[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                      OVERSIGHT OF DOE DURING THE COVID-19 
                                    PANDEMIC

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                         SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

                                 OF THE

                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                             JULY 14, 2020

                               __________

                           Serial No. 116-120
                           
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                           


      Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

                   govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
                        energycommerce.house.gov
                        
                                __________

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
55-507 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2024                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                             

                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                     FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
                                 Chairman
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              GREG WALDEN, Oregon
ANNA G. ESHOO, California              Ranking Member
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York             FRED UPTON, Michigan
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania             MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois             STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
DORIS O. MATSUI, California          CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
KATHY CASTOR, Florida                BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland           PETE OLSON, Texas
JERRY McNERNEY, California           DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont                 ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico            H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PAUL TONKO, New York                 GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York, Vice     BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
    Chair                            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                TIM WALBERG, Michigan
SCOTT H. PETERS, California          EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan             JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas                GREG GIANFORTE, Montana
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
DARREN SOTO, Florida
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona
                                 ------                                

                           Professional Staff

                   JEFFREY C. CARROLL, Staff Director
                TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Deputy Staff Director
                MIKE BLOOMQUIST, Minority Staff Director
                         Subcommittee on Energy

                        BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
                                 Chairman
SCOTT H. PETERS, California          FRED UPTON, Michigan
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania               Ranking Member
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland           ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
JERRY McNERNEY, California, Vice     CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
    Chair                            PETE OLSON, Texas
PAUL TONKO, New York                 DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa                 ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina    H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont                 BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon                LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III,               BILL FLORES, Texas
    Massachusetts                    RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas                TIM WALBERG, Michigan
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire         GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex 
    officio)
                             C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State 
  of Illinois, opening statement.................................     2
    Prepared statement...........................................     3
Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Michigan, opening statement....................................     4
    Prepared statement...........................................     5
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 
  State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................     6
    Prepared statement...........................................     8
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Oregon, opening statement......................................     9
    Prepared statement...........................................    10

                               Witnesses

Dan Brouillette, U.S. Department Of Energy.......................    12
    Prepared statement...........................................    14
    Answers to submitted questions \1\

                           Submitted Material

Memorandum of February 17, 2015, from John Deutch, Chair, 
  Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, submitted by Mr. Rush......    67
Letter of July 2, 2018, to Mr. McCain, et al., from Greg Walden, 
  Chairman, and Mr. Frank Pallone, Jr. Ranking Member, Committee 
  on Energy and Commerce, submitted by Mr. Rush..................    73
Letter of July 13, 2018, to Mr. McCain, et al., from Ernest J. 
  Moniz, et al., Former Secretaries of Energy, submitted by Mr. 
  Rush...........................................................    76
Letter of July 6, 2020, to Mr. Jim Inhofe, et al., from Ernest J. 
  Moniz and Rick Perry, Secretaries of Energy, submitted by Mr. 
  Rush...........................................................    79
Letter of July 13, 2018, to Mr. McCain, et al., from Normal 
  Augustine, (Ret.) Chairman and CEO, Lockheed Martin Corp., and 
  (Ret.) Adm. Richard W. Mies, Former Commander, U.S. Strategic 
  Command, Congressional Advisory Panel, Members, submitted by 
  Mr. Rush.......................................................    83
Letter of November 15, 2012, to Mr. Levin, at al., from Fred 
  Upton, Chairman and Henry A Waxman, Rankingf Member, submitted 
  by Mr. Rush....................................................    85
Letter of June 29, 2020, to James M. Inhofe, from Dan 
  Brouillette, Department of Energy, submitted by Mr. Rush.......    88
Statement of May 28, 2020, U.S. Secretary of Energy, by Dan 
  Brouillette, submitted by Mr. Rush.............................    90

----------
\1\ Mr. Brouillette did not answer submitted questions for the 
  record by the time of publication.

 
             OVERSIGHT OF DOE DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC

                              ----------                              


                         TUESDAY, JULY 14, 2020

                  House of Representatives,
                            Subcommittee on Energy,
                          Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 12:00 p.m., in 
the John D. Dingell Room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, 
Hon. Bobby L. Rush chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Rush, Peters, Doyle, 
Sarbanes, McNerney, Tonko, Loebsack, Welch, Schrader, Kennedy, 
Veasey, Kuster, Kelly, Barragan, McEachin, O'Halleran, Blunt 
Rochester, Pallone (ex officio), Upton (subcommittee ranking 
member), Latta, Rodgers, Olson, McKinley, Griffith, Johnson, 
Bucshon, Flores, Hudson, Walberg, and Walden (ex officio).
    Also present: Representatives Shimkus and Burgess.
    Staff present: Billy Benjamin, Systems Administrator; 
Jeffrey C. Carroll, Staff Director; Adam Fischer, Policy 
Analyst; Catherine Giljohann, FERC Detailee; Waverly Gordon, 
Deputy Chief Counsel; Tiffany Guarascio, Deputy Staff Director; 
Rick Kessler, Senior Advisor and Staff Directory, Energy and 
Environment; Brendan Larkin, Policy Coordinator; Jourdan Lewis, 
Policy Analyst; Elysa Montfort, Press Secretary; Joe Orlando, 
Staff Assistant; Kaitlyn Peel, Digital Director; Mike 
Bloomquist, Minority Staff Director; Theresa Gambo, Minority 
Human Resources/Office Assistant; Peter Kielty, Minority 
General Counsel; Ryan Long, Minority Deputy Staff Director; 
Mary Martin, Minority Chief Counsel, Energy and Environment and 
Climate Change; Brandon Mooney, Minority Deputy Chief Counsel, 
Energy; Brannon Rains, Minority Policy Analyst; and Peter 
Spencer, Minority Senior Professional Staff Member, Environment 
and Climate Change.
    Mr. Rush. The subcommittee will now come to order. Today 
the subcommittee is holding a hearing entitled, ``Oversight of 
DOE During the COVID-19 Pandemic.'' Due to the COVID-19 public 
health emergency, members will be participating in today's 
hearing, finally, either in person or remotely via 
videoconferencing. And just as a reminder, we have had some 
technical difficulties in making sure that our remote video was 
operating up to standard.
    As part of this hearing, the microphones of members 
participating remotely will be set on mute for the purpose of 
eliminating inadvertent background noise. Members participating 
remotely will need to unmute their microphones each time you 
wish to speak. For members and witnesses participating in 
person, I encourage you to wear your masks whenever you are not 
speaking.
    Dr. Monahan, the House physician, stressed in the updated 
attending physician COVID-19 guidelines that the use of face 
coverings is meant to protect other people in case the wearer 
is unknowingly infected but does not have symptoms. By wearing 
our masks when we are not speaking, each of us is playing a 
vital role in protecting all members and all staff who are in 
attendance, as well as the leaders of the Administration's 
COVID-19 response of who will be testifying before the 
committee today, the Secretary of Energy, Secretary 
Brouillette.
    Finally, documents for the record can be sent to Adam 
Fischer at the email address that we provided to staff. All 
documents will be entered into the record at the conclusion of 
the hearing. The Chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes for 
the purposes of an opening statement.

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

    Good afternoon. The recent decline in our nation's economic 
activity has resulted in a multitude of hardships within our 
communities and economic sectors. Today the Subcommittee on 
Energy convenes for a hearing to further examine the impacts of 
novel coronavirus on a vital segment of our economy.
    From the outset, the pandemic has presented the energy 
sector with numerous challenges, ranging from staggering 
unemployment rates, supply chain disruptions, declining demand, 
and depleted investment. At present, 1.3 million members of the 
energy sector workforce remain unemployed. A significant 
percentage of these jobs were once occupied by people of color 
and hardworking members of the clean energy industry which 
previously enjoyed steady growth.
    Taking this into account, the subcommittee held a remote 
hearing in June to discuss the sector's recent setbacks. 
Throughout this hearing, we received expert testimony from 
witnesses who spoke to the pandemic's effect on clean energy 
jobs as well as the industry's function as an economic recovery 
engine.
    In response to this hearing, I was proud to join my 
colleagues in including provisions to support workforce 
development, diversity, and clean energy infrastructure 
investment within the recent infrastructure bill. This 
committee, through its broad and envious jurisdiction, has 
oversight of federal agency resources that are key to the 
confrontation of the public health crisis and the economic 
challenges that are linked to the coronavirus.
    The Department of Energy and its vast enterprise is chief 
among these resources. That is why I am so pleased to welcome 
the Secretary of Energy, Mr. Dan--Secretary Dan Brouillette, 
who will testify before the subcommittee today. Secretary 
Brouillette is not a stranger to this subcommittee in that he 
served previously as a staff director to Chairman Tauzin a few 
years back.
    To date, the Department of Energy has leveraged its 
national laboratory system, which includes Chicago's own 
Argonne National Lab, to harness its supercomputing 
capabilities to fight COVID-19. Additionally, it has worked to 
support the public and private sectors in keeping our very own 
lights on. However, the full deployment of DOE's resources is 
of great and vital importance to our nation's economic 
recovery.
    Existing program offices like the Office of Economic Impact 
and Diversity and the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
Energy have the ability to drive employment opportunities, 
enhance sector diversity and secure energy savings, especially 
at a time when they are so critically needed most. Therefore, I 
look forward to today's hearing as a first step in ensuring a 
productive partnership to preserve reliability and opportunity 
within the energy sector.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Rush follows:]

                Prepared Statement of Hon. Bobby L. Rush

    Good afternoon.The recent decline in our nation's economic 
activity has resulted in a multitude of hardships within our 
communities and economic sectors. Today, the Subcommittee on 
Energy convenes for a hearing to further examine the impacts of 
the novel coronavirus on a vital segment of the economy.
    From the outset, the pandemic has presented the energy 
sector with numerous challenges ranging from staggering 
unemployment rates, supply chain disruptions, declining demand, 
and depleted investment.
    At present, 1.3 million members of the energy sector 
workforce remain unemployed. A significant percentage of these 
job were once occupied by people of color and hardworking 
members of the clean energy industry, which previously enjoyed 
steady growth.
    Taking this into account, the Subcommittee held a remote 
hearing in June to discuss the sector's recent setbacks. 
Through this hearing we received expert testimony from 
witnesses who spoke to the pandemic's effect on clean energy 
jobs as well as the industry's function as an economic recovery 
tool.
    In response to this hearing, I was proud to join my 
colleagues in including provisions to support workforce 
development, diversity, and clean energy infrastructure 
investment within the recent infrastructure bill.
    This Committee, through its broad jurisdiction, has 
oversight of federal agency resources that are key to the 
confrontation of the public health crisis and economic 
challenges linked to the coronavirus.
    The Department of Energy, and its vast enterprise, is chief 
among these resources. This is why I am pleased to welcome the 
Secretary of Energy, Dan Brouillette, who will testify before 
the Subcommittee today.
    To date, the Department of Energy has leveraged its 
national laboratory system--which includes Chicago's close 
neighbor, Argonne National Lab--to harness its super computing 
capabilities to fight COVID-19.
    Additionally, it has worked to support the public and 
private sectors in keeping the lights on.
    However, the full deployment of DOE's resources is of great 
importance to our nation's economic recovery.
    Existing program offices, like the Office of Economic 
Impact and Diversity and the Office of Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy, have the ability to drive employment 
opportunities, enhance sector diversity, and secure energy 
savings--especially at a time when they are neededmost.
    Therefore, I look forward to today's discussion, as a first 
step in ensuring a productive partnership to preserve 
reliability and opportunity within the energy sector. With 
that, I yield to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from 
Michigan, Ranking Member Upton.

    With that, I yield to my friend and colleague, the 
gentleman from Michigan, the ranking member Fred Upton, for 5 
minutes for an opening statement.

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

    Mr. Upton. Well thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome back 
to you. And welcome back, Mr. Secretary. You know it is good to 
have you before the committee today, and certainly good to see 
you are thriving after your promotion to Cabinet Secretary. We 
have all said from the beginning we are fortunate to have 
somebody like you at the helm at the Department of Energy. And 
when you testified before us as the Deputy Secretary that was 
2-1/2 years ago back in 2018.
    At that hearing, which I chaired, the committee was looking 
at DOE modernization, what steps Congress should take to ensure 
that the Department could address the national, the economic, 
and energy security challenges that are going to be confronting 
the nation over the coming decades. Given the committee's 
jurisdiction, we heard from the three main mission components 
of the Department--the under secretaries of Energy, of Nuclear 
Security, and of Science. And you led off the panel in your 
role as DOE's number two and the COO of the Department.
    So that hearing informed several ongoing legislative 
initiatives. For example, we have worked to strengthen the 
Department's ability to address emerging hazards and cyber 
threats to critical infrastructure, to modernize the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve, to improve energy diplomacy, to improve and 
advance nuclear and other energy policy, and to improve 
programs like minority workforce development important to all 
of us.
    So fast forward to today, and many of these policy issues 
remain critical. The COVID-19 pandemic and the severe economic 
and energy sector impacts have highlighted why a well-
functioning DOE is so important.
    Mr. Rush. Mr. Upton. Mr. Upton, will you please suspend? 
You are breaking up and we want to try to correct that problem. 
We are sitting on the edge of our seats trying to hear what you 
have to say.
    Mr. Upton. I will wait for the green light.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman will proceed.
    Mr. Upton. OK. In your own testimony, Mr. Secretary, you 
highlighted how DOE brought the capabilities of its scientific 
and technological advances resources to the COVID fight. And 
data on compound screening with the super computer at Oak 
Ridge, the use of the Argonne Lab's Advanced Photon Source user 
facility to characterize the virus, and the work of leading 
tech companies illustrate the benefits of collaboration across 
the DOE complex with the private sector.
    And we heard testimony just to this point two years ago, 
and now we see how it can work in a crisis. Other missions of 
the Department have been put to the test. The crisis in the 
energy sector, with economic shutdown and the Russia-Saudi 
price war, challenged your ability and our strategic energy 
responsibilities in American energy leaderships in new ways. I 
doubt anyone imagined some 40 years ago that our Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve might be useful to just take on supply rather 
than disperse it in a crisis.
    You know, we might have to consider new strategic 
approaches to protect our energy security. Clearly, the 
pandemic exposed the security and strategic risks from ceding 
leadership on oil and gas and reminded us of the important role 
American energy resources and technology serves our national 
and strategic interests.
    Several Republican members on this panel are working on 
legislative reforms to help modernize energy infrastructure and 
increase American energy leadership and that involves policies 
to strengthen our energy security, to promote and deploy 
cleaner energy, and modernizing regulatory requirements to 
ensure that DOE and the private sector innovation advances can 
be put into action.
    The recent crisis revealed to more Americans the strategic 
threats of China, Russia, and other adversaries to our long-
term economic and energy security. And this underscores the 
work that we must do to make sure that DOE has all the tools 
and the authorities necessary to safeguard and respond to 
threats to our critical electric infrastructure, and the 
delivery and supply of energy. The President's recent bulk 
power system executive order underscores those risks, and DOE, 
I know, is at the center of responding to them.
    The increasingly complex interconnections of our modern 
energy systems, from pipelines to power plants, present growing 
risks to that grid. Getting ahead of this requires secretarial 
leadership and a coordinated attention across the Energy 
Department's programs, and operations and we ought to discuss 
what more is needed to advance your mission on that front 
today.
    Finally, 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. So, there are many topics here, Mr. Secretary. Your 
experience from the past, your experience now will help to 
identify, to address the challenges in how we all can work 
together on behalf of the country. Thank you and I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Fred Upton

    Thank you, Chairman Rush and welcome back Secretary 
Brouillette.
    It is good to have you before the Subcommittee today and 
good to see you are thriving after your promotion to Cabinet 
Secretary. The nation is fortunate to have somebody like you at 
the helm of the Department of Energy.
    When you last testified before us, you were the Deputy 
Secretary. That was more than two year and a half years ago, in 
January 2018.
    At that hearing, which I chaired, the Committee was looking 
at DOE modernization. We examined what steps Congress could 
take to be sure the Department could address the national, the 
economic, and the energy security challenges that will be 
confronting the nation over the coming decades.
    Given the Committee's jurisdiction, we heard from the three 
main mission components of the Department--the undersecretaries 
of Energy, of Nuclear Security, and of Science. You led off the 
panel in your role as DOE's number two and the Chief Operating 
Officer of the Department.
    That hearing informed several ongoing legislative 
initiatives. For example, we have worked to strengthen the 
Department's ability to address emerging hazards and cyber 
threats to critical infrastructure, to modernize the strategic 
petroleum reserve, to improve energy diplomacy, to advance 
nuclear and other energy policy, and to improve programs like 
minority workforce development.Fast forward to today, and many 
of these policy issues remain critical.
    The COVID-19 pandemic and the severe economic and energy 
sector impacts have highlighted why a well-functioning DOE is 
so important for the nation.
    In your own testimony, Mr. Secretary, you highlight how DOE 
brought the capabilities of its scientific and technological 
resources to the Covid fight.
    Data on compound screening with the super computer at Oak 
Ridge, the use of Argonne Lab's advanced-photon-source user 
facility to characterize the virus, and the work with leading 
tech companies, illustrate the benefits of collaboration across 
the DOE complex and with private sector.
    We heard testimony just to this point two years ago-and now 
see how it can work in a crisis.
    Other missions of the Department have been put to the test.
    The crisis in the energy sector, with economic shut down 
and the Russia-Saudi price war challenged DOE's strategic 
energy responsibilities and American energy leadership in new 
ways. I doubt anyone imagined forty years ago that our 
strategic petroleum reserve might be useful to just to take on 
supply, rather than disperse it in a crisis.
    We may have to consider new strategic approaches to protect 
our energy security. Clearly, the pandemic exposed the security 
and strategic risks from ceding leadership on oil and gas and 
reminded us of the important role American energy resources and 
technology serves our national and strategic interests.
    Several Republican members on this panel are working on 
legislative reforms to help modernize energy infrastructure and 
increase American energy leadership. This involves policies to 
strengthen our energy security, to promote and deploy cleaner 
energy, and modernizing regulatory requirements to ensure DOE 
and private innovation advances can be but into action.
    The recent crises revealed to more Americans the strategic 
threats of China, Russia and other adversaries to our long-term 
economic and energy security. And this underscores the work we 
must do to make sure DOE has all the tools and authorities 
necessary to safeguard and respond to threats to our critical 
electric infrastructure, and the delivery and supply of energy.
    The President's recent bulk power system Executive Order 
underscores these risks, and DOE is at the center of responding 
to them.
    The increasingly complex interconnections of our modern 
energy systems-from pipelines to power plants--present growing 
risks to our grid. Getting ahead of this requires Secretarial 
leadership and coordinated attention across the agency's many 
programs and operations. We should discuss what more is needed 
to advance your mission on this front today.
    Finally, 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.
    There are many topics to cove, Mr. Secretary. Your 
experience as COO and now Secretary will help us identify how 
to address the challenges, I am sure.
    Yield back.

    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Pallone, the Chairman of the full committee, for 
5 minutes for the purposes of an opening statement.

