[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



 
                                    ENERGY  AND  WATER  DEVELOPMENT
                                          
                                       APPROPRIATIONS  FOR  2022
               __________________________________________________________________________________


                                            HEARINGS
                                                      
                                            BEFORE A
                                                   
                                       SUBCOMMITTEE  OF  THE
                                               
                                   COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
                                         
                                     HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
                                          
                                ONE  HUNDRED  SEVENTEENTH  CONGRESS
                                      
                                        FIRST  SESSION
                                      ___________________
                                             

                      SUBCOMMITTEE  ON  ENERGY  AND  WATER  DEVELOPMENT,
                              
                                    AND  RELATED  AGENCIES
                  
                  
                          MARCY  KAPTUR,  Ohio,  Chairwoman



   DEBBIE  WASSERMAN  SCHULTZ,  Florida      MICHAEL  K.  SIMPSON,  Idaho
   ANN  KIRKPATRICK,  Arizona                KEN  CALVERT,  California
   SUSIE  LEE,  Nevada                       CHUCK  FLEISCHMANN,  Tennessee 
   TIM  RYAN,  Ohio                          DAN  NEWHOUSE,  Washington
   DEREK  KILMER,  Washington                JAIME  HERRERA  BEUTLER,  Washington
   LOIS  FRANKEL,  Florida                   GUY  RESCHENTHALER,  Pennsylvania
   CHERI  BUSTOS,  Illinois
   BONNIE  WATSON  COLEMAN,  New  Jersey



 NOTE: Under committee rules, Ms. DeLauro, as chair of the full committee, and Ms. Granger, as 
ranking minority member of the full committee, are authorized to sit as members of all 
subcommittees.


              JAIME  SHIMEK,  MARK  ARONE,  MIKE  BRAIN,  SCOTT  MCKEE,
                              and  WILL  OSTERTAG
                               Subcommittee  Staff
                            
                                _____________


                                    PART  5


                                                                                     Page

Stragety for Energy and Climate Innovation ............................................. 1
Innovation and Investment in Water Resources Infrastructure........................... 105            
Domestic Manufacturing for a Clean Energy Future  .................................... 191
Membersï¿½ Day  ........................................................................ 321
Public Witness Testimony  ............................................................ 403




[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

                                 ____________


         Printed  for  the  use  of  the  Committee  on  Appropriations
         

                 U.S.  GOVERNMENT  PUBLISHING  OFFICE
46-015                    WASHINGTON:  2021




                                COMMITTEE  ON  APPROPRIATIONS
                                
                           ROSA  L.  DELAURO,  Connecticut,  Chair


MARCY  KAPTUR,  Ohio                             KAY  GRANGER,  Texas
DAVID  E.  PRICE,  North  Carolina               HAROLD  ROGERS,  Kentucky
LUCILLE  ROYBAL-ALLARD,  California              ROBERT  B.  ADERHOLT,  Alabama
SANFORD  D.  BISHOP,  JR.,  Georgia              MICHAEL  K.  SIMPSON,  Idaho
BARBARA  LEE,  California                        JOHN  R.  CARTER,  Texas
BETTY  MCCOLLUM,  Minnesota                      KEN  CALVERT,  California
TIM  RYAN,  Ohio                                 TOM  COLE,  Oklahoma
C.  A.  DUTCH  RUPPERSBERGER,  Maryland          MARIO  DIAZ-BALART,  Florida
DEBBIE  WASSERMAN  SCHULTZ,  Florida             STEVE  WOMACK,  Arkansas
HENRY  CUELLAR,  Texas                           JEFF  FORTENBERRY,  Nebraska
CHELLIE  PINGREE,  Maine                         CHUCK  FLEISCHMANN,  Tennessee
MIKE  QUIGLEY,  Illinois                         JAIME  HERRERA  BEUTLER,  Washington
DEREK  KILMER,  Washington                       DAVID  P.  JOYCE,  Ohio
MATT  CARTWRIGHT,  Pennsylvania                  ANDY  HARRIS,  Maryland 
GRACE  MENG,  New  York                          MARK  E.  AMODEI,  Nevada
MARK  POCAN,  Wisconsin                          CHRIS  STEWART,  Utah
KATHERINE  M.  CLARK,  Massachusetts             STEVEN  M.  PALAZZO,  Mississippi
PETE  AGUILAR,  California                       DAVID  G.  VALADAO,  California
LOIS  FRANKEL,  Florida                          DAN  NEWHOUSE,  Washington JOHN  
CHERI  BUSTOS,  Illinois                         R.  MOOLENAAR,  Michigan 
BONNIE  WATSON  COLEMAN,  New  Jersey            JOHN  H.  RUTHERFORD,  Florida
BRENDA  L.  LAWRENCE,  Michigan                  BEN  CLINE,  Virginia
NORMA  J.  TORRES,  California                   GUY  RESCHENTHALER,  Pennsylvania 
CHARLIE  CRIST,  Florida                         MIKE  GARCIA,  California
ANN  KIRKPATRICK,  Arizona                       ASHLEY  HINSON,  Iowa 
ED  CASE,  Hawaii                                TONY  GONZALES,  Texas
ADRIANO  ESPAILLAT,  New  York
JOSH  HARDER,  California
JENNIFER  WEXTON,  Virginia
DAVID  J.  TRONE,  Maryland
LAUREN UNDERWOOD,  Illinois
SUSIE  LEE,  Nevada



                         ROBIN  JULIANO,  Clerk  and  Staff  Director

                                            (II)
                                            
                                            

 ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 
                                  2022

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

                                       Thursday, February 25, 2021.

              STRATEGIES FOR ENERGY AND CLIMATE INNOVATION

                               WITNESSES

ROBIN MILLICAN, DIRECTOR, BREAKTHROUGH ENERGY
DR. COLIN CUNLIFF, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND 
    INNOVATION FOUNDATION
DR. SHOBITA PARTHASARATHY, PROFESSOR, OF PUBLIC POLICY AND DIRECTOR 
    SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND PUBLIC POLICY PROGRAM, UNIVERSITY OF 
    MICHIGAN
RICH POWELL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CLEARPATH
    Ms. Kaptur. This hearing will come to order.
    Our first hearing of 2021 is fully virtual, as you can 
tell, and we must address a few housekeeping matters first.
    For today's meeting, the chair or staff designated by the 
chair may mute participants' microphones when they are not 
under recognition for the purposes of eliminating inadvertent 
background noise. We all appreciate that.
    Members are responsible for muting and unmuting themselves, 
but if I notice you have not unmuted yourself, I will ask if 
you would like the staff to unmute you. And if you indicate 
approval by nodding, staff will unmute your microphone.
    I remind all members and witnesses that the 5-minute clock 
still applies. If there is a technology issue, we will move to 
the next member until the issue is resolved, and you will 
retain the balance of your time. You will notice a clock on 
your screen that will show how much time is remaining. At 1 
minute remaining, the clock will turn to yellow. At 30 seconds 
remaining, it will--I will gently tap the gavel to remind 
members that your time is almost expired. And when your time 
has expired, the clock will turn red, and I will begin to 
recognize the next member.
    In terms of the speaking order, we will follow the order 
set forth in the House rules, beginning with the chair and 
ranking member, then members present at the time the hearing is 
called to order will be recognized in order of seniority and, 
finally, members not present at the time the hearing is called 
to order.
    Finally, House rules require me to remind you that we have 
set up an email address to which members can send anything they 
wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings or markups. 
That email address has been provided in advance to your staff.
    I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for my opening 
statement.
    Let me extend a warm welcome to our members, distinguished 
witnesses, and those listening to this hearing. My goal as 
chair of the House Energy and Water Subcommittee is to help our 
generation embrace a better future for those that follow. We 
must sustain life on Earth and help our country to meet the 
challenges as we face the dawn of a new era for energy and 
water.
    Over half a century ago, Ohio Senator John Glenn embraced 
the future in his momentous journey as the first human being to 
orbit the Earth. Since that moment, the Earth's place in our 
vast universe has never been perceived the same. People gained 
a new perspective on our blue planet suspended in space. 
Scientist Carl Sagan observed: Preserve and cherish the blue 
dot. It is the only home we have ever known.
    Across our world, that view of Earth from space began to 
influence the thinking of leaders from all walks of life. More 
came to understand about the Earth's ability to sustain itself. 
More sophisticated imaging, like ozone monitoring, led to 
greater understanding of our collective impact on the vital 
resources essential to sustaining life on Earth; none more key 
than those in our subcommittee's name, Energy and Water.
    Their availability cannot be presumed. We must work 
together to assure our Earth is protected from the harm that 
can be caused by mistakes and even ignorance. Looking at recent 
events across our country, who could have predicted the 
perilous winter energy disaster that just struck Texas and 
Oklahoma. Yet natural disasters happen and they do so with 
alarming regularity these days, but the severity of what these 
regions have endured alert us to pay attention to the why of 
what occurred.
    It appears that existing power systems were not suited or 
prepared to embrace an energy future that had not been properly 
imagined. Similarly, last year, wildfires in California and 
Oregon were among the largest on record. Arizona experienced 
100 days with over 100 degrees.
    Scientific consensus indicates the Earth is warming at an 
unsustainable rate. Glaciers and sea ice are melting at 
historic rates. Our oceans are warming, rising, and acidifying. 
Humans and human activity are the primary cause.
    In the mid-20th century, approximately 150 million people 
have lived in the United States. Today, the U.S. population has 
more than doubled to over 330 million people. And globally, the 
population growth has risen even faster, from 2.5 billion in 
1950 to nearly 8 billion now. The cumulative load on Earth and 
its atmosphere is impacting life itself. We must use what we 
have learned over the last half century to heal our atmosphere 
and, in turn, our blue dot.
    As America stands at a crossroads in the new energy age, we 
are here today to explore strategies for energy and climate 
innovation. We are lucky to have the Department of Energy, the 
Federal Government's leading agency for research and 
development of new clean energy technologies under our 
jurisdiction.
    Technologies developed with DOE's funding are already 
helping address climate change. They have markedly driven down 
the price of wind, solar, energy storage, and efficient light 
bulbs by 60 to 95 percent since 2008. They have led to 
widespread deployment and consumer savings. New innovations 
will lead to new opportunities. Reversing the impacts of 
climate change will create good paying jobs across every State 
in our country.
    Already there are more Americans working in energy 
efficiency and energy production jobs than as waiters and 
waitresses combined. We must continue to innovate and lead in 
these areas so our Nation is not left behind. As people and 
communities succeed, so will America. Our witnesses today will 
enlighten us with a path forward.
    And I will turn now to our very able Ranking Member, Mr. 
Simpson, for opening remarks.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
        
    Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Chairwoman Kaptur. Thanks for 
holding this hearing today. I am happy to join you, once again, 
on the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee as we start 
a new Congress.
    I would like to echo your welcome to our witnesses. We 
thank you all for participating today and look forward to 
hearing your perspectives on strategies for energy and climate 
innovation.
    President Biden has said that advancing a clean energy 
future and addressing climate change will be a strong focus of 
this administration. There is room for significant bipartisan 
cooperation on this issue if we take the right approach. In 
fact, this subcommittee and the Department of Energy programs 
it funds have been pursuing bipartisan climate change solutions 
for decades now and have numerous successes to show for it.
    We won't work--it won't work--what won't work, anyway, is 
our command and control of regulatory heavy schemes. It would 
harm the American economy, boost our economic competitors, such 
as China and, quite likely, lead to increases in global 
emission. Real solutions, on the other hand, are focused on 
innovation and clean energy technology. I was pleased to see 
Chairwoman Kaptur frame our hearing around this type of proven 
approach.
    Experience shows we can continue to grow our economy and 
provide good paying jobs to hardworking Americans by being at 
the forefront of improving current, clean energy technology and 
developing new technologies for use here at home and around the 
globe.
    Written testimony from the witnesses highlights the need to 
continue and ideally increase Federal investment in research 
and development across the broad spectrum of clean energy 
technologies, including advanced nuclear energy storage, 
alternative fuels such as hydrogen, geothermal, hydropower, 
carbon capture utilization and storage, as well as wind and 
solar power.
    I am also interested in the ideas offered on how to 
structure this Federal investment rather than assuming that 
just putting more dollars alone will be sufficient, 
particularly since I am not convinced it is politically 
feasible to think that we can spend our way out of this issue 
or even outspend the economic competitors like China.
    I look forward to the future and exploring these issues 
with our witnesses. And I thank Chairwoman Kaptur for calling 
this hearing today.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much, Mr. Simpson.
    And I am very excited about the witnesses who are joining 
us here today. First, we will have Ms. Robin Millican. Ms. 
Millican is a director at Breakthrough Energy, which is a 
network of entities and initiatives established by Bill Gates 
to advance clean, reliable, affordable energy. As an expert in 
U.S. clean energy policy, Ms. Millican leads the organization's 
Federal efforts to accelerate the development and diffusion of 
new technologies.
    Next, we will have Dr. Colin Cunliff, a senior policy 
analyst with the Information Technology and Innovation 
Foundation. Dr. Cunliff focuses on improving national and 
global innovation systems to address climate change, and 
coauthored the recent book, Energizing America: A Roadmap to 
Launch a National Energy Innovation Mission.
    Following that, we will have Dr. Shobita Parthasarathy, a 
professor of public policy and director of the Science, 
Technology, and Public Policy Program at the Gerald R. Ford 
School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan. Her 
research and interest focus on how to develop innovation and 
innovation policy to better achieve public interest in social 
justice goals.
    And finally, we will have Mr. Rich Powell, the executive 
director of ClearPath and ClearPath Action. Mr. Powell has also 
served as a member of the 2019 advisory committee to the 
Export-Import Bank and was previously with McKinsey & Company 
in the energy and sustainability practices portfolio.
    And thank you all for taking the time to be here today.
    Without objection, your written statements will be entered 
into the record. Please feel free to summarize your remarks in 
about 5 minutes each, starting with Ms. Millican.
    Ms. Millican. Thank you for the introduction, Chairwoman 
Kaptur.
    Chairwoman Kaptur, Ranking Member Simpson, and members of 
the subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to be here today 
and for fostering bipartisan dialogue on a topic that is of 
vital importance to the country.
    My name is Robin Millican, and I am here on behalf of 
Breakthrough Energy, a network founded by Bill Gates of 
philanthropic programs, investment vehicles, and policy 
initiatives with the common mission to help the world reach 
net-zero emissions by 2050.
    Our efforts are guided by the conviction that everyone 
needs access to affordable, reliable, and clean energy, which 
is central to today's discussion. My remarks will focus on 
framing the issue of why we need innovation, why it is 
beneficial for the climate and our economy, and how Federal 
investment can help support it.
    Next slide, please.
    So why do we need Federal innovation? In short, we have a 
greenhouse gas emissions problem, not just here, but globally. 
And those emissions are embedded in every part of the economy, 
including electricity, transportation, industry, buildings, and 
agriculture. We have some promising solutions, like renewable 
energy, which we should be using widely. These can take us a 
long way, but not all the way.
    A recent National Academy's consensus study notes we will 
also need on-demand electricity resources to complement a 
majority renewables grid, as well as solutions for aviation, 
shipping, steel, cement, and chemicals manufacturing. 
Similarly, a 2020 International Energy Agency report estimated 
that nearly half of the technologies needed to address 
emissions in the next 30 years are at the prototype or 
demonstration phase. Developing these solutions will require a 
big effort, especially in the next decade.
    Next slide, please.
    So what is the Federal Government's role in this process? 
Unfortunately, as you see on this slide, clean energy 
technology is not like software where venture capital has been 
enormously successful. It is much harder. Energy involves 
capital-intensive infrastructure, often long development 
cycles, and is being deployed at the end of the day in an 
industry that is highly regulated and risk averse.
    On top of this, there is no natural market demand for low-
carbon products, other than that which public policy or 
voluntary commitments provide. This means we need the Federal 
Government to lead in developing the resources that we need to 
develop technology, demonstrate to the market that it works and 
is safe, and to provide policy support so that it can overcome 
market barriers.
    Next slide, please.
    Beyond reducing emissions, innovation is also needed to 
ensure that our country remains globally competitive in the 
industries of the future. A Breakthrough Energy study that we 
released in September of last year found that Federal research 
and development currently supports over 1.6 million jobs 
nationwide, has wages that are well above the national average, 
and it contributes $66 billion more to GDP than we spend on it. 
That is a very good return on investment.
    Looking specifically at Energy R&D, that investment 
supports over 112,000 jobs today, and those jobs are in every 
State in the country. This shows how important research and 
development and other innovation support is to our economy 
right now.
    Moreover, in the long term, investment in innovation 
contributes to patents and invention that end up underpinning 
the products of companies that will keep America competitive in 
the future. So it is both a win in the short and the long term. 
And we know if we export these technologies, we can both reap 
economic benefits at home and also have an impact on the 
emissions profile of the rest of the world.
    Next slide, please.
    In conclusion, to maximize the opportunity of innovation 
and also to move with sufficient speed and scale to address the 
challenges ahead, we need a true national innovation strategy. 
I want to leave the subcommittee with five key points here.
    First is that we should expand Federal funding for clean 
energy innovation overall. Breakthrough Energy suggests 
building up to a level comparable to that of NIH, but 
ultimately this will need to be driven by bottom-up needs.
    Second, additional funding should add coverage in 
underinvested but critical technology areas. For example, we 
are underinvesting in manufacturing relative to its share of 
global emissions, as you see in the chart at left.
    Third, Congress should allocate greater resources toward 
demonstration and deployment activities given the large number 
of technologies that are at the precommercial phase.
    Fourth, over the longer term, Congress should consider 
substantial updates to the structure in which our investments 
are allocated. This includes exploring more ways to get more 
innovation happening in more places around the country.
    And last but not least, as the country recovers from the 
COVID-19 pandemic, Congress should consider temporary measures 
to fund innovation efforts that can directly support economic 
activity in the next few years. These include increasing 
extramural funding for small businesses, an investment in 
demonstration and deployment projects that create jobs and 
reduce technology costs. Congress must weigh many tradeoffs in 
each of these points, but I believe they provide a good 
starting place.
    Thank you again for the invitation to be here, and I look 
forward to your questions.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
        
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much, Ms. Millican.
    And, Dr. Cunliff, please, begin.
    Dr. Cunliff. Chairwoman Kaptur, Ranking Member Simpson, and 
distinguished members of the committee, I appreciate the 
opportunity to provide testimony today. I am here representing 
the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a 
nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank that focuses on accelerating 
innovation to spur growth, opportunity, and progress. I am also 
currently serving on the National Academy's committee that 
produced the report, Accelerating Decarbonization of the U.S. 
Energy System.
    Bipartisan support for innovation is surging. The Energy 
Act of 2020 includes the legislative priorities of more than 
100 Members of Congress and was passed by overwhelming 
majorities in both parties. And as this committee considers how 
to implement the Energy Act and fund the Department of Energy's 
research programs, and questions about the scale and scope of 
energy programs, and I hope my testimony can be useful as you 
begin considerations of fiscal year 2022 appropriations.
    First, innovation is critical to combat climate change and 
boost economic growth. The National Academy finds that deep 
decarbonization is technically feasible but proactive 
innovation is essential. As Ms. Millican said, nearly half of 
the annual emissions reductions necessary to decarbonize by 
2050 will likely come from technologies that are now in early 
stages of development but are not yet commercially available.
    But current funding levels are not enough to [inaudible] 
innovation needed. To accelerate innovation, the National 
Academy recommends tripling investment between energy research, 
development, and deployment at the Department of Energy. And 
this tripling target has been recommended by many other 
organizations. This target is both ambitious and measured.
    Other national innovation missions in space and health and 
defense show that the United States can marshal its innovation 
resources on a much larger scale than it currently does for 
energy. Federal investment in RD&D has accelerated the 
development of life-saving products and modernizing military's 
arsenal and put a man on the Moon. And by comparison, the 
Federal Government has neglected energy innovation.
    U.S. leadership in clean energy research is now being 
challenged by China and Europe. China doubled its investment in 
clean energy R&D between 2015 and 2020, and it now invests 
twice as much as the United States relative to its economy.
    As other countries have stepped up their investments in 
clean energy, the share of cleantech patents granted to U.S. 
companies has declined by 20 percent. Tripling the Department 
of Energy's research and development programs can reverse this 
decline and restore U.S. leadership in clean energy and 
innovation.
    Second, as the committee considers what technologies to 
invest in, it is important to match the research portfolio to 
critical decarbonization needs. In this figure, it shows U.S. 
greenhouse gas emissions by economic sector. Transportation and 
electricity generation are the largest shares, as we mentioned, 
followed by industry, buildings, and agriculture. And on the 
right is the Department of Energy's portfolio broken down by 
sector. Nearly half of funding is devoted to electricity. 
Energy science and cross-cutting technologies account for about 
a quarter, and then transportation and buildings and industry 
account for disproportionately small shares.
    As Federal funding ramps up, increases should target the 
underresourced sectors for the greatest increases. The highest 
priority areas include the INDU sectors--manufacturing, 
vehicles, and buildings. Also, cross-cutting technologies such 
as zero-carbon fuels, energy storage, and carbon capture 
utilization and sequestration, and firm, clean electricity 
generation.
    Third, the Federal Government should partner with State and 
local governments. States bring different priorities, different 
energy resources, and different industries to clean energy 
innovation, and we need to take advantage of this diversity to 
ensure that Federal funding helps cultivate regional innovation 
to the systems. Doing so will bring local economic benefits to 
communities around the country and stimulate locally 
competitive industry.
    It is clear the Federal Government could do more. In this 
figure, it shows clean innovation across the country. In 
yellow, you have the number of clean tech start-ups; in red, 
clean energy patents. Innovative activity tends to cluster 
around research universities and the DOE National Laboratories. 
But large parts of the country are not participating in or 
reaping the benefits from innovation. Congress and DOE need to 
do more to support regional innovation clusters. Such clusters 
will benefit from clean start-up incubators and accelerators, 
as well as public support for locally sited demonstration 
platforms.
    This committee now has a tremendous opportunity to 
accelerate the domestic clean industry, shape the U.S. response 
to climate change, and help it lead in clean energy efforts 
worldwide. And I hope that the committee can build out the 
foundation paved by past year appropriations and continue to 
elevate energy innovation as a national priority.
    Thank you.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
        
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Dr. Cunliff.
    Dr. Parthasarathy, please begin.
    Dr. Parthasarathy. Thank you.
    Chairwoman Kaptur, Ranking Member Simpson, and members of 
the committee, thank you for the invitation to participate in 
today's hearing. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the 
important issue of equity in energy and climate innovation.
    In recent years, it has become clear that low-income and 
historically disadvantaged communities of color are often 
unable to gain the benefits of science and technology, yet may 
be disproportionately subject to their harms. The key to 
addressing this is to bring equity considerations explicitly 
into every step of the research and development process, even 
at the earliest stages.
    It is easy to provide examples of how energy technology can 
both reflect and reinforce inequalities. Coal workers have to 
sacrifice enormously for our renewable energy transition, with 
lost jobs and devastation in their hometowns. The production 
and disposal of solar panels exposes poor people around the 
world to health and ecological risks. Energy-efficient light 
bulbs are more expensive and difficult to find in Black and 
Latinx neighborhoods.
    The problem is that our customary approach to energy 
innovation addresses equity concerns after the fact when the 
technology has already been developed and deployed. Then, 
governments have to implement subsidy programs to help people 
access renewable energy technologies, public health measures to 
manage risks, and retraining programs for those who have lost 
their jobs.
    My central point today is that if we want equitable energy 
technologies, then both governments and technologists must 
incorporate this goal into the innovation process itself when 
they are deciding which research to fund, which technologies to 
develop, and even how technologies should be designed. Our 
innovation decisions aren't just technical or economic, but 
also simultaneously social, organizational, and moral, and the 
equity implications are much more predictable than we tend to 
think.
    To accomplish this, I suggest that the Department of Energy 
incorporate additional expertise, both from affected 
communities and from social scientists throughout its R&D 
process. The example of breast cancer provides us with a sense 
of how this can work. As many of you know, in the 1990s, breast 
cancer advocates successfully convinced policymakers to 
integrate the expertise of women with breast cancer into the 
research enterprise.
    The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 
for example, pioneered a scientist-patient partnership model 
that produced greater trust among patients and changed 
research. Scientists became more aware of what real women 
experienced, and integrated this knowledge into their choices 
about which research and funding to pursue. In energy, similar 
changes could be made at the programmatic level and with 
individual projects. Vulnerable communities often see great 
benefits in community-based models such as solar microgrids, 
for example, which enable grassroots empowerment and small-
scale or collective entrepreneurship.
    DOE might create programs specifically to fund community-
based energy innovation and reward R&D partnerships between 
technical experts and affected communities. So rather than a 
customary approach, what scholars call a decide, announce, 
defend model, DOE should consider a consult, consider, modify, 
proceed model that could also help minimize opposition when 
innovations are deployed.
    DOE could also incorporate the expertise of social 
scientists who know how to evaluate the equity consequences of 
emerging technologies, first, by favoring interdisciplinary 
research proposals. Consider a Dutch case where researchers 
compared four smart grid systems and found that low-income 
communities would experience different impacts depending on the 
project's design. On the basis of these findings, they provided 
recommendations to engineers and policymakers.
    Second, DOE could include such expertise in its own program 
staff. These experts could inform both the agency and potential 
grantees on how to explicitly consider equity in R&D, and also 
help identify the most equitable, innovation paths for further 
demonstration.
    The key is not just to support equity assessments of 
emerging energy technologies, but to then use the findings to 
guide priorities for further development.
    In closing, to ensure that equity is considered in energy 
and climate innovation and that inequities are actually reduced 
rather than exacerbated, we need to incorporate the expertise 
of both vulnerable communities and social scientists in the R&D 
process at the outset.
    Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
        
