched
    below 5 percent. However, these new technology reactors may
    require fuel that is enriched beyond 5 percent.
        Your department maintains a significant stockpile of
    uranium, and DOE may be able to consider options to provide
    this enhanced nuclear fuel just as it does with university
    research reactors. Do you see a role for DOE to steward this
    type of nuclear fuel to assure that potential fuel access
    issues will not inhibit technological innovation from our
    Nation's next generation nuclear engineers?
        Mr. Menezes. Yes, sir, we do. And we look forward to
    working with you to get your input on how best to accomplish
    that.
        Mr. Flores. OK. And since we are talking about
    reauthorization of the Department, I do have sort of a wildcard
    question as respects energy in this country and as respects
    reauthorization.
        Secretary Brouillette, what keeps you awake at night, and
    how does it--with respect to energy, and how should we look at
    that with respect to reauthorization?
        Mr. Brouillette. What keeps me up at night, sir, at the
    moment is cybersecurity and its relation to the distribution of
    energy throughout the country. We are facing some significant
    challenges, both from internal sources here in the U.S. We are
    all familiar with the kid in the basement who plays at night.
    That is certainly a security concern. It is not the highest
    security concern. What we are seeing across the world
    increasingly are state actors who are taking very aggressive
    steps to infiltrate certain security components of our grid as
    well as our national pipeline infrastructure. And if I had to
    point to one thing that keeps me up at night, it would be that.
        Mr. Flores. OK. General Klotz?
        Mr. Klotz. As I stated to an earlier question, the thing
    that keeps me up at night is the threat of nuclear terrorism.
    The devastating economic psychological consequences of a dirty
    bomb or a nuclear device set off by a rogue nation would be
    horrendous. And so everything we can do to make sure that we
    have safeguarded, locked up, secured special nuclear materials,
    reduced reliance on highly enriched uranium, plutonium, I think
    is a positive thing.
        Mr. Flores. OK. Secretary Dabbar?
        Mr. Dabbar. In my particular area, it is around Radcon
    conditions with workers at our environmental management sites.
    We are decontaminating and decommissioning a number of
    buildings that have plutonium contamination. We have a number
    of liquid waste tanks, some of which have had challenges over
    the years that we need to clean up and we need to put away into
    our permanent location. So obviously, handling the environment
    in those particular locations and making certain that the
    health and safety of the workers during those very challenging
    situations is paramount.
        Mr. Flores. Secretary Menezes, 10 seconds.
        Mr. Menezes. It is cybersecurity, a threat of our secrets
    and our proprietary information that has given rise to other
    countries being able to produce more than the very things that
    we have developed and that we hold the patents to. I find that
    very disturbing.
        Mr. Flores. Thank each of you for your responses.
        Mr. Duncan, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        First off, I want to align myself with the comments made by
    Mr. Shimkus earlier. The vitrified waste coming out through EM
    activities in the Hanford and Savannah River Site needs a
    longterm stable storage facility, and that stable storage
    facility is Yucca Mountain. Speaking of waste and residual,
    DOE's plutonium disposition plan are relative responsibilities
    that you have regarding the Nation's nonproliferation
    agreements.
        In 2003, the DOE, in my home State of South Carolina,
    entered into an agreement that DOE would remove one ton of
    plutonium from South Carolina within a decade. The deadline was
    repeatedly extended, and the DOE has yet to date fulfilled its
    legal obligations. In fact, due to a number of the previous
    administration's policy, the deadline is further out of reach.
    The South Carolina DOE agreement included a stipulation that
    provides for financial penalties to be paid to South Carolina
    up to $100 million a year. The South Carolina attorney general
    has had to sue the Department of Energy to receive this
    payment, and further litigation is expected.
        Deputy Secretary Brouillette, are you familiar with this
    issue? And what is the DOE's plan to keep the commitment to the
    South Carolinians that are affected?
        Mr. Brouillette. Yes, sir, I am familiar with it. I have
    known General Wilson for many, many years, and he has raised it
    to my attention. Unfortunately, as it is subject to litigation,
    I am not allowed to comment in detail, but I am happy to follow
    up with you and your office as we move through this pending
    litigation.
        Mr. Duncan. So talking about waste and talking about
    plutonium, rather, we spent a lot of money on MOX at Savannah
    River Site. And there was a report that was issued by the
    Department transmitted to Congress September 14 of 2016. It was
    called ``An Updated Performance Baseline for the MOX Facility
    at the Savannah River Site, South Carolina.'' I say mislabeled
    because this Department did not file, as we require in the
    fiscal 2016 NDAA, its own order 413.3B for setting project
    baselines and updated baselines.
        So do you believe, Mr. Deputy Secretary, that a project
    that is about 70 percent complete today, which the MOX facility
    in Savannah River Site is about 70 percent complete today since
    its construction started in 2007, could still take another 30
    years to finish?
        Wait a minute. We built the first nuclear weapon at the B
    Reactor at Hanford in a little over a year.
        Mr. Brouillette. Sure. We agree with that. And we would
    like to see that sort of efficiency brought to the MOX facility
    in South Carolina. It has taken quite a long period of time to
    get to this point, and I think that has raised the concern of
    the budgeteers both here in Congress and in the White House. We
    have met with the contractors. We are in active conversations
    with contractors on the ground.
        There is, to be quite honest, some disagreement about that
    70 percent number and whether or not they are, in fact, 70
    percent complete. Folks on the ground in DOE have a different
    opinion of that, and we have expressed it, and we are in, as I
    said, very candid conversations with the contractor.
        I would ask General Klotz or others if they want to opine
    further on this and perhaps provide you with more information
    as to where we currently stand.
        Mr. Duncan. I appreciate the work that DOE does at sites
    like Savannah River Site. The nuclear laboratory down there is
    a valuable asset.
        Mr. Brouillette. Sure.
        Mr. Duncan. There is also a component Savannah River Site
    is a valuable asset that was almost mothballed under the Obama
    administration. That is H Canyon.
        Mr. Brouillette. I'm sorry?
        Mr. Duncan. The last--H Canyon.
        Mr. Brouillette. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Duncan. The last chemical separation facility in the
    United States. So please assure me that this administration is
    not going to even consider mothballing H Canyon.
        Mr. Dabbar. Thank you for the question. H Canyon we
    consider very important, and we want to keep it up and running,
    we think, to process. We think there are actually options that
    we could use for continued operations. So it is an important
    part of the portfolio.
        Mr. Duncan. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Klotz. I would like to echo what you said, Congressman,
    and that is the importance of Savannah River Site to the entire
    DOE enterprise. It is particularly important in the NNSA side,
    because that is where we do our tritium operations, tritium
    extraction, tritium recycling. Tritium being an extraordinarily
    important component for all of our nuclear weapons.
        The laboratory there, again, having visited all the
    laboratories in DOE, again, I was astounded to find out how
    much work they are actually doing in the weapon's activity
    program for us, NNSA, as well as in the nuclear
    nonproliferation area.
        So I have talked a lot with the people down there, and I
    think one of the things I can say, maybe as leaving government
    and looking forward to the future, that is one of the things we
    ought to think very seriously about is what is the longterm
    future of the laboratory and of the entire Savannah River Site,
    and what can it contribute and continue to contribute for
    decades in the national security. I think this is a fruitful
    area for discussion.
        Mr. Duncan. Yes, sir. Savannah River Site is a valuable
    asset, and they are looking for more missions. And I hope we
    can give it to them.
        And I yield back. Thanks.
        Mr. Flores. Mr. Griffith, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Griffith. I thank the chairman. I appreciate you all
    being here very much. It is an important hearing.
        Deputy Secretary Menezes, thank you for mentioning rare
    earth technologies in your opening statement. I do appreciate
    that. There is a lot of potential for coal in my district in
    rare earth and combining the two to create a product that is
    more profitable than it may be at certain times in the past and
    in the future.
        So can you give me an update? Where do we stand on that?
    When do we think that the technology will actually be ready for
    prime time?
        Mr. Menezes. Well, I am not sure I can give you a specific
    timetable, but I am happy to get our program experts on it and
    give you a briefing so that you can know exactly where we are.
        Mr. Griffith. I know there is a lot of research dollars
    that have gone into Virginia Tech in my district and in other
    places. But I also know that I saw a map of slag heaps. And one
    of the things people may not realize is is that a lot of the
    rare earth elements or minerals actually exist in the coal, but
    it is closest to the rock. So in the slag heaps, we can clean
    up slag heaps and reap a benefit for the United States at the
    same time and create some jobs, at least in the short run.
    Short run being a decade. My folks would really appreciate
    that.
        Let me----
        Mr. Menezes. The program experts are very excited about the
    prospect that you can go to, really, the slag heaps, the waste
    product piles, and be able to extract rare earth elements. And
    think about it: We would no longer be dependent on China for a
    large percentage of our rare earth elements.
        Mr. Griffith. Yes. And what could be better? We are
    cleaning up something that ought to be cleaned up anyway as a
    part of our environment, and we are taking business away from
    one of our largest international competitors. I think that is
    great.
        Along those same lines, but shifting gears a little bit, I
    want to talk about research on burning coal more cleanly. When
    you look at the world as a whole, while coal used for producing
    power in this country is down, it is still accelerating in the
    rest of the world. There are lots of places it is going to be
    used when people talk about the ill effects of the pollutants
    that come from burning coal or have come from burning coal in
    the past. Many of the countries that are going to be expanding
    coal facilities don't have the regulations we have. They are
    going to continue to use coal. I would like to see us continue
    to use coal but burning as cleanly as possible.
        Can you give me an update on some of the research that is
    going on? And I am particularly, and always have been,
    interested in chemical looping. And I understand there has been
    a little bit of a breakthrough using a different substance as--
    for lack of a more scientific term--the primer in the chemical
    reaction.
        Can you give me an update on where we stand on that and
    whether or not DOE is still positive? I know you are on natural
    gas, and I get that. But also using chemical looping for coal
    so we can transfer this technology to other parts of the world
    and burn coal more cleanly, not just here, but worldwide to
    help the environment.
        Mr. Menezes. Again, yes, sir. Our national energy lab is
    doing a lot of the research that you have been discussing. And
    I think that both of us would benefit from a briefing from our
    program people as to timetables and where we are.
        In response to an earlier question, though, I did emphasize
    that the research is no longer limited to, if you will, carbon
    capture sequestration technologies. While it is important, we
    are looking again at the front end, where the fuel that is to
    be combusted and see if there are technologies that we can make
    it on the front end less emission, more efficient, and then
    during the combustion itself.
        So we have some exciting opportunities. It has been a very
    top priority for the Office of Fossil. Others have asked about
    our full-throated support of certain issues. We have given
    full-throated support, certainly during the budget process, to
    get the resources to the Office of Fossil to evaluate, engage
    in studies along the lines that you have been mentioning today.
        Mr. Griffith. And I should say that, along these lines, it
    is not just this administration. The Department of Energy has
    always been interested in putting research into these areas.
    And so even though I disagreed with the previous administration
    on a lot of things, their DOE was doing some good things in
    this arena, and I appreciate you all continuing to do that good
    work.
        And with that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
        Mr. Flores. The gentleman yields back.
        Mr. Harper is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Harper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to each of
    you for taking time to be here with us today.
        I would like to talk to you, if I could, for a minute,
    Deputy Secretary Brouillette. The National Nuclear Security
    Administration was established as a semiautonomous agency
    within the DOE in 2000. And as you know, the NNSA administrator
    reports directly to you as the Deputy Secretary.
        However, when Congress established the NNSA, the statute
    required an NNSA general counsel, legislative affairs office,
    and public affairs office separate from those respective
    functions under you and the Secretary at DOE headquarters. And
    those offices effectively serve the administrator, not the
    Secretary.
        While establishing separate functions may have been well-
    intended, review by the congressionally chartered Augustine-
    Mies Panel in testimony of this committee noted the inherent
    problem of dual offices that limit and can conflict with the
    Secretary's leadership over the nuclear enterprise.
        So would you agree that there could be problems if, say,
    the NNSA general counsel considers his client the administrator
    and not the Secretary of Energy, who is ultimately responsible
    for the mission?
        Mr. Brouillette. That is a loaded question. The short
    answer to your question, sir, is we respect what Congress did
    in 1999 with the creation of the NNSA. And until Congress
    changes that law, we will honor it.