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

    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Rush. Secretary 
Brouillette, welcome back to the committee. We are obviously 
glad that we have you before the committee in your role as 
Secretary. I just want to begin by thanking the Department of 
Energy, particularly its national laboratories, for the 
research they are conducting on COVID-19. Our committee has 
held numerous hearings and conducted a lot of oversight over 
the Federal Government's woefully inadequate response to the 
pandemic, and a response that has done very little to help 
alleviate the skyrocketing cases we are now seeing all around 
the nation.
    And while I continue to be critical of the Administration's 
response, the research being conducted at the national labs is 
important to analyze the structure of the virus and the model 
as it is spread, and I look forward to hearing more specifics 
on that effort, Mr. Secretary.
    The pandemic has also seriously damaged our economy, 
leaving millions of Americans unemployed. The severe economic 
downturn is impacting the energy sector, with the energy 
efficiency and renewable energy industries particularly hard 
hit. The subcommittee held a hearing last month with former 
Energy Secretary Moniz who briefed us on the impact the 
pandemic has had on the energy sector, and we have to do more 
to aid the struggling renewable industry.
    Now earlier this month, the House passed H.R. 2, the Moving 
Forward Act, which would help us rebuild our economy and combat 
climate change. The bill invests more than $126 billion in 
clean energy, energy efficiency, and deep decarbonization. 
There is no better way to stimulate the economy and create 
millions of good paying jobs, in my opinion, than to modernize 
our badly aging infrastructure. And the President has expressed 
interest in an infrastructure package, but he is going to need 
to exert some pressure on the Senate Majority Leader McConnell, 
who so far has--refuses to act on an infrastructure bill.
    And speaking of the Senate, I also want to discuss our 
nation's nuclear security mission, because the Senate continues 
to try to undermine that mission and the National Defense 
Authorization Act. Once again, this year, the Senate Armed 
Services Chairman attempted to strip the DOE of much of its 
authority over the National Nuclear Security Administration, 
and this was a really wrong-headed effort that threatens the 
important longstanding principle of civilian, not military, 
control over the nuclear weapons stockpile. It also stands to 
upend other non-nuclear weapons aspects of the deal we budget.
    Fortunately, an amendment by Senators Cantwell and Manchin 
scaled back the initial Senate language, but I do firmly 
believe that the Defense Department should not have its hand in 
the Energy Department's budgeting process, and instead we 
should be strengthening the Secretary of Energy's role in 
managing the nuclear security mission, because NNSA seems to be 
going from quasi-independent to completely rogue with each 
passing year.
    Now turning back to or turning to the bulk power system, I 
do have some concerns, Mr. Secretary, about the way DOE is 
implementing an executive order limiting the use of bulk power 
system equipment produced by foreign adversaries. I support 
this effort as part of our ongoing efforts to protect our grid, 
but I think there is quite a bit of confusion surrounding DOE's 
implementation of the order. With the prohibitions on acquiring 
and installing this equipment already in place, there is a 
pressing need for guidance for energy projects, many of which 
depend on complex supply chains. And I look forward to an 
update on the Department's progress on finalizing this policy.
    I also wanted to touch, finally, on an issue that I pressed 
with your predecessor, Secretary Perry, and also Under 
Secretary Menezes. DOE has fallen far behind on its legal 
deadlines for updating appliance efficiency standards. And this 
is almost hard to believe, but DOE has missed 26 statutory 
deadlines for updating efficiency standards.
    And I appreciate the Department has recently and finally 
started the process of catching up on these deadlines by 
initiating rulemaking, but I also know that you have been 
putting quite a bit of resources into purely discretionary 
rulemaking, some of which seem designed to undercut rather than 
promote energy savings. For example, a discretionary 
interpretive rule in the works would make future improved 
efficiency standards for home furnaces almost impossible.
    So we need to see more action from DOE now to update and 
finalize critical efficiency standards that save consumers 
money and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I thank you again, 
Secretary Brouillette. Thank you for joining us today. I know 
it is always difficult, you know, with the COVID and with the 
doing things virtually. We go back and forth in terms of our 
ability to do everything virtually, but I do thank you for 
coming and being here today because this is a very important 
hearing.
    And I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follow:]

             Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.

    Secretary Brouillette, welcome back to the Committee--a 
place that you know well from your days as staff director here. 
We're glad to now finally have you before us in your role as 
Secretary.
    I'd like to begin by thanking the Department of Energy 
(DOE)--particularly its National Laboratories--for the research 
they are conducting on COVID-19. Our Committee has held 
numerous hearings and conducted important oversight over the 
federal government's woefully inadequate response to the 
pandemic, a response that has done very little to help 
alleviate the skyrocketing cases we are now seeing all around 
the nation. While I continue to be critical of the 
Administration's response, the research being conducted at the 
National Laboratories is important to analyze the structure of 
the virus and model its spread. I look forward to hearing more 
specifics on this effort.
    The pandemic has also seriously damaged our economy, 
leaving millions of Americans unemployed. The severe economic 
downturn is impacting the energy sector, with the energy 
efficiency and renewable energy industries particularly hard 
hit. This Subcommittee held a hearing last month with former 
Energy Secretary Moniz, who briefed us on the devastating 
impact the pandemic has had on the energy sector. We must do 
more to aid this struggling industry.
    Earlier this month, the House passed H.R. 2, the Moving 
Forward Act, which would help us rebuild our economy and combat 
climate change. The bill invests more than $126 billion in 
clean energy, energy efficiency and deep decarbonization. There 
is no better way to stimulate the economy and create millions 
of good paying jobs than to modernize our badly aging 
infrastructure. The President has expressed interest in an 
infrastructure package, but he's going to need to exert some 
pressure on Senate Majority Leader McConnell who refuses to 
act.
    And speaking of the Senate, I also want to discuss our 
nation's nuclear security mission because the Senate continues 
to try to undermine that mission in the National Defense 
Authorization Act. Once again this year, the Senate Armed 
Services Chairman attempted to strip the DOE of much of its 
authority over the National Nuclear Security Administration 
(NNSA). This wrongheaded effort threatens the important, 
longstanding principal of civilian--not military--control over 
the nuclear weapons stockpile. It also stands to upend other 
non-nuclear weapons aspects of the DOE budget. Fortunately, an 
amendment by Senators Cantwell and Manchin scaled back the 
initial Senate language, but I firmly believe that the Defense 
Department should not have its hand in the Energy Department's 
budgeting process. Instead, we should be strengthening the 
Secretary of Energy's role in managing the nuclear security 
mission, because NNSA seems to be going from quasi-independent 
to completely rogue with each passing year.
    Turning to the bulk-power system, I have some concerns 
about the way DOE is implementing an executive order limiting 
the use of bulk-power system equipment produced by ``foreign 
adversaries.'' I support this effort as part of our ongoing 
efforts to protect our grid, but I think there is quite a bit 
of confusion surrounding DOE's implementation of the order. 
With the prohibitions on acquiring and installing this 
equipment already in place, there is a pressing need for 
guidance for energy projects, many of which depend on complex 
supply chains. I look forward to an update on the Department's 
progress on finalizing this policy.
    I would also like to touch on an issue that I have pressed 
with your predecessor Secretary Perry, and well as Under 
Secretary Menezes [MEN-zees]. DOE has fallen ridiculously far 
behind on its legal deadlines for updating appliance efficiency 
standards. This is almost hard to believe, but DOE has now 
missed 26 statutory deadlines for updating efficiency 
standards. I appreciate that the Department hasrecently--
finally-- started the process of catching up on these deadlines 
by initiating rulemaking.
    But I also know that you have been putting quite a bit of 
resources into purely discretionary rulemakings, some of which 
seem designed to undercut--rather than promote--energy savings. 
For example, a discretionary interpretive rule in the works 
would make future improved efficiency standards for home 
furnaces almost impossible. We need to see more action from DOE 
now to update and finalize critical efficiency standards that 
save consumers money and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
    Secretary Brouillette, thank you for joining us today. I 
yield back.

    Mr. Rush. Mr. Pallone of the full committee yields back. 
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Walden, the ranking member of the 
full committee, for 5 minutes for the purposes of an opening 
statement.

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

    Mr. Walden. Well good morning or afternoon, depending on 
which coast you are on, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you for 
holding this hearing.
    I want to welcome Secretary Brouillette. It is great to 
have you back before the committee. Once again you have 
provided really strong leadership over the last seven months 
that you have been in office, and we appreciate that. And 
certainly, you have been fighting the COVID-19 virus and the 
pandemic as it has worked its way across every sector of our 
country, across the world, and certainly in the energy 
industry.
    The unprecedented drop in oil prices has devastated the 
American gas and oil industry and cost upwards of 100,000 jobs, 
and the Department of Energy has been right in the action 
helping our country respond to this terrible situation. And so 
going forward, the work is on top of the other important 
responsibilities that the Department has, certainly, and these 
range from executing on the nation's nuclear deterrent mission 
to protecting our critical energy infrastructure, supporting a 
robust R&D program, keeping the nation's lab facilities and 
capabilities up to date, and cleaning up defense sites such as 
that at Hanford in Washington, across the river from my 
district.
    Most people do not appreciate all of the responsibilities 
that you have at the Department of Energy. It is a national 
security agency and an energy security agency, having designed 
and produced every nuclear warhead in the U.S. arsenal, 
powering our nuclear navy, and serving critical roles in 
nonproliferation, international nuclear security, and other 
energy security missions.
    DOE is a world-class science, engineering, and technology 
agency. It is an environmental engineering and cleanup agency. 
All of this is interconnected across a complex of national 
labs, production sites, and facilities, involving a contractor 
workforce approaching 100,000 people. Managing this enterprise 
is never easy, it is a complicated job and we know that.
    But the upshot is the tremendous benefits for the nation, 
for security, for science and innovation, and for keeping 
America in the lead across the energy landscape. The key 
ingredient for success here is the innovative science and 
engineering capabilities fostered through a cohesive DOE 
enterprise and the multidisciplinary teamwork that emerges from 
that.
    This synergy among the weapons labs, the science labs, and 
the energy and environment labs are critical for success. Think 
about the supercomputing and big data capabilities of the 
agency. The computational science in advancing computing 
architecture created by DOE's science and weapons programs is 
essential for modeling nuclear weapons stockpile.
    But the cross-mission benefits of this are clear. Look at 
the use of Oak Ridge's Summit computer to screen compounds for 
COVID-19's vaccine development. National security and materials 
science programs at the Pacific Northwest National Lab, which I 
have toured, have translated into technologies for scanning at 
airports, for cybersecurity protections, and even advanced 
battery production.
    And this works both ways. The advances in nuclear fuels and 
technology at the Idaho National Lab attracts the expertise and 
informs the knowledge base for Navy nuclear. You can extend 
this to other important missions. DOE's work on advanced 
nuclear, coupled with our work to ensure efficient NRC 
licensing, provides the foundation for expanding the peaceful 
use of atomic energy.
     This is the cornerstone of the nation's nuclear policy, a 
hallmark of civilian control of the nuclear enterprise, and an 
important tool not only for national security but also a key 
solution to exporting cleaner energy around the world. Our duty 
on this committee and in this Congress is to make sure the 
Secretary has the tools and authority he or she needs to 
execute the Department's missions. Our goal is to maximize the 
benefits of the DOE enterprise for America.
    So, I look forward to exploring what more we can do to be 
of assistance today, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Secretary. And I want 
to share the concerns expressed by the Chairman of the full 
committee with regards to the NDAA and what it does, purports 
to do to the civilian side of the nuclear weapons program and 
to diminish the important role of the Secretary of Energy, and 
Chairman Pallone and I are working together shoulder to 
shoulder on fixing this problem in the legislation the House is 
going to take up.
    So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back the balance 
of my time and look forward to the discussion.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follow:]

                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Greg Walden

    Welcome Secretary Brouillette. It is good to have you back 
before the Committee. And I must say: You have provided strong 
leadership at the Department during a very critical time for 
the nation.
    Over your first seven months on the job, the country has 
been fighting a global pandemic and reeling from an economic 
shutdown and massive job destruction. The unprecedented drop in 
oil prices has devastated the American oil and gas industry and 
cost thousands of America jobs. And the Department of Energy 
(DOE) has been right in the action helping the nation to 
respond.
    This work is on top of the other important responsibilities 
of the Department. These range from executing on the nation's 
nuclear deterrent mission to protecting our critical energy 
infrastructure, supporting a robust R&D program, keeping the 
nation's lab facilities and capabilities up to date, and 
cleaning up defense sites, such as Hanford.
    Most people do not appreciate all the responsibilities of 
DOE. It is a national security agency and an energy security 
agency-havingdesigned and produced every nuclear warhead in the 
U.S. arsenal, powering our nuclear navy and serving critical 
roles in nonproliferation,international nuclear security, and 
other energy security missions.
    DOE is a world-class science, engineering, and technology 
agency. It is an environmental engineering and cleanup agency. 
All of this isinterconnected across a complex of national labs, 
production sites, and facilities, involving a contractor 
workforce approaching 100,000 people.Managing this enterprise 
is a tough, complicated job. But the upshot is the tremendous 
benefits for the nation-for security, for science 
andinnovation, and for keeping America in the lead across the 
energy landscape.
    The key ingredient for success here is the innovative 
science and engineering capabilities fostered through a 
cohesive DOE enterprise-and the multi-disciplinary teamwork 
that emerges from that. This synergy among the weapons labs, 
the science labs, and the energy and environment labs are 
critical for success. Think about the supercomputing and big 
data capabilities of the agency. The computational science and 
advancing computing architecture created by DOE's science and 
weapons programs is essential for modeling the nuclear weapons 
stockpile. But the cross-mission benefits of this are clear. 
Look at the use of Oak Ridge's Summit computer to screen 
compounds for a COVID-19 vaccine development.
    National security and materials science programs at Pacific 
Northwest National Lab, near my district, have translated into 
technologies forscanning at airports, for cyber security 
protections, and even advanced batteries.
    And this works both ways. The advances in nuclear fuels and 
technology at the Idaho National Lab attracts the expertise and 
informs theknowledge base for navy nuclear.
    You can extend this to other important missions. DOE's work 
on advanced nuclear, coupled with our work to ensure efficient 
NRC licensing, provides the foundation for expanding the 
peaceful use of atomic energy.
    This is the cornerstone of the nation's nuclear policy, a 
hallmark of civilian control of the nuclear enterprise, and an 
important tool not only for national security but a key 
solution to exporting cleaner energy around the world.
    Our duty on this Committee and in Congress is to make sure 
the Secretary has the tools and authorities he needs to execute 
the Department's missions. Our goal is to maximize the benefits 
of the DOE enterprise for the nation. I look forward to 
exploring what more we can do today.

    Mr. Rush. The ranking member yields back. The Chair would 
like to remind Members that pursuant to committee rules, all 
Members' written opening statement shall be made a part of the 
committee's records.
    And now it is my pleasure and honor to welcome once again 
before this committee our witness for today's hearing. As been 
noted, Secretary Brouillette is a former staff director on this 
committee, and we certainly want to welcome him back as the 
Secretary of Energy to testify before this committee.
    Mr. Secretary, once again we welcome you. I enjoyed our 
conversation yesterday, and we look forward to your testimony. 
But before we begin, Mr. Secretary, I would like to explain, I 
don't think I have to, but it says that now I should explain 
the lighting system.
    In front of you is a series of lights. The light will 
initially be green at the start of your opening statement. The 
light will turn yellow when you have one minute remaining, and 
please begin to wrap up your testimony at that point. The light 
will turn red when your time expires. Secretary Brouillette, 
again welcome back to the committee, subcommittee rather, and 
you are now recognized for 5 minutes for an opening statement.