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much, Dr. Parthasarathy.
    I am also a Michigan graduate, so I don't want to show any 
prejudice, I just want to divulge there. Thank you so very much 
for your work.
    Mr. Powell, please begin.
    Mr. Powell. Good afternoon, Chair Kaptur, Ranking Member 
Simpson, and members of the committee. I am Rich Powell. I lead 
ClearPath. We advance policies that accelerate clean energy and 
industrial innovation. An important note, we receive no 
industry funding.
    Climate change is an urgent challenge that merits 
significant policy action at every level of government and the 
private sector. We need look no further than the events in 
Texas and across the Midwest last week to see the havoc extreme 
weather can have on the energy system.
    As America creates the clean grids of the future, we must 
utilize all forms of clean energy to ensure reliability and 
affordability. As this committee considers its part in a 
serious set of U.S. climate and clean energy policies, those 
solutions should be ambitious but also technology inclusive and 
politically realistic.
    Policies must support U.S. jobs and ensure American tax 
dollars are spent wisely. Too often solutions are 
oversimplified to a set of false choices. Renewables versus 
fossils or economy versus the environment. The reality is, 
solution should follow a comprehensive agenda to make the 
global clean energy transition cheaper, faster, and more 
flexible.
    We applaud this committee's important role in addressing 
climate change and hope you continue to build off recent 
successes.
    Today, I will, first, level set on where we are; second, 
discuss a roadmap for a goal-oriented, public-private 
investment strategy; and third, look at options to reduce 
industrial emissions.
    So where are we and how can we build on your clean energy 
innovation success? Since 2014, as you can see in my next 
slide, you have significantly increased Federal funding for 
clean energy R&D on breakthrough technologies. While these 
aren't--investments are impressive, as Ranking Member Simpson 
mentioned, your strategy to set clear objectives is even more 
important.
    Money should follow those objectives to demonstrations 
through public-private partnerships. These demonstrations are 
essential for America to provide affordable clean energy 
technology to the rest of the world. Getting technology from 
R&D through the valley of death to commercialization requires 
robust public-private partnerships as we have had with the 
shale gas revolution. Moonshot goals of bringing technology to 
market like the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program and the 
Energy Storage Grand Challenge are perfect examples.
    Importantly, buyers are interested in the full suite of 
clean energy technologies. America's largest electric 
utilities, including Southern Company, Xcel Energy, Duke 
Energy, and DTE, have committed to reaching net-zero emissions 
by 2050. But these utilities have emphasized that many of the 
24/7 clean technologies required to get them to net zero are 
not commercially available today.
    The last time I testified before this committee, Ranking 
Member Simpson and Chair Kaptur spoke passionately about 
putting cost filters in place to avoid waste and setting goals 
with clear outcomes. While getting that strategy right may seem 
overwhelming, in December, you passed an omnibus package that 
included the Energy Act of 2020, a roadmap for goal-oriented 
clean energy investing.
    It sets a commercialization strategy that focuses the 
American innovation engine around technologies that, as Ms. 
Millican noted, the International Energy Agency identified to 
meet global decarbonization goals. It codifies the 
demonstration programs you have already established for 
advanced nuclear and energy storage, and builds on that same 
structure for a wave of carbon capture, direct air capture, and 
enhanced geothermal systems as well.
    Specifically, as shown in my next slide, the Energy Act 
launches initiatives to support these programs over the next 
several years. As you can see, the full scope of the programs 
is impressive and would put the U.S. on a path to demonstrating 
more than 20 commercial-scale projects across five major 
technology areas by the middle of this decade. Likely, the 
largest clean demonstration program in history. We are talking 
about more jobs, more private sector investments, and remaining 
the leading clean energy exporter.
    Recognizing your job is very different from the job of 
authorizers, we are excited about these demo programs and look 
forward to working with you as you craft your fiscal year 2022 
bill.
    Our mantra and power sector work has been that the U.S. 
needs more clean and affordable technologies to meaningfully 
reduce global emissions. This holds even truer in the 
industrial sector. As you can see in my next slide, the 
industrial and power sectors combined now make up half of U.S. 
emissions.
    For the first time in 2020, industrial emissions were 
likely larger in the U.S. than power, and the industrial sector 
includes many energy intensive trade-exposed manufacturers, 
including steel makers. Without low-cost options for low-
emitting technologies, emissions limits will almost certainly 
cause industrial activity to relocate to other countries with 
worse environmental standards, degrading U.S. competitiveness 
while potentially increasing global emissions.
    In December, Congress provided a head start on this 
innovation priority. You included more funding at the Office of 
Fossil Energy and the Advanced Manufacturing Office to work on 
industrial emissions. As this committee looks to accelerate 
both American manufacturing job growth and industrial emission 
reductions, we recommend the following three points.
    First, as Ms. Millican and Dr. Cunliff recommended, we need 
more R&D on reducing and capturing emissions from existing 
heavy industry. Second, let's set realistic goals for 
demonstrating breakthroughs and, third, we should create 
conditions for U.S. manufacturers to thrive, ideally bringing 
home their operations from higher emitting countries like 
China.
    This committee has been at the forefront of clean energy 
innovation. You dramatically increased clean energy R&D, 
focused efforts at DOE by setting ambitious commercialization 
goals, and made sure America stays ahead in the global clean 
energy race. 2021 provides us with many exciting opportunities 
to continue this progress.
    Thank you for this opportunity, and I look forward to the 
discussion.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
        