        If you are asking me for my personal opinion, however, it
    does make management of the agency somewhat awkward. We work
    well together. General Klotz and I have a great both personal
    and professional relationship, and we work diligently to ensure
    that the agency speaks with one voice. We try to do that as
    effectively as we can.
        However, as a manager, as a chief operating officer, when I
    look at the enterprise, I am hard-pressed to make the argument
    for separate offices and separate parts of the building doing
    essentially the same functions.
        Mr. Harper. All right. Well, let's just talk a little
    further, then, about that. As we consider those potential
    reforms to improve DOE's efficiency, give us some observations
    or your take of what you make regarding the duplicative
    functional offices in NNSA and DOE, let's say. Can you
    elaborate a little more?
        Mr. Brouillette. Well, I think you just articulated the
    most obvious examples of the duplicative offices. Those
    particular functions are, in my own personal opinion, easily
    served by one office representing the entire Department. I
    can't speak to any other specific examples.
        I can tell you with regard to policy, with regard to
    execution, particularly with regard to the nuclear weapons
    programs, the Under Secretary, the Deputy Secretary, and the
    Secretary decide both the policy and the execution of that
    policy within the departments, within our authorities, and we
    execute them with one voice and as one management team. We do
    so appropriately, as Congress directed us to do. So there are
    no other folks within the larger DOE complex directing the
    NNSA. And I think the general would attest to that. All of the
    instructions are given through the Secretary and the Deputy
    Secretary toward the NNSA.
        Mr. Harper. Thank you.
        And let's talk about maybe streamlining decision-making for
    just a moment, if we could. You were at a town hall last month,
    and you were asked about steps that can be taken throughout the
    Department to improve efficiency and specifically reduce
    burdensome paperwork that is associated with what is known as
    the concurrence process. And you acknowledged the need to
    improve this process. Would you please elaborate the problems
    with this process and tell us what you see is the impact of
    your efforts?
        Mr. Brouillette. Yes, sir. I was fortunate and privileged
    to serve in the Department of Energy as an assistant secretary.
    I was confirmed in 2001. I was confirmed for this position
    almost 5 months ago now. I was somewhat dismayed to learn,
    frankly, when I walked back into the building, that the same
    green folders that we used to achieve concurrence on certain
    matters, sometimes letters that you sent to us, are still
    there. They are literally paper folders, green in color. And we
    circulate them manually by hand throughout the Department for
    opinion.
        In this day and age, it strikes me as odd that we wouldn't
    do that electronically. A much more efficient way of doing it
    and, candidly, a very good way of maintaining accountability.
    Other members of this committee have expressed some dismay and
    some concern about the lack of engagement or the timeliness of
    our engagement with this committee. I would suggest to you that
    that is perhaps part of the problem, that we still do things
    very manually within the Department.
        Mr. Harper. A basic thing that can be corrected.
        With that, I yield back.
        Mr. Brouillette. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Flores. Mr. Cramer, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Cramer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to all of
    you for--really been a fascinating hearing, in my view. I also
    a want to express the special recognition that the deputy
    secretary issued on behalf of General Klotz. Those of us from
    North Dakota, as you know, the model at Minot is only the best
    coal north. I am very familiar with your leadership, and we are
    grateful for it. Thank you. And you, by the way, are in the
    perfect place at this time in your life, at least for the
    country. So thank you for that.
        The first issue I want to raise may not surprise those of
    you who know me well, is I want to talk about what I see as a
    lack of a research bridge, if you will, for large-scale carbon
    capture sequestration utilization projects. Basic research,
    very good. It goes to the utilities where regulators, like I
    used to be, warn them against investing in things like this,
    that there is sort of an antirisk culture, certainly among
    utilities, which I think was highlighted in your grid study,
    Mr. Deputy Secretary.
        And so what I am wondering is can we--or am I right, first
    of all, and how can DOE play a role in the demonstration part
    of carbon capture sequestration technologies that, like I said,
    find basic research, not quite enough muscle to get it to the
    commercialization side. Maybe, Under Secretary Menezes, you
    could help me with that.
        Mr. Menezes. Well, this committee has been a key player in
    identifying carbon capture sequestration of the clean coal
    power initiative, for example, and providing the authorization
    for appropriate levels of funding. Of course, appropriate
    levels of funding is a key thing. But over time, when you look
    at what we have done here, the DOE has, over the years,
    identified several projects, whether it be coal or natural gas,
    for example, or other uses, to try to figure out how it is that
    post combustion you can capture and then sequester or use the
    carbon dioxide.
        What we have today is we had the Petra Nova plant, for
    example, in Texas. Of course, Kemper is usually pointed to as a
    DOE investment. We have others. We have yet to really figure
    out how it is that we can have the technology to scale to
    perform at the efficiency level that we want and then to be
    able to do with the carbon dioxide that we would like.
        We have not stopped funding programs. We have a pilot
    project in India, for example, which would look to enhance oil
    recovery. But each of these projects are unique with respect to
    the combustion, the fuel combustion. So this is not a one size
    fits all. It is not a one technology that fits all combustion
    types. So the fuel use is important. And even within coal, the
    type of coal. As you know, lignite is certainly different from
    other coal.
        Mr. Cramer. It certainly is.
        Mr. Menezes. And your state has had the longest active
    capture program in use.
        So we are committed to it. Sometimes it is a question of
    resources. I think it is a fair question to ask, have we not
    sufficiently funded the most promising technologies and perhaps
    funded other technologies that may not have been promising
    when, in fact, they received the moneys. And I think as we--the
    knowledge is maturing, and I think we are close to, hopefully
    figuring out how, in fact, is the most efficient way on a
    multiple range of fuels to capture and use the carbon.
        Mr. Cramer. Well, I know you will find advocates on this
    committee, as you pointed out. And we will continue to work
    with you on providing those resources. And I appreciate the
    very good answer, very thorough answer.
        I just, in my last minute, just raise one other issue that
    is a bit different than you might expect. But because General
    Atomics is--that is an important corporate citizen at the Grand
    Forks Air Force Base in North Dakota, and particularly at the
    Grand Sky UAV park. I have had the opportunity to go down to
    San Diego a couple of times. In my most recent visit about a
    year ago, I visited their ITER project. I don't know how
    familiar you are with it. But, yes, the International
    Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor project, which, to me, just
    seems to present a lot of opportunity with a mega fusion
    project. And I know it is housed in San Diego. Thirty-five
    countries are part of this. As I look at the U.S. commitment to
    it, again, financially, I sometimes think we are coming up a
    little bit short. And I just want to highlight it, either for
    comment or for further discussion as we go forward.
        Mr. Dabbar. Thank you, Congressman. Yes. Quite a different
    topic than my family's farm in Hazen where they would mine the
    coal seam that was surface mined.
        Mr. Cramer. Yes.
        Mr. Dabbar. The ITER project is a very interesting project
    as a part of the Office of Fusion, which is in the Office of
    Science. The ITER project was negotiated a very long time ago
    as a large international consortium. For those of you who don't
    know, building a 500 megawatt peak fusion plant in the south of
    France. That would be large. That would be a large normal power
    plant. It is a very large project in terms of dollar amounts
    and the contribution from all around the world, including us.
    Fusion is important to us. General Atomics also has a fusion
    reactor in San Diego that you visited. So the overall is very
    important.
        The challenges around ITER is project management. I think
    you have heard a lot before about us as a management team
    having private sector experience around project management. The
    biggest challenge around ITER is that it is six times
    overbudget and it is 10 years late in terms of timing. And so I
    know that on a very bipartisan basis there has been a big
    debate about funding of that and how that affects overall
    budget and the performance.
        The performance of the ITER project has improved since they
    changed out the management team there, and so they are getting
    back on being able to perform. And we look forward to working
    with the Congress here on the appropriations side should you
    want to continue funding it.
        Mr. Cramer. Appreciate it. Thank you, and I am well over
    time, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Flores. Yes, you are. The gentleman's time has expired
    long ago.
        I would like to thank this panel for attending. Seeing that
    there are no other members wishing to ask questions, this panel
    is excused and we will move to Panel II.
        Mr. Flores. All right. Let's go ahead and get started. We
    want to thank all our witnesses for being here today and taking
    the time to testify before the subcommittee. Today's witnesses
    will have the opportunity to give opening statements, followed
    by a round of questions from members.
        Our second witness panel for today's hearing includes
    Thomas Zacharia, Director of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory;
    Donald Levy, who is the Albert A. Michelson Distinguished
    Service Professor Emeritus, University of Chicago and Co-chair
    of the Panel to Track and Assess Governance and Management
    Reforms in the Nuclear Security Enterprise; Sarah Ladislaw is
    the Director of Energy and National Security Program at the
    Center for Strategic and International Studies; Steve Wasserman
    is the Director of Lilly Research Laboratory Collaborative
    Access Team, Advanced Photon Source of the Argonne National
    Laboratory, on behalf of the Society for Science at User
    Research Facilities; Dan Reicher is the Executive Director at
    Stanford University Steyer-Taylor Center for Energy Policy and
    Finance and Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution; lastly
    but not least, Rich Powell is the Executive Director of the
    ClearPath Foundation.
        We appreciate all of you being here today.
        We will begin the panel with Dr. Zacharia, and you are now
    recognized for 5 minutes to give an opening statement. We would
    request that each of you adhere to the 5-minute limit. Thank
    you.
        Dr. Zacharia.

      STATEMENT OF THOMAS ZACHARIA, DIRECTOR, OAK RIDGE NATIONAL
      LABORATORY; DONALD LEVY, ALBERT A. MICHELSON DISTINGUISHED
    SERVICE PROFESSOR EMERITUS, UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO AND CO-CHAIR,
    PANEL TO TRACK AND ASSESS GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT REFORMS IN
      THE NUCLEAR SECURITY ENTERPRISE; SARAH LADISLAW, DIRECTOR,
    ENERGY AND NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAM, CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND
        INTERNATIONAL STUDIES; STEVE WASSERMAN, DIRECTOR, LILLY
       RESEARCH LABORATORIES COLLABORATIVE ACCESS TEAM, ADVANCED
     PHOTON SOURCE, ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY, ON BEHALF OF THE
     SOCIETY FOR SCIENCE AT USER RESEARCH FACILITIES; DAN REICHER,
     EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, STANFORD UNIVERSITY STEYER-TAYLOR CENTER
      FOR ENERGY POLICY AND FINANCE AND SENIOR FELLOW, BROOKINGS
      INSTITUTION; AND RICH POWELL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CLEARPATH
                               FOUNDATION

                      STATEMENT OF THOMAS ZACHARIA

        Mr. Zacharia. Thank you, Chairman Flores, Ranking Member
    Rush, and members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me
    to testify.
        My name is Thomas Zacharia, and I am director of the
    Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory. As you
    heard from the earlier panel, Department of Energy is
    responsible for the missions of science, energy, national
    security, and then LANL legacy cleanup.
        The role of the national labs is to provide the science and
    technology capabilities and solutions the Department needs to
    accomplish these missions. My written testimony provides
    several examples of how Oak Ridge had leverage capabilities and
    resources and works with other national labs, industry, and
    universities to meet DOE's mission needs. In the interest of
    time, I will speak to only one of these.
        The Summit supercomputer, which will begin operating at
    ORNL later this year, will surpass what is now the world's most
    powerful computer in China. Summit resulted from CORAL, the
    Collaboration of Oak Ridge, Argonne, and Livermore, meant to
    streamline the procurement process and maximize the government
    buying power. Six labs are partnering with an extensive network
    of American companies, academia, and laboratories on the
    Exascale Computing Project to ensure that U.S. researchers will
    have access, not only to the computing systems with 50 times
    the power of today's most capable machines, but also to the
    applications and software that they will need to use these
    machines effectively.
        This partnership shows how the national labs individually
    and collectively play a pivotal role in developing new tools
    for science and technology, to include reliable and resilient
    infrastructure in applying those tools to DOE's mission needs
    and in sustaining U.S. competitiveness.
        Most DOE national labs are GOCO facilities, government-
    owned/contractor-operated. The relationship between DOE and the
    contractors who manage and operate the labs is ideally a
    partnership in which DOE determines what is to be done and
    contractors determine how to achieve it.
        Many aspects of the GOCO model work very well. However,
    some reviews have identified problems in program execution and
    increased costs. In 2015, the Commission to Review the
    Effectiveness of the National Energy Laboratories made several
    recommendations for improving lab management, many focused on
    rebuilding the GOCO partnership. DOE is responding by working
    to drive fundamental change in its management of the national
    labs.