                  STATEMENT OF DAN BROUILLETTE

    Secretary Brouillette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you 
for the honor of being here again, and thank you for that 
gentle reminder. I must say it is much better to be on that 
side of the dais than on this side, but thank you for that 
gentle reminder. And also, my compliments on that mask. I think 
you are rivaling our dearly departed friend Ron Dellums as the 
best dressed man in Congress. You do it quite well.
    But thank you, Chairman Rush. Thank you, Ranking Member 
Upton as well, as well as Full Committee Chairman Pallone and 
Ranking Member Mr. Walden. It is an honor to appear before you 
today to discuss the United States Department of Energy's 
response to COVID-19. And I failed to mention, Mr. Rush, I 
would also like to thank you for your warm welcome at our 
Artificial Intelligence event last fall in Chicago. The 
hospitality could not have been better. Thank you for that, 
sir. I appreciate that.
    When the COVID-19 pandemic hit the United States, President 
Trump very early on directed the whole-of-government approach 
to defeating this virus. And I am proud to report to you that 
DOE's national labs and their world-class facilities have been 
on the front lines of this important mission. Seven of our labs 
are partners in the COVID-19 High Performance Computing 
Consortium which the President announced in March. This public-
private partnership, which is spearheaded by the White House, 
DOE, and IBM, including government, industry, and academic 
leaders, is unleashing the power of America's supercomputing 
resources to combat COVID-19 all around the globe. We are very 
excited about the growing international participation in this 
consortium to battle the pandemic worldwide.
    We at DOE have established a National Virtual Biotechnology 
Laboratory which is using the full range of our facilities in 
the effort against COVID-19. We have set up a portal which will 
enable America's innovators to easily access essential 
resources and connect and partner with experts at all of our 
national laboratories.
    And as the Chairman mentioned, the scientists have used 
Argonne Laboratory's Advanced Photon Source to characterize 
more than a dozen proteins which are potential targets for 
medicines and countermeasures from COVID-19, including one that 
allows it to hide from the immune system, and working with our 
Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee another protein that 
enables it to reproduce.
    Researchers at Oak Ridge have screened more than 8,000 drug 
compounds for 77 that have potential use in this fight. Oak 
Ridge is also helping mass produce healthcare supplies such as 
masks and face shields, and they are doing it in record time. 
They are also producing and developing low-cost N95 respirators 
that can be cleaned and later reused. Scientists at the 
Berkeley Lab are using the facilities there to identify 
neutralizing antibodies that could be used as preventive 
treatments or post-exposure therapies.
    This COVID-19 pandemic has also led to challenges that go 
well beyond the virus itself. In March, we faced an oversupply 
of oil due to some decisions made by key nations following the 
collapse of OPEC-Plus negotiations, while also facing a nearly 
catastrophic decline in demand due obviously to the pandemic.
    The President facilitated an agreement between Saudi Arabia 
and Russia, the co-chairs of OPEC-Plus, on terms that were 
favorable to the United States. As the largest energy producer 
and consumer in the world, we were able to engage other nations 
from a position of strength and authority, and the agreement 
brought stability to energy markets around the world and it 
helped protect America's energy producers.
    Following through on President Trump's direction, we opened 
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to store excess oil from U.S. 
producers. Crude oil deliveries from roughly 21, of 
approximately 21 million barrels to the SPR have now been 
completed. DOE is also working closely with states and 
stakeholders to ensure that renewable energy and energy 
efficiency sectors make it to the other side of this pandemic. 
In addition, our EERE Office is working with the National 
Association of State Energy Officials to develop post-COVID 
economic development proposals using existing resources.
    We also worked with our nation's governors and public and 
private sector partners to ensure that our critical energy 
infrastructure was fully operational. DOE assisted the industry 
with access to personal protective equipment and testing kits. 
We ensured the inclusion of the energy sector workers in the 
Department of Homeland Security's Guidance on the Essential 
Critical Infrastructure Workforce which promoted the ability of 
such workers to continue working during the closure orders and 
with social distancing. And similarly, the Department engaged 
in planning processes to sequester control center personnel 
onsite to ensure continuity of operations.
    As we return to full operations, we are renewing our energy 
endeavors and refocusing on important new priorities. The bulk 
power system, the backbone of the nation's electric grid, is 
coming under increasing threat from foreign adversaries. On May 
1st, President Trump signed an executive order to increase its 
security. My team and I will continue to work with other 
federal departments and industry partners to eliminate 
vulnerabilities and develop policies to ensure security and 
resiliency.
    That is my hope today, to make our nation safer and 
stronger, more prosperous, and more filled with promise than 
ever before. So thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for the 
opportunity. I look forward to answering your questions.
    [The statement of Mr. Brouillette follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Rush. The Chair thanks the witness, and now we will 
proceed to questions. And the Chair will recognize members on 
each, the Democrat members for 5 minutes and recognize 
Republican members for 5 minutes. And now the Chair recognizes 
himself for 5 minutes for the purposes of questioning the 
witness.
    Secretary Brouillette, for the past five years, the U.S. 
Energy and Employment Report, also known as USEER, has served 
as an essential resource for energy sector workforce insight. 
In view of current unemployment numbers and the woeful 
representation of minorities within the energy sector, these 
insights are now needed more than ever. Last December, the 
Congress appropriated $1.7 million for the sixth annual USEER 
and reiterated their points of its using data collection 
methods consistent with previous installments to ensure 
accuracy. This means data collections should be, should begin 
this September.
    Secretary Brouillette, what progress, if any, has the 
Department made toward producing the next USEER report and will 
it be on time?
    Secretary Brouillette. The answer to that last question, 
sir, it will be on time. I have had many conversations with 
former Secretary Ernie Moniz about this as recently as this 
weekend as a matter of fact. It is our commitment to you that 
we are going to continue to provide this type of information, 
this type of data to the U.S. Congress.
    I have proposed that we add some data collection to this 
particular process. We are in fact slightly behind with the 
data collection. There is no secret to that. I will own that 
responsibility. We have fallen slightly behind primarily 
because of the COVID. We are working remotely. But nonetheless 
we plan to contract with a data collection service very 
quickly. We will do that data collection all throughout August, 
September, and October of this year. We will then prepare the 
final report toward the end of this year and submit it to you.
    Mr. Rush. I want to thank you. How will DOE deploy its 
resources to include those within the Office of Economic Impact 
and Diversity to address job losses and diversity and 
inclusion?
    Secretary Brouillette. Well sir, it is a broad-based effort 
that we have at the Department of Energy. It focuses on not 
only the Department itself; it goes well beyond that and into 
the industry. But I will focus my comments on the Department 
itself and let you know what we have done since our last 
conversation which was I think approximately 18 months ago when 
I was before the committee.
    You tasked me at that point to take a look at this, and I 
have done that and I want to report just really quickly. We 
have now revitalized what we refer to as our Minorities in 
Energy program at the Department. When I came back from that 
hearing, I immediately tasked James Campos, who I think you 
have met with many times, to do exactly that and the result of 
that effort is what we refer to as the new Equity in Energy 
initiative. And it is designed to advise me as the Secretary, 
but also expand the inclusion and participation in individuals 
in underserved communities in all programs at DOE and the 
energy sector more broadly.
    And I will tell you from my perspective as the Secretary I 
will give you some quick results. The new hire diversity at the 
Department of Energy in fiscal year 2017, there were 17 percent 
minorities that were hired as new hires. I am happy to report 
to you that in fiscal year 2020, this year, that number has now 
jumped to 31 percent, so the program is working.
    James is doing a great job leading that effort. I am proud 
of the fact that we are the only Department or one of the only 
Departments that has a program that is completely dedicated to 
this. And as you know, sir, James is a Senate-confirmed person, 
so it is a very high-ranking position within our Department and 
I think he is doing a great job. We are going to continue the 
good work in this program.
    Mr. Rush. Mr. Secretary, I have just a few seconds left. 
Would you also address the FEMP program, I mentioned that on 
the phone to you yesterday, and what is the status on the FEMP 
program?
    Secretary Brouillette. The FEMP program is moving forward, 
sir. I think there is a couple things, energy efficiency in 
federal buildings is key to energy savings. I know that 
Chairman Pallone and others have mentioned some other energy 
efficiency programs that deal with appliances.
    But one of the greatest savings that we can find is in the 
federal complex itself. And I just recently had an opportunity 
to visit the roof of the Department of Energy, and I noticed 
that there are some solar panels up there that are badly 
outdated and we need to update them. So I am going to work with 
Ms. Kaptur on the Appropriations Committee and potentially find 
some additional resources that we can upgrade the efficiencies 
within our own Department but also work with other agencies to 
do exactly the same thing. That is where some of our greatest 
savings will come from.
    Mr. Rush. Thank you. My time is concluded. I yield back 
whatever I have remaining. I now recognize the ranking member, 
Mr. Upton, for 5 minutes for the purposes of questioning the 
witness.
    Mr. Upton. Well thanks again, Mr. Chairman. And Mr. 
Secretary, I want to ask a couple of questions, but I would 
like to begin on focusing on grid security. Back in May, the 
President issued an executive order to secure the U.S. bulk 
power system, and having many of us a number of classified 
briefings it is crystal clear that the threats to the bulk 
power system by foreign adversaries constitutes what could be a 
real national emergency.
    The grid is absolutely fundamental for our critical 
infrastructure, our national security, and our economy. If a 
foreign adversary were able to take control or degrade 
electrical equipment such as a transformer, we could be in very 
serious trouble. So, what is the status of DOE's rulemaking to 
implement the executive order, and are there statutory 
authorities that Congress should consider that could provide 
DOE on a more promising basis?
    Secretary Brouillette. Yeah. There we go. Now it is on. 
Thank you, sir, for that question. I appreciate the opportunity 
to respond. With regard to additional authorities that are 
needed, I am not quite sure that is necessary at this point. We 
have moved forward with implementation of the executive order. 
I know that there is some confusion or perceived confusion in 
the industry. We want to alleviate the industry of any anxiety 
it might have about this as we move forward with a proposed 
rule later this year.
    Just to elucidate a little bit about what it does, you 
know, as you mentioned, sir, the bulk power system is the 
backbone of the electric grid. It underpins everything in 
America with regard to our electric system. But what we are 
doing is we are seeking to operationalize the executive order 
through four pillars to implement it, and I will just run 
through them real quickly.
    One, we want to prohibit foreign adversaries from supplying 
particular bulk power system electrical equipment. We want to 
establish a list of pre-qualified vendors that the utility 
industry can use to purchase from. We want to develop advisory 
recommendations for the identification, the isolation, the 
monitoring, and the replacement of any currently at-risk 
equipment that is on the system. That does not mean, however, 
that we are going to rip and replace the entire electric grid 
in the United States. We are focused on the bulk power system, 
not at this moment or any other moment in the near term the 
distribution system.
    And then importantly, what the President has directed me to 
do is to create a task force. I will convene with others, the 
Secretary of Defense in particular, so that we can begin the 
process of perhaps recommending to you, the Congress, certain 
procurement policies that are going to be directly related to 
this national security mission.
    Mr. Upton. Thanks. Should we be doing anything about gas 
pipelines as it relates to their safety?
    Secretary Brouillette. I am sorry, Mr. Upton, I didn't hear 
that question.
    Mr. Upton. Is there anything that we should do with our gas 
pipelines?
    Secretary Brouillette. You know, Mr. Upton, you have a long 
history in the telecommunications world, and if I were to point 
to one thing that we can do an even more aggressive job with 
regard to pipelines, it would be in the area of cybersecurity. 
The major pipelines are doing just fine. We work with them very 
closely. They are very much a part and parcel to what we do at 
DOE. The CEOs are very, very engaging and collaborative.
    If I have a concern about pipelines in America today, it is 
perhaps with regard to some of the smaller members of the 
industry. They simply in some cases just do not have the 
resources that are needed to protect the infrastructure in the 
manner in which we would like to see it be protected. I would 
look forward to working with you, members of the committee, 
others in the industry, to help design programs and policies 
that might address what I think is a growing national security 
concern.
    Mr. Upton. Finally, let me just ask you about a bill that I 
introduced a few weeks ago, H.R. 7435. It is the Methane 
Emissions Reduction Act. It authorizes DOE to reduce methane 
emission from flaring and venting natural gas during production 
activities. As you know, states are the private regulators of 
oil and gas production activities, so it is not a DOE 
regulatory program. The goal is to get DOE to work with the 
states, and certainly Michigan, to provide critical 
infrastructure and accelerate the most promising R&D related to 
new technology to reduce methane emissions.
    While the oil and natural gas produced in the U.S. is 
already moving among the cleanest in the world, would you agree 
that there is more that we can do to reduce methane emission 
even further?
    Secretary Brouillette. I didn't hear the last part.
    Mr. Upton. Would you agree that it would be advisable to 
reduce methane emission more than what we do today and to be 
able to work with the states?
    Secretary Brouillette. Yes. Yes. I do agree. Methane is a 
very intense carbon or a very intense greenhouse gas, and I 
think it is important that we reduce the emissions. While I 
recognize as you pointed out this may be an issue perhaps 
better addressed in the EPA world, I would also report to the 
members of the committee that we are working with the industry, 
and we have looked at various technologies that might help with 
methane emissions.
    I was just recently in Pennsylvania. I saw some product 
there that is actually made from coal. After the refining 
process in coal, you are left with a very fine powder which can 
be added to a natural gas pipeline, which actually works to 
seal the pipeline in a manner that contains the methane. So 
perhaps it will help the industry over the long term to reduce 
these types of emissions.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the Chairman of the full committee, Mr. Pallone, for 
5 minutes for the purposes of questioning the witness.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I 
wanted to try to get in this 5 minutes some questions about the 
Secretary's or your role or authority over NNSA, and then I 
wanted to ask a little bit about the appliance efficiency 
rules. So I will try to get through it.
    Mr. Secretary, there has been efforts over the years as you 
know to strip away the Secretary of Energy's authority over 
NNSA, and most recently to strengthen the Nuclear Weapons 
Council's authority in determining NNSA's budget within the 
Secretary's own Department. Just tell me why you think this is 
a wrong approach.
    Secretary Brouillette. Well sir, let me see where I can 
start with that. I think it is important to recognize as I 
think Chairman Rush mentioned and Chairman Walden alluded--
Ranking Member Walden alluded to, not many people understand 
the Department of Energy and its actual mission. They don't 
know the breadth of the portfolio or the breadth of the 
mission.
    Every year the Secretary of Energy along with the Secretary 
of Defense must certify the stockpile and, in essence and plain 
language, ensure to the President that it will do what he or 
she would like it to do if they needed to use it. That 
certification process is signed at the Cabinet level, and it is 
important that the Secretary of Energy see the entire process 
for the development of the budget, the operations within NNSA, 
all of the activities that occur within the national weapons 
labs in order to remain comfortable that that certification is 
in fact solid, for lack of a better term. It is very important 
that I see that.
    The Chairman. And then I think this is extremely helpful. I 
am concerned about the impact that these, you know, that what 
the NNSA, you know, what the Nuclear Weapons Council is trying 
to do is going to have a negative impact on DOE and its budget. 
But from a broader perspective, some argue the NNSA mission is 
more aligned with the Department of Defense.
    Why should NNSA be housed in the Department of Energy? Why 
would you disagree that it should be more defense-oriented?
    Secretary Brouillette. Well you know, the security of the 
national security enterprise, writ large, it has always been 
firmly to ground and always been firmly grounded. If you look 
back at the history of the Department, all the way back to the 
Atomic Energy Commission, our predecessor, it is grounded in 
the science, the technology, the engineering, and the 
manufacturing expertise of the DOE national laboratory system. 
And NNSA draws heavily upon the various elements of all of the 
DOE laboratories and the sites, and it creates a synergy that 
can't be replicated anywhere else in the U.S. Government. It 
certainly can't be replicated within the DOE complex.
    The Chairman. All right. And then I wanted to, just in the 
last two minutes about the appliance efficiency rules. We have 
already had a little discussion. How many efficiency rules do 
you expect to finalize between now and the end of the year, and 
how many response to statutory deadlines and how many are 
discretionary?
    I know that this problem was inherited by you. I am not 
suggesting that you created it, but I would like to know how 
many efficiency rules you do expect to finalize between now and 
the end of the year, and how that--which ones are statutory and 
which ones are discretionary, if you could.
    Secretary Brouillette. To be honest and to be just point 
blank, sir, I will do as many as I possibly can. I know this 
has been an issue for you. I know that you have raised it with 
our under secretary, Mark Menezes. I appreciate the concern you 
have. I reviewed Mark's answer before the committee. I agree 
with it. I think he is correct about some of those things. But 
I just want to let you know that I will do as many as I can 
before the end of this year.
    And I will just tell you really quickly, thus far in 2020, 
we have published 18 notices that are related to conservation 
standards, and nine notices that are relating to test 
procedures, and that is about three times more than what we did 
in 2018. So we are beginning to make some real progress here 
and you have my firm commitment that we will move as 
aggressively as we possibly can.
    The Chairman. Well I appreciate that. And again, the number 
of missed legal deadlines for new standards has grown from 
three to 26 since President Trump took office. I don't blame 
you because you haven't been there that long, but I do blame 
the Trump Administration in general. And I would like to see 
you focus more on meeting legal deadlines and less on 
discretionary rules that undercut energy savings, but thank you 
for that response. Thank you for being with us today.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the ranking member for 5 minutes for the purposes of 
questioning the witness.
    Mr. Walden. Well thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your 
leadership of the agency and your commitment to meeting these 
deadlines. As you know as I mentioned, Chairman Pallone and I 
have jointly teamed up on an amendment that integrates 
personnel of DOE and NNSA so legal budgetary and other mission 
support functions operate more effectively across the DOE 
enterprise, and the Administrator can focus more effectively on 
mission execution consistent with DOE authorities.
    So, my question is, why does it make sense from your 
perspective for the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of 
Energy to co-chair the Nuclear Weapons Council, the NWC? Why 
does that make sense?
    Secretary Brouillette. Well Mr. Walden, thank you for that. 
I think the first reason it makes sense is because it 
recognizes the prioritization and the importance the nation 
places on our nuclear deterrent. It elevates the visibility and 
frankly the accountability of our nuclear deterrent, and it 
better ensures the fidelity of the budget process in both of 
our agencies.
    I think it is important to recognize that, you know, for 
instance, the Secretary of Energy not only has the 
responsibility for the warhead program, I also have the 
responsibility ultimately for the cleanup of the manufacturing 
processes that are used in the development of the warheads 
under our Environmental Management program. Both of these are 
funded with Defense dollars, 050 dollars.
    And if you think about it as a pie, what I think some of 
the Senate language would do is to, if you think about it as a 
pie, if you make, if you take one piece and make it bigger, the 
other pieces are typically going to get smaller.
    So in the case of the Environmental Management program, if 
you have a sub-Cabinet council within the Department of Defense 
focused exclusively on the weapons portion of the budget, what 
might happen is that the weapons program gets much, much larger 
at the expense of the Environmental Management program.
    Only the Secretary of Energy is in the position to balance 
the needs all across the programs. Now with that said, I think 
it is important to, you know, to suggest that look, I am a very 
strong supporter of the weapons program. That deterrent is 
critical to our national security. It has to be robust. There 
are many things that we have to do to improve its performance. 
But at the same time, it is also important, it is imperative 
that we honor our moral obligations to clean up the facilities 
once we are done with the manufacturing.
    Mr. Walden. Well I appreciate that. And you know, 
representing a district that is right across the river from 
Hanford where there are, I think 140-some enormous big buried 
tanks of nuclear sludge left over from the Manhattan Project, 
and some of these tunnels have collapsed at times and released 
radiation. That clean-up effort is essential to the public 
health.
    Mr. Rush. Will the ranking member please yield?
    Members who are on the--who are participating remotely, 
will you please mute your phone until you, I ask you to unmute. 
Will members please mute your phone, those who are remotely 
participating in this hearing. We are getting feedback. The 
gentleman will proceed.
    Mr. Walden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 
that. Anyway, I am very concerned about making sure we stay on 
pace to get the Hanford mess cleaned up that dates clear back 
to World War II.
    On another matter, can you describe how you work with the 
Defense Department to plan and budget for the nation's defense 
nuclear programs?
    Secretary Brouillette. I am sorry, Mr. Walden. I didn't 
hear that.
    Mr. Walden. Yes. If you can talk about how you work with 
the Department of Defense on the budgeting----
    Secretary Brouillette. Sure.
    Mr. Walden [continue]. For the nation's nuclear defense 
programs, that would be good. And does the language in the 
NDAA, does that make you subordinate, a Cabinet Secretary, to 
an under secretary at DOD?
    Secretary Brouillette. Well I think some of the original 
drafts of the amendment perhaps would have done that. The way 
it typically works is that the DOD sets the requirements, the 
military requirements that it wants, and it does it through the 
Nuclear Posture Review in the case of the warhead program. What 
we do at DOE is match our manufacturing capabilities to their 
military requirements.
    This is coordinated through the Nuclear Weapons Council, 
which is chaired by an under secretary of Defense and then the 
Under Secretary of Energy who runs the NNSA is also a member, 
as well as the Chairman of STRATCOM and other important members 
of the military complex. Together they review those 
requirements and then we establish a budget based upon their 
requirements.
    My understanding of some of the early Senate language is 
that I would be required to submit the DOE budget to the 
Weapons Council. So in that sense, the Secretary would be 
subordinated to a sub-council within DOE, and I think the 
language would have further required that I accept their 
recommendations, and further send those to OMB and then 
ultimately to Congress for consideration. As I mentioned 
earlier, if that were the process that the Congress were to 
adopt, it would present some unique problems to the clean-up 
facilities all across the world.
    You asked earlier though about the importance of, you know, 
the elevation and maybe moving this to the Secretary's level, 
and perhaps providing both the Secretary of Defense and the 
Secretary of Energy some additional line of sight. I think it 
is also important to remember that, you know, as direct reports 
to the President and as members of the National Security 
Council, perhaps the both of us are in the best position to 