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you so very, very much.
    I am just excited by all of your presentations. And since 
this is our first hearing of the year, I will remind members 
again about our hearing rules, as I mentioned at the beginning.
    I remind all members and witnesses that the 5-minute clock 
still applies. If there is a technology issue, we will move to 
the next member until the issue is resolved, and you will 
retain the balance of your time. You will notice a clock on 
your screen that will show how much time is remaining. At 1 
minute remaining, the clock will turn to yellow. At 30 seconds 
remaining, I will gently tap the gavel to remind members that 
your time is almost expired. And when your time has expired, 
the clock will turn red, and I will begin to recognize the next 
member.
    In terms of speaking order, we will follow the order set 
forth in the House rules, beginning with the chair and ranking 
member, then members present at the time the hearing is called 
to order, then recognized in order of seniority, and finally, 
members arriving after the gavel by order of arrival. A second 
round of questions may occur after all members have an 
opportunity for a first round.
    And I know we might be interrupted by votes, so I will try 
to move it along. We will now begin questioning under our 
normal rules. And this is the order I have: After myself, Mr. 
Simpson, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mr. Fleischmann, Mrs. 
Kirkpatrick, Mr. Newhouse, Mrs. Lee, Ms. Herrera Beutler, Mr. 
Ryan, Mr. Reschenthaler, Mr. Kilmer, Mrs. Watson Coleman, and 
Ms. Frankel.
    Let me ask our witnesses. Many of you have mentioned 
innovation and clean energy manufacturing and efforts to reduce 
carbon pollution from the industrial sector. Developing these 
strategies should rebuild domestic manufacturing to be robust 
and not leave any regions or communities behind, especially 
those that have been left behind. In so doing, we will build 
back a better way of life, including good paying jobs for all 
Americans.
    Given the challenges of reducing emissions from the 
industrial sector, can you discuss how addressing them can 
create economic and job benefits, and how should we approach 
the innovation process to ensure we get those benefits in every 
region that desperately needs them which has not happened for a 
very long time?
    Dr. Parthasarathy. I am happy to start.
    Ms. Kaptur. Please, Doctor.
    Dr. Parthasarathy. So I think I would think about this in 
two ways. The good news is that I think that we already see 
places where communities have begun to try to take advantage of 
the renewable energy transition and empower themselves. So, for 
example, Tribes--the Navajo and Hopi Tribes out West have 
already begun to manage the fact that many of them are off-
grid. 15,000 Navajo homes don't have power, and so they have--
there is an organization called Native Renewables that has 
essentially attempted to bring off-grid solar to those homes. 
And at the same time, they are helping people in those Tribes 
develop the skills to build off-grid solar and participate in 
solar energy. We see similar things in Puerto Rico as well.
    And so I think it is important to build on existing 
community efforts and leverage that, see what they are doing 
well and how we can support that, and then perhaps bring those 
insights to other places where they have been struggling. They 
don't necessarily know what direction to go in terms of the 
energy transition.
    And so I think that is one thing that is interesting. But 
at the same time, I would also say that while Native 
Renewables, Resilient Power Puerto Rico, for example, are 
excellent examples of how they have simultaneously been 
building solar panels and reskilling their workforce, you know, 
in terms of renewable energy, at the same time, there are also 
communities who may not--it may not work that well. Those same 
efforts might not work well in those communities.
    And so when we think about the most marginalized 
communities where these--we want to make sure that there is 
equitable economic opportunity, we have to look specifically at 
what might work well in those communities, but mindful of these 
positive experiences that might provide lessons for them.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much.
    Does any other witness wish to comment?
    Mr. Powell. Chair Kaptur, if I can just add, you know, I 
think, unfortunately, last week's experience in Texas has shown 
us that, especially for poor and marginalized communities, 
extremely resilient and affordable power supply is paramount, 
as so many people were left without power in a dangerous 
extreme weather event. I do think the technology can be part of 
the solution to that problem.
    And I think that, as we go forward, there are a number of 
sort of ultra-resilient clean energy technologies, many of 
which are already well on your agenda, that ought to perhaps 
receive extra attention and extra focus. In particular, I would 
think about long duration storage, advanced nonlight water 
nuclear, and enhanced geothermal systems as three technologies 
I would categorize as ultra-resilient that if they had been 
deployed more widely in Texas, for example, we might have 
avoided at least some of the issues we saw with the Texas grid 
and some of the issues, then, that that had on particularly 
economically disadvantaged communities.
    Ms. Kaptur. Before I turn to Mr. Simpson on this first 
round, I just want to implore every member of our subcommittee 
and every one of our witnesses, help us help the Department of 
Energy. We need to better meet the ground. If you look at where 
energy labs are located, there is a lot of synergy around those 
places, but really, there isn't a comfort level in other parts 
of America that desperately need that technology.
    And if we look at some of the programs that currently exist 
within the Department of Energy, they could be so much better. 
If you look at an agency like HUD, they have a Community 
Development Block Grant program. Whether you like the program 
or don't like the program, they have found America in every 
community and hamlet.
    The Department of Energy really doesn't have anything like 
that. The closest we get is the weatherization program, and I 
won't get into all the complexities on that score. If you look 
at the Department of Transportation and the way, you know, the 
mayors flock to the Department of Transportation and all of our 
county engineers and State transportation directors, they have 
met the ground.
    The Department of Energy is a little more esoteric, in my 
opinion. And as much as I respect it, in terms of their ability 
to refine their programs in the modern era, they really need 
our help. I was really shocked at one point when the director 
of the National Nuclear Security Agency came to Ohio, mainly 
because I was the chair of the committee, right, so they want 
to make sure they are funded, but they had never set foot in 
Ohio before. Ever. I thought, wow. That in itself was a huge 
mind-opening experience for me.
    And I would caution our members, think about the last time 
you saw them in your area and what face they had, the 
Department of Energy, in your region. So I think a key question 
for us, and you think about it for the second round, how should 
we approach the innovation process to ensure that there are 
economic benefits in every region and district and how can we 
improve the Department of Energy programs to do that.
    I would like now to turn the questioning over to my dear 
colleague, Congressman Simpson.
    Mr. Simpson. Thank you. I appreciate it.
    It is very interesting to hear the testimony of the 
witnesses today. I appreciate all of them being here today.
    Let me ask a question, first of all, of Ms. Millican. The 
national laboratory system has long been labeled the crown 
jewel of our Nation's research and innovation ecosystem. The 
national labs house an exceptional workforce and unique 
capabilities that this committee has supported and built upon 
year after year. The national labs as a system are connected to 
universities, businesses, communities across the country. Even 
though they might not have a national lab in every State, they 
are connected all across this country, and applying their 
expertise to many of our Nation's most challenging and urgent 
problems.
    One of the Breakthrough Energy's proposal is for a new 
National Institutes of Energy Innovation modeled on the 
National Institutes of Health that imagines focused institutes 
located at sites around the country separate from the national 
laboratories or the other hubs that we have. I think it is six 
hubs. We have got like 17 national laboratories.
    How is this different from the hubs and institutes that the 
DOE currently supports, and how would the national labs fit in 
to this vision, and would it be just separate--I think all of 
us agree, we need to do more in terms of investing in research 
and development stuff. I don't think there is any argument 
there.
    My concern is the structure of how we do that. And if we 
just spread out our resources so finely across the Nation, do 
we really get the bang for the buck rather than through the 
national laboratory system that we currently have?
    Ms. Millican. Thank you, Ranking Member Simpson. I am very 
glad to be asked this question. The idea you refer to, the 
National Institutes of Energy Innovation is an idea that Mr. 
Gates proposed in December, and we are enormously excited about 
it. It is an idea that really comes from looking at the great 
experience that we have had with the National Institutes of 
Health where we have been able to do incredible things in the 
health and biomedical space.
    We would love to see the same thing happen in energy and 
climate. Of course, it is not a perfectly analogous example, 
because energy commercialization challenges are much harder, 
not in terms of the problem, but in terms of having the sort of 
private sector incentives on the pole side. Nonetheless, 
though, we think developing affordable reliable energy should 
be a national mission that, you know, we place on the same 
level.
    So Senator Alexander proposed something like a, you know, 
Manhattan Project for energy, and we really hope that the 
public can get behind climate and energy in the same way that 
we have, you know, through NIH.
    I think when we look at the Department of Energy, we think 
the problem is sort of twofold. We think that there needs to be 
a better internal structure to do this work so that critical 
things like low-carbon fuels, industrial decarbonization, and 
energy storage aren't sort of buried down in the structure or 
tackled, you know, as cross-cuts.
    We also think there is a need to expand the capabilities as 
you suggested, sir, on--the capabilities within the national 
labs to focus on these challenges and to have more centers of 
innovation like the national labs in more places. We think this 
could be especially powerful for fossil fuel communities, for 
example, that are going to be in transition or underserved 
areas.
    I will say, the idea that we have put out is still under 
development and we would love to shape it with you and others 
in Congress. But in any scenario, we do see the national labs 
as remaining a very critical component and, in fact, we would 
like to grow their role to focus on commercialization of low-
carbon technology.
    One possible setup is you could have existing national labs 
host new centers of excellence with industry and academia to 
focus on some of these challenges.
    So, again, we look forward to your input and to working 
with you on this.
    Mr. Simpson. Well, I appreciate that, because one of my--as 
I said, I don't think anybody disagrees that we need to 
increase our investment in all of these renewable energies and 
clean energy and that type of thing. It is a question for me as 
an appropriator of how we do that, how do we get the biggest 
bang for the buck. And when we have got these gems out here--
and we all know that the national laboratories play a vital 
role, no matter how this all turns out. But if there is a 
better way to invest the resources to get a better result, I am 
all for that.
    So I would love to sit down with you all and talk about how 
we move forward in that. It is a very important aspect of it 
from an appropriations standpoint.
    And, Rich, I appreciate your testimony and the importance 
of nuclear energy and what it is going to be to the future of 
this country. And if you are going to address climate change, 
nuclear energy is going to be a huge part of that.
    Mr. Powell. Absolutely. It is an indispensable tool. It 
currently remains, by far, the largest source of clean energy 
in the United States. It is a proven technology that has helped 
decarbonize other major developing economies around the world. 
And on this theme of industrial missions, it is one of our very 
few options to reliably produce low-carbon heat so that you can 
actually imagine running something like a steel plant or a 
concrete facility with far fewer carbon emissions.
    So finding ways to preserve the assets we have and then 
expand our nuclear capabilities going forward has to be near 
the top of the list of innovation priorities.
    Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much for keeping your remarks 
within the time limit.
    Mr. Simpson. You bet.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much, Mr. Simpson.
    I just wanted to commend to my colleagues attention a story 
in The New York Times today about the role of China and 
electric cars. As we proceed forward, it is important for us to 
understand unfair international competition and how we succeed 
against nation states that are subsidizing at a level that is 
almost beyond belief, but that is part of what we face as we 
try to innovate in our country.
    I would now like to go to Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz 
if she is still on the floor. If she is not on the screen, then 
we will go to Congresswoman Kirkpatrick.
    Then Congresswoman Kirkpatrick, please.
    Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you, Madam Chair. I really 
appreciate you having this hearing.
    As you heard me say before, I was born and raised on Tribal 
land in Arizona, and we got our energy from a generator at the 
river, the White River. And, you know, sometimes it would break 
down and we would be without any kind of energy for days. So we 
always stored candles and lanterns and flashlights in our homes 
to get through those times.
    So this is very important to me, very timely. You know, we 
want to make sure that our Tribal communities are treated 
equitably and that they have renewable energy technology to 
rely on.
    So my first question is for Dr. Parthasarathy, regarding 
the equitable approach to renewable energy technology for our 
Tribal communities. You know, we have an abundance of solar 
energy in Arizona, and is that part of your portfolio? If you 
could address that for me, I would really appreciate it.
    Dr. Parthasarathy. Yeah, sure. So I think that there--for 
my research, what I have seen is that there is enormous 
potential and there is enormous activity happening among Native 
Americans in sort of Arizona, Utah, New Mexico area among, as I 
mentioned earlier, among both the Navajo and Hopi people. And 
you see sort of two things happening, and I think both of them 
are ripe for support from DOE, for example, and the first 
thing, which I mentioned earlier, is that as you, yourself, 
have experienced, so many of these homes are off-grid, right.
    And so this organization, Native Renewables, is attempting 
to develop solar energy for these communities and, at the same 
time, train these individuals to install solar as a means of 
workforce development. And so, at the same time, I know that 
some of these lands, some of these peoples are transitioning 
out from heavy mining, heavy involvement in mining, and looking 
to see whether older mining lands might be repurposed for solar 
energy. And those projects are relatively early in their 
development, but I think on both--in both dimensions, we can 
think about DOE support.
    I think when we think about, you know, how can we support 
these communities in what they want to do and what they feel is 
most appropriate for themselves, both in terms of procedurally, 
that they feel that they have ownership, they know their lands, 
they know their lives best, they can, you know--they can direct 
innovation and technology and workforce concerns, but also in 
terms of the kinds of technologies that might work best for 
them.
    Those are, I think, opportunities for innovation that we 
don't tend to think about. We often tend to think about 
underserved communities generally, and certainly Native 
Americans in particular, as beneficiaries at the last stages of 
innovation. We are then in a position of making sure that the 
innovation that we develop reaches those communities. But 
instead what I am suggesting is that we center those 
communities and we say, how can serving those communities, what 
those communities say they want, how can serving them actually 
produce innovation for us. And that could then help other 