        First, DOE has adopted a planning process that is improving
    the strategic alignment of the labs and enabling them to work
    more effectively to focus on national priorities. In terms of
    governance, DOE is working with its contractors to streamline
    contract mechanisms, while ensuring that contractors are held
    accountable.
        DOE's lab appraisal process has become a useful tool for
    evaluating and incentivizing contractor performance and for
    informing decisions on whether to extend or compete expiring
    contracts. Contractor assurance systems are providing new tools
    for determining the proper level of oversight. For example,
    ORNL offers a fast-track CRADA program. This program
    streamlines execution of cooperative research agreement and
    major technology of transfer mechanism by exploiting robust
    contract assurance processes. Our partnership with DOE's ORNL
    site office was a key factor in implementing this new
    mechanism.
        DOE's regulatory reform task force identified regulations
    governing lab operations as a target of opportunity. The task
    force embraced several proposals from the National Laboratory
    Directors' Council that focused on these regulations. Cross-
    functional teams are implementing some welcome changes, as
    described in my written testimony.
        This process has fostered an alignment in which DOE and its
    contractors are working together on common goals. Continuing
    efforts along these lines should produce additional savings and
    operational improvements.
        With regard to policy reform, Secretary Perry is realigning
    the Department to advance its policy goals consistent with the
    statutory requirements. At ORNL we look forward to working with
    our DOE sponsors to support them in the execution of their
    missions.
        Finally, DOE is encouraging the national labs to work with
    industry to turn early-stage innovations into products. New
    approaches include the agreements for commercializing
    technology mechanisms now available to all labs and support for
    early-career innovators.
        The actions that DOE has taken to make the national labs
    more efficient and effective will enable these institutions to
    focus on delivering the science and technology needed to ensure
    our energy security, national security, and global
    competitiveness in the 21st century.
        The M&O contractors are committed to working with DOE to
    build and maintain a culture of trust and accountability that
    will ensure the greatest possible return on the Nation's
    investment in the national labs. Thank you, again.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Zacharia follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Upton [presiding]. Thank you.
        Dr. Levy. You need to hit that button on the----

                        STATEMENT OF DONALD LEVY

        Mr. Levy. Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Rush, members of
    the committee, I am Donald Levy, Professor of Chemistry
    Emeritus at the University of Chicago. The University of
    Chicago is a management and operating contractor for the
    Department of Energy, operates two Office of Science
    Laboratories: Argonne National Lab and Fermi National
    Accelerator.
        Ten years prior to my retirement in 2016, I was vice-
    president for research and national laboratories at the
    university and the person responsible for executing our M&O
    contract.
        I am a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and I am
    here today as co-chair of the joint panel of the National
    Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Public
    Administration, which is charged to monitor the efforts of the
    National Nuclear Security Administration, NNSA, to address
    issues raised in several reports concerning NNSA's management
    and governance of the enterprise. I also wish to acknowledge my
    NAPA co-chair for the study, Jonathan Breul of Georgetown
    University. I very much appreciate you giving me the
    opportunity to discuss insights we have gained so far in the
    course of our panel's study.
        Our study was requested by Congress in the National Defense
    Authorization Act of fiscal year 2016, being carried out by a
    very strong panel whose membership has extensive experience and
    excellent credentials in both nuclear security and public
    administration. It is supported by the NNSA, which has gone out
    of its way to provide the panel with full information relevant
    to its tasks.
        The congressional request that formed our panel came about
    because of the long series of reports that identified serious
    concerns in the operation of the nuclear security enterprise.
    By one count there were more than 50 critical reports over two
    decades. In spite of all those reports, problems persisted. The
    concerns in these reports are not about the safety and security
    incidents you may occasionally read in the paper, and certainly
    not about the quality of the work being done. Rather, they
    arise from serious and systemic management and governance
    problems which have persisted for many years and were perceived
    as an eventual threat to the national security mission of the
    NNSA.
        Our first report was released last March and the second is
    in preparation. Our work will run through the fall of 2020. The
    Authorization Act asked in particular that NNSA create a plan
    to address concerns raised in the most recent critical report,
    which was produced by a panel co-chaired by Norman Augustine
    and Admiral Richard Mies.
        The Augustine-Mies report identified five serious concerns,
    which are called, and I quote from the report, ``systemic
    problems in both management practices and culture that exist
    across the nuclear enterprise.'' These are: Number one, a lack
    of sustained national leadership, focus, and priority. Number
    two, overlapping DOE and NNSA headquarters staffs and blurred
    ownership and accountability for the nuclear enterprise
    missions. Number three, lack of proven management practices,
    including dysfunctional relationship between the program line
    managers and mission support staffs. Number four, dysfunctional
    relationships between the government and its management and
    operating contractors, which has led to burdensome
    transactional oversight rather than management focus on mission
    execution. Number five, insufficient collaboration between NNSA
    and Department of Defense weapons customers, resulting in
    misunderstanding, distrust, and frustration.
        These concerns are not merely vexations or opportunities
    for improvement. Rather, they each represent a risk, which if
    not addressed, would eventually erode the Nation's ability to
    provide adequate nuclear security. Each of the concerns in the
    Augustine-Mies report mirror similar findings in many previous
    reports.
        Our studies found, through multiple site visits, numerous
    meetings and phone calls with NNSA staff members and study of
    relevant documents, that NNSA has initiated a large number of
    changes in response to the Augustine-Mies report and others.
    But as noted in our first report, quoting from that report,
    ``it has not identified success and it lacks qualitative or
    quantitative metrics to identify and measure change.''
        Moreover, the changes that have been made seem piecemeal
    and not as part of a larger strategic plan intended to address
    longstanding problems. Our panel continues to press for
    measures, quantitative or qualitative, that can indicate
    whether progress is being made against the serious and
    persistent concerns.
        In our upcoming report, we will provide a more detailed
    analysis of some of NNSA's more promising changes. But the
    panel has also heard first-hand from the laboratory staff that
    in spite of these changes, problems persist.
        More broadly, NNSA is embarking on a large-scale program of
    change management in order to alter practices and attitudes
    that have settled in over decades. In its first report, our
    panel explained that the experience of many organizations have
    revealed some common steps that are necessary for effective and
    lasting change to take root. Not all of those steps are in
    place at NNSA, and our upcoming report will delve into this.
        Successful change management, especially this scale, also
    requires buy-in and leadership from the top. It is important
    for the next NNSA administrator and DOE leadership to recognize
    the magnitude and persistence of the problems and take on this
    challenge.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. I
    remain at your disposal for questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Levy follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Upton. Thank you.
        Ms. Ladislaw.

                      STATEMENT OF SARAH LADISLAW

        Ms. Ladislaw. Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Rush, and
    members of the committee, it is a pleasure to be here to speak
    with you today about DOE modernization.
        I run the CSIS Energy and National Security Program. It is
    one of the country's oldest and most well-known think tank
    program focusing on energy policy and geopolitics. It was
    created around the same time as the Department of Energy and
    for many of the same reasons. The views I express today are my
    own.
        The Department of Energy was created in the late 1970s
    during an inflection point in America's energy history. Today,
    the United States faces a new energy inflection point. Unlike
    the scarcity atmosphere of the 1970s, the United States has
    been leading the world in a new age of perceived energy
    abundance and rapid technological change. With it come new
    challenges and opportunities.
        For example, while the United States is now the world's
    largest producer of oil and gas, we are still vulnerable to
    energy supply disruptions in a globally integrated market.
    Electric power systems are becoming more distributed and
    complex, which brings enormous benefits but also operational
    and security challenges.
        Efforts to create and manufacture new technologies or
    capture market share in developing economies is leading to
    stiff competition and creating new trade relationships and
    geopolitical dynamics. Concerns over air pollution, water
    resources, and the global climate challenge are fundamentally
    altering the investment environment for energy companies and
    the policy decisions taken by governments around the world. The
    United States is blessed with many advantages in this
    environment, but the potential for disruptive change is higher
    than ever.
        The Department of Energy has an important role to play in
    addressing all of these challenges. First, the DOE should take
    a leadership role in conducting analysis regarding the safety,
    reliability, and optimization of the Nation's energy
    infrastructure. As we continue to witness, abundant supply does
    not in and of itself provide energy security. Transmission,
    delivery, and distribution infrastructure is critically
    important to ensuring adequate supplies of energy.
        Second, the DOE should continue to maintain emergency
    preparedness planning and response functions. Most notably, DOE
    manages the Nation's strategic petroleum reserves, the world's
    largest government-owned and managed emergency stockpile of
    crude and home heating oil. The DOE should modernize and
    Congress should safeguard this important asset.
        Third, energy efficiency promotion should remain a core
    mandate at the Department of Energy. One of the original
    mandates of the Department of Energy was to enact efficiency
    standards. The role that the Department plays in setting those
    standards is often overlooked or criticized, but has paid
    important economic and security dividends over the years.
        Fourth, scientific research and innovation are essential to
    meeting DOE's mission across the board and should be
    strengthened. The role that DOE and the national laboratories
    play in national research and development ecosystem are
    critical. Government does not constitute the entirety of the
    U.S. innovation landscape, but makes important contributions to
    funding research not undertaken by private interests, feeding
    into the personnel and intellectual supply chain of the
    research community, and working collaboratively with the
    private industry and universities to catalyze important areas
    of research.
        Fifth, energy strategy and analysis are more important than
    ever, so the DOE should maintain and strengthen its energy
    policy and analysis function. It is critically important for
    DOE to have a strong energy policy and analysis function in
    order to play an active and authoritative role in the
    interagency policymaking process and to engage with industry
    and other stakeholders.
        Sixth, independent and impartial energy information is
    essential. For decades, the country has benefited from the data
    collection, reporting, and analytical function of the Energy
    Information Administration. EIA provides unbiased, market-
    relevant research on a regular basis through reports, and
    provides an important policy neutral voice in the energy
    policymaking process.
        Seventh, DOE should increase its capabilities when it comes
    to understanding, managing, and engaging in global energy
    issues. DOE plays an underreported role in managing
    international affairs in geopolitics as they relate to energy.
    The International Affairs Office should be strengthened and
    expanded to have a stronger analytical function designed to
    inform DOE leadership and thinking about global energy trends
    and the emerging challenges we face.
        The Department of Energy has a long history of supporting
    the Nation's security, economic, and environmental priorities
    and objectives. It was born during a time when the Nation's
    energy outlook was dangerous and uncertain. Today's energy
    outlook is no less uncertain as the country prepares for more
    interconnected and interdependent energy systems driven by new
    consumers, new priorities, and stiff competition. Preparing for
    this future requires the same amount of dedication and
    commitment that the DOE has delivered for the last 40 years.
        Thank you for the opportunity to provide my thoughts on DOE
    modernization. I look forward to taking your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Ladislaw follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Upton. Thank you.
        Dr. Wasserman.

                      STATEMENT OF STEVE WASSERMAN

        Mr. Wasserman. Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Rush, and
    members of the subcommittee, my name is Stephen Wasserman. It
    is a pleasure to be at this hearing on modernization of the
    Department of Energy to discuss part of the Department's
    science mission: the DOE scientific user facilities. DOE's
    creation and operation of these facilities, an important part
    of its support of research and energy and the physical
    sciences, is a major success story of the Department.
        This morning, I appear on behalf of the Society for Science
    at User Research Facilities, SSURF, on whose board of directors
    I currently serve. SSURF is a new scientific association,
    founded in 2016. It continues efforts that began 27 years ago
    to foster cooperation between the large research facilities of
    the U.S. Government, as well as between the facilities and the
    scientists who use them.
        As we peer into the Department of Energy's future, it is
    useful to briefly look back at the path that has led to today.
    In 1945, Dr. Vannevar Bush, the director of the Office of
    Scientific Research and Development during World War II, issued
    a report, ``Science, the Endless Frontier,'' in response to a
    Presidential request a year earlier. In his text, Dr. Bush
    stated that, ``research involving expensive capital facilities
    beyond the capacity of private institutions should be advanced
    by active government support.'' The current DOE user facilities
    are the result of such support.
        The facilities are the Nation's shared toolbox for research
    and innovation. The individual tools are large, often extremely
    so. Access to them is merit-based, with each operating an
    independent review system for proposed experiments.
        The DOE Office of Science operates 26 user facilities.