balance the needs of our respective Departments.
    Mr. Walden. All right. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and I have 
run out of time. Thanks for your leadership and for answering 
our questions. We appreciate it.
    Secretary Brouillette. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Peters, for 5 
minutes. I see Mr. Peters is not available. Now the Chair 
recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Doyle, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Chairman Rush and Ranking Member 
Upton, for holding this hearing. And thank you, Mr. Secretary, 
for joining us today. We are anxious to get you down to the 
NETL in Pittsburgh, and I can promise you some Primanti 
Brothers sandwiches and Iron City beer after the meeting, so 
hope we can set that up soon.
    This pandemic has upended everyone's life, and it is 
causing tremendous damage to every part of our economy, the 
energy sector included. We need a national strategy not only to 
combat climate change, but to help our economic recovery once 
it is safe to do so. And I believe there are many pathways that 
we can take towards rebuilding our economy and creating a 
sustainable future, and I hope we can count on the Department 
of Energy's extensive capabilities to be a partner in these 
efforts.
    Mr. Secretary, not only has this pandemic resulted in over 
a million energy sector jobs being lost, but it has also 
brought much lower wholesale energy prices. Even before this 
drop, many nuclear power plants were struggling to stay open. 
Tell me, what policies can we enact to ensure that we don't 
shut down more well-run nuclear power plants, and how can we 
ensure as advanced nuclear technology becomes commercialized 
that we are building these plants and communities that have 
been hurt by the closing of industry or fossil fuel plants?
     Secretary Brouillette. So thank you, Mr. Doyle, for that 
question. I appreciate your concern. I have a similar concern 
as well. I think that in the case of nuclear we have too many 
facilities that are closing at a much too earlier, a much too 
aggressive rate.
    We have begun a process, I just a visited a facility down 
in Florida, to help permit life extension permits for these 
facilities. The one that I visited in Florida is now authorized 
to operate for up to 80 years--very, very safely, I might add. 
It is very important that we look at these facilities and grant 
those types of permits, and we will be working closely with our 
colleagues at the NRC and others to ensure that that moves 
forward. That is one step.
    The second step is to follow up on the outline or the 
strategy that we put forth in our Nuclear Fuels Working Group. 
You know, in that working group we are developing various 
proposals; there are about 10. It is, one, to address what we 
can see as a concern in America related to the front end of the 
fuel cycle.
    We want to develop our mining capabilities in uranium. We 
want to establish a uranium reserve. We importantly want to 
develop conversion and enrichment services here in America so 
that the civilian fleet can buy from American fuel supply. We 
think that adds to our national security.
    It is also important that we address some of the needs for 
advanced reactors and that is also part of this working group's 
report, is that we are going to develop accident-tolerant 
fuels. We are going to develop what is known as high assay LEU, 
low enriched uranium. It is important for us to develop this 
fuel because it is what will allow the smaller reactors to come 
online, and hopefully we can catalyze enough investment and 
enough market interest in these that we can have them replace 
some of these older, aging, and in some cases, too large 
facilities.
    Nuclear has a unique characteristic or a unique challenge, 
I should say, at certain times. They produce an enormous amount 
of electricity, and it is all not always needed. As these 
communities begin to develop, it is not always needed. We don't 
need one gigawatt of power perhaps as we move to a more 
distributed electrical grid all throughout the country. We need 
perhaps smaller forms of generation.
    Mr. Doyle. Well thank you. You know, as we add more 
intermittent power to the grid, flexibility seems to be vital 
in to making sure the grid is reliable, and energy storage 
obviously is key to that. Can you provide us with a quick 
update on the ongoing activities being undertaken by the 
Department's Grand Energy Storage Challenge? What specific 
actions are going on right now?
    Secretary Brouillette. Sure. Well what we have announced is 
a Grand Challenge. What we are looking for is a next generation 
of grid-scale storage or the next generation of battery 
storage. But importantly, we need to find battery technologies 
that would allow us to bring to market grid-scale storage. It 
is critical that we do this very, very quickly so that we can 
continue to see the implementation and development of renewable 
technologies.
    If we are going to lose our baseload power at the rate in 
which we are losing it, at some point I am afraid that we might 
have a gap. And as you know and as members of the committee 
know so very well, today at least with the technologies that we 
have, renewable power depends almost entirely upon the 
provision of baseload electricity all throughout the country. 
So if we are going to lose that baseload at the rate in which 
we are losing it, and we are not going to be able to build 
enormous nuclear plants as we just discussed, then it is 
important that we develop the battery technologies.
    We did announce the launch pad out at PNNL. It is going to 
be a brand-new facility, a brand-new laboratory that we will 
use to help develop some of these newer battery technologies.
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Mr. Secretary, 
thank you. Look forward to seeing you in Pittsburgh. And Mr. 
Chairman, I will yield back.
    Secretary Brouillette. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Latta, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Latta. Well thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very 
much for holding today's hearing. And thanks very much to the 
Secretary for appearing before us today. We really appreciate 
it.
    Even before the outbreak of COVID-19, the United States was 
faced with a range of challenges that threatens stability and 
security over energy interests, including the threat of cyber--
attacks to our grid security, nuclear supply chain 
vulnerabilities, and threats to the competitiveness of our 
domestic nuclear industry. Unfortunately, COVID-19 has only 
made these problems worse.
     On the issues of the nuclear supply chain and the need to 
maintain a durable domestic nuclear industry, we need to pursue 
policies that will be good for our economy and consistent with 
our security policies to counter Russia and China. These 
policies include building robust sources for domestic uranium 
and conversion. I am pleased to see DOE's efforts to support 
the establishment of a uranium reserve, and I appreciate the 
assistance your staff has provided my office as we draft 
legislation to authorize this reserve.
    We must also support efforts to improve our nation's grid 
security and resiliency against cyber threats. Two bipartisan 
bills that I have led on, H.R. 359 and H.R. 360, along with my 
good friend, the gentleman from California, Mr. McNerney, have 
helped DOE in this effort, and I hope the Chairman will work 
with us in a bipartisan way to see these bills soon come to the 
floor for a vote.
    Mr. Secretary, on the nuclear issues I have raised, how 
vital is it that the United States build up its own domestic 
nuclear supply chain, and how will a strategic uranium reserve 
help us do this?
    Secretary Brouillette. There it goes. The button wasn't 
coming on there for a minute. As I mentioned earlier, I think 
it is absolutely critical that we develop and more further 
develop the front end of the fuel cycle here in America. You 
know, we have lost our leadership edge in America with regard 
to the provision of nuclear power. And today, I don't have the 
exact number, but the vast majority of the fuel that is 
purchased by the civilian nuclear fleet here in the United 
States is purchased primarily from Russia and they supply the 
fuel chain.
    So if we were to lose that, I think we endanger Americans 
all across the country, and it is very important for us to 
address. That is what we are attempting to do. We think we 
should create a reserve, a uranium reserve that includes not 
just pulling the uranium out of the mine, but all of the 
processes that go along with it--so the conversion process, the 
enrichment process. We think we need to bring these businesses 
back to America to ensure the security of our fleet and to 
ensure the security of the provision of electric power here in 
the United States.
    So that is the commitment of our Administration. That is 
what we are looking for, support for in this Nuclear Fuels 
Working Group.
    Mr. Latta. Well thanks very much, because I appreciate what 
DOE is doing. And would you support legislation then that would 
ensure the durability of a program like this by specifically 
authorizing it?
    Secretary Brouillette. Sure. Yes.
    Mr. Latta. OK, great. And I really appreciate that. On the 
grid security issues, in your testimony you reference the 
Administration's concerns about securing the bulk power system, 
as evidenced by the President's executive order in May. How 
important is it to secure the bulk power system against cyber 
threats, and do you believe legislation like H.R. 360, which 
establishes a voluntary cyber sense program to test the 
cybersecurity of products and technologies intended for use in 
the bulk power system, would be helpful in this effort?
    Secretary Brouillette. I would certainly work with you to 
develop legislation and look for the authorities that might be 
helpful. I feel that we have most of what we need at this 
moment in time, but I would be very much agreeable to working 
with you on a potential bill that might further address some of 
the issues.
    With regard to the bulk power thing and what we are seeing 
all throughout the industry, and what we have noticed in some 
of the power marketing administrations that we run at DOE like 
BPA and what is known as WAPA, the Western Area Power 
Administration, we have noticed that much of the manufacturing 
for the equipment that goes into our system is being made in 
China. And China as we know has changed its doctrinal approach 
to the United States, and they have become more and more of an 
adversarial nation.
    And what we are beginning to be concerned about is perhaps 
the provision of some technologies within the equipment that we 
are purchasing that allows communications back to Beijing or 
may allow some manipulation of the electric grid because of the 
equipment that is being placed into things like transformers.
    So we have identified this. We are working very closely 
with one of our national laboratories. We are evaluating a 
certain piece of equipment right now that is in the public 
domain. And we look forward to providing some reports not only 
to the intelligence community within the interagency, but also 
to the United States Congress as well as to our findings there.
    Mr. Latta. Well thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. Mr. 
Chairman, my time has expired, and I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Sarbanes of Maryland for 5 minutes. Mr. 
Sarbanes, are you there?
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. McNerney for 5 minutes.I 
understand Mr. Sarbanes is having some problems unmuting his 
microphone. Mr. Sarbanes, we will return to you as soon as you 
are ready. Mr. McNerney, are you there?
    Mr. McNerney. Yes. I am unmuted now. Can you hear me?
    Mr. Rush. All right. Mr. McNerney, you are recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. McNerney. Well I thank the Chairman and the ranking 
member for the hearing. It is a very timely topic, and I thank 
the Secretary for showing up and helping us understand what is 
going on out there in the Department of Energy. You know, the 
Lawrence Livermore Lab and Sandia Laboratory, national 
laboratories, are just outside of my district. Mr. Secretary, 
could you go over a little bit of what these two laboratories 
are doing with regard to the pandemic?
    Secretary Brouillette. Sure. There we go.
    So yes, sir, and I will get you a very detailed report on 
some of the activities that are occurring in those labs. But in 
a very high-level way, I will tell you that both labs have been 
engaged. What we have done is we have utilized the bioscience 
capabilities in particular of those two labs to help identify 
the proteins that are unique to this particular coronavirus.
    And as we have done that, we have been able to advise some 
of the doctors about the reactions to certain drugs. We have 
been able to predict in certain cases the spread of the virus. 
Both labs have very capable artificial intelligence experts 
there and they have helped us design predictive modeling in 
certain cases that can, in certain cases, go all the way down 
to the county level. And they have been very, very aggressive 
in doing that and we appreciate their support.
    Mr. McNerney. Well, good. I look forward to the detailed 
reports that you have there, Mr. Secretary.
    As you noted in your testimony, our nation's electric grid, 
the bulk power grid, is coming under increasing pressure. This 
has been discussed by a couple of other of our members here 
this morning. I am concerned that the executive office is not 
doing enough to counter the threat beyond the issuing the 
executive order. Can you provide us as a committee an update on 
Russia's cybersecurity capability as they relate to the grid, 
and why hasn't the President been more aggressive on addressing 
their capabilities?
    Secretary Brouillette. I didn't hear the first part of that 
question. I apologize.
    Mr. McNerney. Well, basically, the nation is coming under, 
our bulk grid is coming under increasing threat particularly 
from Russia, and what I would like to know is what is Russia's 
capability and what has the administration done to counter that 
other than just issuing an executive order?
    Secretary Brouillette. Capabilities with regard to what?
    Mr. McNerney. The cyber attack capabilities on our 
nation's----
    Secretary Brouillette. Oh, cyber attack. I am sorry. I 
didn't quite catch that when you first asked the question. 
Russia is a very sophisticated cyber actor in the marketplace. 
What we have done at the Department of Energy is to utilize our 
supercomputing capabilities in places like Oak Ridge, at PNNL 
out in Washington State, and we have begun very aggressively 
applying things like artificial intelligence to cyber 
technologies. And what it has allowed us to do is to blunt many 
of the attacks that we see coming from places like Russia. And 
I would daresay that they are perhaps the most sophisticated 
cyber actor in the marketplace today, perhaps followed very 
closely by China, and then by Iran.
    But that is our contribution to this national effort that 
is being led by a number of different players including the 
U.S. Department of Defense Cyber Command.
    Mr. McNerney. Well, honestly, I haven't seen any evidence 
of aggressive administration action to counter that threat, so 
I think it would be in the nation's interest to acknowledge 
that threat publicly so that Americans are aware of it and also 
to help identify what we can do to prevent that and to counter 
that.
    Going on, as you may be aware, I am the lead sponsor of the 
Nuclear Waste Amendments Policy Act of 2019 along with Mr. 
Shimkus. The bipartisan bill passed out of committee 
unanimously, which shows that there is a significant supporting 
in the House and in this committee to move forward with nuclear 
waste handling.
    So what I am wondering is considering the decades-long 
standstill over the debate on the Yucca Mountain, how does the 
administration envision developing a science-based solution 
that can earn the approval of the states involved?
    Secretary Brouillette. Yes, sir. With regard to your first 
question, I would be happy, sir, to come up and brief you in a 
classified setting on some of the activities around Russian 
cyber activity. I would be happy to do that at your 
convenience, so I will reach out to your office and schedule 
something, if you don't mind.
    Mr. McNerney. OK. I appreciate that.
    Secretary Brouillette. With regard to, you know, spent fuel 
storage, you know, as you know the Congress has been deadlocked 
on funding for that particular program for many, many years. 
Our authority to do anything is restricted somewhat by the 
Nuclear Waste Policy Act. We are using the scientific 
capabilities within the Department of Energy, our nuclear 
expertise, to potentially explore other options. We are 
somewhat limited. We can look at interim storage ideas, but 
only within a very small window and a very small window of 
authority in the current law. So I am happy to share those with 
you. I will come back and brief you at your convenience on that 
as well.
    Mr. McNerney. OK. I will be glad to work with you on that, 
Mr. Secretary. It is an important issue that we need to solve, 
so thank you. I yield back.
    Secretary Brouillette. Sure.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady from Washington State, Ms. McMorris 
Rodgers, for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. Thank you, Chairman.
    Thank you, Secretary Brouillette, for being here today, 
being with us today.
    Good morning, everyone.
    I appreciate the work of the Department of Energy and what 
you are doing to secure America's future and ensure the safety 
of our grid from foreign adversaries whether it is Russia or 
China or others. I share some of my other colleagues' concerns 
about provisions in the Senate NDAA that threatened to 
undermine the Secretary of Energy's management and oversight of 
our nuclear weapons program. As has been pointed out, this 
misguided effort would erode the Secretary's budgetary 
oversight of the National Security Administration, the Nuclear 
Security Administration, with the unprecedented insertion of 
the Nuclear Weapons Council into DOE's budget preparation and 
oversight process.
    The American atomic energy programs have been under 
civilian control since the end of World War II and the 
establishment of the Atomic Energy Commission, DOE's 
predecessor, I believe, maintaining clear civilian and Cabinet-
level oversight of our nuclear weapons program is essential for 
our nation. Moves that insert the Defense Department into DOE's 
planning could also have a harmful impact on other important 
priorities like the ongoing cleanup of our country's nuclear 
production complexes.
    Just outside my district near the Tri-Cities in Washington 
State is the Hanford site, which others have mentioned, and it 
produced plutonium for the Manhattan Project during World War 
II. The inventions in nuclear technology at Hanford helped end 
the war and begin our nation's global leadership in nuclear 
energy. However, these early developments in nuclear technology 
came at a cost, and after 40 years of production Hanford now 
has to undergo a massive, ongoing cleanup of radioactive 
material.
    Secretary Brouillette, thank you for your leadership in 
ensuring authority and control over nuclear weapon programs 
remain fully within DOE under your Cabinet-level control. Could 
you explain how the provisions in the Senate NDAA would have 
negative consequences for cleaning up former nuclear production 
such as at Hanford or other important priorities?
    Secretary Brouillette. Yes, ma'am. I will do exactly that, 
I think. I need to go and look and see what is the current 
status of the NDAA in the Senate and see what language. I know 
that there were a few amendments offered just prior to the 
bill's consideration on the floor. I will go and do that.
    But, importantly, as I understand the first drafts of the 
NDAA as we saw it in the public domain, it would have 
subordinated the Secretary of Energy and perhaps even the 
Secretary of Defense at some level to the Nuclear Weapons 
Council. And what it did was it would have required me to 
submit the U.S. Department of Energy budget to that council for 
their consideration and they would provide the recommendations 
to the Department, of which I would be required under the 
original drafts to submit that to the OMB and potentially to 
the Congress as well.
    In that case, what we would have is sub-Cabinet-level 
officials determining not only the weapons program budget, but 
perhaps disastrously altering other programs within not only 
the Department of Energy but the Department of Defense as well. 
As I explained in one of the earlier questions, if we think 
about the budget as a pie, if you make one piece bigger, 
because of the budget caps that are in place in the federal 
law, by definition, the other pieces of the pie have to get 
smaller.
    And because the Environmental Management program is also 
funded by Defense dollars, making the weapons program bigger 
without some adjustment to the cap would, by definition, make 
the environmental management or the cleanup portion of that 
particular budget smaller. And I think that as the Secretary of 
Energy, I am perhaps in the better position to make that 
judgment about what balance should be struck between these two 
important programs.
    I fully support----
    Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. OK.
    Secretary Brouillette [continue]. The weapons program, but 
I also understand the moral obligation we have to clean up 
sites like Hanford.
    Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. Thank you. I look forward to working 
with you on that.
    Also, another critical issue is the national security 
around safeguarding our grid, and I am especially concerned 
about potential vulnerabilities in critical components 
manufactured by foreign adversaries such as China and Russia. I 
applaud the administration's swift action to protect the grid 
from these foreign threats by prohibiting such critical bulk 
power components from being installed in our grid through the 
executive order signed by President Trump back in May. I 
believe the Federal Government needs to involve the energy 
sector, including domestic vendors and manufacturers, to ensure 
this order is implemented effectively.
    Mr. Secretary, would you commit to working closely with the 
stakeholders at DOE to develop the further rulemaking to do so?
    Secretary Brouillette. Yes, absolutely. Absolutely. You 
have my commitment for that.
    Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentlelady's time is up. She yields back. The 
Chair now--I understand that Mr. Sarbanes is ready for his 5 
minutes. He is recognized for 5 minutes for questioning the 
witness.
    Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can you hear me?
    Mr. Rush. We hear you quite well.
    Mr. Sarbanes. OK, thanks very much. There is an echo, I 
think. There we go. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the hearing. 
Obviously, this pandemic has had a profound effect on the 
economy. The energy sector has certainly felt that as well. And 
as we look to stimulate the economy moving forward and recover, 
we can build on an economy that is more equitable, more 
resilient, and promotes a cleaner and healthier future for our 
communities. I know we feel strongly about that.
    I wanted to focus my questions for the Secretary today on 
renewable energy, specifically solar energy. The Office of 
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, EERE, has been a smart 
return on investment for taxpayers. A net benefit, I think, of 
about $230 billion. And particularly for low income families, 
these kinds of programs in EERE help reduce barriers, allow low 
income communities to reduce energy consumption which also 
saves money.
    In fact, ACEEE has found that for families living in large 
cities, the average low-income household's energy burden was 
more than three times as high as that of non-low income 
households--seven percent compared with about two percent for 
their wealthier counterparts. And, certainly, during this time 
of economic instability, reducing that energy burden and cost 
savings is one way we can help those communities move forward.
    Solar energy in particular has been an economic driver, 
employing over 240,000 Americans, generating $17 billion in 
investment in our nation's economy. Unfortunately, with COVID-
19 we have deployed 37 percent less solar capacity than was 
forecasted and developers have had difficulty securing 
financing under these conditions. And again, it 
disproportionately impacts small businesses, newer companies, 
and ultimately impacts households.
    Secretary Brouillette, in your testimony you mentioned the 
administration's support for solar in the portfolio, but I have 
to say that the administration's budget doesn't reflect that 
support. There was a proposed cut of over 70 percent in the 
EERE and the Solar Energy Technologies Office, which we tried 
to reverse, I am pleased to say, in the House appropriations 
bill that has been released.
    But in the face of such economic uncertainty, I would hope 
that we could count on DOE to promote solar energy which has 
all of these benefits that are related to workforce, cost to 
consumers, and so forth. I feel this particularly because in 
Baltimore we have worked in the past with the Department of 
Energy to bring this potential to low income homeowners through 
a program called Baltimore Shine, and it would allow all 
communities to take advantage of low-cost solar energy.
    Mr. Secretary, will you commit to ensuring that 
communities, especially low income and vulnerable communities, 
are able to take advantage of the low-cost energy and skilled 
job opportunities offered by solar technology as we are trying 
to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic?
    Secretary Brouillette. Mr. Sarbanes, yes, I can. And as a 
resident of Maryland that hits particularly close to home for 
me. So thank you for your service. Thank you for the question 
and I look forward to working with you on this.
    We do support solar technologies and I will just tell you 
really quickly what we are looking at. We are looking at some 
of the next generation of solar technologies. Much of what is 
on the market today, photovoltaic-type technologies, I don't 
want to call them antiquated. They are not completely 
antiquated, but they have been around for a very long time and 
they are somewhat mature.
    So when we look at investing research dollars at the 
Department of Energy, we have made a decision that perhaps 
rather than continuing investments in mature technologies like 
photovoltaics, we want to move to the next generation. And we 
will work very closely with our National Renewable Energy 
Laboratory out in Golden, Colorado, to develop things like 
perovskites, which is a fascinating technology, and it 
increases the efficiency of the solar panel itself.
    So I would love to have you out there. We have technologies 
where literally you paint a window and the window itself 
becomes a small electric generation machine or it is able to 
develop enough electricity to power some small appliances. It 
is a fascinating technology. It is that type of technology I 
would like to see come to market much more quickly.