underserved communities and actually center equity in 
innovation.
    Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Yeah. That is really interesting to me. 
So we have large swaths of land, Tribal land, especially in 
northern Arizona, that the power lines run right over their 
Tribal land and that they are not attached to the grid. And so 
a few years ago, I delved into it and I was just told it is too 
expensive to attach them to the grid. So they pretty much have 
to have stand-alone energy source. Solar seems perfect to me 
for that, and they are embracing solar. And so, you know, we 
would like to see much more investment in solar energy on 
Tribal land. I think it is the perfect solution.
    So many of these communities are remote and they are remote 
from each other. So running a power line doesn't really make 
sense, but if you have stand-alone energy resources for those 
communities, to me, that makes the most sense. And it is 
renewable, it gets passed on to our grandchildren, and it keeps 
the climate clean, which is a top priority of mine. So I 
appreciate your work.
    Dr. Parthasarathy. Thank you. I will just say really 
briefly that when I hear the words ``too expensive,'' I think 
that is an opportunity for innovation. Right? That is what we 
used to say about solar 10 years ago. So these are 
opportunities, I think.
    Mrs. Kirkpatrick. I agree. I agree. At some point, it might 
make sense to have stand-alone home solar units on houses in 
very remote areas. So I looked into that a couple of years ago 
too, but it was still pretty expensive. But I think, you know, 
like you said, with innovation we can bring those costs down 
and make that power available to people.
    So thank you very much for your testimony. I appreciate it.
    Dr. Parthasarathy. Thank you.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. And I thank the members for staying 
within their time limit.
    Again, I ask the members, as you look at Department of 
Energy programs, take weatherization, you will find a really 
arthritic program, a program that cannot embrace innovation 
easily. House by house by house as opposed to community by 
community by community or neighborhood by neighborhood by 
neighborhood, or integrating other programs more easily, you 
will find arthritis at the Department of Energy. We need your 
help.
    All right.
    Congressman Fleischmann.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member 
Simpson, for holding this hearing. This is truly exactly what 
we love to look at at Oak Ridge Reservation I represent.
    I want to thank the witnesses. I have got three questions, 
so I will try to be as brief with the questions and ask for 
rather terse answers.
    Ms. Millican, as we think about our national energy 
innovation capabilities, where does scientific computing and 
advanced manufacturing such as Oak Ridge National Labs 
leadership fit in, please?
    Ms. Millican. Thank you for the question, Congressman. That 
is an excellent one. So much of our conversation centers around 
energy technologies and specifically generation technologies, 
but we also have these really great platform technologies that 
can apply in a lot of different context like scientific 
computing that we also need to be investing in. Oak Ridge has 
one of the best, you know, super computers in the world, as you 
know.
    And one of the really amazing things that we have been able 
to do with computing capacities is actually look at some of the 
materials and chemistries that can go into lots of different 
technologies. One thing I will just quickly mention is a really 
cool example is a thing called a metal organic framework that 
is a nano particle that if you--it has one of the internal 
structure--or its internal structure is one of the most 
extensive of any particle on Earth. And if you were to unfurl a 
gram of it, it would cover an entire football field. And we 
have been able to analyze that with computing to find what are 
the best kinds of these metal organic frameworks that we can 
use, for example, in carbon capture technology, because it 
essentially creates a molecular cage that can capture CO2 
particles. So really cool things going on and Oak Ridge is at 
the forefront of it.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you. Appreciate that answer.
    Mr. Powell, so glad to see you, and please give our best to 
our dear friends at ClearPath.
    In addition to operating nuclear reactors, there is a 
resurgence in new nuclear technologies. This broad bipartisan 
enthusiasm over advanced reactors is in part due to private 
sector developments that have advanced in recent years. Dozens 
of advanced reactor designs are being developed by 
entrepreneurs across the country, many preparing to put steel 
in the ground in a few short years.
    While these designs are promising, developing a new nuclear 
reactor design requires significant upfront capital. In fiscal 
2020, we directed the Department of Energy to launch the 
Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program, the ARDP, which awarded 
10 private companies grants to accelerate their deployment. 
Most significant grants are to demonstrate first of a kind 
advanced reactors in the next 6 years.
    With China and Russia continuing to expand their influence 
and building new nuclear reactors in other countries, this 
program is even more important to help the United States 
maintain a strong industry and competitive nuclear industry.
    My questions are, why do you believe this program has the 
potential to be successful, and why do you believe this program 
is necessary? And my follow-up question will be, what can this 
committee do to help ensure ARDP is successful? Dr. Powell?
    Mr. Powell. Thank you so much, Congressman Fleischmann. 
Terrific to see you too, and thank you for your long and 
dedicated support for nuclear innovation and all of the great 
technologies at Oak Ridge and across the lab system.
    The Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program, the ARDP, is 
perhaps the most exciting new development in the advanced 
nuclear space in a decade. Your decision to prioritize really 
next-generation technologies to find multiple different 
technologies that can be invested in, so you have multiple 
horses running, and I think very crucially to assemble an 
industry council that represented not just the folks who are 
developing and promoting the technologies, but the folks that 
actually might buy the technologies or finance those upfront 
developments as part of the selection process to buy them, was 
really also an innovation in policy design.
    And so I think we can all have greater confidence that the 
right portfolio of technologies was selected because you got 
the buyers and the investors involved in the selection process 
alongside the great folks who work at the Department of Energy 
and led that process. So I think we can be more confident that 
the program will succeed and that we have got a robust 
portfolio of technologies there.
    In terms of what you can do going forward, I think two 
things. I mean, first, crucially, it is a big program and it is 
going to need large and continuing and dedicated support over 
the next 5 years. You write the checks.
    Just as importantly, though, I think holding that program 
accountable. You set very aggressive milestones for when those 
reactors need to be developed. As you said, a 6-year timeframe, 
that will be record time to develop and license and site and 
begin construction of a new advanced reactor. And so you are 
really going to have to hold the Department of Energy across 
multiple Presidential administrations to account to make sure 
that that is delivered on time and on budget, and that we think 
back on the program as a success.
    That program I think now will serve as a model for many of 
the other technologies that were included in the Energy Act of 
2020 as well, and I think the same approach can be applied 
there.
    Ms. Kaptur. I thank the gentleman very much for staying 
within the time limit. The gentleman's time has expired.
    We are going to go to our next member, a new member of our 
subcommittee, very energized herself, Congresswoman Lee.
    Mrs. Lee. Thank you.
    Thank you, Chairwoman Kaptur, Ranking Member Simpson. This 
is, to me, an incredibly important hearing. This is my first 
subcommittee hearing, and I look forward to working with 
everyone on this committee in a bipartisan manner.
    You know, I think that what has happened in Texas just 
recently, this hearing is so incredibly timely, and my heart 
and prayers go out to everyone in that State who had been 
adversely affected. You know, every year we are seeing these 
instances where we are seeing the effect of climate change on 
having such major implications across this country and 
communities across this country.
    I wanted to just make a couple of statements first to Mr. 
Powell regarding nuclear energy. As you know, I come from 
Nevada, so I always feel like when we talk about research and 
development and the importance of nuclear energy in our 
portfolio, you know, I look at also coupled with this is not 
just the development of technologies but the development of how 
we manage waste. And that is something that is obviously 
becoming so critical across this country and something that is 
very critical to my State. And so I just hope that that becomes 
part of this conversation as we talk about alternative energy 
and research and development.
    And, secondly, I cannot agree more with the concept of 
potentially matching our research and development to national 
innovation labs. I just think when you look at the map that we 
saw here with Dr. Cunliff on where we see the innovation 
happening and the research happening, and then you couple it 
with the map that Ms. Millican put forth on where you see, you 
know, the potential coming, there is a mismatch there. And so I 
think there is a lot of opportunity, and, obviously, in my 
State of Nevada, we view this as a key source of economic 
diversification and development. So I look forward to working 
with all of you on that.
    I just want to go back. I want to talk about the costs and 
technologies. So we know that renewable and clean energy, such 
as wind, solar, and batteries, have dropped between 55 to 94 
percent since 2008. Simultaneous, we have seen the development 
of robust clean economy, and I am proud of the progress that my 
State has made with the 45.5 percent increase in clean energy 
employment just in the last--between 2016 and 2019.
    And, Ms. Millican, can you walk us through what you view as 
the major drivers for the decline in the cost of clean energy 
technology?
    Ms. Millican. Thank you, Congresswoman. That is a great 
question. I think in the case of solar, that is the perfect 
example of what we can do when we sort of combine what we call 
the supply side of innovation with the demand side of 
innovation. So in the seventies and eighties, we were able to 
reduce the cost of solar from a very high price point very 
quickly, roughly 80 percent, through research and development, 
but then we sort of entered this stagnation period where there 
wasn't a whole lot of supportive public policy in the nineties 
and then the early 2000s.
    But once we saw Germany coming in with the feed-in tariff, 
Chinese manufacturing bringing down the cost of PV panels, all 
of these kind of global components coming together, plus in the 
United States, you know, on our side of things, we started 
putting in place things like renewable portfolio standards, you 
really saw that demand pull side of innovation coming together. 
As well, tax credits played a role, of course, in addition to 
portfolio standards.
    So we really think that same model needs to be used for 
other clean energy technologies where we are using Federal 
leadership resources and support to really drive down the costs 
through research, development, and demonstration. And then you 
need to think, you know, on the demand side about things like 
procurement and incentives and all the things that can help 
pull those innovations out from the lab into the marketplace.
    Mrs. Lee. Great. Thank you.
    I also--I don't have much time, so I just wanted to say, as 
we move forward, just specifics from an investment standpoint 
or also public-private partnership, what should we do to 
continue to incentivize that to lower the cost?
    Ms. Millican. I could take that if it was directed at me.
    Mrs. Lee. Yes.
    Ms. Millican. So I think there are a few things to mention 
here. We really do need that Federal leadership, especially on 
the research, development, and demonstration side, but in 
tandem, we also need philanthropic and private sector efforts. 
And I think some of the things that I mentioned in my written 
testimony around getting the Federal structure to be more 
conducive to coordinating more closely with the philanthropic 
and private sector would be a really great place to start.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you all so very much for being conscious 
of the time. You did excellent, Congresswoman Lee, excellent.
    All right. Congressman Newhouse, please.
    Mr. Newhouse. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, Ranking 
Member Simpson. And thank you to all of our panelists that are 
here with us this afternoon. I too think that this is a very 
important subject, and I appreciate all of your insights on it.
    Mr. Powell, welcome. It is good to see you again, and thank 
you for participating and contributing to this important 
discussion.
    I want to start off with a couple of questions for you. 
First of all, as you know, advanced nuclear energy could 
provide unparalleled domestic benefits as well as substantial 
clean electricity for generations, and we are all excited about 
that. But getting the first reactors to commercial operations 
seems to be the biggest challenge. Mr. Fleischmann talked a 
little bit about this.
    So my question about that is, how integral is Federal, 
certainly congressional support, to the success of these 
current projects and to future innovation?
    And then, secondly, as a followup to that, as we discussed, 
the Department of Energy announced the Advanced Reactor 
Demonstration Awards just last, I believe, October. And Energy 
Northwest in my district was listed as a utility partner for 
both the X-energy and the TerraPower-GE Hitachi partnerships, 
and I am just tremendously excited about the prospect of either 
one or possibly both of these plants being built in our region.
    So with Washington State's mandate for a carbon-free grid 
by, I believe, 2045 in mind, how important are projects like 
this to achieving that goal, both reliably and affordably?
    Mr. Powell. Thanks so much, Congressman. Great to see you 
as well. Thanks for your continuing leadership on nuclear and 
on energy storage. Congratulations, by the way, on the 
leadership of the Western Caucus. It is a very important group 
of members.
    So on the two parts of your question, first, on how we get 
these technologies from zero to one and then, second, how they 
play a role in a fully clean energy grid. So, you know, 
stepping back, the reality is that every new energy technology 
in the United States' history has required significant Federal 
investment to get that technology up and running. That was true 
in the early days of oil. It was certainly true as part of the 
shale gas revolution. Absolutely true in the first generation 
of nuclear technologies, in all of the grid scale renewables 
deployment. And so I think we should expect that, for better or 
for worse, to be true of next generation technologies like 
advanced nuclear as well.
    Nuclear is particularly difficult to get from zero to one 
because of the heavy regulatory burden, the appropriate 
regulatory burden, on such a power-dense technology. And so 
whether it has been the new scale reactors which recently sort 
of broke the barrier and got the first small modular reactors 
through the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or Oklo, the first 
microreactors, or TerraPower and X-energy, the first larger 
scale nonlike water reactors that, you know, are the selected 
technologies for the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program. 
All of these would need a significant Federal cost share to get 
the first generation of the technologies running. It would just 
be extremely difficult to finance that entirely by the private 
sector.
    Hence, the need and the appropriate role for the program 
and then a diversity of sites where it is picked in good host 
communities, places like your neck of the woods and the broader 
nuclear complex there or perhaps the Clinch River site in 
Tennessee, you know, finding communities that are already very 
welcoming to nuclear as the first host communities for these.
    Now, how they fit into 100 percent clean energy grid, I 
think Energy Northwest worked with E3, one of the more 
sophisticated energy modeling firms, to look at how it could 
comply with that 100 percent clean energy mandate. Washington 
State is sort of a--you are a vision of the future. You are 
already at 80 or 90 percent clean because of your hydro 
reserves and the renewable--the other renewable development you 