    Additional ones support the security missions of the National
    Nuclear Security Administration. No other nation has the number
    and variety of scientific capabilities that U.S. scientists can
    avail themselves of here at home.
        The user facilities are embedded in our scientific psyche.
    Over 30,000 scientists from university, industry, and
    government laboratories currently perform experiments at one or
    more facilities. These researchers come from all 50 states and
    from every continent, except Antarctica. Three hundred seventy-
    five companies use the DOE facilities, including more than 50
    members of the Fortune 500. In addition, most Federal agencies
    which have a scientific component to their mission sponsor or
    perform research at DOE locations.
        Today, I would like to highlight two examples of the impact
    of the facilities. These represent only a minute sample of the
    thousands of research projects that are pursued each year
    within the DOE facility network.
        The first example comes from the Oak Ridge Leadership
    Computing Facility, OLCF. General Electric manufactures large
    turbines fueled by natural gas for the generation of electrical
    power. In 2015, GE used the Titan supercomputer at OLCF to
    simulate two turbine designs: one current, the other then under
    development. The simulations reproduced observations from the
    current system and predicted successful performance in the new
    model. Full scale tests of the new turbine later confirmed the
    simulations. The first of the new turbines, which increased
    efficiency by 2 percent, a major improvement in the field of
    power generation, were installed in Texas in mid-2017.
        The second example is from the DOE X-ray sources. These
    sources are vital to research and development in human health.
    Virtually every major pharmaceutical company in the U.S. uses
    these sources to probe the structures of proteins implicated in
    human disease. This area is one in which I have been involved
    for 20 years, currently at Eli Lilly and Company.
        Scientists in the pharmaceutical industry continually
    investigate how potential new medicinal compounds interact with
    their biological targets. These efforts have aided the
    development of drugs to treat cancer, diabetes, hepatitis, and
    autoimmune diseases, as well as ongoing research to find
    approaches to the treatment of Alzheimer's.
        New medicines whose developments included experiments at
    one of the DOE synchrotron sources can be found in each year's
    approvals by the Food and Drug Administration. In a recent
    example that is for me close to home, in September, the FDA
    approved abemaciclib, a new treatment for certain forms of
    breast cancer that was developed by Lilly. I and my co-workers
    at Lilly performed experiments at the Advanced Photon Source as
    part of the research that lead to this medicine.
        Today, our country is focused on the need to upgrade the
    Nation's infrastructure. The user facilities are a type of
    infrastructure that, like transportation and utilities, needs
    to be maintained and improved. The DOE Office of Science has
    been an admirable steward of this infrastructure. However, the
    office has been handicapped by budgets whose buying power has
    significantly decreased over the last decade.
        Current fiscal constraints mean that renewal often occurs
    at the slower pace than the facility's age and that timelines
    for upgrades are lengthened or delayed. The current levels of
    support have already left our Nation behind in the capabilities
    available at a small subset of the facilities. Continuing this
    trend risks a gap in innovation and technology between the
    United States and other nations.
        In conclusion, I would like to return to ``Science, the
    Endless Frontier.'' Near the end of his summary, Dr. Bush
    observed that responsibilities for scientific research are the
    proper concern of the government where they vitally affect our
    health, our jobs, and our national security. We at SSURF and
    our colleagues in the user facility community could not agree
    more. The user facilities are a critical part of the greatness
    of the U.S. scientific endeavor. We need them for our economy,
    security, and quality of life. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Wasserman follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Upton. Thank you.
        Mr. Reicher, welcome.

                        STATEMENT OF DAN REICHER

        Mr. Reicher. Thank you.
        Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Rush, and members of the
    subcommittee, I am pleased to share my perspective on the DOE's
    mission.
        I have spent more than a decade at the Department under
    four secretaries and have a deep respect for the agency. So it
    pains me to say that DOE, under the Trump administration, is
    heading in a problematic direction when it comes to the
    innovation, commercialization, and deployment of U.S. clean
    energy technology.
        The administration has sought unprecedented cuts in DOE's
    budgets for energy efficiency and renewable energy, electricity
    reliability, fossil energy, and nuclear power. It has proposed
    to eliminate the Loan Programs Office, ARPA-E, the State Energy
    Program, and the low-income weatherization program. It has
    begun putting the brakes on energy efficiency standards and has
    not reestablished the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board.
        Let me be clear, DOE continues to make progress in critical
    areas, but this progress is slowing as important programs keep
    personnel, longstanding advisory functions, and related funding
    are hollowed out. These challenges come at a time when
    worldwide investment in clean energy is growing, roughly $750
    billion annually today, and there is a global race for
    dominance in this massive market.
        The Chinese have a well-organized plan to dominate clean
    energy. From wind, solar, hydropower, and storage, to nuclear
    power, advanced vehicles, energy efficiency, carbon capture,
    and transmission, China is not only leading in manufacturing
    and deployment, but increasingly in R&D and commercialization,
    the traditional U.S. strong suits.
        This committee should look at the risk posed by these
    trends and ensure that DOE's applying a full set of resources.
    We preceded our peril in hobbling the U.S. Government's work
    with industry to advance our Nation's competitive position in
    clean energy, a sector where much energy innovation has come
    from the U.S., often at taxpayer expense.
        My testimony addresses several issues. First, Congress
    should resist the administration's proposed 69 percent cut in
    funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy or EERE, and
    urge the administration to propose robust funding in fiscal
    year 2019. In a June letter, all seven of us who are EERE
    assistant secretaries, both Republicans and Democrats,
    emphasized that cuts of this size would do serious harm.
        Second, this committee should resist the pending rescission
    of funds by House appropriators that would effectively end the
    work of DOE's Loan Programs Office, LPO. LPO, originally
    authorized by this committee, is carrying out its emissions
    well, helping to commercialize advanced nuclear fossil and
    renewable energy as well as transportation technologies, and
    managing the existing $36 billion investment portfolio.
        In a June 4 letter to this committee that I would like to
    submit for the record, 17 CEOs wrote that the LPO is often the
    only way to get innovative energy technologies commercially
    deployed. LPO has $41 billion in remaining loan-making capacity
    that would be a big down payment on the trillion dollar
    infrastructure program that Congress may soon take up.
        Third, DOE's Appliance Standards Program was one of the
    most effective approaches to saving energy, and has long
    enjoyed bipartisan support. Unfortunately, DOE recently put
    work on most new standards on hold, and could end up violating
    statutory deadlines. This committee should ensure that DOE does
    not advocate its important standard setting role.
        Fourth, a bipartisan effort over the last several years
    would open up congressionally authorized investment vehicles,
    master limited partnerships, private activity bonds, and real
    estate investment trusts to clean energy technologies, and
    thereby lower the cost of financing energy projects. The House
    should adopt the bipartisan MLP Parity Act, sponsored by
    Representatives Poe and Thompson, as well as Congressman Welch,
    and the bipartisan Carbon Capture Improvement Act sponsored by
    Representatives Curbelo and Veasey.
        Fifth, the need for electricity storage is growing fast
    with the significant increase in solar and wind. Congress and
    the administration should help advance both utility scale and
    distributed storage through R&D funding, grants, tax credits,
    loan guarantees, MLPs, and other tools. In this regard,
    Congress should resist the Trump administration's proposed 61
    percent cut in DOE energy storage R&D.
        Sixth, carbon capture and storage can cut emissions in both
    power generation and heavy industry. Over the past 20 years,
    DOE has relied on a variety of Federal tools--R&D funding
    grants, Federal tax credits, private activity bonds, and loan
    guarantees--to advance CCS and made good progress. The House
    should resist the Trump administration's proposed 85 percent
    cut in DOE's CCS R&D funding and adopt pending legislation that
    would improve the current CCS 45Q tax credit and authorize both
    master limited partnership and private activity bond funding.
        Seventh, the U.S. Government is the single largest energy
    user in the Nation, with an energy bill to taxpayers exceeding
    $23 billion. The committee should take note of a 2016 task
    force by a report of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board
    that proposes many ways to cut this bill and expand the
    deployment of clean energy on Federal lands. It should also
    resist the proposed 63 percent cut to the budget of DOE's
    Federal Energy Management Program.
        Finally, this committee should encourage Secretary Perry to
    reactivate the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board that has long
    provided important expert input into the Department's programs
    and operations. Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Reicher follows:]

        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Upton. Thank you.
        Mr. Powell.

                        STATEMENT OF RICH POWELL

        Mr. Powell. Good afternoon, Chairman Upton, Ranking Member
    Rush, and other committee members. My name is Rich Powell,
    executive director of the ClearPath Foundation.
        ClearPath develops conservative policies that accelerate
    clean energy deployment. We advocate for innovation over
    regulation, educating policymakers and conducting and
    supporting independent policy analysis. A note, we receive no
    funding from industry.
        I appreciate the opportunity to address the subcommittee on
    DOE modernization. Refocusing the Department's key research and
    development programs is crucial to securing American clean
    energy dominance internationally and facilitating a cleaner,
    more reliable, and affordable domestic energy supply.
        Our Nation is rapidly approaching a crossroads. Coal makes
    up a third of American power production, and the average plant
    will likely retire by 2030. Half of U.S. nuclear plants could
    close by 2040. Refurbishing or replacing these facilities
    presents a once in a century opportunity to develop domestic
    advanced industries.
        Meanwhile, global energy demand is projected to grow by 28
    percent by 2040. The market in India alone is estimated at $2.7
    trillion. A homegrown, U.S. advanced energy economy can seize
    this opportunity. If our Nation does not rise to that
    challenge, we run the risk of falling behind. In fact, we
    already are.
        China, in particular, is already outflanking us on next
    generation technology. It is bringing an advanced nuclear
    reactor online this year at a time when the U.S. is struggling
    just to keep its existing fleet afloat and doesn't even have a
    fast test reactor available for American entrepreneurs to test
    new designs. China is already the global leader in solar
    manufacturing and superefficient coal technology and is rapidly
    advancing in batteries and electric vehicles.
        The best way for America to outcompete in future energy
    markets is to develop increasingly advanced technologies that
    can best rival offerings, as we did with the fracking
    revolution for our shale resources. We may not be able to beat
    China with cranes and concrete, but we can win in high-skilled
    manufacturing of carbon capturing fuel cells, printable solar
    panels, and modular advanced reactors.
        But these breakthroughs do not happen overnight. Hydraulic
    fracturing and today's solar and wood technologies took decades
    and significant investment from both private and public sources
    before their widespread deployment.
        The private sector is often ill-positioned to pioneer new
    and capital-intensive technologies alone. DOE must remain
    central to America's clean energy innovation dominance, linking
    academic research and commercial products. Too often, however,
    we think of DOE's R&D role in terms of research capabilities or
    dollars spent, rather than delivering disruptive new
    technologies to solve particular problems or address market
    challenges. Spending more with a business-as-usual approach
    will not win the global energy innovation race.
        The Department should reorient itself toward moonshot
    technology goals that empower industry to tackle the challenges
    of breakthrough technologies. Clearly articulated, longterm
    research priorities could insulate critical RD&D efforts from
    changing political winds. Used appropriately, they would
    leverage limited Federal resources towards the most important
    priorities.
        Big goals at DOE have worked before. The 2011 SunShot
    Initiative aligned secretary-level resources to reduce the cost
    of solar power by 75 percent within 10 years. Last year, DOE
    reached the goal ahead of schedule. More such goals are needed.
    For example, an advanced nuclear MoonShot could implement
    Secretary Perry's call for an increased emphasis on the
    development of new nuclear technologies.
        For ambitious technology development goals to succeed, the
    Department should implement a few systematic reforms. First,
    DOE should adopt more private sector management practices.
    Major Moonshots and interim subgoals could provide yardsticks
    to evaluate progress. If specific bets don't meet milestones,
    dollars should be redirected; a practice common today at ARPA-
    E.
        Second, a soup-to-nuts approach to energy research is
    needed, especially for capital intensive technologies such as
    carbon capture and advanced nuclear. Striking a balance of
    supporting demonstration while avoiding market interference is
    a delicate one, but is necessary to maintain international
    competitiveness. Prematurely ending private-public research
    projects raises the risks that our rivals will commercialize
    them instead.
        China has no philosophical objection to funding applied
    science. They are happy to take American basic research and add
    applied dollars to demonstrate and commercialize them, reaping
    the benefits of our creations.