    With regard to energy efficiency, it is also important that 
we balance not only the energy savings that are developed by 
these types of newer technologies, but also the cost of the 
appliance or the cost of the generation itself. In our view, we 
agree with the energy efficiency goals that the Congress has 
set. We have no disagreement there. But it doesn't do us much 
good to save two dollars on the electric bill if it is going to 
cost us many thousands of dollars to buy the new appliance or 
buy the new generation facility. In our view, we have not done 
low income families much justice in that case.
    So we want to balance the equation very appropriately and I 
would look forward to working with you on that.
    Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you, Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Olson, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Olson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And a big ole Texas 
welcome to a friend, Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette. Dan, I 
am so sorry we missed each other last week at the SPR there in 
Texas. I suspect you are even more sorry because you didn't get 
to relive the Gulf Coast heat of summer. No Thibodeaux or 
Boudreaux, no sucking crawfish heads like you did with Mr. 
Tauzin, so let's make that date again sometime in the future.
    I have one question for you, Dan. It is not about COVID-19. 
It is about a local issue. I want to ask about the disposal of 
Americium-241. It is a byproduct of weapons-grade plutonium 
production. It is used for smoke detectors and downhole oil 
well logging. It is very radioactive and cancer-causing. 
America stopped producing this product in 2005 despite the fact 
that we still had domestic demand and so for 15 years we have 
been importing this product.
    In 2015, my hometown of Sugar Land had a little bout with 
this product, a small spill that released some Caesium-137 and 
Americium-241 half a mile from my son's high school in Sugar 
Land, Texas. But since this radioactive isotope came from a 
foreign source, we can't store this, Dan, in the WIPP, the 
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, so there it sits, a national 
security risk and an environmental risk if it spills.
    So, I have three questions for you about this issue. Number 
one, can you assess the risk of letting it sit all across the 
country; number two, can the WIPP handle all this isotope we 
have in America; and do you support my bill giving your 
Department more authority over getting this stuff out and store 
it in the WIPP?
    Secretary Brouillette. Mr. Olson, it is great to see you 
again and I am sorry I missed you last week. It was great to be 
back in my adopted home of Texas and it was pretty hot down 
there, but it was fantastic to be home. I hope that we can get 
together again very soon down in Texas or elsewhere.
    But with regard to your question on Americium, yes, I have 
not reviewed your bill in detail, but if it is to provide the 
authority for us to receive this Americium and store it in the 
WIPP, it would be something that I think we would probably 
support. I would like to take a close look at it. I am familiar 
with the situation that you face down in Sugar Land and you 
have identified the problem for us, is that we don't know the 
source of that particular product and we are prohibited by law 
as a result from accepting it into the WIPP facility in New 
Mexico.
    But perhaps through legislative changes or perhaps some 
other process, we can move forward to accept that material and 
put it into the WIPP facility. It is very important that we 
remove this from the communities. And your community is not 
unique in that sense. I mean there are many communities across 
Texas as well as other parts of the United States where the 
sources--it is known as a source--are still sitting, in some 
cases in strip malls, without much security. So it is very, 
very important that we remove this product and store it safely.
    Mr. Olson. Can WIPP handle these products, Dan? Does it 
have the capability to handle all these products or is that 
just--I have heard it is overfilling. I think that is a red 
herring. Can you confirm that? You got the room to store this 
waste?
    Secretary Brouillette. I would have to double check on the 
room. I am assuming we do. But we certainly have the technical 
capability of storing Americium, yes.
    Mr. Olson. And one final question. And, Dan, this is about 
the Federal Reserve's Main Street lending program. This program 
is essential for mid-size people involved in oil and gas 
operations. They have to have this money coming through because 
they are getting hammered by COVID and this pricing war going 
on between Saudi Arabia and Russia.
    So, can you talk about how important this project is, this 
program is for the suppliers of energy, the midstream guys in 
particular, and how this should be open to them as well?
    Secretary Brouillette. Sure. I have worked closely with 
Secretary Mnuchin to ensure that all of the programs that under 
all of your leadership you passed and made available to 
American businesses including the energy business. I have had 
many conversations with the midstream producers, the 
independent producers out in the Permian Basin of Texas. Some 
of them have availed themselves to these programs, and I think 
it is important that we continue that good work.
    We are in a unique situation here with this pandemic, you 
know, Texas has long experienced boom and bust cycles in the 
oil business; you know how to handle that very, very well. But 
we have never experienced a situation in which we had a market 
event like what happened in Saudi Arabia and Russia or under 
the auspices of OPEC combined with a lack of demand that was, 
you know, generated by this pandemic, you know, with economies 
around the world appropriately closing or slowing down. We have 
never seen that before in U.S. history. We have never seen it 
in the oil business so it presents a unique challenge.
    But I am fully supportive of what the Congress did to make 
these programs available to not only all American businesses, 
but in particularly the energy businesses as well.
    Mr. Olson. Thank you, soldier. I am a sailor. Join me in 
saying, go Navy, go Army. Best Air Force.
    Secretary Brouillette. Go Army.
    Mr. Olson. I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Can you hear me?
    Mr. Rush. Quite well.
    Mr. Tonko. Well, great. Thank you.
    Secretary Brouillette, welcome back to the Energy and 
Commerce Committee. Mr. Secretary, the administration's budget 
request once again has zeroed out funding for the 
Weatherization Assistance Program, a critical program that we 
know is there to support the health and safety and energy 
efficiency of low-income Americans as they maintain their 
homes.
    Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we know more people are 
unemployed and staying at home. We also know that state budgets 
have realized great shortfalls. Given these conditions, do you 
see some additional value in federal weatherization dollars 
that could be used once the economy is reopened and retrofits 
can resume safely?
    Secretary Brouillette. Sure, I do. And thank you for your 
conversation yesterday. I appreciated the opportunity to trade 
some notes on some of these important programs and I appreciate 
the concern that you have about the President's budget with 
regard to the weatherization program in particular.
    I think it is important for us to remind ourselves from 
time to time though that, you know, what we do at the DOE is we 
look all across the enterprise. And we just talked about energy 
efficiency and that is a very important component of the 
weatherization program. We have what is called cross-cutting 
programs where we take money not only from EERE, but we use it, 
we take money from the science labs and other places where we 
can develop technologies that are ultimately put into the 
marketplace that will increase efficiency. So while you may see 
a reduction in the actual weatherization program, I want to 
assure you that the work on energy efficiency is broad-based. 
It is not just one bucket or one line item in a budget that 
reflects the commitment to energy efficiency.
    So with regard to COVID and efficiency, we have taken some 
initial steps and extended some of the grant programs until we 
can do some more analysis, but, you know, to make it just more 
available to people who are utilizing the program. I think what 
we have done is appropriate and, you know, I would be more than 
happy to come up and spend more time with you and go through 
the exact steps that we have taken so far.
    Mr. Tonko. OK, thank you. We are certainly going to be 
quite active on behalf of our households that require the 
weatherization program.
    I also want to focus on the role DOE can play in reducing 
costs to encourage deployment of existing energy technologies. 
And, for example, DOE has identified inconsistent permitting 
requirements and processes as a significant cost to residential 
energy installations. The patchwork of permitting requirements 
across thousands of local jurisdictions causes unnecessary 
delays and certainly adds administrative costs.
    This not only increases energy prices for our consumers but 
also stifles homeowner and business investments in these 
technologies such as rooftop solar. Other countries like 
Germany and Australia, as we all know, have sought ways to 
streamline permitting. The average cost of a residential solar 
installation in Australia is less than one-half the cost in the 
United States.
    So, Mr. Secretary, DOE and NRO have worked on reducing 
these permitting costs. Do you believe DOE or another federal 
entity can continue to play a role in helping to streamline the 
permitting process for residential energy systems?
    Secretary Brouillette. Absolutely. I don't think there is 
any doubt about that. I think, you know, the challenges I hear, 
you know, have to do with not only solar but also offshore 
wind. For instance, we have seen some challenges with 
permitting some of the facilities both on the East and West 
Coasts. And I think it is--you know, look. It is very important 
that we have community involvement in the permitting process 
and I am not suggesting for a second that we deny individuals 
or communities an opportunity to be a part of a permitting 
process. But we should look very closely to see if there are 
certain redundancies or certain things in the process that are 
not conducive or not constructive or not allowing the process 
to move forward in forthright and transparent way. And I would 
be open to that type of conversation with you or your staff or 
anyone on the committee.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
    Finally, I believe the Advanced Manufacturing Office is an 
incredible resource for our United States manufacturers to 
become more competitive and sustainable. The industrial sector 
is responsible for roughly one-fifth of greenhouse gas emission 
and consumes roughly one-third of the primary energy here in 
the United States. In recent years, Congress has taken a bigger 
interest in these challenges. The Clean Industrial Technology 
Act has bipartisan support and this committee's climate 
legislation discussion draft has suggested creating a new DOE-
assisted secretary of industry. I know other groups have called 
for reorganization of DOE to better reflect the challenges our 
nation faces.
    Do you have any thoughts, whether through reorganization of 
the Department or otherwise, on the need to give greater 
emphasis and resources for DOE's manufacturing programs?
    Secretary Brouillette. That is an interesting idea. I would 
love to take a look at your bill and talk to you more about the 
organizational construct of DOE.
    You know, the importance of advanced manufacturing cannot 
be understated, however, especially as we start to look at more 
of these energy-efficient or the renewable technologies that 
are coming online. I did have an opportunity to talk to 
Representative Kennedy, for instance, about some of the 
manufacturing processes and some other things that he would 
like to bring to his congressional district.
    We are going to focus on the funding opportunities that we 
have at the Department of Energy. We just released 
approximately $44 million, give or take, over the course of the 
last few weeks and it is focused almost exclusively on advanced 
manufacturing techniques and capabilities. It is a very 
important role for the DOE to play. Our Oak Ridge National 
Laboratory in particular has been a world leader in developing 
3D printing as well as other technologies that allow advanced 
manufacturing to occur more efficiently.
    But with regard to your bill, I will take a look at it, 
sir. And if I might reserve the right to perhaps respond to you 
in writing, I would more than happy to do that.
    Mr. Tonko. Sure. We would love to host you for a tour of 
what is happening in our district. So thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    And, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. McKinley of West Virginia for 5 minutes.
    Mr. McKinley. Thank you, my friend, and for having this 
hearing.
    And welcome back, Mr. Secretary. A series of questions, if 
I could. Many of them are just yes and no. Under President 
Obama, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dempsey, 
once said that ``improving our energy security improves our 
national security.'' Do you agree with him?
    Secretary Brouillette. Yes.
    Mr. McKinley. If gas-fired power plants provide nearly 40 
percent of America's energy, do all gas-fired power plants get 
their natural gas from pipelines?
    Secretary Brouillette. Yes, in America, pretty much.
    Mr. McKinley. Thank you. In America.
    Mr. Cohen. Yeah.
    Mr. McKinley. So now, and if 90 percent of our natural gas 
is transported by pipelines, is it fair to say, therefore, that 
pipelines are an essential part of our national security?
    Secretary Brouillette. Yes.
    Mr. McKinley. Thank you. But the environmental left doesn't 
seem to agree with you and they just, they posted this headline 
the other day about delay wins the day. They want a delay, and 
what they are referring to are the delays that occurred over 
the Dakota Access Pipeline, which was operational as you know 
for three years.
    Secretary Brouillette. Sure.
    Mr. McKinley. The Atlantic Coast Pipeline that went through 
17 permits, federal government, and 16 state permits. It even 
went to the Supreme Court and got approval with it. And now 
they are even challenging the Mountain Valley Pipeline that is 
transporting gas from West Virginia to other states.
    My question is, could the loss of these pipelines that we 
just mentioned, could they pose a challenge to our national 
security?
    Secretary Brouillette. In my view, yes.
    Mr. McKinley. OK.
    Secretary Brouillette. And I think----
    Mr. McKinley. And it appears that some of our governors 
like Cuomo and Inslee may be abusing their 401 permitting--
authority. Because of Cuomo, states in the Northeast--Maine, 
New Hampshire, Massachusetts--have to get their electricity 
from Canada and their natural gas from Russia. So whose economy 
is Cuomo helping? Is it Putin's? It is certainly not ours.
    So if I could, Mr. Secretary, as you know the 
administration is about to finalize a new NEPA reform, 
significant rewrite of NEPA, and it is my understanding that 
nothing in the reforms get rid of any existing rules but, 
rather, you all have developed as something that might 
streamline the permitting process and primarily so that the 
environmental left can't weaponize the permitting process.
    Now let me switch gears just for a minute. The government 
has called on manufacturers to produce more PPE, hundreds of 
millions, hundreds of millions more of respirators, plastic 
face shields, gowns, gloves, all are going to be necessary. 
They are all produced from this. This is natural gas. This is 
resins from natural gas. Won't we need pipelines to produce 
more PPE?
    Secretary Brouillette. Yes, sir. Ultimately, we will.
    And to address your national security concerns at least 
with regard to the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, you know, it begs 
the question. We have an enormous naval facility down at 
Norfolk and we have an enormous Army facility in North 
Carolina, the home of the 82nd Airborne. It is very important 
that these facilities have ready access, reliable access to 
electricity because they depend upon the private grid for the 
purposes of their power generation.
    Mr. McKinley. Thank you. I have a couple more questions if 
I can just ask quickly.
    Secretary Brouillette. Sure.
    Mr. McKinley. Wall Street as you know works on certainty. 
They depend on it. And the litigation and delays created by the 
environmental left have created the opposite, especially as it 
relates to what happened to coal. Are we about to see the same 
thing on Wall Street developing concerns about pipelines and 
natural gas? Do you think there could be a threat?
    Secretary Brouillette. And perhaps we are. The regulatory 
uncertainty will lead to certain investors to back away from 
these types of projects.
    Mr. McKinley. So my last question, if 70 percent of our 
energy comes from fossil fuels and if Wall Street stops 
financing gas-fired power plants and has an aversion to funding 
pipelines because they don't know whether they are going to be 
built or not because of regulations, is this a positive or a 
negative sign for our national security?
    Secretary Brouillette. In my view, it is a negative sign.
    Mr. McKinley. Thank you. So, in the six seconds left, can 
you explain a little bit about maybe what DOE is doing to 
address the streamlining process and prevent the abuse?
    Secretary Brouillette. Well, through the interagency 
process we are contributing to the NEPA efforts, which I 
understand are going to be released very, very shortly. And to 
your point, they are not to reduce in any way, shape, or form 
the environmental concerns that the American people have 
raised. What we are simply doing is eliminating redundancies.
    I will tell you really quickly in the case of DOE, I made a 
decision very early that if another agency had conducted a 
NEPA, you know, analysis with regard to perhaps, say, an LNG 
export facility, which we have some regulatory responsibility 
for, that the DOE would rely upon the other NEPA analysis. FERC 
is quite capable, for instance, in conducting NEPA analyses. So 
if they have already done the work once, there is no need for 
DOE to do a second NEPA analysis. Eliminating that step will 
save, you know, an enormous amount of money for the applicants 
who are looking to build these export facilities for LNG. It is 
just one small example, but it is a step in the right 
direction.
     Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Loebsack for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Loebsack. Thank you, Chairman Rush and Ranking Member 
Upton, for holding this hearing today.
    And thank you, Secretary Brouillette, for testifying today 
as well. As you know, the RFS is a key economic driver in my 
home state of Iowa and actually throughout farm country, and 
the biofuels industry has been hit hard by the COVID-19 
pandemic. Of course, the pandemic only exacerbated the pain 
that this industry had already been experiencing in no small 
measure due to the explosion of small refinery exemptions 
granted by this administration which have wiped out over four 
billion gallons of biofuel from the marketplace since 2016. In 
January, as you know, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals found 
that in order for a small refinery to be eligible for an 
exemption, the law requires that that refinery have an 
exemption in place to extend, meaning that they must have 
received an exemption each year in order to be eligible for a 
future exemption.
    Unfortunately, rather than adhere to the ruling of the 
court, many small refineries have submitted retroactive waiver 
petitions dating as far back as 2011, in an attempt to fill in 
the gaps in years where they did not receive a waiver. 
According to EPA's own data, by the ruling of the 10th Circuit 
there should be no more than seven refineries eligible for 
future exemptions, and yet EPA recently confirmed that it has 
received 52 so-called gap years' small refinery petitions 
which, if granted, would equate to a loss of an additional two 
billion dollars of biofuel demand.
    So, Mr. Secretary, I have a series of questions here. I am 
going to try to get through all of them and if I cut you off, I 
apologize, but I want to get through as many if not all of 
these I possibly can. The first question is, have those gap 
year petitions been scored by DOE and sent back to EPA, and, if 
not, when will that happen?
    Secretary Brouillette. Thank you, Mr. Loebsack. I 
appreciate the opportunity. And thanks for your conversation as 
well earlier this week by telephone. You know, I will get back 
to you on the 50-plus applications that, you know, may have 
come from EPA. I am not quite sure where we are in the process.
    I will just state that, you know, there are differing legal 
opinions about this 10th Circuit case. I think some are reading 
it as an opportunity to file these gap applications, if you 
will. I will also just, you know, state for the record that if 
EPA sends us the application we are required still to evaluate 
it, so I am assuming that we are doing that today and I will 
get you a precise answer as to where we stand in that 
particular process.
    Mr. Loebsack. I want to ask you for your opinion. Do you 
believe that the law does allow EPA to grant these gap year 
petitions?
    Secretary Brouillette. I am sorry. Say again, sir.
    Mr. Loebsack. Do you believe that the law allows EPA to 
grant these gap year petitions?
    Secretary Brouillette. Well, that is a good question. I am 
not quite certain about that. I would have to review the case 
very closely and I am not an attorney so I would hate to give 
you a legal opinion.
    Mr. Loebsack. Yeah, because my next question has to do with 
that, actually. Will DOE ensure its review of these petitions 
conforms with the Court's decision?
    Secretary Brouillette. If I understood you correctly, would 
you just say the last part of that again?
    Mr. Loebsack. Yeah. Well, I will do the whole question. 
Will DOE ensure its review of these petitions conforms with the 
Court's decision?
    Secretary Brouillette. Oh, sure. We will do everything 
according to the law and our understanding of the law. There is 
no question about that. I will get with--Bill Cooper is our 
general counsel at the Department of Energy, and we will 
ensure, you know, whatever analysis we are required to conduct 
under the law and whatever we send to EPA is going to be fully 
compliant with not only the 10th Circuit decision but also the 
federal statute.
    Mr. Loebsack. And you may or may not be able to answer this 
next question, but has EPA sent you any exemption petitions 
from refiners who had previously submitted a petition for the 
exact same year but were denied a waiver the first time around?
    Secretary Brouillette. I don't know the answer to that 
question, but I will find out and get right back to you.
    Mr. Loebsack. And do you know if DOE has changed its 
methodology or approach for scoring small refinery exemption 
petitions?
    Secretary Brouillette. No, we have not. We conduct this 
analysis the same way we always have and that we provide our 
findings to EPA for their ultimate decision on the application.
    Mr. Loebsack. Well, if it has not changed the methodology, 
then doesn't it stand to reason that DOE would have no choice 
but to score these do-over gap year petitions exactly the same 
way as the Department did the first time?
    Secretary Brouillette. Yes, sir. We have not changed our 
methodology. I mean we have done this in the same manner in 
which we have done since the creation of the program back in 
2005.
    Mr. Loebsack. OK. And other than the 52 gap year waiver 
petitions, EPA reports 27 waiver petitions pending for the 2019 
RFS compliance year. Has DOE completed review of those 
petitions and made recommendations to EPA?
    Secretary Brouillette. Yes. I will get you an answer on 
that, sir. I would have to check the status of those 
applications.
    Mr. Loebsack. OK. Yes. Well, I look forward to the answers 
and I did appreciate our conversation we had prior to this 
hearing. I appreciate what you are doing at the DOE and I know 
you have a lot of great history with the committee and I 
appreciate that.
    But we have to make sure that we are doing the right thing 
for these biofuels folks and we have to make sure that EPA and 
DOE are complying with this 10th Circuit Court decision making, 
sure that everyone is abiding by the law, and I know you agree 
with that as well. So thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. And I 
yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Griffith. Mr. Chairman, how are you this afternoon?
    Mr. Rush. Good, thanks.
    Mr. Griffith. All right.
    Oh, Mr. Secretary, one of my priorities as we have 
discussed in the past is research parity between the renewable 
research and our fossil fuel research. And as we look at the 
many issues that we are discussing today, including resiliency 
and the reliability of our grid as well as the global 
environmental well-being, it is critical that we continue to 
invest in the research and development for fossil fuels as well 
as renewables.
    As you and I have discussed previously, of course, you 
know, sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, developing nations are using 
their coal supply and they are going to use their coal supply. 
And one of the things I would hope that we would do is figure 
out how to use that the most effectively so that we can then 
move forward, not just in the United States, but globally, to 
reduce emissions coming from coal-fired power plants and other 
fossil fuel burning plants.
    Do you agree that we should strive for parity and continue 
to invest in fossil research and development here in the United 
States?
    Secretary Brouillette. There we go. Can you hear me, sir? 
To answer your question----
    Mr. Griffith. I can.
    Secretary Brouillette [continue]. Yes, I do. I think we 
need to continue our research and development in areas like 
CCUS for the purposes of making coal not only more efficient 
but cleaner, because, as you point out, developing nations will 
continue to use this very important resource that they have 
around the world.
    Our own EIA, the Energy Information Administration, 
projects that the use of fossil fuels will continue at very 
high levels well into the 2040s, perhaps even out as far as 
2050. And if that is the case, then I think we have an 
obligation to develop the technologies that are necessary to 
use those fuels very cleanly. So things like CCUS R&D work at 
the Department of Energy, work related to carbon capture 
utilization, sequestration, are very, very important, and I 
think we should continue that work.
    And if it is, you know, if it is the direction of Congress 
to increase that type of work, which I would hope it would be, 
we would certainly welcome that opportunity.
    Mr. Griffith. Well, and I appreciate that. And, of course, 
I am excited about some of the things that are happening here 
in my district which is a coal-producing and natural gas-
producing area.