have. Now, you are going that last, you know, 10 to 20 percent 
of the way, so you are where so many other States might be 10 
or 20 years from now. And that E3 study found that small 
modular reactors, bar none, are the most cost-effective way to 
get that last 10 to 20 percent of the way to 100 percent clean.
    You really need something that is a firm and flexible zero 
emission source to fill that remaining gap. If you were to 
attempt to do the rest of that, for example, entirely with 
variable renewable energy--you know, wind is terrific and 
extremely cost effective until it is not, right, until it has 
reached very high penetration of the grid. But filling that 
last part of the gap, it is very clear that a flexible source 
like nuclear could be the lowest cost way to do that.
    Mr. Newhouse. Awesome. Perfect. I appreciate that. And 
thank you again for your contributions today, as well as the 
rest of the panel.
    Madam Chair, I am out of time. I thank you very much for 
the opportunity.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you for staying within the limit, 
Congressman Newhouse. I really appreciate it.
    And I just want to say to the new members on the committee 
and the returning members, we need an answer to where to store 
nuclear waste. If it is not going to be Yucca Mountain, which 
seems to be the will of the State of Nevada, we simply have to 
find an answer. If I have to support a separate task force to 
create it, volunteer, I will put you on it. But we have to 
solve this problem for the country. I am tired of the issue. I 
inherited it, and I am determined to find an answer. So all of 
our experts, help us out. We really need it. Got to move the 
country forward here. Time is awasting.
    Congressman Ryan, Senator Ryan, there he is.
    Mr. Ryan. Thank you. I appreciate it, Chairwoman, and 
excited to be back on this committee. I was on it back when it 
was Dave Hobson and Pete Visclosky, and we continue to work. So 
great to be with you and Mr. Simpson.
    I have a question, Robin, that I would like your opinion on 
and maybe some insight. We know that the innovation is critical 
and that is really how we are going to get home from the 
climate crisis. And I have been supporting, over the last 
however many years, with the help of Ms. Kaptur, the Office of 
Technology Transitions at DOE, and that is essential to drive 
some of the innovation that we are talking about across the 
agency and in the communities throughout the country. And that 
is why for the last couple of years I have supported an 
increase in their budget for clean energy incubators, and 
incubators like one we started, it was one of the last earmarks 
I got, it is called the BRITE Energy incubator in Warren, Ohio, 
to empower energy start-ups and to launch these energy 
companies.
    I think it is going to be vitally important for us to, as 
Ms. Kaptur talks so eloquently about so often, getting these 
investments into the communities, over the last 30 or 40 years, 
that have lost investment. So coal and steel and auto and 
rubber in these communities that really have been devastated, 
how do we drive some of this investment into those communities? 
And I think these incubators could be a great opportunity.
    Brookings had a study a couple of years back where 
businesses that come out of incubators, they locate within 5 
miles of the incubator. So we have been putting these 
incubators in our downtowns--downtown Akron, downtown Warren. 
There is a business software incubator in downtown Youngstown--
because we know that those companies spinning out are probably 
going to stay in the downtown, which builds capacity there and 
there is quality of life, and on and on and on.
    So I would love to hear you talk a little bit about the 
role of start-ups in the energy innovation economy and maybe 
what else, in your view, OTT could do to help continue to 
cultivate that ecosystem. And I will let you take the rest of 
the time.
    Ms. Millican. Thank you, Congressman Ryan. Well, in our 
assessment, no surprise, given, you know, Mr. Gates' 
orientation, we think start-ups play an incredibly vital role 
in the overall innovation process. That is true in any 
industry, but it is certainly true in energy as well.
    We, you know, think that the vital role they play is 
because if you look at incumbent players, right, they are--this 
isn't true across the board, but they are often sort of trying 
to make the thing that they are already making incrementally 
better, not necessarily working on the truly disruptive game-
changing technology, which is where start-ups come in.
    We have a couple of programs at Breakthrough Energy that 
are oriented toward those, you know, sort of early stage 
innovators. Breakthrough Energy Ventures was the first effort 
that we launched that focuses on investing in new companies 
that can mitigate at least half a gigaton of greenhouse gases 
when deployed at scale. And then we have a new program called 
Breakthrough Energy Ventures that is looking at taking 
researchers and scientists that don't have companies yet, but 
they might have great ideas, and try to coach them into, you 
know, understanding how they can take those ideas and turn them 
into products and companies. And we hope that is a program that 
helps seed innovation across the country.
    In terms of what OTT can do, you know, we are really 
excited that it was authorized for the first time, despite, you 
know, being around for a few years, but authorized for the 
first time in the Energy Act in December. I think a few ideas 
come to mind around what they might be able to do to help, you 
know, start-ups in a more fulsome way.
    One is, you know, I believe the Energy Act authorized $5 
million for them to work more closely with incubators and 
accelerators. We would like to see that funded. And we would 
also like to see them have programs like the Small Business 
Vouchers Program, for example, which focuses on getting small 
businesses access to the great national lab facilities. We 
would like to see that program brought back and funded. So a 
few ideas off the top of my head.
    I also will mention the Small Business Innovation Research 
Program. That is a program that gets nondiluted grant funding 
out to companies, and that program has been very successful. 
DOE has one that is almost the size of ARPA-E, so we would like 
to see that expand as well.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Ryan. Great. I appreciate that.
    Thank you, Madam Chair. And I would be derelict in my duty 
if I didn't say I would love for you to come to Ohio and see 
what we have going on there and would love to partner with you 
if we could.
    So thanks, Congresswoman Kaptur, Chairwoman.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
Thank you for staying within the limit. Greatly appreciated.
    I just want to make sure Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz is 
not on and Congresswoman Herrera Buetler is not on. I don't 
want to miss anybody.
    Okay. Then we are going to Congressman Reschenthaler, a new 
member of the subcommittee. Welcome.
    Mr. Reschenthaler. Thank you, Chair. I really appreciate 
it.
    I just want to start by saying that American innovation, if 
you just look at the United States, we currently actually lead 
the world in CO2 emission reduction. China currently emits more 
greenhouse gases than the United States, Japan, and the EU 
combined. And also, China has increased emissions by nearly 
four tons per every ton reduced by the United States in the 
last 15 years. And under the Paris climate agreement, China and 
India, who, again, emit significantly more carbon than the 
United States, are allowed to increase their emissions through 
2030.
    But let's just focus on the United States and our 
innovation. The National Energy Technology Laboratory, or NETL, 
which I am proud to say is located in southwestern 
Pennsylvania, actually right down the road from where I grew 
up, and the Department of Energy's Office of Fossil Energy, 
these institutions are global leaders in carbon capture 
research and development.
    Carbon capture ensures that we can reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions while still taking advantage of domestic coal and 
natural resources--natural gas resources, both of which are 
produced in my district. Continued innovation in carbon capture 
technology will benefit our environment, it will benefit our 
energy sector and, I would argue just as importantly, will 
benefit our economy.
    With that said, Mr. Powell, the DOE's carbon capture 
program has long targeted commercial demonstrations in the 2025 
timeframe. These goals were incorporated in Congress' recent 
enactment of the Energy Act of 2020.
    With the recent extended 45Q tax credit also expiring at 
the end of 2025, what do you think Congress can do to best 
support the Department's commercialization goals?
    Mr. Powell. Thanks so much for the question, Congressman 
Reschenthaler. Thanks for your leadership on the China Task 
Force and, you know, continuing to pound the drum and raise the 
profile of that massive emissions issue. And terrific to see a 
fellow Pennsylvanian on the panel. I am a proud Scrantonian, so 
it is great to see that you are here.
    I think the work that the National Energy Technology 
Laboratory has done is indeed world-leading. We have 
significantly decreased the cost of carbon capture, and we have 
now brought it down to the level where, for industrial 
facilities, it is equivalent or less than the incentive we 
created in 45Q.
    So you have now seen a whole wave of industrial facilities 
across the country, ethanol facilities, cement plants, ammonia 
plants, say that they are going to take advantage of that 
incentive and start installing carbon capture. The problem is 
we haven't yet brought it down to the level where power plants 
are in the money under 45Q, and so there is work to be done on 
further demonstrations. We know it works on power plants. It 
has been demonstrated multiple times around the world. Now it 
is a question of doing more of it, learning by doing it, and 
further bringing down the cost.
    So in terms of what Congress can do, I think first and 
foremost, it is funding the wave of demonstrations that are set 
up in the Energy Act of 2020. That act authorizes six total 
carbon capture demonstrations, two more on coal, two on gas, 
two on industrial facilities. I think funding those through the 
Office of Fossil Energy is probably the top priority, 
especially those gas and those coal demonstrations, to further 
bring down the costs so that then the incentive is enough to 
get them going by themselves.
    Mr. Reschenthaler. So, Mr. Powell, the incentive is why 
there is so much commercial interest in carbon capture, the 
financial incentive, or are there other reasons why the free 
market is interested in carbon capture?
    Mr. Powell. Well, the incentive is part of it. There is 
also an opportunity to commercialize the CO2 that is captured 
as a commodity. So, for example, in Texas, Carbon Engineering, 
one of the firms that Mr. Gates' organizations have invested 
in, is partnering with Occidental Petroleum, pulling CO2 
directly out of the atmosphere and then putting it into older 
oil fields to do enhanced oil recovery and produce barrels of 
oil that are either neutral or net negative emissions barrels 
of oil. So there is a whole opportunity there in utilizing the 
carbon capture and emissions.
    And, relatedly, investors and many large energy companies 
have demanded that those companies go to net-zero goals, and 
many of those companies don't see a way to get to their net-
zero goals and commitments without some robust use for carbon 
capture. So there is a bunch of sort of voluntary corporate 
demand for the technology.
    Mr. Reschenthaler. And knowing that we have less than 30 
seconds left, what are some opportunities for downstream carbon 
capture benefits or how we can use it downstream? Quickly, I 
know we are running out of time, please.
    Mr. Powell. Well, absolutely. I think there are a number of 
things. So there are places for carbon capture that folks don't 
necessarily think about. There are a lot of smaller industrial 
facilities, pulp and paper, for example, that could take 
advantage of this kind of thing. There are also clusters, like 
in the Louisiana industrial cluster, for example, where 
multiple different facilities could come together and share 
common infrastructure to capture the CO2 and sequester it.
    Mr. Reschenthaler. Thank you, Mr. Powell.
    And thank you, Chairwoman Kaptur.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Congressman Reschenthaler. You are a 
good member. Glad to have you.
    Mr. Reschenthaler. Thank you.
    Ms. Kaptur. And we have got to get some of this carbon 
capture technology to my district with all of our refineries, 
so you gave me an idea.
    Congressman Kilmer, please.
    Mr. Kilmer. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thanks to our 
guests for being with us.
    My question is for Dr. Cunliff. It would probably not 
surprise any of my colleagues who have been on this 
subcommittee previously to hear me talk about the only marine 
lab in the Department of Energy's lab complex. It is the 
Pacific Northwest National Lab's Marine and Coastal Research 
Lab in my district in Sequim, Washington. And they are really 
at the leading edge of innovation in marine and hydrokinetic 
energy, especially focusing on how to use this emerging 
renewable power source for ocean-based applications and to 
bring power to remote coastal communities.
    Dr. Cunliff, in ITIF's recent report, you called for 
significantly ramping up investment in the EERE Water Power 
Technologies Office that funds this work. I was hoping you 
could share more with the committee about why investing in 
those technologies is important and the opportunity you see for 
marine power to contribute to our national and even global 
climate goals.
    Dr. Cunliff. Sure. And thank you for the question. I 
appreciate your long support for marine energy. And, of course, 
I am very familiar with the great work out of the Pacific 
Northwest National Lab and with DOE powering the fuel economy 
road map [inaudible] Energy.
    As far as its importance, natural resource assessments have 
found 1.25 to 1.85 terawatt hours per year of untapped 
technically extractable marine energy potential. And just for 
comparison, that is 30 percent of total electricity generated 
in the U.S. But marine energy technologies are still in the 
early stages of development, due to some of the scientific and 
the engineering challenges associated with the marine 
environment.
    So the powering of fuel economy road maps, as you mentioned 
invites near-term opportunities for marine energy in places 
that are far from land-based power grids, onboard energy 
generation, and remote recharging.
    In our report, we did make a couple of recommendations for 
an innovation intended [inaudible] For marine energy, and one 
of the things we found is that price competitions are 
particularly well suited to marine energy in part because of 
the technological [inaudible] But also the uncertainty about 
the eventual optimal design. And then also, test beds is 
another area where there is a huge gap.
    The European Marine Energy Center allows prototypes of up 
to 1 megawatt to be tested in the open water, and there is 
really no comparable test bed of that scale in the United 
States.
    So those are a couple of recommendations for how we could 
tap into marine energy.
    I can also--I can keep going.
    I do think DOE should also focus on marine maritime 
assistance more broadly. So shipping is a particularly hard to 
decarbonize sector, and that really requires energy-dense 
fuels, and the batteries that enable electrification for light-
duty cars and trucks are likely not to attain sufficient 
density for marine shipping. But some opportunities that DOE 
currently is not exploring at all include hydrogen and ammonia, 
but certainly more work is needed. But also for ports' 
electrification and energy management, are opportunities to 
reduce emissions as well as local pollution.
    Mr. Kilmer. I really appreciate it. Sorry, I put myself on 
mute, so I just didn't want to be talking into the ether.
    I really appreciate your suggestions. I think the notion of 
price competitions, I think, is a great idea. The opportunities 
related to our ports, I think, are enormous and would really 
just like to invite your partnership as we start to think about 
the fiscal year 2022 bill. So thank you for your input.
    Madam Chair, I know you have got a lot of folks in the 
queue, just out of respect knowing votes are coming up, I will 
yield back the remainder of my time.
    Ms. Kaptur. How kind of you and how like you, Congressman 
Kilmer. Thank you so very much. Thank you.
    We will hear from Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz now. And 
then we will go to Congresswoman Bustos, Watson Coleman, and 
Frankel. I don't believe Ms. Herrera Beutler has returned to 
the screen, but she might.
    So, Congressman Wasserman Schultz.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Madam Chair, climate change is a defining issue of our time 