        In conclusion, America has an opportunity to lead the
    global market for clean, reliable, and affordable energy. But
    without a more focused and nimble government partner, American
    entrepreneurs are likely to lose the clean energy race. A
    recommitment to leading global energy innovation would not only
    improve our geopolitical position, it would reduce emissions
    and maintain low consumer prices, while seizing a multitrillion
    dollar opportunity.
        ClearPath applauds the committee for taking on this
    important and overdue task and stands ready to assist its
    legislative efforts. Thank you again for the opportunity to
    provide remarks.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Powell follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Upton. Well, thank you all for your testimony. I know
    it has been a long hearing, and you were here promptly when the
    gavel came down at 10 o'clock. I have a couple of questions, as
    I know the members do here.
        Dr. Wasserman, I was pleased to hear you talking about some
    very positive things, particularly relating to what Lilly has
    been doing and the funding to offset some of the buying power
    for new drugs and devices. As you know, this committee passed,
    every one of us, passed on a 51 to nothing vote in the last
    Congress, 21st Century Cures, which accelerates breakthrough
    drugs to address disease. We worked hard to make sure that
    there were the appropriate offsets for more funding for the NIH
    and other resources.
        Have you at all looked at what we did as it relates to the
    advancement of new technologies in the medical side?
        Mr. Wasserman. Only slightly, Chairman. As we look at new
    technologies, as a company, we are always looking for ways to
    improve our goal of getting medicines to the patients who need
    them as soon as possible. So the things that the government has
    done to foster that, including our use of the facilities,
    developing other new technologies, leveraging the things that
    both that NIH and DOE have created for us to improve our
    efficiency in the laboratory.
        As you know, it is a long slog to get a drug to market.
    And, for example, the experiments that I mentioned today on
    breast cancer were done, I think, 7 years ago, and the approval
    came down. But, again, we know it is difficult to get a drug to
    market, and every advantage that we can come up with sponsored
    by the government or with the own initiative within the
    industry.
        Mr. Upton. We worked very closely with Dr. O'Neese,
    particularly as it related to the DOE user facilities as part
    of that legislation. He was a very constructive partner as we
    worked together.
        Dr. Zacharia, you have watched our committee's action and
    you know that we have been very involved in cybersecurity. And
    I guess the question that I have for you is, what do you see as
    we try to avoid unnecessary duplication but still ensure
    breakthroughs in cyber defenses and response capabilities, in
    particular, in regard to advanced supercomputing capabilities
    to address those challenges?
        Mr. Zacharia. Chairman Upton, thank you very much. So
    cybersecurity clearly is a challenge for a system like ours or
    a society like ours because the adversary only has to succeed
    once, whereas we have to be 100 percent foolproof. And so the
    approach that we have taken working with the Department is to
    make sure that the cost of penetrating critical assets is
    increasingly higher. So just like if your own home, the higher
    the walls, gates, et cetera, the alarm systems, it forces the
    people to go look elsewhere. And so cybersecurity, broadly
    speaking, is focused on new tools and technologies and software
    solutions, building on the computing capabilities that we have,
    the supercomputing capabilities that we have. But also within
    the DOE space, we also focus on the cyber physical systems
    where you are also not just focused on the penetration of
    computing and information technology, but really the gateway
    into grid and energy grid systems, which is a big challenge, as
    was noted in the previous panel.
        And, Mr. Chairman, if I can just add one more comment about
    the question about the Cures Act, is that, as you--the DOE
    supercomputer systems are used effectively in working with a
    joint program between NCI and DOE and working with a private
    sector, in this particular case, GlaxoSmithKline, in developing
    a pilot project where the computing capability and the data
    analytics are being brought forward to look at much more
    targeted personalized medicine initiatives.
        Mr. Upton. Thank you.
        Mr. Rush.
        Mr. Rush. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Reicher, I am quite interested in your influent overall
    proposal--your influent program, but in general, I am
    interested in your whole thrust here, and I think you have been
    pretty specific, and that means a lot to this committee in
    terms of some of your recommendations. But I only have 5
    minutes, so I want to zero in on the weatherization program and
    the EERE recommendations in general.
        We are in the midst of extremely cold weather throughout
    the Nation, and has this weatherization program been effective,
    and has there been a return on the investment? I mean, what is
    the cost of the investment, in your opinion, into the
    weatherization program?
        And, secondly, how will low income families be impacted if
    this program were completely phased out? And what would the
    effect be on local jobs if this program were to be phased out?
        Mr. Reicher. Mr. Rush, the Weatherization Assistance
    Program has been a very successful program. More than 7 million
    homes have been weatherized around the United States to date. I
    think it is every $1 of Federal investment leverages between $4
    and $5 of outside investment, so it is a good government
    leverage in that way. It comes at a moment when it is not only
    cold out, but we are seeing a pretty big increase in the cost
    of heating fuels, as oil prices increase, as natural gases
    prices increase. So it does a lot in that way. I think much of
    the review of that program, and I know Oak Ridge has done some
    of it, has been fairly positive about the program, to date.
        And there is some great job production in this program. It
    really puts local people to work going in and, first, measuring
    what is leaking in a house, and secondly, blowing in insulation
    and fixing windows. So it has got all the right hallmarks. So I
    really, really hope that we don't see the elimination of this
    program. It has been supported for decades. Forty years
    anniversary, I think, was last year. So I am a big fan.
        Mr. Rush. From your previous work at Argonne, can you speak
    to some of the innovative works that have taken place in the
    energy storage field? This is for Dr. Levy, I am sorry.
        Dr. Levy, you worked at Argonne. Can you share any insight
    into some of the most promising potential breakthroughs in the
    beyond lithium program? What are some of the possibilities that
    can help move us forward into the future in regards to storing
    energy and developing a more resilient and efficient 21st
    century electricity grid?
        Mr. Levy. Thank you, Mr. Rush. First of all, I must
    confess, I have been away from Argonne for 2 years, and I am a
    couple of years out of date. And I think in the battery
    business, that is an important 2 years.
        They were having very promising results in improving
    storage, and of course, that is important for two reasons. It
    is important in order to use intermittent sources of energy. It
    is also important for all sorts of other applications. So there
    is nothing but gain to be had there.
        I think the best I can offer you in terms of specifics is
    to get back to you after talking to some of the people at
    Argonne.
        Mr. Rush. OK. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Upton. Mr. Shimkus.
        Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate you
    all being here.
        What the intent of what I think the administration is
    trying to do is, and what we are trying to do, is look at the
    Department of Energy after 40 years, and how do you update it?
    How do you modernize it? How do you make it efficient? And
    really how do you tell the story? I think part of the problem
    is the public really doesn't know the story, and that is part
    of our challenge too.
        I have been to Argonne and I have been to Oak Ridge, but
    those are special trips that people have to make. And if you
    are not a member from that area, then you just don't get there.
    So we have got great scientists, they work real hard.
        And then the other part is, you know, Members of Congress
    easily can go back to why did we create the Department of
    Energy? And if you go back to the history, remember, it was the
    energy crisis of the 1970s, which some of us were a lot younger
    then. And then we get to Congress and we still have an energy
    crisis.
        So the creation of the Department of Energy in the 1970s
    didn't solve the crisis. And I would argue that it is
    individual investment. And right now, it is the fracking
    technology that really has transformed this whole world's view
    now, not just within the continental United States, but really
    the international energy markets. I also do a lot in eastern
    European freedom issues, so the energy extortion by the
    Russians is real.
        So that is kind of the intro into my questions. I want to
    go to Ms. Ladislaw first in addressing the SPRO. I was a big
    SPRO supporter when we were importing a lot of crude oil, and
    we are, but we are also exporting. So we are having that
    debate, right, $2 million to modernize it, and then what,
    right? I have been quoted as saying, ``I am not even sure why
    that should be part of our portfolio anymore.'' I think in your
    statement you disagree with that, and I would ask why.
        Ms. Ladislaw. Thanks very much for the question and for
    your interest in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I find you
    are right, a lot of people don't know about its existence in
    addition to all the things that the Department of Energy has
    done over the years. I was not around the Department's
    creation. I have worked with----
        Mr. Shimkus. Let's go to someone else then. No.
        Ms. Ladislaw. I have worked with people that were, though.
    And what I find really interesting is that, as we remember it,
    the Department was created during a time of crisis, and we
    thought it was going to get much worse. And a lot of it had to
    do with deregulating our domestic environment and making a
    whole suite of challenges and deciding that we were going to
    commit to this internationally connected and efficient market
    for oil and gas and things like that. And we have pursued that
    for 40 years. And I actually think that the Department and the
    United States should take a lot of credit for that system that
    we have created. It is what is going to allow us to sell a lot
    of the oil and gas resources that we have in a free and open
    market, and I think that is a huge advantage.
        Mr. Shimkus. Let me just go ahead, real quick, because I am
    running out of time.
        Ms. Ladislaw. I was just going to say, I think that the
    reality, though, is that we have, as forecasters, been wrong,
    time and time again over that 40-year period about near-term
    market changes, whether we are going to have enough resources
    or not have enough resources. And a lot of that has to do with
    situational type of things that we couldn't foresee, like
    Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and things like that.
        Mr. Shimkus. Just because I want to be respectful of my
    colleagues' time. So, we have got the Bakken now and we have
    got the Pennsylvania shale, we have got, obviously the oil
    sands, we have got Keystone, and hopefully eventually we will
    get Keystone XL Pipeline. And we now, after much consternation,
    export crude oil, which I think has been a huge benefit. It has
    been a benefit for our identification location recovery,
    keeping the prices at a place where we still have people
    looking in the continental United States, and so I think that
    has been a net plus for the country and for jobs and the
    economy.
        I get from your testimony, and correct me if I am wrong. I
    think that is true for LNG too. And I would like to hear your
    comments on that. Do you believe that that would be the same
    type of response if we were more active in LNG exports?
        Ms. Ladislaw. Sure. I think LNG exports are certainly good
    for the U.S. economy.
        Mr. Shimkus. OK. Great.
        Mr. Chairman, that is all I have. I yield back.
        Mr. Upton. Ms. Castor.
        Ms. Castor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to all the
    witnesses for your very interesting testimony.
        I have to say, Mr. Reicher, I share your concern that the
    Trump administration's policies they are putting forth in the
    beginning of the administration appear to want to hollow out
    our Department of Energy, and that would be to the detriment of
    this great country. At this time, it just doesn't seem like the
    way they are thinking matches the challenges that we face and
    takes advantage of all of the fantastic technological advances
    and natural gas revolution, and as Ms. Ladislaw said, the
    energy abundance that we have at this point.
        You, Mr. Reicher, pointed to the drastic cuts in clean
    energy, the electric grid operations, the next generation
    energy technology. You pointed to the inexplicable back
    peddling on energy efficiency standards for household
    appliances. But you have particular expertise as the former
    assistant secretary for EERE. Will you explain the consequences
    of such drastic diminishment of energy efficiency and renewable
    energy under what the Trump administration has put forward?
        Mr. Reicher. So I think it hurts us in a variety of ways. I
    think it hurts us in terms of people's pocketbooks, if we
    really do pull back, if we don't take advantage of the savings
    that we can achieve, if we don't take advantage of a variety of
    other things, weatherizing people's homes. So I think it hits
    there.
        It obviously hits from an environmental standpoint. We have
    made a lot of progress in cutting carbon emissions, both
    because of the rise of natural gas, but also because of the
    deployment of a variety of renewables. It definitely hits us in
    terms of our competitiveness. And I will have to tell you, I am
    very worried about what we are doing.
        We published a major report at Stanford that actually DOE
    funded, looking at the Chinese solar industry and how it is
    that it has gotten so very strong. And it has gotten so very
    strong because there is a highly organized effort in China,
    industry and government, in each of these major energy
    technology categories to begin to, essentially, own these
    energy industries. They now make 70 percent of the world's
    solar panels. And it is not just cheap manufacturing, it is
    also now R&D.
        The Chinese are getting very good at solar R&D. They are
    getting very good at nuclear R&D. They are getting very good in
    carbon capture, in transmission. And I really worry that, from
    a competitiveness standpoint, we're going to really hurt
    ourselves. And it is, in fact, this industry government
    partnership that has been active for the last 40-50 years that
    has really kept us in the ball game.
        And, lastly, I will say, much of what China is moving
    forward with was technology invented in the United States, and
    a lot of that at government expense, taxpayer expense. So I
    really think we need to think from a competitiveness standpoint
    where we are headed.