    We have MOVA Technologies out of the New River Valley that 
is doing some flatbed technology where they run the gases 
through various substrates. And this is a very crude analogy, 
but they run it through the substrates and it pulls out 
individual pollutants so that you don't have an issue with, you 
know, a series of things that have to be done afterwards. They 
can actually be sold commercially. I also think that the 
chemical looping still has great promise, and then, you know, 
anything that we can do to find additional uses for coal 
products as we move forward.
    Is there anything in particular that you have looked at 
that you find to be an interesting and exciting new technology?
    Secretary Brouillette. Yes. Actually, I was just up in the 
western part of Pennsylvania visiting a coal facility there and 
I saw technologies that to me were absolutely fascinating.
    Going back to your first question though on the use of 
coal, I want to point out that I think it is also important 
because we have enormous reserves here and obviously your 
district is a big part of that in the United States. The export 
opportunities for coal are enormous around the world and that 
means jobs here in the United States. So I would hate for us to 
close off that opportunity for the use of this product because 
it creates so many jobs not only in Virginia, but also West 
Virginia, and out in Wyoming as well. You know, many, many 
states produce coal. So my point is that let's continue the 
clean technologies that we need to make this product cleaner as 
we export it around the world.
    But with regard to the new uses for coal, we are now 
extracting some critical minerals. We are beginning to figure 
out how to extract rare earth elements which are absolutely 
vital for the development of battery technologies. So as we 
look at the future and perhaps see more and more use of 
renewable energies and we try and reach that holy grail of 
grid-scale battery storage, it is going to be perhaps our 
knowledge and perhaps the research that we do today on coal 
that might allow us to break some of the supply chain 
restrictions and vulnerabilities that we are currently 
experiencing today.
    China as you perhaps know, I think, from our conversations 
you well know this, is that, you know, China, today, owns about 
80 percent of the rare earth element market, so we are 
incredibly dependent upon, as I pointed out earlier, an 
adversarial nation to the United States. If we can develop 
these products from coal, we have strengthened not only our 
energy security but our national security as well.
    Mr. Griffith. And I appreciate that. And they are doing 
that work down Virginia Tech is working on that as well. So, 
there is a lot of new technology out there and I appreciate 
your leadership on those issues.
    And, Mr. Chairman, I see my time is up and I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Vermont, Mr. Welch, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Welch. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you, Mr. Secretary. It is terrific to see you. 
Sorry we are not all there with you.
    I wanted to ask you questions in two areas. One is the 
energy and water efficiency audits, and then second, staffing 
levels in the Department of Energy that are essential for us to 
pursue energy efficiency. First of all, on the energy audits, 
my understanding is your report shows that only 43 percent of 
the federal agencies have actually completed their audits and 
only six out of twenty-eight have done it fully.
    And as we all know, there is immense opportunity for 
savings through energy efficiency, and there is $7.8 billion of 
efficiency measures that have been identified which would 
result, as it is part of your report, $800 million in financial 
savings. What are the obstacles? What is the problem with 
getting these energy and water audits done? Can you speak to 
that?
    Secretary Brouillette. I am sure there are many reasons why 
they are not being done, sir, but what I will do is I will go 
back and I will ask for my own independent audit and get an 
update for you so that I can figure out exactly why this is not 
getting done in the manner of which I know you want it done and 
I know the committee wants it done. We have the tremendous 
opportunity here as you point out. I mean I am looking at some 
of the data here in front of me, especially with regard to the 
federal facilities. We are looking at roughly the savings to 
the government, according to the data that I have here they are 
in the billions of dollars. It is enormous.
    Mr. Welch. Right.
    Secretary Brouillette. So, I think we ought to proceed at a 
very aggressive rate. I will commit to you here publicly that I 
will get back to you very, very shortly with an update on those 
audits.
    Mr. Welch. All right. Well, I appreciate that. And I think 
there is a lot of bipartisan support on our committee for these 
audits and the savings we can get. And let me just state, 
candidly, my sense about the failure of this to have happened 
before is that it reflects a slow walk approach towards getting 
this done. So I really will appreciate you getting back to us, 
but I think all of us would really appreciate getting the 
audits done. So when you get back with your report, the 
question is not so much why they aren't getting done, but when 
will they be done. Does that sound fair?
    Secretary Brouillette. It sounds very fair. And I will 
commit to you here that we will get you an answer within the 
next, I will just say, would ten days be appropriate for you?
    Mr. Welch. It would be great. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    Secretary Brouillette. OK.
    Mr. Welch. Also there is this question of staffing. You 
know, as an example, again on energy efficiency, Mr. McKinley 
and I, for years, have been working on the HOPE for HOMES Act 
which would allow homeowners to do installations for energy 
efficiency, get some help from the government, and it has a 
real benefit of putting local contractors to work.
    This won't work, even if we are successful as we think we 
will be in getting the money, unless there is staffing in the 
appropriate departments of the Department of Energy for energy 
efficiency. And our sense is that or actually our information 
is that we have been very slow to fill the positions that are 
available. Can you speak to that and what steps will be taken 
to fully staff up, and that is in anticipation that we are 
actually going to be moving forward on energy efficiency.
    Secretary Brouillette. Sure. Yeah, I am happy to address 
that. That issue was raised in another hearing. It came to my 
attention very recently. And, you know, I am not happy with the 
answers I received, but there were some initial delays with 
things as simple as badging of employees. It would take an 
enormous amount of time just to get people through the 
employment process and provide them with a badge to do the work 
that we were attempting to hire them to do.
    And as a result, you know, people have these very 
specialized skills, very technical skills. In many cases they 
were taking jobs, other jobs that were available to them at the 
moment. We simply lost out on the competition. It is 
disheartening and disappointing and we have taken steps to 
address very simple measures like that. I can also get you an 
update on the staffing that we have done since that hearing and 
since that last conversation with Assistant Secretary Dan 
Simmons who was here before the committee.
    Mr. Welch. OK. Thank you very much.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Johnson, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And, Mr. Secretary, it is good to see you this afternoon. 
Thanks for taking time out of your schedule to brief us on your 
Department's important activities around this COVID-19 
pandemic. You know, you and your team at DOE have done some 
tremendously helpful work, work that has benefited all 
Americans. I commend you for your work filling the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve to the brim, securing the electrical grid, 
and as you noted in your testimony, we are utilizing some of 
DOE's most advanced, world-class laboratories and 
supercomputers in the fight against COVID-19.
    COVID-19, there is no question, and its associated economic 
challenges has put America on its heels, and our adversaries 
are looking to exploit this crisis, so it is critically 
important that we as members of this subcommittee don't lose 
focus on maintaining our global energy leadership. My time is 
limited so I want to get right into my questions.
    As you know very well, Mr. Secretary, my district in 
eastern and southeastern Ohio is blessed with an abundant 
supply of oil and gas in the Marcellus and Utica Shales. This 
is an economic lifeline to my constituents, and not only that 
but this cheap and abundant resource, if it is able to be 
efficiently transported and brought to market, for example, in 
the form of liquefied natural gas, it enables America to 
project power and push back on adversaries like Russia and 
Iran. As lawmakers, we need to focus on cutting unnecessary 
Washington red tape and burdensome regulations. This is why I 
recently introduced the Unlocking our Domestic LNG Potential 
Act to do just that.
    So two questions in one here. Can you explain, Mr. 
Secretary, in your dealings and negotiations on the global 
stage, why it is so important for us to maintain a strong 
domestic energy sector here at home and what benefits do 
Americans see from exporting some of our excess energy 
resources such as LNG in the global marketplace?
    Secretary Brouillette. Yes, sir. I am happy to. I will just 
give you the latest example of the importance of having a very 
strong and diverse energy sector here in the United States.
    We mentioned earlier the conversations that were occurring 
and, frankly, the dispute that occurred between Saudi Arabia 
and Russia just recently in the OPEC-Plus conversation. The 
President directed me as soon as we saw that there was a 
dispute--importantly, when we saw the reaction of one of the 
parties to that dispute and the reaction was very plain, they 
both increased their production and lowered the price which we 
feel was intended perhaps toward Russia, but the impact was 
felt here in the United States--the President immediately 
engaged and said reach out to your counterparts, work this out, 
figure out what is going on. It became pretty clear in that 
conversation that it was not going to get resolved at the 
ministerial level, my level with my counterpart. It got 
elevated to a head of state level.
    When the President engaged, he did so with a position of 
strength that was not available to Presidents, you know, when I 
was growing up as a young kid in Louisiana. When we were an 
importing nation not an exporting nation, we didn't have the 
authority, we didn't have the positioning in the world 
marketplace that would have allowed a President then to do what 
this President did, and that was to bring these parties 
together and resolve this dispute immediately, which brought 
stability to the world energy markets and the world oil 
markets.
    It is that availability to provide leadership in a foreign 
policy context that, you know, makes us understand why is it 
important that we have this energy industry.
    Mr. Johnson. Yeah. And I agree with you a hundred percent. 
And another corollary to that is commercial nuclear energy and 
our commercial nuclear entrepreneurs. We have got to win that 
battle with the Chinese and the Russians as well.
    Under your leadership, DOE has launched a variety of new 
initiatives including the Advanced Reactor Demonstration 
Program to accelerate the commercialization of new designs that 
are cheaper and smaller with additional safety benefits. And I 
was proud to reintroduce the Strengthening America Nuclear 
Competitiveness Act to help streamline the export of U.S. 
civilian nuclear technologies.
    So how does your work to formulate more bilateral nuclear 
cooperation agreements, recent International Development 
Finance Corporation action to repeal its limitation on nuclear 
deals, and legislative Part 810 reforms that I have proposed, 
how does that fit all together to position American nuclear 
entrepreneurs to seize this immense global economic opportunity 
and why is it important for us?
    Secretary Brouillette. Sure. Well, in a nutshell, sir, it 
is very important for us to export U.S. nuclear technology 
around the world because it comes with it as you point out 
certain restrictions. Things like 123 restrictions, Section 
123, it is part of the U.S. Code that restricts the use of 
nuclear fuels for the purposes of developing warheads, so a 
very important nonproliferation aspect to the export of U.S. 
nuclear technologies. China and Russia doesn't recognize that. 
They don't have those types of restrictions. So to the extent 
that countries want to buy those technologies we also accept 
the risk that they may develop a warhead, so it is very, very 
important to our national security that we export U.S. nuclear 
technology.
    You mentioned the other things that we are doing in our 
national laboratories. We are moving forward with things like 
the Advanced Test Reactor which allow us to develop not only 
the, you know, the reactor technologies, but also the materials 
that are needed to build these reactors and the nuclear 
components. If we can do that with the Advanced Test Reactor, 
if we can develop, potentially under the auspices of the laws 
that were passed recently, a versatile test reactor, if 
Congress chooses to fund that we can test materials that make 
the U.S. technologies even cheaper and more competitive on the 
world market.
    And as we do that, again, we create economic opportunity 
here. We create national security because those technologies 
will come with the nonproliferation safeguards that the U.S. 
law requires.
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Chairman, thanks for indulging. I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Kennedy for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, good to see you and thank you for being 
here. I am glad to have this opportunity to speak directly with 
you about an issue that I believe this country must make a 
priority. It is not going to be a surprise to anybody in this 
committee--offshore wind development. As members of the 
committee well know this has been a priority of mine since I 
first arrived in Congress. I have had the opportunity to 
discuss this issue with a few of your predecessors, Mr. 
Secretary, and I look forward to this conversation as well.
    The research, development and, critically, the deployment 
of offshore wind in the United States holds immense promise. 
From the clear climate benefits of utilizing an abundant, 
renewable natural resource, the economic impact on ratepayers 
to the benefits are undeniable. In New England, and in 
Massachusetts in particular, we pay amongst the highest retail 
electric rates in the lower 48 states. Taking advantage of a 
renewable natural resource that we have right off the coast 
makes perfect sense.
    In March of 2020--oh, excuse me. But beyond the climate and 
economic benefits, the promise of offshore wind is the growth 
and incubation of an entire new industry. It includes direct 
and indirect jobs, many of which will require high-skilled, 
American, union labor and to realize its immense potential.
    In March of 2020, the American Wind Energy Association 
released its U.S. Offshore Wind Power Economic Impact 
Assessment. Among the findings we estimated that, quote, 
developing 30,000 megawatts of offshore wind along the East 
Coast could support up to 83,000 jobs and deliver 25 billion in 
economic output by 2030. And that is just the potential on the 
East Coast.
    As you know, the Federal Government is currently evaluating 
proposals off the coast of Massachusetts. So my first question, 
Mr. Secretary, is how is DOE coordinating with other federal 
agencies, including the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, to 
address the jurisdictional issues surrounding offshore wind?
    Secretary Brouillette. Thank you, sir, and I appreciated 
the opportunity as well to catch up with you by telephone over 
the weekend. I enjoyed our conversation and I look forward to 
working with you.
    You know, we work closely with EPA, the Department of 
Interior in certain cases if it is dealing with offshore wind, 
to ensure that the permitting processes are streamlined. We 
mentioned earlier our need for efforts and other things that we 
are working on. We are going to continue that effort because we 
do recognize that, you know, the provision of wind energy, the 
provision of solar energy, the provision of nuclear energy, the 
provision of, you know, other forms of energy, hydro, are key 
to our energy diversity here in the United States.
    And as we talked about earlier, with regard to national 
security it is that diversity that allows us the strength that 
we need in America to continue growing the economy at the pace 
in which we are going to grow it. I am very supportive of your 
efforts there locally. I am happy to help you in any way that I 
might be able to.
    Mr. Kennedy. I appreciate that, sir.
    So building off that, I want to get a sense of what DOE is 
doing to ensure that offshore wind not only connects to the 
grid, but then get that grid to power of load center given the 
permitting issues that you have discussed.
    Secretary Brouillette. Sure. We need to continue to develop 
infrastructure here in the United States, transmission 
infrastructure, distribution infrastructures so that we can get 
the power where it needs to be.
    You know, we have unique challenges here in the United 
States with the provision of renewable energy. If you think 
about it, it becomes very logical. There is lots of sunshine in 
places like Arizona and New Mexico and the southwest part of 
the country. Getting that electrical power to perhaps Chicago 
or high-density areas in the United States can be a bit of a 
challenge.
    And, you know, while we are very sensitive to the ability 
of local communities and states to be a part of the regulatory 
process or the permitting process, I should say, it is also 
important that we find a path forward to develop the 
infrastructure that we need to move the power from where it is 
generated to where it needs to be. And it is an ongoing effort 
not only at the Department of Energy, but the EPA, Department 
of Interior, other bodies, state and local institutions as 
well. And it has been a very robust conversation and I look 
forward to being an even larger part of it.
    Mr. Kennedy. And, Mr. Secretary, just because my time is 
running a bit short here, I wanted to flag that you and I had 
discussed previously about taking advantage of the potential of 
offshore wind development in the Northeast and the economic 
impact that this would have along these coasts and in 
particularly southeastern Massachusetts.
    About a Center of Excellence on Offshore Wind, I had sent a 
letter to the Assistant Secretary of Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy a few weeks ago and would love to get a 
response and keep in contact with your agency to figure out 
what we can do to make that come about.
    Secretary Brouillette. Sure. I will certainly follow up 
with Dan Simmons and get you some additional information.
    But I would also like to get together with you, and I would 
also, if I might, sir, take this opportunity to invite you to 
our National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colorado. I 
think you would be pleased with that particular Center of 
Excellence. That is one of its focal points.
    Mr. Kennedy. I look forward to it, sir. Thanks very much, 
Mr. Secretary.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Bucshon from Indiana for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Bucshon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you, Secretary. I would like to focus on grid 
reliability and resilience. Some of this has already been 
discussed, but, you know, the COVID-19 impact has made it even 
more front and center. And as you know, a key principle to a 
resilient grid is the need for diverse fuel and generation 
supply for the electrical sector. And I am a supporter of the 
all-of-the-above energy approach and I believe each fuel mix 
plays a key role in our grid especially during a public health 
emergency.
    However, it is important that we don't forget the critical 
role baseload energy such as coal and natural gas play to our 
grid reliability. And it is more important than ever that our 
grid has a reliable backbone to make sure the lights always 
stay on and our frontline workers have the electricity they 
need.
    I want to applaud the DOE at remaining committed to clean 
coal in our energy mix, as you have discussed earlier during 
the hearing, and by you recently announcing the Coal FIRST 
Initiative which will work to make coal plants flexible, 
innovative, resilient, small, and transformative with the goal 
of one day having these plants be emission-free. In Southwest 
Indiana that I represent, we have all the coal in the state of 
Indiana. Our state at one point had about 85 percent of its 
power from coal. It is now quite a bit less, but still 
substantial based on our expansion of renewable energy sources.
    But a couple of things, questions I have. Can you explain 
maybe what, if any, lessons you learned and are continuing to 
learn during the COVID-19 pandemic that can help ensure our 
grid remains reliable and resilient?
    Secretary Brouillette. Sure, I am happy to do that. I mean, 
you know, it is the most, I think, striking example, obvious 
example is the importance of electricity to everything we do. I 
mean if we take a step back and just imagine for a moment the 
horror that would result from a loss of power in, say, New York 
City or one of our major cities where the pandemic was 
particularly acute at least in the early stages, the loss of 
power there would just be devastating.
    Our ability to replace the power is somewhat limited. I 
mean some of these folks have backup generators and what not, 
but those are very short in nature. So just the importance of 
the electricity grid is just, you know, first and foremost. And 
it forced us to recognize, you know, as I mentioned to Mr. 
Kennedy and others, the need for additional infrastructure here 
in the United States, the additional emphasis that we placed on 
cybersecurity throughout this pandemic because if you were an 
adversary you would look at this as potentially an opportunity 
to do some damage to the grid and to the American economy, so 
our vigilance has been raised as a result of this pandemic.
    Sir, to your question about clean coal and the 
announcements that we made with Coal FIRST, I think that is a 
fascinating program at the Department of Energy. It is designed 
to bring the next generation of coal generation to market. The 
facilities that we are looking at are smaller. They are much 
more efficient. And, importantly, when they are combined with 
things like biomass and the technologies that are available to 
us in the Coal FIRST, actually have the ability to have a net 
negative carbon emissions footprint.
    So it is a fascinating technology that we want to continue 
to work on and develop and potentially see moving to the 
private sector at some point in the future. So thank you for 
your interest in the program and I look forward to keeping you 
updated on it.
    Mr. Bucshon. Well, thank you. And again, thanks to the what 
the Department of Energy is doing in the research realm. And I 
want to reiterate what other members have said and I think you 
have said during this hearing is that it is important that we 
don't limit ourselves to research and development in only one 
area of energy generation.
    And I think, you know, there is a push right now to forget 
about coal, forget about natural gas and other fossil fuels, 
whereas, with innovative research and development this can be a 
substantial contributor as far as our lifetimes and probably 
into the future and also be a major contributor to making sure 
that we have a more reliable and resilient grid that will help 
protect us as you mentioned on the national security front, but 
more importantly improve the lives of the citizens that we 
represent.
    So, thanks for your work and continue the good work you are 
doing more broadly across the energy space and I hope the 
Congress continues to support that.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady from New Hampshire, Ms. Kuster, for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Kuster. Great. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. 
Chair. Sorry, I am having a little difficulty with my computer. 
Just trying to get to my remarks. Oh, well.
    I wanted to ask a question today about the responding to 
COVID-19 and the economic recovery from COVID-19. And thank 
you, Mr. Secretary, for being with us. It is important for 
Americans to see that their government is doing everything in 
their power to help keep them safe, and I know from our 
discussion yesterday that you, the Department of Energy, has 
been helpful in combating COVID-19 directly. And I think my 
constituents would be pleased to hear how the Department of 
Energy is leveraging the full range of its facilities in the 
fight against this terrible disease that has been so disruptive 
in our country.
    So how are researchers at the Department of Energy using 
the massive computing power at their disposal to help us 
understand COVID-19 and explore potential treatments and how 
might this research help us get this pandemic under control?
    Secretary Brouillette. Sure. I am happy to address that. 
The national laboratories have been front and center on some of 
the early findings with regard to COVID. So, for instance, at 
Argonne National Laboratory they use very high powered light 
beams and light sources and x-ray technologies, and what they 
are able to do is identify certain protein strains that would 
further lead to potential drug compounds that would have 
positive impacts on this particular virus, this COVID-19.
    They were able to do that because of the supercomputing 
capacities at Argonne and Oak Ridge and some other national 
laboratories in very, very short amounts of time. So, you know, 
the very, you know, practical or, you know, for myself, a 
layman's way of understanding it, rather than taking a year or 
two to go through perhaps billions of pages of academic 
research to find the most relevant articles, they could do that 
in a day or perhaps two days by using the speed of the 
computers to sift through it.
    The same thing with drug compounds, they were able to look 
through several thousand, perhaps even more, drug compounds to 
find the first 70 or 77 or so that they could identify as 
having a potential positive impact on this virus. So it is 
using that ability that allowed the CDC, allowed the 
researchers and the doctors at HHS and other interagency 
partners to make those key first decisions and potentially 
limit the impact of this pandemic.
    Ms. Kuster. So I want to direct my comments to the 
disruption that has been caused by COVID-19. You and I 
discussed yesterday the opportunity to build back better than 
before and I would love to hear your thoughts on the dramatic 
advancements that have been made in increasing solar and wind 
energy production and how we can envision a rule for renewable 
energy that will place our economic recovery from the COVID-19 