because it affects virtually every policy area. And we also 
have to recognize that communities of color and marginalized 
communities in the United States and all around the world are 
being hit hardest by climate change and pollution. These 
communities are often forced to confront environmental and 
public health hazards where they live, work, and play.
    Professor Parthasarathy, I have some questions. With a last 
name like Wasserman Schultz, I feel your pain. I have some 
questions.
    Dr. Parthasarathy. You got it, you are fine.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I have some questions for you, and I 
also just want you to go back and touch on the breast cancer 
research. As a breast cancer survivor, that was really 
intriguing, and I would love to talk to you after the hearing 
further about that.
    But your work focuses on achieving social justice goals, 
ethics, and science. How can we approach energy innovation so 
that it combats the historically unequal impacts of pollution, 
while increasing equitable access to new economic opportunity, 
improve public health and resilience? This is such an 
incredibly important challenge that we tackle. And it just 
feels like there is so much to do, it is hard to know where to 
begin.
    Dr. Parthasarathy. Well, Congressman Wasserman Schultz, I 
was hopeful that we would have the opportunity to talk about 
breast cancer, because over the many years in which I have 
looked at that issue, your extraordinary work on the issue has 
been really an inspiration for me.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
    Dr. Parthasarathy. But you raise, of course, a very 
important point. And the horrible winter storm in Texas last 
week has already come up in this hearing, and I would be 
neglectful if I didn't mention that my parents live in Texas, 
in Houston. And, in fact, last week there was a moment of real 
panic when I wasn't able to find a hotel room for them and they 
were struggling. But, of course, my parents are relatively 
privileged. They live in a nice neighborhood. The power came 
back, the water came back, and they have children who are quick 
with internet technology around the country.
    But what we have seen from that episode is the fact that 
inequality is a nested problem, right. So families who lack 
power and water in that moment had insecure housing. They 
didn't have the kinds of funds that my parents had. They don't 
have--they are obviously also at greater risk when it comes to 
environmental pollution, air and water pollution, housing 
issues, et cetera, right.
    So I think that the key is to understand that it is a 
nested problem, that these are nested problems and that from 
the top down we don't always understand how those problems are 
connected to one another. And so that is why, as I said 
earlier, it is important to engage with communities to find out 
exactly how these problems work together and how to unravel 
them.
    But the other thing that I wanted to mention, which I 
discussed briefly in my oral testimony, is that there are 
social scientists doing this work too, that there are scholars 
who have considered developing equity impact assessments, for 
example, in the areas of health, health equity impact 
assessments, social equity impact assessments, that I think 
that we can bring into the energy space.
    These discussions are newer here, right. Environmental 
impact assessments, of course, are something that we have a lot 
of experience with, but it doesn't necessarily have that equity 
dimension to it. And I think bringing in and normalizing that 
expertise in these conversations is the first place to go to 
start to even begin to understand what we are dealing with. I 
think we are still at the stage in this discussion where we 
don't necessarily know what are the different dimensions of it 
that we may need to consider as we are thinking about new 
climate and energy innovation.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And briefly, on breast cancer, can 
you elaborate a bit on what you touched on?
    Dr. Parthasarathy. Yes, sure. So in addition to the fact 
that as you, of course, know, in the nineties, breast cancer 
advocates were able to get huge increases in funding. There 
were a couple of things that happened that really, I think, 
revolutionized the game.
    The first was that breast cancer advocates sit on 
scientific peer review panels, for example, at the Department 
of Defense's Breast Cancer Research Program. In addition, we 
see breast cancer advocates as partners across the country in 
what seem like scientific projects. And, in particular, we have 
seen the research partnerships that I mentioned, the National 
Institute for Environmental Health Sciences, these kinds of 
partnerships have changed the kinds of questions that 
scientists ask.
    So, for example, one of the interesting dimensions of this 
is that scientists tend to look at environmental causation of 
cancer at the community level--or sorry, at the county level, 
and instead patient advocates said, no, actually the operative 
issue is ZIP Code as opposed to county. They convinced 
scientists to look at radiation risks, right. So it changed the 
kinds of questions. It sometimes changed the measurement tools. 
And those kinds of things are really important if we, you know, 
at the end of the day, we want--we are investing in all of this 
innovation for it to have social impact.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. I would love to follow up 
with you. If you would reach out to my office.
    And, Madam Chair, thank you for your indulgence. I know I 
am out of time, and I yield back.
    Ms. Kaptur. I know, Congresswoman, you were on the floor 
speaking, and we thank you for coming back to the meeting. We 
thank you very much.
    Congresswoman Watson Coleman was with us earlier. She may 
be on the floor herself.
    Congresswoman Bustos.
    Mrs. Watson Coleman. I am here.
    Ms. Kaptur. Oh, you are here. Okay.
    Mrs. Watson Coleman. Yes, I am here. Thank you.
    Ms. Kaptur. Oh, there you are. Oh, okay. All right. 
Congresswoman Watson Coleman.
    Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thanks very much.
    I appreciate this hearing that we are having on innovation 
and the impact on underrepresented and poorer communities. I am 
very concerned about that.
    But I am also concerned about--two questions. Number one is 
that if we think nuclear energy is part of our clean energy 
portfolio, why are we not doing more research on what to do 
with its waste as opposed to finding some place to collect it? 
Why aren't we trying to figure out how to repurpose it? And are 
we so we would be investing in that?
    And the second question is, since Princeton Plasma Physics 
is in my home district, why are we not discussing fusion energy 
as one of the innovations that we should be investing in? And 
where do you see it falling on the portfolio line?
    Those are my questions, Madam Chair.
    Mr. Powell. Congresswoman, I am happy to take a quick stab 
at both.
    First, couldn't agree with you more that we ought to be 
doing more at the back end of the fuel cycle. We are going to 
need a long-term repository. No matter what happens, we are 
going to need some long-term repository, so we need to find a 
solution on that matter. But there is so much more that we 
could be doing on repurposing and reprocessing the fuel we had. 
I think it is better thought of as spent fuel or lightly used 
fuel than it is as waste. There is so much energy left in it, 
and a number of these advanced reactor technologies could 
actually much more easily use that as the fuel to fire those 
reactors going forward and potentially also break down some of 
the nastier things that are left over in the spent fuel from 
the existing light-water civilian nuclear fleet. So we should 
certainly be doing that.
    I think there is also more that we could be doing on 
innovative ways to store the waste. For example, there is a 
company called Deep Isolation that is looking at whether we 
could use horizontal drilling technologies to much more quickly 
go both deep and sideways and find places to securely store, 
maybe even temporarily store the waste that would be--we 
perhaps all feel a little bit better about it being sort of 
above ground in parking lots, even though it is actually stored 
relatively securely in those places.
    Second, couldn't agree with you more on the need to do more 
on fusion. We were very excited to see that the Energy Act of 
2020 had a public-private partnership program included to 
actually start thinking about really commercializing a fusion 
reactor technology in this company. There are a number of 
innovative start-ups around the country, from Commonwealth 
Fusion in Massachusetts to Tri-Alpha and many others on the 
West Coast, that are getting close to something that could 
actually produce power sustainably.
    We are not talking about a science project anymore. We are 
talking about something that is very close to application. I 
think funding and supporting that fusion public-private 
partnership could be a great next step to move that forward.
    Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you.
    Does anyone else want to comment on this particular 
question?
    If not, my only last comment has to do with, as we move 
forward and we think about all of these innovations, those 
communities, those poor communities, those urban as well as 
those rural communities, are communities that we need to make 
sure the DEP really has its eye on and has a commitment to in 
this administration.
    And I thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back the rest of 
my time.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much, Congresswoman Watson 
Coleman. You have given me an idea. I would like you and 
Congressman Fleischmann to think about this, and if it is okay 
with the ranking member, maybe we need to have a little task 
force of our committee look at this issue of waste from our 
nuclear waste and have a little more work done by members of 
the subcommittee before we actually go to hearings and so forth 
involving your labs, involving finding witnesses who can talk 
to us about this, to try to move us forward on an approach 
which the Department seems to be stymied or we would have an 
answer. And so you can think about that and let me know if that 
interests you----
    Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Kaptur [continuing]. As we move forward.
    And I apologize to Congresswoman Bustos. I should have 
called on her first. I just attribute it to my bad handwriting 
for the day.
    Congresswoman Bustos.
    Mrs. Bustos. I can definitely relate to bad handwriting, 
so--thank you very much, Madam Chair.
    Dr. Cunliff, this question is for you. In your written 
testimony, you talked about our country's enormous geologic and 
terrestrial reservoirs for carbon dioxide sequestration, your 
words.
    So I want to give you a little background before I ask my 
question. So the congressional district that I serve sits on 
top of the Mount Simon Sandstone basin. You might know that as 
one of the best geological formations for carbon storage in the 
entire Nation. And on top of that, we have seven biofuel 
refineries in and around the congressional district that I 
serve.
    An ethanol refinery in my district called Pacific Ethanol, 
located in Pekin, Illinois, wants to capture carbon. And they 
know that deploying this technology would be good for jobs, 
good for the economy, good for the environment, and they know 
they can do it cheaply, maybe less than $25 a ton.
    So we know also that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change says that there is a need for carbon capture and even 
say that it should be a hundredfold scaleup in order to meet 
our 2050 decarbonization goals. But right now, there is only 26 
operational carbon capture and storage facilities across the 
entire world. Twelve of them are in our own country.
    One more bit of background and then to my question. So the 
Energy Act enacted at the end of last year authorizes Congress 
to spend almost $7 billion over the next 5 years for carbon 
capture use and storage programs at the Department of Energy 
and EPA, which is more than three times the authorization 
limits in previous years.
    So, Dr. Cunliff, what I want to ask you is, how can we on 
this committee, appropriators, leverage those innovation funds 
to get more carbon capture jobs in places like the district I 
serve and get businesses, like the one I mentioned, to have the 
technology that they need to make this happen?
    Dr. Cunliff. Sure. Congresswoman, thank you for the 
question. And I think you are absolutely right, ethanol 
facilities are an excellent near-term opportunity for carbon 
capture in part because they produce a near pure stream of CO2. 
So you don't have to--with ordinary power plants, you have to 
separate the CO2 from flue gas, and that is very energy 
intensive, but with ethanol it is almost 99, almost 100 
percent. So it is very cheap to capture. It is one of the 
lowest-cost opportunities and the first place that we should 
start. And we know how to do it. As you mentioned, it is 
already being done in parts of the U.S.
    There still is some cost associated with transporting it 
and then storing it underground. And one thing that I think is 
underexplored at the Department of Energy and requires more 
investment is focus on mapping underground reservoirs and 
characterizing them and understanding the available capacity 
and injection rates. We know we have a lot already from the 
U.S. Geological Survey, but we need to really characterize it 
in much more granular detail, and that is just a hurdle that 
individual companies can't always overcome on their own.
    And then I would say just as it is deployed more and more, 
costs will come down, so that other companies that have 
slightly higher capture costs can continue to build on that 
infrastructure.
    Mrs. Bustos. My next question is for Ms. Millican. You 
highlighted the importance of direct air capture and the impact 
it can have on achieving our long-term decarbonization goals. 
Scientists have been very clear about the benefits of direct 
air capture, sucking CO2 out of the air, burying it underground 
in places like the place I just mentioned, the Mount Simon 
Sandstone basin in Illinois.
    So we also know that we need to be removing 500 million or 
more tons of carbon dioxide per year by 2050, and right now, we 
are not even removing 1 million tons per year.
    So my question is, what research design and demonstration 
steps does this subcommittee need to take to get direct air 
capture to the point where we are capturing 500 million tons 
per year?
    Ms. Millican. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman. 
Direct air capture is definitely one of the technologies that 
we think is going to be very critical in the future. 
Fortunately, it is invented, right, and there are some very 
small scale pilot projects that are happening right now, one of 
which Rich Powell mentioned earlier, but it's nowhere near the 
scale we need it to be. It is also still very expensive, so it 
is not going to be widely deployed until we can bring costs 
down.
    I think there are a lot of different things that could help 
in the bringing costs down category, certainly more, you know, 
research and development into, you know, things that I 
mentioned earlier, like metal-organic frameworks, you know, how 
we can, you know, sort of reduce the individual components of 
the system--or reduce costs for those individual components 
rather. We also need to do more demonstration projects. There 
are some other efforts at the Department of Energy that are 
mentioned in the Energizing America Report that Dr. Cunliff 
coauthored that speak to the subject as well. So I would 
encourage you to take a look at that as you all think about 
fiscal year 2022 funding there.
    Mrs. Bustos. Thank you very much.
    I yield back, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much, Congresswoman Bustos.
    Now, the winner of the big bouquet this afternoon is 
Congresswoman Frankel. She has waited throughout the whole 
hearing. Thank you so very, very much, Congresswoman.
    Ms. Frankel. I guess that is what I get for being last. 
Good to be with all of you. And thank you to the panelists.
    I want to change the subject just a little bit, especially 
because we have Ms. Millican on the panel here, but I would be 
interested in others' opinions on this. And that is, I know 
Bill Gates has said that alternative protein innovation will be 
a core part of the fight to halt global heating. Cattle 
rearing, it surprised me, but apparently it is about 4 percent 
of all carbon emissions in the world.
    So I would like you to talk about--because we are talking 
about climate change, how to reduce carbon emissions--what kind 
of research is being done in terms of producing alternative 
meats? Do you think it is necessary? Do you think that the 
Federal Government should get involved?
    Ms. Millican. Thank you, Congresswoman Frankel. The short 
answer is yes. Perhaps not surprisingly, I do think that there 
is a role for Federal research and development funding here. 
There are a lot of different things that go into the 