        Ms. Castor. And your point is not lost on me on how much it
    is costing the rise in carbon pollution because I come from the
    State of Florida, and I think the insurance industry earlier
    yesterday or at the end of last week released the totals for
    the damages from hurricanes. Now, the direct link isn't there,
    but what the consensus is that these extreme weather events are
    intensified because of higher carbon levels. We have the best
    scientists in the world and we have the technological edge, why
    would we cede that to China?
        Ms. Ladislaw, you also highlighted the importance of energy
    efficiency. You said it is important to the economy and it pays
    great dividends for security. Could you expand on your concerns
    about receding in America's leadership on energy efficiency and
    renewables?
        Ms. Ladislaw. Sure. Working for a security organization, I
    think people think, in particular at this time of abundance,
    that the way that you are secure is you have more, right? If
    you just have more, then you are thereby secure.
        I think the original sort of mandate for the Department of
    Energy was to use less and produce more, more in variety and
    more in quantity, and that use less piece has been huge. The
    Alliance to Save Energy has remarkable figures that I included
    in my testimony about how much the U.S. has saved. And I think
    that what we are finding now is, around the world, developing
    countries that don't want to develop along the same lines that
    the United States did, want to benefit from purchasing those
    technologies or making those technologies themselves. It is a
    very competitive marketplace out there for additional energy
    efficiency.
        And we shouldn't forget that part of the reason why the
    United States has enough oil to export today is not just
    because we produce it, but it is because we use so much less of
    it than we thought we were going to. And so I think that energy
    efficiency just struggles from being one of those untold
    stories with really big strategic advantages both today and
    that we can pay forward to the future as well.
        Ms. Castor. Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Upton. Mr. Flores.
        Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also thank the panel
    for joining us today. It has been enlightening testimony.
        Mr. Powell, you and I both agree that as Congress looks to
    allocate scarce resources, that investment in basic research
    has great value in terms of translating into the seed corn of
    future economic opportunity.
        In that regard, I was enthused by your talk about setting
    MoonShot approach. Can you expand on how setting technology
    moonshots can ensure the efficient use of taxpayer dollars
    versus the status quo?
        Mr. Powell. Sure. Thanks very much for the question. So I
    think we should remember that the sort of energy miracle of
    this past decade, the shale gas revolution, was heavily
    influenced by research conducted at the Department of Energy,
    on hydraulic fracturing, horizontal drilling, diamond-headed
    drill bits. It is very possible the shale gas revolution would
    not have occurred without that research at DOE in partnership
    with private industry.
        And so the question is, how do we produce more of those
    miracle technologies? In our view, it is very hard to get
    somewhere if you don't know where you are going. And so one
    first step is simply to establish the sorts of performance
    benchmarks that we are looking for, for new sort of miracle
    technologies. So what does an advanced reactor look like that
    would actually be right for today's energy market. So smaller,
    more modular to build, probably a much lower cost point for
    energy. And then aligning resources at DOE to overcome
    bottlenecks to achieve a goal like that.
        Again, in the SunShot Initiative, they put a very
    aggressive time-based, cost-based goal out there. They broke
    down every part of the cost of grid scale solar systems, and
    they subjected each of those parts of the costs to very
    rigorous research and analysis and found ways to overcome them,
    and then helped rapidly bring them down.
        So we think that this kind of approach could be applied to
    advanced carbon capture technologies, grid scale storage,
    advanced nuclear, certainly in the transportation space, and
    certainly in the industrial emissions space as well.
        Mr. Flores. That takes me to the second part of my
    question. You said that ClearPath engages collaboratively with
    outside organizations, businesses, and think tanks about the
    future of energy in this country. And in that regard, can you
    share with us any insights you have as to examples of moonshots
    that Congress and the DOE should be considering----
        Mr. Powell. Sure.
        Mr. Flores. When it comes to the energy space?
        Mr. Powell. Well, I think one that is low-hanging fruit is
    grid scale storage. So we have talked a lot across this hearing
    about grid scale storage today. The nice thing about grid scale
    storage is actually you have a lot of dollars, a lot of bang
    for the buck in expanding. So if we were to set a goal of, say,
    grid scale storage systems at less than $100 per megawatt hour,
    that would be a disruptive change. Right? It would greatly
    improve the ability for grid scale storage to compete with
    peaker power plants. It would also be very good for the further
    expansion of solar and wind technologies.
        And to accomplish a goal like that might only be
    incremental 10 of millions of dollars in appropriations in a
    year. But it is simply having that focus and increasing that
    level of ambition.
        Mr. Flores. What is another example? You and I have talked
    about advanced nuclear in the past.
        Mr. Powell. Yes. Certainly, advanced nuclear. So if we were
    to set a goal, a very ambitious performance-based goal to say,
    empower the private sector to demonstrate four advanced nuclear
    reactors within a decade, we are actually on track with a
    number of our programs already, like the Advanced Reactor
    Concepts Program, that is working with two advanced reactor
    developers right now, X-energy and the Southern-TerraPower
    collaboration on Molten Chloride Fast Reactor.
        So we have a new scale power as well that could certainly
    qualify for something like that. So we have a number of horses
    already in the race, and this would encourage us to get more
    advanced reactor developers into collaboration with DOE and
    hopefully get four of those demonstrated.
        Mr. Flores. Thank you. Ms. Ladislaw, as you discussed in
    your testimony, and as many of us on this panel know, the
    change in the U.S. energy profile has really had huge
    geopolitical impacts. And the State Department's primary
    mission is diplomacy, but the Department of Energy has a
    critical role there to play as well, whether it is to authorize
    exports or provide technical assistance on trade energy flows.
    In your view, what should Congress do to support the Department
    of Energy's international affairs mission, in 30 seconds or
    less?
        Ms. Ladislaw. Thanks very much for your question.
        I think, first and foremost, it is really important to
    recognize the work that the Department is doing, both in
    science and technology and on policy evaluation in an
    international affairs realm. So the Department of Energy Bureau
    is a wonderful department, and I fully support that as well. I
    think that sometimes it leads to an either/or; should it be at
    the State Department or at the Department of Energy, they
    should be complements to each other. There is enough to analyze
    and act on out there that they should be able to be both very
    robust and complementary offices.
        Mr. Flores. OK. Again, I thank the panel for their
    testimony.
        I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Upton. Mr. Tonko.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Ladislaw, I really appreciated your written testimony.
    You highlighted the original congressional intent from the
    findings of the DOE Organization Act. I think it is clear that
    Congress intended for DOE's mission to evolve alongside our
    Nation's energy challenges. We need to face the issues of our
    time. In the 1970s, it was oil use and reliance on foreign oil.
    Today, we should be considering our Nation's current and future
    energy needs.
        So, Ms. Ladislaw, in the spirit of DOE Organization Act, is
    support for renewable energy and energy efficiency R&D
    consistent with the original goals of the Department?
        Ms. Ladislaw. I believe so.
        Mr. Tonko. As I mentioned during the first panel, I think
    DOE's role in supporting innovation is essential. And based on
    everyone's testimony, it sounds like you would likely agree
    with that assessment. I think that, obviously, there is great
    opportunity for job growth with R&D and energy efficiency.
        Dr. Zacharia, the Grid Modernization Lab Consortium is a
    great example of DOE working with public and private
    stakeholders and making significant R&D investments in order to
    solve energy challenges and make the U.S. a global leader.
    Integrating new technologies into our electricity system is one
    of the challenges to fostering a cleaner and more reliable
    grid.
        Can you explain the role that national labs play in
    fulfilling DOE's mission, and how grid modernization fits into
    those priorities?
        Mr. Zacharia. Thank you very much.
        So the national labs clearly sit between academia industry
    in maturing important technology. In this area, the Grid
    Modernization Lab Consortium is a consortium of a number of
    laboratories. We work closely together. And as we deploy a
    number of intermittent sources, one of the key challenges is
    really being able to make sure that the grid is resilient and
    reliable. And the way we have done that is actually both in
    terms of doing research, but also working in partnership with
    industry. Let me give you an example.
        Oak Ridge National Laboratory has worked very closely with
    electric power board in Chattanooga, which is a small city
    scale utility. And we worked very closely in deploying power
    electronics such that the grid system can be managed very
    effectively. And today, as a result of that, the citizens of
    Chattanooga, when a storm comes through, and they only see a
    blip because the grid is obviously be able to manage and work
    around that.
        One of the challenges in doing that is that, as you make
    the system much more interconnected, there is also the concern
    about security. And so we are also working very closely with
    them to make sure that it is secure.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
        And as I mentioned, DOE must address the energy issues of
    our times, along with grid modernization and the seamless
    integration of more clean energy resources into our energy mix.
    I believe DOE has a critical role to pay in one of the greatest
    environmental, economic, and national security challenges of
    our lifetime, that being climate change.
        Does anyone on the panel wish to comment on the
    responsibility that the Department has in helping to develop
    climate solutions?
        Mr. Reicher. Mr. Tonko, I think the Department has a great
    opportunity to develop climate solutions. It has been working
    on them for decades. And I think we are at a moment, though,
    where I think we have got to keep the pedal to the metal in
    terms of investment. And I say this with a very broad range of
    technologies in mind. It is everything from renewables and
    efficiency to nuclear to carbon capture, energy efficiency
    technology. We talk a lot about standards, but there is a lot
    that can be done.
        So I think this is both a great opportunity. And I think if
    we are going to both succeed at addressing climate--but we are
    always going to profit as a country in addressing the climate
    problem, we have two very strong reasons we should be moving
    forward.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
        And Ms. Ladislaw.
        Ms. Ladislaw. I just wanted to second that last point of
    Dan's. I do think that it is a shortcoming of our political
    process that on one hand, we discount a bunch of fuels. On the
    other hand, we discount a bunch of fuels. There is a lot of
    benefit that can come to the U.S. economic system, to our
    national security, to all of our strategic objectives from
    leaning forward into some of the climate challenge issues. And
    I think that the Department would be well served in doing that.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
        Mr. Reicher, I was struck by your comments about EERE and
    weatherization. And I think they do meet both social and
    economic goals being able to provide for sound-paying jobs and
    addressing a more energy friendly environment. I know that in
    upstate New York, a weatherization assistance program is
    critical. Some of the coldest weather that comes into upstate,
    and we just saw it, subzero for days in a row. It is some of
    the toughest, poorest areas of the state with lowest household
    income. And it is a social economic justice thing that we can
    advance. So thank you for your comments.
        Mr. Reicher. I just want to say, I grew up in upstate New
    York. I not only know how cold it is, but I also know how snowy
    it is.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you. It has been both this year. So thank
    you very much.
        And I yield back, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Upton. Thank you.
        Mr. Duncan.
        Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I would like to take this opportunity to highlight some of
    the work the Clemson University is doing with their Duke Energy
    eGRID. I am proud to represent my alma mater, Clemson
    University, as it is in my district, and the research work they
    are doing at facilities all the across the State of South
    Carolina in partnership with other universities, funding
    agencies and industry partners is extremely impressive.
        At Clemson's Restoration Institute in Charleston, South
    Carolina at Clemson has what may be considered the world's
    largest and most capable electric grid emulator called the Duke
    Energy eGRID. eGRID has the ability to dynamically model
    electrical power grid conditions anywhere in the U.S. or the
    world. With this world class and unparalleled facility,
    Clemson's technical staff and students are making great
    advances in grid modernization and grid security through their
    work at eGRID.
        The eGRID is a key enabler of testing half-hour devices
    that are critical components of the power grid infrastructure,
    such as extra high voltage transformers. Failure of components
    such as these transformers will likely cause widespread power
    outages, which can be very difficult to recover from due to
    lack of spares, logistics of moving them, and long lead times
    for their construction. Critical components like these
    transformers can be damaged from attacks such as EMPs,
    geomagnetic disturbances from solar activity and cyber attacks.
    Clemson has acquired one of these high voltage, high power
    transformers at eGRID further positioning Clemson with the
    unique capabilities.
        Through R&D and testing of these critical components and
    systems, Clemson University's eGRID facility will be
    instrumental in modernizing and securing the U.S. grid. And I
    invite anyone on the committee that would love to go and see
    that drivetrain facility and eGRID facility in Charleston, it
    is worth the trip.