pandemic and keep us moving forward so that we can not only 
rebuild our economy, but come back stronger with jobs here in 
America.
    Secretary Brouillette. Thank you for the conversation 
yesterday. I really enjoyed that.
    You know, with regard to the future of some of these 
renewable technologies, I do think we have an opportunity in 
America not only as a result of the pandemic, but I think just 
as a result of the changing consumer desires to develop some 
advanced technologies. For instance, you know, the solar world 
in which we had discussed yesterday and I may have mentioned in 
the earlier part of this hearing, you know, we at the DOE, we 
look at photovoltaics as somewhat antiquated. It is a very 
mature technology. If you want a solar panel you can usually 
get one in America. You can usually get it installed on your 
house very, very quickly. I know that there has been some 
slowdown as a result of the pandemic, but nonetheless the 
technology is available to most U.S. consumers or world 
consumers.
    What we are looking at is the next generation of solar 
technology, the use of perovskites, the use of other materials 
that perhaps are organic here in the United States or around 
the world, or they may be manmade technologies or manmade 
materials that we use to make the next generation of solar 
panels. If we can unlock that, if we can move forward with that 
type of technology and, more importantly, get it to the 
marketplace through either our Office of Technology Transitions 
or other methodologies to get it to the marketplace, then we 
have an enormous economic opportunity ahead of us.
    And, you know, with regard to our support here at the DOE, 
we support all forms of energy. We will continue to do so 
because as I mentioned earlier, we feel very strongly that adds 
not only to our economic and energy security, but our national 
security as well.
    Ms. Kuster. Thank you very much. My time is up. I did have 
a question on negative emission technology and direct air 
capture, but I will submit that for the record. Thank you. And 
I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Flores, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Flores, please unmute your microphone.
    Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Secretary 
Brouillette. It is great to have you testifying again to us 
today. I just wanted to let you know it is a hundred degrees 
here in my part of Texas and my solar system is producing 100 
percent of my energy needs. So, I am doing my part for the grid 
and also for the emissions of the country.
    Mr. Secretary, as you know we have talked quite a bit today 
about maintaining national security and maintaining U.S. energy 
dominance and that those are key inputs for continued economic 
opportunity for hardworking Americans. And as you pointed out 
in one of your earlier responses, we need to aggressively 
support innovation and private sector partnerships, 
particularly when it comes to the use and development of 
advanced nuclear reactors to regain our global leadership role 
when it comes to nuclear energy.
    You also mentioned the critical need to make sure that high 
assay, low enriched uranium or HALEU, as we all call it, is 
available in sufficient quantities. You did say earlier that 
the Department of Energy is working on trying to make this fuel 
source available. Can you give us a little bit more detail, a 
little bit more substance about what the Energy Department is 
doing so that we can regain that leadership role in the nuclear 
space?
    And then also if you think there is additional legislative 
support that is needed, share that information as well. Thank 
you.
    Secretary Brouillette. Thank you, Mr. Flores. Keep that a/c 
on. It gets really hot. It gets really hot down there. It was 
great to be in Texas last week. I am sorry I missed you.
    With regard to the HALEU project that you are talking 
about, what we have instituted is a pilot project. We are going 
to do the supports with Ohio where we had an existing facility 
so we didn't need to construct new facilities to do this. Our 
intent is to spend about $115 million that was appropriated by 
the U.S. Congress to take some centrifuges that we had down in 
Oak Ridge, move them to Ohio, and create this high assay LEU 
which is enriched to a range somewhere around 19 percent.
    We hope that this will catalyze--and that project is 
underway. The casings have moved to Ohio. We have some 
additional construction to do inside of the facility, but we 
hope to have this completed by sometime midpoint next year, 
perhaps at the end of next year, and begin producing in limited 
quantities this particular fuel source. We are also at the same 
time using our Idaho National Laboratory to move forward with 
some research and development and potentially some more 
aggressive work, actually deployment of a small modular reactor 
which doesn't use this type of fuel, but is nonetheless a newer 
technology that we would like to see come to market soon.
    With regard to the HALEU fuel that I mentioned earlier, 
what we will use that for is an advanced or a micro reactor and 
INL is at the tip of the spear force in the development of that 
technology as well, so we are going to work closely with them. 
We are going to work closely with the U.S. Department of 
Defense who has indicated an interest in the small nuclear 
reactors for perhaps some deployment to remote locations where 
radar stations are, you know, located around the world and, 
quite candidly, they don't have access to energy sources as we 
do in the lower 48 perhaps. I am thinking about Alaska, places 
like the Aleutian Islands.
    So we are moving very aggressively to move this technology 
out to the marketplace.
    Mr. Flores. OK, very good. And as you know, my HALEU bill 
has passed the House not only in the last Congress but also in 
this Congress and it helps give you the statutory authority you 
need for the development and transportation of this fuel and by 
setting public-private partnerships. We are hoping the Senate 
will act soon. What other legislative support do you need to 
help us regain our dominance in this area?
    Secretary Brouillette. Well, that bill is very important, 
so thank you for your leadership there and thank you for your 
support of both the technology as well as the program within 
DOE. I look forward to supporting that all throughout the 
process.
    With regard to other legislative authorities, at this point 
in time I don't have anything for you in terms of a specific 
need, but I am happy to discuss this with you further and look 
through our legal authorities and see if there might be 
anything that might present a roadblock to us in the future for 
the development of this type of fuel or the advanced nuclear 
technologies that we just discussed.
    Mr. Flores. OK. And thank you for your testimony and thank 
you for your answers to my questions. And let me know when INL 
is opened up for congressional visitors again because that is 
on my wish list of places to visit. Thank you.
    Secretary Brouillette. Love to have you. We would love to 
have you.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. Kelly, for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Kelly. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Thank you for 
convening us.
    And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for spending part of your day 
with us. I wanted to ask you about the Department of Energy 
envisioning creating jobs through modernization and all kind of 
jobs whether you have a high school diploma or you have your 
masters. What are you thinking about that?
    Secretary Brouillette. What am I thinking about in terms of 
the economic development or the----
    Ms. Kelly. What will be opportunities?
    Secretary Brouillette. I am sorry. I didn't quite get that. 
I apologize.
    Ms. Kelly. No, that is OK. How is DOE envisioning creating 
jobs through the grid modernization, whether it is you just 
have a high school diploma or you have a master's degree, what 
type of jobs will be available?
    Secretary Brouillette. Sure. Yeah, I am sorry. I couldn't 
quite catch the first part of your question.
    You know, at the DOE what we are very interested in doing 
is creating opportunities not only for scientists, you know, 
the vast bulk of the population and the workforce at DOE 
including our contractor base, are, you know, PhD-level 
scientists. They are nuclear engineers, nuclear physicists, 
other types of scientists throughout our laboratory system.
    What we need to do though is perhaps be more aggressive in 
developing the pipeline for that sort of talent. And what we 
are now focused on is development of programs, internships, 
fellowships, that would be used by even high school seniors, or 
high school juniors in some cases, to come and spend a summer 
with us, come and spend a few weeks with us and let us show you 
what it is that we do. And through that process perhaps 
generate some interest in STEM education curriculums that 
perhaps would lead to these students coming back to us as 
perhaps post-docs ten years later.
    So we are very aggressively pursuing that. We are also 
looking for opportunities to partner with private industry as 
well because we don't pretend to have a monopoly on the 
development of talent here in America at the Department of 
Energy, although I think we do a pretty good job of it. We do 
want to partner with our colleagues in private industry and 
work with them to develop STEM curricula in certain cases and, 
importantly, just develop the opportunity for students to come 
in at a very early age and see what it is we do.
    Ms. Kelly. That is wonderful. And I hope when you are 
thinking of that, that you think about a diverse pipeline also.
    Then I wanted to move to empty buildings and working with 
our cities and towns to think about reconfiguration of existing 
buildings so they are healthier, they incorporate more 
touchless techs, create better air ventilation and spacing. So 
what do you recommend to cities and towns to, I guess, just to 
have healthier buildings, more green buildings?
    Secretary Brouillette. As we discussed earlier, I mean 
focusing on efficiency, focusing on the programs that we have, 
you know, we have the federal energy program, FEMP as it is 
known, for federal buildings, but focusing on energy efficiency 
and what we might do to improve the efficiency of some of these 
buildings is clearly important.
    But I might add that, you know, this is going to be a much 
larger issue for us perhaps in the next few months or perhaps 
years as we, you know, address the changes in society as a 
result of this pandemic. I have talked to several colleagues in 
private industry who have already indicated to me that perhaps 
telework may be the future for many of the employees at their 
respective companies. If that is the case, we are going to have 
some additional space available in these buildings all around, 
including in the small communities that you mentioned earlier.
    Ms. Kelly. If you, I don't know if you know the answer, but 
if you were to give, I know there is not one grade of A through 
F, but how do you feel like our towns and cities are doing as 
far as greener, cleaner, more technically sound buildings? Do 
you feel like we have lots and lots of work to do or we are 
halfway there?
    Secretary Brouillette. I don't know with regard to specific 
buildings or towns. I couldn't provide that kind of grade. I 
will provide a pretty high grade though for the development of 
the technologies that are leading us to more efficient use of 
energy all across the country.
    What private industry is doing, I think is absolutely 
remarkable. As we mentioned earlier in this hearing, what our 
scientists are doing at our national laboratories, the 
development of new solar technologies, the development of new 
technologies that allow us to capture carbon in certain 
instances, not only from fuels like coal but perhaps even 
natural gas and others, I give them very, very high marks for 
the work that is being done there.
    Ms. Kelly. Well, thank you. Thank you for your work and 
thank you for joining us and I yield back.
    Secretary Brouillette. Thank you.
    Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Barragan, for 5 
minutes.
    I am sorry.
    Ms. Barragan. Mr. Chairman, am I up?
    Mr. Rush. I am sorry, no. The Chair recognizes Mr. Hudson 
for 5 minutes. Mr. Hudson?
    Mr. Hudson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here with us today. I 
also just wanted to thank you and President Trump for your 
incredible leadership on behalf of our energy sector during 
this most trying time for our country.
    As you know, I represent the amazing men and women of Fort 
Bragg in North Carolina. These include the nation's immediate 
response force, the 82nd Airborne, our Army Special Forces, and 
other critical military components. As we face threats around 
the globe, it is of paramount importance our bases at home and 
our foreign and remote operating bases have the sustainable 
energy supply they need to keep us safe. You and President 
Trump have made this a priority and for that I am very 
grateful.
    As this committee and your Department develop new energy 
technologies to adequately supply our armed forces, I believe 
the future of our defense energy supply and our focus should 
reside with small modular and advanced nuclear reactors. In 
fact, back in 2018, I had an amendment to the National Defense 
Authorization Act that requires the Department of Energy and 
the Department of Defense to develop guidelines for a pilot 
program for the development of micro reactors at critical DOE 
and DOD sites.
    I am very interested in this report's recommendations for 
our forward operating bases and for increasing energy 
resilience at bases like Fort Bragg. But, unfortunately, the 
report is still at OMB, so I would appreciate anything you can 
do to assist me in getting this report finalized so we can move 
it forward.
    Just to get to my questions, build a little bit on what Mr. 
Flores was asking you about, there was a recent report from the 
Nuclear Fuel Working Group which outlined how America could 
reestablish itself as a global leader in nuclear technologies. 
This report supported next generation nuclear reactors. Can you 
comment on this report and some of your work on small modular 
and advanced nuclear reactors?
    Secretary Brouillette. Sure. I am happy to do that, sir, 
and thank you as well for the conversation that we had recently 
on the telephone. I appreciated learning more about your 
congressional district, and I might also--I am a little bit 
envious of your representation of Fort Bragg. As a former Army 
tank commander and drill sergeant, I spent a little time down 
in North Carolina and I miss my days there. So thank you for 
your service and thank you for your representation of that 
important Army installation.
    With regard to your question about the Nuclear Fuels 
Working Group, what we had discussed earlier, I think, is very 
important for the future of nuclear energy not only here in the 
United States but around the world. As I mentioned in one of 
the earlier questions, we have lost our leadership in America 
on nuclear power. We are losing it very quickly to places like 
China and Russia. In the case of China, they are using 
technologies that I think can be fairly characterized as 
American technology.
    Westinghouse is perhaps the world's leader in the 
development of advanced nuclear technologies. They created a 
reactor. It is called the AP1000. It is a fantastic product. 
China developed a reactor that looks awfully similar and we are 
seeing them deploy that around the world. And, importantly, as 
I mentioned earlier, they deployed around the world without the 
safeguards, without the nonproliferation safeguards that we as 
Americans feel is very, very important. To the extent that we 
don't focus on that we only increase our defense needs around 
the world.
    You know, if we allow rogue nations to develop this 
technology and from that develop warhead programs, we only 
increase our need for a strong defense here in the United 
States. So it is very, very important that we connect these 
things together in a way that allows us to move forward and 
perhaps regain our leadership in this nuclear area. The Working 
Group is the first step of that. We have many steps to go. But 
we do feel it is a very credible strategy that lays out a road 
map for America to retain, or regain our leadership in this 
case in the nuclear space.
    Mr. Hudson. Well, I agree with you and I think that work is 
very important, and I appreciate your leadership. But as you 
know, in order to effectively run an advanced reactor, you must 
have the necessary fuel. This committee has done work on 
advanced fuels, Mr. Flores and Mr. McNerney, and as Mr. Flores 
mentioned right before me, on high assay, low enriched uranium 
fuels. Can you talk about what DOE is doing to help with 
accident-tolerant fuels which are critical for existing and for 
these advanced reactors?
    Secretary Brouillette. Sure, absolutely. The accident-
tolerant fuels are absolutely necessary, in my view, not only 
for the development of the advanced reactors and the smaller 
reactors that we talked about earlier, it is important as well 
for changing the public perception about nuclear power in the 
first instance.
    We are still dealing with the overhang in America of things 
like Three-Mile Island. We obviously are dealing with the 
overhang of international events like Chernobyl and Fukushima. 
We all know about those horrible accidents. If we can develop a 
fuel that allows us to develop a technology that in certain 
cases you can turn the cooling off to the reactor and nothing 
happens, it simply shuts down, it is completely accident-
tolerant, that is important to changing that public perception 
and perhaps will increase public acceptance of this important 
energy source.
    As I mentioned earlier as well, it is important that we 
have all forms of energy, but nuclear in particular because it 
provides such an important baseload component to our electric 
grid here in the United States. And until we have the battery 
technologies that we are all working on, then there is no 
physical possible way for us to move to a one hundred percent 
renewable world, if that is what some are pursuing. We can't do 
it today without baseload electricity, and nuclear energy is 
just such an important component of that.
    Mr. Hudson. Great. Well, thank you, sir. I appreciate it 
and look forward to continuing these discussions.
    And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Barragan, for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Barragan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for joining us. My first 
question is, over 620,000 clean energy workers have lost their 
jobs since the start of the pandemic including over 100,000 in 
California. You were vocal in your testimony about supporting 
the fossil fuel industry. Can you tell me what you are doing to 
help the clean energy industry rebound?
    And if you could try to do that in 60 seconds, I have a 
number of questions I am trying to get to, Mr. Secretary.
    Secretary Brouillette. Yes, ma'am. I am happy to do that. 
Yes, I have been very vocal in my support for the energy 
industry, but all forms of energy. The pandemic has hit all 
sectors of the U.S. economy. I don't know if it has been an 
equal distribution, but the pain has been felt all across the 
United States. And I am supportive of, you know, the programs 
that you and your leadership in Congress, others in Congress, 
have done in the last 2 perhaps 3 months in passing programs 
like the CARES Act, other steps that you have taken to 
stabilize the U.S. economy as we deal with this pandemic.
    I want to ensure that--
    Ms. Barragan. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. If I could just 
interrupt you, I am trying to get to the questions. Is there 
anything specifically you can tell me about what you are going 
to do to help the clean energy industry rebound, anything 
specifically you might be able to mention?
    Secretary Brouillette. Well, I think, you know, under the 
energy efficiency program at the Department of Energy we are 
going to continue to invest through our funding opportunity 
processes. We have released, I think, in the last 2 or 3 months 
we have announced that we have about $220 million in funding 
opportunities that are coming exclusively out of the clean 
energy space in our energy efficiency programs. We are going to 
continue to make those available to the private sector and make 
those available so that they can move forward with some of the 
newer technologies that they want to bring to market and 
hopefully that will add some economic assistance to their 
businesses as well.
    Ms. Barragan. OK, thank you, sir.
    It was reported in April that your agency is holding back 
$43 billion in loan guarantees earmarked by Congress for clean 
energy projects. Why withhold support for the clean energy 
projects?
    Secretary Brouillette. Well it is--I would disagree 
slightly with the characterization. It is a loan program that 
is available within the Department of Energy, but it is not 
available exclusively to clean energy so we are not withholding 
that money from the clean energy industry. What I have done is 
undertake a review of the loan program, because coming from the 
banking industry I was a little concerned about some of the 
requirements that were being put in place that might prevent 
loans from being made.
    That review is still in process and I hope to complete it 
very, very shortly and at some point in the future we will move 
forward with this lending program.
    Ms. Barragan. Well, I hope you will work as quickly for the 
clean energy projects and sector as you have been for the 
fossil fuel industry, sir. I happen to represent a district 
that is almost 90 percent Latino/African American. They are 
surrounded by three freeways, the port, and urban oil drilling.
    Mr. Secretary, what is environmental injustice or 
environmental justice mean to you?
    Secretary Brouillette. It means the availability of energy 
to all sectors of our nation and all communities in our nation. 
My commitment to environmental justice is very broad. We talked 
a lot today about energy efficiency and making energy cheaper. 
I think that is very important for us to do. That is part of 
this program.
    And it is my commitment to you, it is my commitment to this 
Congress to pursue those types of technologies that allow the 
distribution of energy very, very efficiently in America and, 
importantly, very cheaply in America.
    Ms. Barragan. Well, sir, much like your predecessor, when 
asked this question you were talking about consumer pricing. 
But let me just tell you, environmental injustice is when there 
is a disproportionate impact to our communities of color, our 
black and brown communities that are suffering a much higher 
rate of air pollution.
    And so when you talk about rolling back air standards, when 
you talk about making it easier for the fossil fuel industry, 
you are talking about harming the health of our communities of 
color. And then COVID hits, and guess what? They are dying at 
higher rates because they have higher asthma and they are more 
exposed to this air pollution. And so it is very challenging. 
If you haven't noticed, there are protesters all across this 
country right now demanding justice and that includes 
environmental justice. And so I would ask you to take a very 
serious look at efforts that you can take to help fix this huge 
problem that we have.
    Do you believe in environmental racism?
    Secretary Brouillette. Well, I understand your concern and 
I think we happen to agree on the need for cleaner technologies 
going into the marketplace. But I would add that, you know, 
what is important is that we not only have the development of 
the technologies so that we can--
    Ms. Barragan. Mr. Secretary, the question was whether you 
believe in environmental racism.
    Secretary Brouillette. I am not sure what you mean by that.
    Ms. Barragan. Do you, yes or no?
    Secretary Brouillette. I don't know what you mean by that.
    Ms. Barragan. Well, it is a term to describe environmental 
injustices that occur across our country to certain communities 
including black and brown communities that are 
disproportionately impacted.
    Secretary Brouillette. I believe that there are communities 
that are perhaps disproportionately impacted, I just don't 
understand what you mean by the term ``environmental racism.''
    Ms. Barragan. OK. Well, I can certainly follow up with you 
and we should have this conversation because it goes hand in 
hand about what is happening across this country and why our 
communities of color are disproportionately impacted.
    And, sir, I know my time has expired but I will welcome 
that conversation.
    Mr. Rush. The lady yields back.
    Ms. Barragan. And with that I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from 
Michigan, Mr. Walberg, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here, and I think 
it is very apparent that you have reached out. Like the 
administration does, you have reached out to talk to us, 
members of this committee and subcommittee and on both sides of 
the aisle, and I appreciate that openness to hear our concerns, 
our ideas, and get to know us a little better as well.
    Secretary Brouillette. This committee, you have trained it 
very well.
    Mr. Walberg. Well, I appreciate the fact that you will be 
coming to Michigan later this week also. And on the glide path 
in the airport, most likely, you will look down and you will 
see my district and you will see why it is the energy district 
of the state with the nuclear, with the coal, one of the most 
up-to-date, modern coal plants that is still allowed to 
function as well as natural gas and manufacturing of wind 
energy as well in my district.
    So, we are delighted to have you there. Plus, unlike some 
of my Texas colleagues, you are not going to find hundred-
degree weather. In fact, when I left the airport today it was 
70 degrees, very low humidity, blue skies, and pure Michigan, 
and we look forward to sharing that with you.
    Four years ago, FERC held a technical conference to discuss 
a needed modernization of rules relative to PURPA, a law that 
is a 1978 law that had very strong, positive results in moving 
us toward renewable energy and doing it in such a way that 
right now it has worked so well that all energy providers have 
moved into that realm. But it is also in its present format 
causing unnecessary billions of dollars to be paid by consumers 
because of the outdated law.
    And so as you know, I have been heavily involved for years 
now in trying to reform that and I am pleased that FERC had 
undertaken four years ago an attempt to modernize it and is 
currently preparing to adopt critical components of reform 
included in legislation that I have championed over the past 
several Congresses. Due to COVID-19, utilities in my home state 
in Michigan have reported an increase in residential usage due 
to more people staying at home.
    Mr. Secretary, in your opinion, what impacts would reforms 
to PURPA such as waiving the mandatory purchase obligations for 
qualified facilities have on lowering utility costs for 
consumers at a time when domestic demand for electricity 
increased in this new stay-at-home economy?
    Secretary Brouillette. That is a great question and 
probably requires a more thoughtful answer than I am going to 
be able to provide you in 30 seconds. But look, I think 
generally, sir, you know, PURPA needs to be reformed. It was 
written many, many years ago, I think 1978 or so to be exact. 
You give or take a few years from there, but I think it is 
1978, and much has changed, you know, since then.
    We talked about technology today quite a bit, but the 
markets themselves have changed. Back in that point in time, 
you know, utilities were vertically integrated. Today they are 
not. We have very competitive markets. And I think it is, you 
know, appropriate for Congress, for FERC, for others to go back 
and take a look at this law and see if it still meets the needs 
of the American people.
    I might suggest that there are some changes that are long 
overdue with regard to PURPA, so I would support a review of 
the law.
    Mr. Walberg. We appreciate that and I am glad to see what 
is being done with FERC. I do believe that, ultimately, we need 
to do it legislatively, so it is permanent, but it has some 
flexibility in it, unlike the 1978 law.
    Secretary Brouillette. Sure.
    Mr. Walberg. The Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security, 
and Emergency Response, CESER, leads the Department of Energy's 
emergency preparedness and coordinated response to disruptions 
to the energy sector including physical and cyber-attacks, 
natural disasters, and manmade events.
    Two questions. The first is, can you please describe the 
role of the CESER Office over the last few months as it relates 
to COVID-19 outbreak?
    And, secondly, Mr. Rush and I, Chairman Rush and I have 
introduced the Energy Emergency Leadership Act which would help 
ensure the durability of DOE leadership in energy emergencies. 
As the House considers future measures in response to COVID-19 
outbreak, would DOE be better positioned to carry out these 
functions in the long term if the Assistant Secretary of CESER 
were made permanent in the DOE Organization Act and had clear 
authority through congressional authorization?
    Secretary Brouillette. The answer to your last question, I 
think I would answer that question yes.
    And I want to say thank you to both you and Chairman Rush 
for your support of that particular office. It has been 
absolutely essential. And as we saw in this particular 
pandemic, it has become increasingly important not only for 
purposes of its role with regard to cybersecurity, but its role 
with regard to the catastrophic response efforts. It was the 
CESER Office that provided the masks and provided the testing 
kits and delivered those to the utilities.
    It was the CESER Office that worked closely with the CEOs 
of the utilities all across the country to ensure that the 
control room personnel in particular were quarantined and had 
done the proper social distancing so that we didn't lose them 
at some point in this pandemic. Very critical role within the 
Department and I think a very critical role within the industry 
itself. And I think if you mentioned this to other utility CEOs 
you will find a similar response.
    Mr. Walberg. Thank you. I appreciate it.
    And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Peters from California for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Peters. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you to the Secretary for being with us today. 
During this administration, sir, there has been a shift in what 
to do with nuclear waste. Can you tell us what you think is the 
appropriate path forward on spent nuclear fuel storage? Right 
next to my district is the San Onofre facility which is now 
closed, for better or worse, and leaving it on the coast near a 
military base and near that population just doesn't make any 
sense.
    Secretary Brouillette. Sure. Yes, sir. I am happy to 
address that. We feel very strongly in the administration that 
we have to address the issue of spent nuclear fuel that is 
currently being stored at all of these utilities all across the 
country. You mentioned San Onofre. That is a familiar site for 
me and a familiar topic of conversation for me inside of the 
DOE.
    It is important that we address this, but it is also very 
clear that Congress has chosen not to fund any activity related 
to what was designated as the final repository, Nevada, many 
years ago, and as a result of that we are prohibited from 
moving forward with that particular repository and we won't 
move forward with that repository until Congress decides that 
it will, you know, it may want to do that.
    In the interim, however, we will focus on some measures 
that we might take to provide interim relief from the private 
storage or the storage that currently exists today. We have 
just begun that process. It will be open. It will be inclusive. 
I want to work not only with the policymakers here in Congress, 
but also with the governors and the local officials as well so 
that together we might find an appropriate solution. But for 
the moment, we are frozen by the Congress and the lack of 
funding for anything related to the final repository.
    Mr. Peters. Would you recommend to Congress and request as 
part of your budget request that we do fund the next steps in 
processing for finalizing the permitting of Yucca Mountain?
    Secretary Brouillette. OK. Now it is on.
    I think what we have proposed is a request for funding that 
might lead us to develop some of these interim options.
    With regard to licensing, I will have to go back and look 
at the budget request and see what the specifics were and I 
would be happy to respond to you in writing with that answer.
    Mr. Peters. You take a legitimate shot at Congress. I was 
in the last Congress. We had actually passed a bill that would 
have moved Yucca ahead and that has been not the case in this 
Congress, but at the same time we have heard mixed signals from 
the administration itself. And so if you want to get back on 
board with Yucca, I would appreciate doing that directly.
    A question about transmission of renewable energy. One of 
the things I have heard and I want to see too what your opinion 
is on this, is that one of the obstacles in getting renewable 
energy from wind farms in places like Texas and from solar 
farms in places like Arizona is that interstate transmission is 
difficult to build. Is that your sense and what is it that 
Congress can do, if that is your sense, to make transmission of 
those resources easier to places like Chicago and Detroit where 
people might need that renewable energy?
    Secretary Brouillette. It is my sense. You know, we have 
talked about grid modernization for some years and we have 
begun some important work to doing that. The example that you 
point out, I think, is absolutely on point. You know, we are 
developing generation sources all across the country, but we 
lack the ability to move the power from point A to point B. 
And, you know, much of our electricity grid is, it is many 
years old and it is time that we upgrade these facilities. We 
have to make them smart. We have to get them permitted.
    Importantly, I think, for the transmission of electricity 
we need to look at these large infrastructure projects that 
would allow us to do exactly that. It is akin to what we 
discussed in the other area. You know, America is now the 
world's largest producer of energy in terms of oil and gas, and 
our challenge today is not the production. Our challenge in 
many cases is actually getting the product to the marketplace, 
and the same thing exists with electricity.
    Mr. Peters. Does the administration support particular 
reforms for permitting interstate transmission lines that would 
serve those northern cities, say, with renewable sources from 
out of state? And if so, what particular reforms would you 
support?
    Secretary Brouillette. You know, I would really like to get 
back to you with a more thoughtful answer because I think there 
are some things that we can work together on to make this a 
little easier, you know, for the development of this type of 
infrastructure. So rather than perhaps giving you an imprecise 
or a less than thoughtful answer, I would appreciate the 
opportunity to perhaps respond to you in writing.
    Mr. Peters. I look forward to that, Mr. Secretary.
    And, Mr. Chairman, my time has expired.
    Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary, for coming.
    And I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. O'Halleran for 5 minutes.
    Mr. O'Halleran, please mute your phone. Unmute, rather.
    Mr. O'Halleran is experiencing some technical difficulties. 
Let us move on.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you so much, Secretary Brouillette, for joining 
us today.
    One of the many things that COVID-19 pandemic has taught us 
is the importance of preparation, and as we start to rebuild 
our economy from this ongoing public health pandemic, we must 
be intentional about how we rebuild. That means rebuilding an 
economy powered by clean energy so that we can have safer and 
healthier communities and it also means working together to be 
better prepared for future public health emergencies.
    Last month, I introduced the Open Back Better Act. This 
legislation will ensure that our nation's critical 
infrastructure like hospitals and schools is more resilient, 
more energy efficient, safer, and more reliable to guard 
against future threats, and while creating good jobs and 
prioritizing the communities hit hardest by this pandemic.
    During a national emergency like a pandemic with the 
additional risks from wildlife, hurricanes, and other climate 
related disasters, we need more resilient infrastructure. These 
upgrades are especially important in communities that have been 
overburdened by the impact of pollution, public health 
emergencies, and natural disasters.
    This is why my legislation prioritizes funding for 
environmental justice communities who have been 
disproportionately impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and which 
we talked about earlier with Ms. Barragan's testimony. As we 
emerge from this health and economic crisis, we must do better 
and we must ensure that we are better prepared for the 
inevitable future emergencies.
    Mr. Secretary, can you discuss why resiliency upgrades to 
mission-critical facilities such as our hospitals is so 
important during the pandemic?
    Secretary Brouillette. Yes, ma'am. I can. You know, as we 
have seen with this pandemic and, candidly, as we have seen in 
other parts of American history, our reliance upon the electric 
grid has just increased exponentially over the course of the 
last few decades. Almost everything that we do depends in some 
way, shape, or form on the provision of energy, and electricity 
in particular.
    So as we looked at the pandemic, we obviously were 
concerned about the hospitals and the provision of healthcare 
throughout America, but as now we have gotten beyond at least 
some of the initial moments of the pandemic and we start to 
look at how the economy is going to change, we are looking at 
things like teleworking. And I don't have to remind anybody in 
this hearing, because we are doing it today, you can't telework 
without wife. You don't have wife without electricity.
    So the importance of the grid to our daily life has only 
been heightened by this pandemic and we all see it. So it is 
important that we think about things like resiliency and 
reliability in perhaps a different way than we have in years 
past. We have created at the Department of Energy a resiliency 
or a resiliency model which is going to allow us when fully 
developed, and we are very close to bringing this out, we can 
see the entire grid in real time and address challenges that we 
may face in almost every part of the country. So be it a cyber 
threat or be it a load threat, we work closely with the 
utilities and we can see these things in real time and address 
them in real time.
    And in certain cases, as we further develop the model, we 
may be able to predict where we will have load challenges or 
particular threats that we need to address so that we can 
ensure the safe, reliable provision of electricity.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Mr. Secretary, thank you for that 
answer. And you have kind of preempted one of my questions and 
we have many more that we will send to you in writing.
    But as you were talking, I am very focused on the future of 
work, and as you said, whether it is distance learning, 
telework, or telemedicine, telehealth, we have seen an increase 
in need. And I am curious. During the pandemic I have been 
talking to companies about what has changed in the way that 
they operate. Can you talk about what has changed in the way 
your Department approach is working with other federal and 
state partners to ensure the continued reliability of the U.S. 
electric system?
    Secretary Brouillette. Sure. I don't know that we have, I 
mean the workforce has changed quite dramatically, so I mean we 
are in a maximum telework environment now. And I don't have an 
exact number for you, but I would be happy to provide you an 
update. But if I had to guess today, I would probably suggest 
that perhaps 60 percent of the workforce at DOE is now 
teleworking. There are certain job functions at the Department, 
the delivery of a nuclear warhead to the United States Navy or 
the U.S. Air Force, you simply can't do that over the 
telephone. You have to physically deliver it.
    So we are taking the precaution--
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Are you working differently with other 
agencies though? Has anything changed or have you noticed 
anything?
    Secretary Brouillette. Not so much in that sense. I mean, 
you know, we are still very, very interactive. You know, our 
teleworking capabilities, we have learned that our networks, 
our IT networks are very robust. We have adapted to the new 
workplace much like the rest of America has.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Well, I have run out of time, but I 
will follow up with you to ask how does the upcoming hurricane 
season impact the electrical system's reliability in this 
public health crisis. And thank you so much for your testimony.
    And thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back.
    Mr. O'Halleran, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Are you there, Mr. O'Halleran? Your audio is not working. 
Please unmute.
     Mr. O'Halleran, while you are working on your audio, the 
Chair will recognize--Mr. O'Halleran, are you there?
    The Chair now recognizes two individuals who have waived 
onto the committee for the purposes of questioning the witness. 
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. 
Shimkus, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Shimkus. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And, Dan, great to have you here. One of my last times to 
harass a Secretary of Energy and I had to waive on. I feel like 
a freshman. I had to wait like two hours. So, but it is an 
important issue and you know the issues. I had to drop off to 
talk with the corn growers on fuels and that those questions 
have been asked by Dave Loebsack.
    So, you also know that a lot of my career has been spent on 
nuclear fuel and nuclear waste and I want to talk about, start 
with the closing of the fuel cycle and the current federal law 
is that the Federal Government should take title to the spent 
nuclear fuel and the defense waste. The Nuclear Waste Policy 
Act passed in '82 and '87 identified that that was our 
responsibility; is that correct?
    Secretary Brouillette. It is. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Shimkus. And would you also agree that it is the 
international scientific consensus that long-term geological 
repository for high-level nuclear waste and defense waste is 
the international scientific consensus?
    Secretary Brouillette. I would agree with that. I think 
there is a general consensus in the scientific community that 
that is the best long-term way to dispose of the spent fuel.
    Mr. Shimkus. Yeah. Britain is looking at it. France is 
looking at it. Sweden is looking at it. Finland is looking at 
it. So, you know where I am going. It is no surprise that we 
have the law of the land for failure of the appropriators to 
spend the money. Our spent fuel should be going, and our 
defense waste should be going to Yucca Mountain in Nevada, 
which has been, done the research, the due diligence, and has 
passed the scrutiny of science. So, we will continue to drive 
those issues hopefully in other venues.
    Let me go to the other really important issue which is the 
beginning of the fuel cycle. In the beginning of the fuel cycle 
when we are reprocessing, how many plants do we have that 
reprocess to help create nuclear fuel in this country?
    Secretary Brouillette. I am sorry. I didn't quite hear. How 
many plants do we have that reprocess?
    Mr. Shimkus. Yeah, or that do the yellow cake into the 
process of like we see at Metropolis?
    Secretary Brouillette. That do the conversion processes?
    Mr. Shimkus. Right.
    Secretary Brouillette. To my knowledge I think we only have 
one, but I will double check that.
    Mr. Shimkus. And that one is, and that one, we believe, is 
in Metropolis. And is that operating right now?
    Secretary Brouillette. They are in a standby mode, as I 
understand. They are not fully operational.
    Mr. Shimkus. So, we appreciate this nuclear energy working 
group and which addressed the domestic uranium reserve which we 
talked about offline, and I appreciate that. And as I raised to 
you on our call, there is a gap of work that may help the 
reprocessing in the future. Since there is a shutdown now, the 
concern is that we are not going to have a facility to deal 
with this front end even with this domestic uranium reserve.
    Can you talk about some options that might be on the table 
to help places like Honeywell in Metropolis, Illinois?
    Secretary Brouillette. Sure. I am happy to do that. You 
know, as we pointed out in the Nuclear Fuels Working Group, it 
is not enough for us just to simply create a uranium reserve. 
It is not enough for us to pull it out of the ground and stack 
it up someplace and have it available for some future use. You 
must convert it. You must enrich it. You must have it available 
as fuel for it to have any practical value.
    And that is our intent with the Working Group. That is our 
intent. That is why we requested $150 million in the 
President's budget to establish this reserve. We fully respect 
the right of Congress to disagree with that, but we think it is 
important for us to do as a nation. With regard to that one 
facility, you know, that you mentioned earlier, we think it is 
important for us to maintain that type of capability here in 
the United States.
    And it is my commitment to you, it is our Department's 
commitment to you to be focused on that over the course of the 
next few days and weeks, because I understand the critical 
economic condition in which that particular facility is in and 
I look forward to working with you to see what we might do in 
terms of finding options or solutions to maintain this 
important capability here in the United States.
    Mr. Shimkus. Thank you very much.
    Chairman, my time has expired. I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair recognizes 
Mr. O'Halleran. Are you there, Mr. O'Halleran?
    The Chair now recognizes the final member today who has 
also waived on. Mr. Burgess, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Burgess. I thank the chairman for letting me waive on. 
I was actually a member of this subcommittee for over a decade, 
but when I was called to duty on the Rules Committee, I had to 
give up one of my subcommittees and, unfortunately, Energy was 
that subcommittee. But happy to be with you, Mr. Secretary. As 
we are looked upon by Billy Tauzin's portrait up on the wall, 
it is significant that you are here today.
    Fascinating discussion hearing you talk about getting 
energy from where it is created to where it is needed. Your 
predecessor, Secretary Perry, when he was my governor, the 
longest-serving governor in Texas history by the way, created 
these Competitive Renewable Energy Zones for, as a state 
program, but bringing wind energy from West Texas to the 
population centers in the eastern part of the state and, of 
course, those crossed the district that I represent.
    And just like as you might imagine, a pipeline or a highway 
bringing those high-tension electrical wires across your 
district from west to east can create a great deal of 
attention, so it is not just the pipelines. It is not just 
other areas, but we are, you know, being in favor of wind 
energy means you also need to be in favor of the infrastructure 
that is the deliverable to get it to where it is needed. And 
again, your predecessor was, when he was Governor of Texas was 
certainly very involved in that.
    On the issues of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and you 
and I have had an opportunity to talk about this. Can you speak 
to where we are with the modernization of the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve and what it, as you see its future utility 
might be over and above what its national security implications 
have been in the past?
    Secretary Brouillette. I would be happy to, Mr. Burgess, 
and thank you for your service to Texas. It means a lot to all 
of us who live there. Even as an adopted son of Texas, I really 
appreciate your service to the state and to the country.
    You know, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is a national 
asset and as you well know, because of your long history here 
on this committee and in Texas, you know it's important to our 
national security. What we need to do with the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve, in my view, is to continue the Life 
Extension program that was started some time ago. The facility 
has become quite old. It is important that we continue to 
maintain it in a way that allows it to continue to be helpful 
to the nation.
    I would also suggest that the Congress might want to 
consider perhaps upgrading some of the facility as well. When 
it was designed, it was designed to take in oil. It wasn't 
designed to discharge oil. Not very effective. Or, I am sorry, 
I had that backwards. It was designed to take it out, not put 
it in. And it is very important that we think about, you know, 
whether or not we would like to upgrade the facility so that it 
would allow us to take in oil even more efficiently than we can 
currently do so today.
    As you know, you know, the President directed me to fill 
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and we have been doing exactly 
that. We are somewhat limited by the amount and the volume of 
oil that we can actually take in to the facility itself. So as 
we move forward, I would love to work with this committee. I 
would love to work with Congress more broadly to think about 
how we might upgrade that important facility.
    Mr. Burgess. Well, certainly that, in my opinion, was an 
oversight to leave the purchase of additional petroleum for the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve out of the CARES Act, and I do have 
a bill with Senator Hoeven designed to do just that and I do 
want to work with you on that.
    Can I just ask you a question? Since I am also on the Rules 
Committee, we are going to be hearing about the National 
Defense Authorization Act in the Rules Committee at the end of 
this week and the whole issue of the authority, taking the 
authority from the Department of Energy to some other location 
for America's nuclear weapons. Historically, you have 
maintained and had the authority over the nation's nuclear 
capability. Can you speak to why civilian control of the 
nuclear arsenal is so important?
    Secretary Brouillette. I think, I don't know that I can 
give you all of the details around it, but it is a longstanding 
military, it is a longstanding tenet in our national security 
apparatus here in the United States. It is one of the reasons I 
think, you know, especially when you are talking about nuclear 
warheads, I mean we are not talking about side arms. We are not 
talking about, you know, 9 millimeter rounds. We are talking 
about, you know, weapons of mass destruction. These are very 
large warheads.
    From its very creation, the Atomic Energy Commission was 
created as a civilian agency because it was civilian scientists 
who helped develop the technology. It has been those scientists 
and their successors who have maintained that capability here 
in the United States. It has always been in the Department of 
Energy. It has always been in the scientific realm and that is 
why we have developed these national laboratories.
    It is also why we have developed the supercomputing 
capabilities that allow us to simulate things like testing 
today. You know, the United States stopped testing its warheads 
in 1992. As these warheads now age, it is very, very important 
that we monitor that aging process and we ensure the safety and 
effectiveness of the stockpile. To do that we rely upon the 
national laboratories that are all part of the DOE network and 
all part of the DOE enterprise.
    And that is why, if Congress is considering a change, I 
would urge it leave it within the Department of Energy so that 
the NNSA can continue to rely upon these national assets.
    Mr. Burgess. I will just commit to you and anything in the 
future this committee can do to ensure that the security, 
National Nuclear Security Agency stays within the Department of 
Energy, I think, is critically important and I will make that 
commitment to you as well.
    Secretary Brouillette. Thank you.
    Mr. Burgess. All right, thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
    We have some unanimous consent requests that I want to 
itemize here and request unanimous consent to enter into the 
record a letter from former Secretaries Perry and Moniz to the 
Armed Services Committees; a letter from the Secretary of 
Energy to Chairman Inhofe; a letter from Chairman Pallone and 
Ranking Member Walden to the Armed Services Committee; a letter 
from Norm Augustine and Richard Mies to the NDAA Conferees; a 
letter from former DOE Secretaries to the NDAA Conferees; a 
letter from Ranking Member Upton and former Chairman Waxman to 
the Armed Services Committees; a February 2016 memorandum from 
the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board; and, finally, a May 
2020 op-ed by Secretary Brouillette. And hearing no objection, 
the unanimous consent request is approved.
    This concludes the witness questioning portion of our 
hearing, and I want to thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your 
participation in today's hearing. It has been a lengthy 
hearing----
    Secretary Brouillette. Thank you.
    Mr. Rush [continue]. But it has been an excellent hearing 
and we thank you for your excellent testimony.
    I do remind Members that pursuant to committee rules they 
have ten business days to submit additional questions for the 
record to be answered by the Secretary who has appeared before 
this subcommittee. I ask the Secretary to respond promptly to 
any such questions that you may receive.
    And at this time, the subcommittee is hereby adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 3:39 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
   [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 [all]