        So, Mr. Powell, you mentioned in your testimony the
    importance of the DOE working with private sector to meet
    mutual goals. The Clemson-Duke Energy eGRID is a prime example
    of successful collaboration with the private sector to advance
    innovation by not solely depending on taxpayer dollars. Can you
    provide other examples of collaboration with the private sector
    to advance the goal of modernizing the DOE?
        Mr. Powell. Sure.
        Well, the one that has been most consequential in the past
    decade, or the past two decades, was probably Mitchell Energy
    collaborating with the Office of Fossil Energy to develop shale
    technologies. That is probably the one that was the most and
    best known. I think another one that has been very, very
    successful has been the collaboration between NuScale Energy
    and the Department of Energy, particularly the Office of
    Nuclear Energy, in developing a small modular reactor
    technology. So that collaboration has now resulted in a
    successful filing for a license with the NRC.
        Mr. Duncan. Do you see MSRs as a really viable nuclear
    energy alternative?
        Mr. Powell. Well, in the United States, we see smaller
    reactors as the only viable nuclear energy alternative----
        Mr. Duncan. But at any given time, we have got 100 nuclear
    reactors floating around the seas of the world and the United
    States Navy without a single mishap. And I believe, and one
    that believes, that that SMR or type technology is a solution
    for powering small cities, or even large communities, so----
        Mr. Powell. Absolutely.
        Mr. Duncan. Do you have other examples?
        Mr. Powell. Just to finish on that. Our power grid today
    really rewards smaller power plant technologies. And so the
    smaller that we can make the reactors, the more points that
    applicability that those will be, that those will be around the
    country.
        I think we have seen very successful development in the
    wind sector in public-private partnerships, in the Wind
    Technology Center at the National Renewable Lab that has really
    brought down the price further for very large wind turbine
    technologies as well as.
        Mr. Duncan. Right. And speaking of SMRs, which kind of
    piqued an interest of mine in thorium or molten salt reactors.
        Is DOE working the private sector at all on thorium
    reactors, to your knowledge?
        Mr. Powell. I will have to get back to you on that. I am
    not sure that there is any current thorium work underway. They
    are working on molten salt reactors, so that is where the fuel
    is also the coolant, and it circulates through the reactor.
    There is currently several active points of research and an
    active collaboration between DOE and Southern Company and
    TerraPower, which is the Bill Gates'-backed nuclear development
    company.
        Mr. Duncan. Yes. Thank you for that.
        Mr. Chairman, I don't have anything further. I yield back.
        Mr. Upton. Thank you.
        Mr. Griffith.
        Mr. Griffith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. I
    appreciate the testimony of all of our witnesses here today. I
    particularly liked the testimony of Mr. Powell talking about
    researching and figuring out new ways to use the fuels that
    will power the world, not just the United States, in the
    future.
        But with that, I will yield my time to Mr. Shimkus of
    Illinois.
        Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Morgan. I appreciate that. And I
    really want to make sure I took the time. I appreciate you
    being here. And also, you are an important panel. Again, as I
    said earlier, we are trying to figure out should we look at
    reauthorizing the DOE and what should be its assigned roles.
    And I do a lot of stuff in the nuclear space, too. And I want
    to ask a question. It is going to go to Dr. Levy first. And it
    is really about organization.
        So the NNSA, the National Nuclear Security Administration,
    is a semi-autonomous agency within the U.S. Department of
    Energy responsible for enhancing national security through the
    military application of nuclear science. But there are some
    people who question the efficiency of that, since it is semi-
    autonomous.
        In fact, Admiral Richard Mies noted the separation of DOE's
    support functions from the NNSA created a problem concerning
    the Secretary's governance over the nuclear security mission.
    They noted, ``What CEO of the successful company would permit
    one of the largest, most demanding and unforgiving missions to
    be quarantined from the headquarters' staff. Or to use an
    operational metaphor, how could the commander of a ship at sea
    fulfill his or her duty if 40 percent of the crew were,
    ``separately organized'? That would be both inefficient and
    risky.''
        Do you agree with that?
        Mr. Levy. I don't think I do, although I am not sure the
    present implementation of the separation is ideal. I think
    there is a way to do it. This is an issue that the Augustine-
    Mies panel took up in great detail. One of the suggestions was
    that NNSA just be a separate agency. And their conclusion was,
    for a mission that important, they needed cabinet level support
    and cabinet level input.
        My own personal opinion, and it is my personal opinion, the
    panel hasn't come to a conclusion on this, is that it is a
    doable thing, but it will take a lot of attention at the
    highest levels of the Department of Energy, primarily the
    Secretary, the Deputy Secretary and the administrator, the
    Under Secretary, operating together very well.
        Right at the moment, there is a lot of overlap. There is a
    lot--certainly, the Secretary of Energy--I am not sure one
    looks at the Secretary of Energy as the commander of the ship,
    or the chairman of the Joint Chiefs. There has to be somebody
    responsible for it, and he is responsible to somebody. At the
    moment, I think there is overlap, which is not a very good
    situation, and I think that is one of the things that is
    important to clear up.
        Mr. Shimkus. I think that is good.
        Ms. Ladislaw, have you looked at this from your think tank
    arena?
        Ms. Ladislaw. It is not an area of expertise for me.
        Mr. Shimkus. OK. And I would raise it to the chairman as
    something we should look at as we move in this direction.
        The last thing I wanted to also address is--I mean, because
    there is such a different--a broad breadth is this, Dr.
    Wasserman, on the supercomputing issue, because we--I know that
    we--we are not Kim Il Jong II, so we don't blow off our nuclear
    weapons anymore because we supercompute, and we trust it, which
    is hard for many of us to believe. But we do.
        And so in this--but I got confused, and that is why I ask
    questions, because that is the best way to find out the
    answers. DOE is moving to an exoskeleton larger supercomputing
    ability. Is that separate than what the National Science
    Foundation is doing on it? Doesn't it operate in conjunction
    with other universities' supercomputing operations?
        Mr. Wasserman. The exoscale effort, and I am not directly
    involved in it, but one of my colleagues at Lilly is, actually,
    as part of a DOE advisory panel. It is a partnership with lots
    going into it.
        Let me pause for a minute. You said it is hard to believe
    that you can believe the simulation. In the example in GE I
    gave you, which admittedly is not a national security weapons
    type of simulation. But in this simulation, they could look at
    things that they could not measure in the real world. And so
    they could make a lot of progress in the simulation because you
    could do that. To build the actual test mock-up and try to do
    it physically would have not only been cost-prohibitive, but
    would have required a whole doubling of their infrastructure.
    So the exoscale is partnership. And as you can tell, if you
    look at the statistics, the U.S. leapfrogs with other
    countries. Currently China is ahead. We will catch up. I am
    sure they will change that in the future.
        But the ability to use this to look at things. When I
    started my scientific career, the type of simulations we look
    at would have been fantasy. And today, the exquisite nature of
    not only the computer hardware, but the software developments
    the people have found to use that hardware as efficiently as
    possible are exquisite.
        Mr. Shimkus. I appreciate. I yield back my time.
        The University of Illinois has Blue Waters, which is part
    of the NSF grant, and it is an awesome facility.
        And I yield back.
        Mr. Upton. Mr. Welch.
        Mr. Welch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank the panel.
        I am going to direct my questions to Mr. Reicher, because
    he has got Vermont roots, and I want to acknowledge the good
    work everyone has done. But none of you made the wise decision
    to spend as much time in Vermont as he did. But thank you.
        You heard, I think, the first panel, and there was some
    discussion in that panel about the standard setting process.
    And I am going to ask you three questions, so I want you to be
    brief on each one. But can you just address that process and
    what you think makes sense to do and what the dangers are if we
    fall behind in what has been, I think, a bipartisan commitment
    to the standards?
        Mr. Reicher. So very quickly, Mr. Welch, there are two
    things going on. One, there are concerns that DOE is not going
    to move ahead. They kind of put a hold on issuing standards.
    The second thing they are doing is reevaluating the standard
    setting process. We did that back in the 1990s, made a lot of
    improvements. Improvements have been made since. I am hopeful
    that they won't go ahead and do more than they need to do at
    this point, because it is a pretty good process.
        Mr. Welch. All right. Next thing is there is a bipartisan
    effort to have master limited partnership status apply to clean
    energy projects. We have got Republican and Democratic sponsors
    to that, and I am one of the lead sponsors.
        Can you just offer your thoughts on the benefits that that
    would provide to the clean energy sector?
        Mr. Reicher. So master limited partnerships have been a
    very important tool for financing oil and gas infrastructure to
    the tune of about $500 billion. When the law was passed,
    though, by Congress in the 1980s, renewables and lots of other
    things were not included. You, Mr. Poe, others, Mr. Portman,
    and Mr. Moran in the Senate have introduced legislation that
    would open up these MLPs to all these other things. CCS,
    storage renewables efficiency, and it would be a big step
    because it would cut the cost of financing for these major
    energy projects. And as we ramp down the tax credits for solar
    and wind, we should ramp in this master limited partnerships
    approach.
        Mr. Welch. OK. I hope that is something we can work on, Mr.
    Chairman. We have got a Ted Poe from Texas and Peter Welch from
    Vermont, so there is some bipartisan and strange bedfellow
    situations there, so let's see if we can do something.
        On Federal energy management, the Federal Government's
    energy bill, as you know, is $23 billion a year. And a number
    of us on this committee, Republicans and Democrats, have been
    really trying to extend energy saving performance contracts. We
    have had a knotty problem on the scoring where it is a
    Byzantine process to try to get there to be resolution between
    OMB and this CBO.
        Can you comment on what the opportunities are if we go very
    aggressively in pursuit of energy savings performance
    contracts, which, as my colleagues know, don't cost taxpayers
    any money. The companies that bid on doing retrofitting of our
    Federal buildings put the money up to do that, and then they
    get repaid from the energy savings that benefit them with the
    payback, and benefit the taxpayers.
        Mr. Reicher. Yes. Very quickly. It is a great alternative
    to appropriating funds to upgrade Federal buildings. There are
    350,000 buildings. We could do a lot to cut this $23 billion
    energy bill. But there are these difficulties in scoring, the
    disagreements between OMB, CBO, and the Hill. We put out a
    report, the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, in 2016, on
    Federal energy management. We looked at a whole number of
    issues, a big number of opportunities. And one of them that we
    explored were ESPCs. And we have suggested some ways that you
    might fix that process, so I would encourage you to take a look
    at that report.
        Mr. Welch. All right. Thank you.
        I yield back. Thank you all.
        Mr. Upton. Mr. Barton.
        Mr. Barton. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I appreciate our scientists being here. We have still with
    us the ranking Democrat on Mr. Upton's subcommittee, the
    ranking Democrat on Mr. Shimkus' subcommittee--Mr. Shimkus was
    here until I walked in. He left--myself as vice chairman. And
    we have all been tasked with the chairman, Mr. Walden, to
    perhaps do a DOE reauthorization bill, which we have had a
    number of questions about. Part of that is going to be to look
    at the role of the national laboratories.
        I think it is fair to say that if we were starting from
    scratch we wouldn't have 17 national laboratories, but we do.
    Some of those are pretty obvious. Los Alamos, Sandia, some of
    our weapons laboratories. I think some of them show the need
    for more robust research. The renewable energy laboratory would
    fall into that category. I know Mr. Tonko is a big supporter of
    that. But some of them are not so obvious.
        I don't know who to ask this question of, maybe Mr.
    Reicher. Do we need 17 national laboratories today?
        Mr. Reicher. Mr. Barton, I think I am outside of my area of
    expertise right now.
        Mr. Barton. Well, I just poked at random. If you don't feel
    qualified----
        Mr. Reicher. I will tell you this, that there is just an
    amazing breadth of strength in those labs. Obviously, you know
    better than I, the politics of shutting down labs is----
        Mr. Barton. Not good.
        Mr. Reicher [continuing]. Not good.
        Mr. Barton. It depends on your point of view. From the
    point of view of keeping it open, it is very good.
        Mr. Reicher. Right. But I guess what I would say is I would
    take a look at the missions of each and really assess what they
    are doing, because I think they have all developed areas of
    expertise. Argonne, for example, is really one of the world
    leaders in advanced battery technologies, looking at things
    other than lithium. And you go across the board, there is just
    so much there. So missions should come first as you do on your
    analysis.
        Mr. Barton. Well, let me give an example that I know a
    little bit about. Once upon a time, there was a national
    laboratory in process called the Superconducting Super
    Collider. It was going to be in my congressional district. In
    fact, the main campus would have been about 10 miles from where
    I live right now. And obviously, if we would have built it, I
    would have been a big supporter of it. But we didn't build it.
    We decided to go a different path. And we are putting quite a
    bit of money over in Europe at CERN, but we still have the
    Stanford Linear Accelerator. We still have Fermilab. We still
    have Brookhaven. Do we need all of those national laboratories
    studying high energy physics given the fact that we decided to
    put most of our eggs in the European basket at CERN?
        Mr. Wasserman. Mr. Barton, if I may. The people at the
    national labs are incredibly creative. And as the example of
    the Stanford Linear Accelerator. Its original for which it was
    built around 1962 when it started, is no longer part of the
    DOE. It has been repurposed. And instead of a particle
    accelerator to smash things into each other to look at the
    fundamental forces of nature, it is now the basis of the Linac
    Coherent Light Source, which is an x-ray source rather than an
    atom smasher.
        And so this creativity, even though the infrastructure is
    still there, things that have outlived their life have now
    found a new use. And, in fact, the linear accelerator there,
    the LCOS, is an example of interlaboratory cooperation. For
    example, there is a device called an undulator--we won't go
    into that today--which is the basis of it. Much of the
    development work for those undulators were done at Argonne,
    where they had a lot of expertise at the advanced photon source
    on this type of device.
        So this creativity means that we can repurpose things. It
    also means that we can take multiple approaches to a difficult
    problem. As scientists, we wish that innovation were a linear
    path, but it is not. And often finding the best solution
    requires looking at several different ways to do it and finding
    the best one at the end.
        Mr. Barton. Well, my time has expired. I understand the
    quality of our scientists and our researchers. I don't deny
    that. I also understand the political reality that DOE has
    facilities in 30 different states. So that is 60 percent of the
    states. So any time you try to change something, it is going to
    be, especially in the Senate, a political difficulty.
        But I do think if we are going to reauthorize the
    Department it is only fair to the taxpayers that we do take a
    quick look, a serious look at the existing laboratories. Again,
    I do not deny that they can be repurposed. I don't deny that
    they do good work. I know for a fact from my experience with
    the Super Collider, we got a lot of brainpower that came to
    Texas. And most of it stayed. Not all of it but most of it. And
    it has benefited our state. So I am good for that. But I just
    think we owe it, if we are really going to do this
    reauthorization, that we ought to take a look at the existing
    structure.
        Mr. Powell. And my time's expired, so I am at the mercy of
    the chairman here.
        Mr. Powell. I will say very, very quickly.
        I think the key thing to look at is not whether we need 17
    labs, but whether we need 17 labs, all of whom say they can do
    almost anything, right? I think because the mission of the labs
    has shifted back and forth, they have gotten themselves--Dr.
    Zacharia might kill me for saying this--have gotten themselves
    into a posture where they are ready to go for any
    administration with any set of priorities. And I would just
    build on Mr. Reicher's point that we should be much clearer
    about what each lab is excellent at and then align those
    centers of excellence with top-down direction and goals.
        Mr. Barton. I guess my final question. Did we find the top-
    quark yet? That was the whole purpose of the Super Collider, to
    find the top-quark.
        Did we find it?
        Mr. Levy. Yes.
        Mr. Barton. We did find it.
        Well, good.
        Mr. Zacharia. Mr. Chairman, if you will give me a little
    bit of time.
        The laboratories are really where the integration of the
    missions occur. And so if you look at Oak Ridge National
    Laboratory, it is one of the largest science and energy
    laboratory, about $1.5 billion. It is funded through 1,000
    proposals that RPIs have to compete. So in some sense,
    laboratories bring core capabilities, a combination of people,
    unique facilities, and programs. And we competed for the best
    ideas that funded. So in some sense, the labs thrive in a
    meritocracy. And so what I would say is that if one focuses on
    the mission of the Department, then the laboratories will self-
    select based on their capabilities and abilities to support the
    missions of the Department.
        Mr. Barton. I appreciate the chairman's discretion. Thank
    you. And I appreciate you all being here.
        Mr. Upton. Yield now to a very patient Mr. Costello.
        Mr. Costello. Thank you.
        Mr. Powell, the eastern power grid has been experiencing
    some extreme stress due to what is still now a very cold
    weather, although today's not so bad. Part of the reason the
    grid has maintained its reliability has been--and I am getting
    to the issue of fuel diversity--has been the diversity of fuel
    sources on the grid. Share with me your perspective on what
    DOE's role should be to ensure grid reliability. And obviously
    this comes on the heels of a report and a FERC 5-0 decision
    yesterday, I think there is a lot of innings left in this game,
    and I am just curious on your perspective?
        Mr. Powell. So obviously, this has become a pretty
    contentious topic about whether there is a diversity or a
    resiliency problem on the grid as it currently stands.
        I think the reality, as it stands today, is that we are
    headed toward a grid dominated by natural gas power generation.
    And so the question that we have to ask ourselves is, is that a
    problem? Most of the modeling says it is not a problem. In this
    cold snap, for example, this winter, the natural gas system has
    worked well, and there hasn't been a resiliency problem with
    the grid. But we can imagine events where an attack on a
    pipeline or especially a major hub could make that a
    significant issue over reliance on one type of fuel. And we can
    imagine events where even if there is not a supply disruption,
    you could have significant price spikes to that fuel source,
    and that might result in sort of economic pain.
        And so I think now the discussion is, is there some other
    characteristic, diversity or resilience or something like that
    that we need to find and define and quantify, and should that
    be worked into the authority of FERC to ensure that, in
    addition to reliability and affordability, this resiliency
    characteristic is there as well.
        We do think that there are ways that we can define and
    value that resiliency characteristic that would not be overly
    disruptive to the existing order of the wholesale markets. The
    wholesale markets have delivered a lot of benefits to the
    country in terms of reliability and affordability. And so we
    think that it can be defined in a way. An added benefit of
    defining it would be nuclear generators are a particularly
    resilient power source, and so, we think that adding that into
    the power mix would go a long way to helping support our
    existing nuclear fleet.
        Mr. Costello. We have heard some discussion here about
    China and its role in the energy technology research
    development and deployment space. What do you believe we need
    to do as a country? And what is DOE's proper role in order to
    ensure that we don't play second fiddle to China?
        Mr. Powell. Thanks for that. I was pleased to participate
    in that event together discussing this more deeply a few weeks
    back.
        So I think the first and most important thing is that we
    need to signal that we are going to make a deep commitment to
    some of these technology areas where China is also making a
    very deep commitment.
        Mr. Costello. Is that RPE? Is that somewhere else? Is that
    purely within DOE? Where else does that come about?
        Mr. Powell. So much of it is in DOE. We discussed a bit
    today about making sure that our trade standards are correctly
    putting the right burden on industry so that we are actually
    able to compete in places like Saudi Arabia to build nuclear
    reactors there. I think we need to make a clear commitment at
    DOE through the continuation of RPE and through major mission-
    oriented goals and commitments to these technologies that we
    are actually going to put the resources into these technologies
    so that our innovators don't then need to go over to China to
    get the commercialization benefits.
        If you look at just one company, for example, UET, it is a
    vanadium flow battery technology that was developed at the
    Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, spun out of it by some
    of our best researchers. China identified the technology and
    its commercial applications, and so now they are sort of
    funding the commercialization and spin-up. And they are buying,
    I believe, the largest flow battery in the world which will be
    deployed in China and not in the United States.
        And so finding ways where we can make similar commitments
    and actually show our innovators that we are serious about
    that, we will make investors and we will make innovators sort
    of not flee to China but develop a scale for innovation here at
    home.
        Mr. Costello. Final question for everyone. We have a
    potential for an infrastructure bill. Let's just say $50
    billion is allocated to energy infrastructure.
        Where is that best deployed? Anyone?
        Mr. Zacharia. Well, I will take the $50 billion since no
    one else will.
        So there are a number of areas where there are both science
    infrastructure, but also infrastructure such as small modular
    reactor that have been discussed.
        In some instances, this discussion becomes academic in
    terms of whether you are going to have a nuclear Renaissance or
    not, because if the supply chain goes away, it becomes very,
    very difficult to reboot the nuclear energy industry. And we
    are only a few years away, in my view, that, if there is not a
    procurement of some sort, then that industry will go away. And
    this is somewhat analogous to the supercomputing industry.
        About 10 years ago, the intelligence community was really
    concerned that the supply chain was going to go away. And the
    Nation stepped in and basically did the investments in
    leadership computing and the procurements that ensued that kept
    the supply chain.
        Likewise, with SMR, one of the opportunities that you have
    is that, for example, in places like Oak Ridge and Idaho where
    we have a baseload and need between Oak Ridge National
    Laboratory and Y-12 of about 150 megawatts. That is two units
    of small modular reactor. One way to incentivize the specific
    client adoption would be for the government to say is at least
    explore whether that is a good use of investment in
    infrastructure to actually buy down the risk of first applying
    deployment in a small modular reactor. But also there are
    signs, shovel-ready signs infrastructure, that is again looking
    for resources. And so those are some of the areas that I would
    consider for investment.
        Mr. Reicher. Mr. Costello, if I could quickly give you an
    answer.
        There is already $41 billion available today in the DOE
    loan program. It is allocated $12.5 billion for advanced
    nuclear, $8.5 billion for advanced fossil, $4.5 billion for
    renewables, and then a big chunk in the transportation side. We
    are about to see a rescission by appropriators in both the
    Senate and the House that would prevent major companies from
    getting access to that $41 billion.
        So that is available today. It is going to cost a couple
    hundred million that already was appropriated by the Congress a
    number of years ago. And if we could avoid that rescission,
    that $41 billion across the board would be available. It goes
    directly to what you just heard, because sitting over at the
    DOE right now in the loan program office are applications, both
    part 1 and part 2, for the Vogtle reactor, the NuScale reactor,
    the Terrestrial reactor, and a couple of more.
        So you don't need to find $50 billion. You need to make
    sure that $200 or $300 million is not rescinded by
    appropriators that would basically shut down the loan program
    office at DOE. And I can't say this strongly enough to all of
    you. Put that $200 million, $300 million back into effect, and
    you are going to have tens of billions available in the form of
    loan guarantees for nuclear, for fossil, and for renewables.
        Mr. Costello. Very helpful. I waived on, and I am 3 minutes
    over. So I don't know if I am going to ever get back on this
    subcommittee again.
        Thank you, Mr. Upton.
        Mr. Upton. I want to thank all of you for being here.
    Seeing no other members wishing to ask questions, we are almost
    ready to adjourn.
        I am going to ask you unanimous consent to submit two
    letters into the record, a letter on EERE and a letter on the
    loan program itself.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mr. Upton. And pursuant to committee rules, I will remind
    all members that they have got 10 business days to submit
    additional questions for the record. And I would ask that
    witnesses submit the response, if you can, within 10 business
    days. Certainly, for the first panel, Mr. Rush had a number of
    questions we would like the answers back.
        Mr. Rush. No. Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask you a
    question. Based on Mr. Reicher's passionate request concerning
    the $41 million loan program, do you have any reaction to----
        Mr. Upton. Well, I wish we were appropriators. That is not
    a role that we have. Sometimes we can take over. This is the
    most powerful committee and the oldest, and we don't have that
    authority. I have supported the loan program, I would say that.
    I have supported the appropriations.
        Mr. Rush. Mr. Chairman, I think maybe it might be in order
    for a bipartisan effort on both sides of this committee to make
    our concerns heard with the Appropriations Committee. And I
    would be willing to join with you and other members of the
    committee to have a meeting or send some letters, but I think
    our voices should be heard.
        Mr. Upton. Well, and I know that we are all anxious to see
    the administration's budget. We are going to have the
    opportunity to ask Secretary Perry questions about that as it
    gets submitted and take action on the floor. So I appreciate
    the gentleman's interest.
        Mr. Welch.
        Mr. Rush. Thank you.
        Mr. Upton. Mr. Welch.
        Mr. Welch. Well, I think we need to do something as a
    committee. That is a very compelling loss. If we forego these
    loan guarantees, it is really going to hurt the collective
    efforts of both sides of this aisle.
        And you have done this before, but this committee really
    needs to speak out, I think.
        So thank you.
        Mr. Upton. And if there are no further questions, we stand
    adjourned.
        Thank you all for being here.
        [Whereupon, at 2:40 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]