agriculture picture. As you mentioned, not all of it is CO2; 
actually a lot of it is methane, nitrous oxide, things for 
which we don't have great solutions. And Mr. Gates is fond of 
saying if, you know, cattle were their own country, they would 
be the third largest emitter in the world, ahead of India, 
which is pretty remarkable. So we do need solutions there.
    I am not an expert in the ag space, but some things that we 
talk about frequently in the proteins department are, you know, 
we need bioreactors that are capable of developing, you know, 
the synthetic meat that, you know, could potentially help 
offset some of the, you know, regular consumption of meat. 
There are also innovative feedstocks that can help reduce 
emissions from cattle. One thing that they have discovered is 
certain types of seaweed, if you form those into cattle feed, 
can help cattle emit less. There are actually breeding programs 
that specifically select certain types of cattle that produce 
less emissions. Actually, U.S. cattle are among the most 
efficient cattle in the world, so it is something for us to be 
very proud of.
    But there is a lot more to be done here. There are some 
things at the Department of Energy that are happening in this 
space, so ARPA-E has some limited agriculture research going 
on, but a lot of it is the USDA, so we would like to see both 
of those efforts be well funded.
    Ms. Frankel. Does anyone else on the panel want to comment 
on that? Otherwise----
    Dr. Cunliff. I could comment on agricultural emissions more 
broadly.
    Ms. Frankel. Yes.
    Dr. Cunliff. As Robin mentioned, DOE does have some 
programs at ARPA-E. The roots program is aimed at selectively 
breeding plants with deeper root structures to enhance soil 
carbon absorption. And then there are some other precision 
agriculture programs at ARPA-E that are looking at using 
sensors to maximize fertilizer inputs and minimize watering and 
other industry inputs, which is a way to lower cost for farmers 
but also reduce the nitrous oxide emissions associated with 
fertilizers.
    And then, finally, Bioenergy Technologies Office is also 
looking at diverting agricultural waste into energy products 
through anaerobic digesters. So there is a lot going on in this 
space.
    Ms. Frankel. Thank you for that.
    And I think I have another minute. Ms. Millican, earlier in 
your comments you talked about, I think you said temporarily 
supporting some businesses or start-ups. Can you give me some 
examples of what you mean by that?
    Ms. Millican. Yes, I would be glad to. So one of the really 
important programs that is not just at the Department of Energy 
but is at most Federal agencies is called the Small Business 
Innovation Research Program. That program funds nondilutive 
grants to start up some small businesses to work on innovation, 
and we have seen some pretty great results from that program. 
So that is an example of a program that, as we think about 
recovery, we think it is really important because, 
unfortunately--
    Ms. Frankel. Could you give me an example of a business?
    Ms. Millican. Yes. There are actually several businesses 
that are compiled by--there is a great organization called the 
Clean Energy Business Network. They have got a handful--not 
just a handful, numerous business profiles that we would be 
happy to send to your staff that have been supported through 
the Small Business Innovation Research Program.
    Some of the programs in Breakthrough Energy Ventures' 
portfolio have also in the past received SBIR grants, not just 
from DOE, but from other Federal agencies, like NSF as well.
    So can't remember any specific company off the top of my 
head, but would be happy to follow up with your staff about 
that. But it is a really important program that we think could 
help provide a lifeline to the businesses that are sort of like 
the front lines of the pandemic, right, because as capital 
tightens up, venture capital, for example, is often the first 
to sort of go in, you know, fiscal crises. So that is an 
example of a program that we think is very important.
    Ms. Frankel. Thank you. I yield back, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much, Congresswoman.
    We are going to move to a second round. I just wanted to 
let the members know that, of course, there is a vote on. We 
will have probably another half hour here. They say it is 45 
minutes until the gavel will be struck over in the Chamber, so 
I just let members know that.
    I wanted to move toward a couple of questions and then have 
the panelists respond.
    In my region, I experienced the following over the last 
month: Deep fear by the head of the United Auto Workers, very 
worried about the transition to clean energy; and with Chinese 
competition being as unfair as it is, the likelihood that 
places--and I will mention some of the names--Kokomo, Indiana; 
Detroit, Michigan; Buffalo, New York; Toledo, Ohio--could be 
deep-sixed because they will not be able to accommodate the 
changes being asked.
    So similarly, in agriculture, the decarbonization needs 
identified in Energizing America for clean agricultural systems 
include prospective hopes that don't exist yet. So, for 
example, if we are trying to absorb carbon in soil that locals 
are--local farmers are trying to make regenerative, because the 
soil is basically worn out in row crop production across the 
country.
    I am worried about how we make the transition without 
harming these communities, be they urban or rural--I represent 
both--and how we work with other Federal agencies. I am 
thinking we in Energy, Department of Energy, with Department of 
Energy responsibilities ought to have a cross-cutting hearing 
or convening with Department of Agriculture appropriations 
representatives.
    How can we coordinate these types of efforts, be they 
industrial or agricultural, to assure increased climate 
benefits and without harming the communities and industries 
that are in transition in our country surrounded by a very 
unfair global marketplace, certainly in the vehicular industry? 
We are not offsetting their predatory practices. We are not 
offsetting their dumping. And here we are trying to fix 
something. I don't know the mechanisms to do that so the 
American people ultimately benefit.
    If you have thoughts on that, I would welcome them.
    Dr. Cunliff. Thank you, Congresswoman, for the question, 
and I can go ahead and start. But I think you are right, you 
know, the United States is a leader in global solar photo-
voltaics and invented solar cells here in the U.S., and now 
eight of the top ten solar PV manufacturers are in China.
    Ms. Kaptur. Yes.
    Dr. Cunliff. There is a concern that that could happen with 
electric vehicles. They produce and consume half of the world's 
electric vehicles, so that is a very real concern.
    Ms. Kaptur. I didn't hear you. Half of the world's what?
    Dr. Cunliff. Electric vehicles are produced and consumed in 
China right now.
    So I think to Dr. Parthasarathy's point, it is important to 
engage the communities that are being impacted in the 
innovation process from the beginning, and I am very interested 
in hearing what she has to say.
    I will say, on agricultural sector, you know, I think you 
are right, it is very important for the adopters of the 
technologies to be involved from the beginning, and that is 
part of the reason why I think USDA should continue to be the 
lead on agricultural decarbonization research, with DOE playing 
more of a supportive role, because USDA has those ties to the 
farmers and to the industry that would be consuming these new 
agricultural practices and agricultural technologies.
    Ms. Kaptur. You make very wise comments because, in my 
region, the farmers tried to use methane digesters, and they 
didn't work. So they are actually angry. They are angry, and 
they need a better solution. They need a workable solution. The 
issue of manure in the region that I represent is not a small 
issue, and we don't have an answer to that within our 
watershed. I think we have to develop a watershed mentality, 
and we need to look at what that watershed is producing and 
figuring out how we are going to reprocess materiel that has a 
future use. We are not yet doing that in any sense. We are 
tiptoeing toward a really massive transformational change in 
the way we handle materials, whether it is spent nuclear waste 
or spent cow fuel, whatever. We aren't very good at that yet, 
but we need to be by--within these watersheds.
    Within the automotive and vehicular sector, we need to look 
at the subsidy that the Chinese Government is eating in the 
form of lost profits, because they are underselling in the 
market. I mean, they are not--they don't have a normal balance 
sheet, and the competition just isn't in the creation of an 
electric vehicle. It is in the inherent subsidy that that state 
economy is providing, and they are going to do the same thing 
they did with steel. They are going to overproduce by four 
times and then dump in every market in the world, and we will 
be wiped out. We can't be that stupid. I mean, we have got to 
figure out a way to offset that enormous negative force on 
innovation, creativity, and then adopting those technologies in 
an open economy like ours.
    So I don't know if you have done work on that, but I think 
that the economics of electric car production country by 
country is a very important element here so we can succeed.
    I know I am over time. I am going to go over to--and I 
would appreciate any of your thoughts on that so we can pin 
down the reality of what we are dealing with.
    Congressman Simpson.
    Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Chairwoman Kaptur.
    I noticed we have talked about spent nuclear fuel and how 
we are going to handle it in the future and the challenge that 
it brings. So I will just say it is not a technology issue; it 
is a political issue. That is what it comes down to now. We 
have got to decide politically what we are going to do with it.
    But I do want to thank all of the people here that have 
been testifying today. You have got some great ideas, and I 
look forward to being able to discuss them with you one on one, 
because you have got some ideas on how we might be able to 
better invest our resources and get more bang for the buck. And 
I look forward to being able to sit down with each of you and 
talk about this.
    And, Doctor--and I am going hammer this, so I won't try. 
Dr. Parth----
    Drs. Parthasarathy. Think of it as two words, Partha 
sarathy.
    Mr. Simpson. Parthasarathy. Is that right?
    Dr. Parthasarathy. Pretty close.
    Mr. Simpson. Okay. I have got that down.
    I want you to contact our offices, or we will contact you, 
but I would like to sit down, because you bring a subject to 
the table that, to be real honest, I have not spent much time 
in thinking about, and it is very interesting, and I would like 
to sit down and talk to you about the challenges that we face 
and how we might be able to address them. So thank you for your 
testimony today.
    And then, Rich, I have got one question for you that hasn't 
been asked yet. And that is, you know, I read a book a few 
years ago, about 10 or 12 years ago, on the hydrogen economy. 
And there was a lot of research and development and thought 
about, you know, we are going to--everything is going to move 
toward hydrogen and stuff, and then it seems to have died down 
a lot.
    Where are we in moving toward a hydrogen energy transition? 
What role will that play in the future? And should the 
Department be more involved in that?
    Mr. Powell. Thanks so much for the question, Congressman. I 
think it is a really timely question, because it died down, and 
then last year, I think, it started to come back. If we didn't 
think of 2020 as the year of COVID, I think we would have, you 
know, thought of it as the year of hydrogen, because there is 
quite a bit of new commercial activity, quite a bit of new 
policy interest in the space.
    Just to take a big step back, it remains an extremely 
important topic. We know we cannot electrify everything. It 
just will not be possible to use batteries for--well, not be 
possible to do it economically for a number of things, like 
long-haul shipping or long-haul freight, for big parts of 
heavy-duty industry. We are going to need fuels, right. Fuels 
are just very, very good and efficient at densely storing 
energy in very small spaces, and they are really good at 
producing a lot of heat, and we need those two characteristics.
    Hydrogen is the core for a clean fuel future, and it is a 
future where you can imagine using a lot of the existing 
infrastructure we already have, the trillions of dollars of gas 
pipelines, for example, that we have around this country, and 
using those, you know, all the way into the second half of the 
century, just running a different kind of fuel through those 
same pipes, and that is a fuel based on hydrogen.
    So there is a couple of ways that I think we can do a lot 
more in terms of investment. Right now, the DOE is already 
significantly funding pilots on using waste heat from nuclear 
plants to produce hydrogen, and I think that is a really 
important path for discovery in this. It is actually possible 
that the cheapest way to produce hydrogen at scale is going to 
be doing something called high-temperature electrolysis, which 
nuclear is kind of uniquely positioned to do. As well, we 
should be doing more in the carbon capture space.
    Today, the cheapest way to make clean hydrogen is called 
blue hydrogen. That is with using natural gas with steam 
methane reformation, which is the main way hydrogen is produced 
around the world today, but then bolting CCS carbon capture 
onto those steam methane reformers. That is the cheapest way to 
produce clean hydrogen today. And then there is a whole other 
realm of work around what folks call green hydrogen, and that 
is using renewable electrons to produce that hydrogen.
    But I think it is going to be some combination of these 
different approaches and these different technologies, and then 
this hydrogen is going to be extremely useful in low-carbon 
applications across all of these bases. It may also be very 
useful in aviation fuels, for example, and in a variety of 
different places in heavier duty transportation and in heavier 
duty industry.
    So I do think that the hydrogen future of the hydrogen 
economy is still on us. It is probably not as broad as it was 
initially envisioned. I think batteries have come along so far 
and so fast that a lot of that simple passenger transportation 
is probably more likely to go toward batteries than it is 
toward hydrogen fuel cells, but anything that is bigger and 
heavier, I think hydrogen still has a major role to play.
    Mr. Simpson. Yeah. I think you could take our rail industry 
and make--you know, because they can carry their own hydrogen 
tanks.
    Mr. Powell. Absolutely.
    Mr. Simpson. It is a perfect way to do it, so--anyway, I 
appreciate all you being here.
    Thank you, Marcy, for holding this hearing. I look forward 
to working with all of you as we try to investigate how to do a 
better job of our investment. Thank you.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your 
serious work. You enlighten us all. Thank you so very, very 
much.
    I wanted to ask a question. Are there any--I come from a 
racing family, and my question is with hydrogen technology, are 
there any race tracks that competitively race using hydrogen 
fuels, to your knowledge, in our country?
    Ms. Millican. I am not sure about that, Congresswoman. I do 
know that there is a race series that uses electric vehicles, 
but it would be very interesting to look at hydrogen. Hydrogen 
is, of course, what we put in rocket ships to send them up to 
the Moon. So I don't see, maybe other than, you know, some 
safety considerations, why you couldn't do the same for race 
cars.
    Ms. Kaptur. Well, I would like to ask you to help me 
envision what that might look like. I would like to offer a 
racetrack in Toledo, Ohio. If you look at the double A fuel 
dragsters that we race across our region where a lot of 
innovation comes from, I am really interested in the individual 
inventor. I come from a part of the country where we actually--
I have people that make parts, not just by numerically 
controlled machines, but they precede the numerically 
controlled machines. They are inventors who love 
transportation. And I would love to see a green energy 
racetrack in our country, and I would like it to be in my home 
community, and I will contribute to it, because I know what 
these people are capable of.
    But I am just interested in, you know, the development of 
the technology, just think of what I am saying, and, well, who 
we might be able to gather to participate in that. I have 
always viewed--my hometown is the home of the Jeep, the home of 
the old Clyde Bicycle Works. I am just a few miles from where 
Thomas Alva Edison invented the light bulb. And we just lost a 
great, great inventor and businessman named Norm Nitschke, who 
was a part of founding the company's solar cells and for solar 
and so many others and was involved in the glass industry. And 
we have those kinds of minds, which are rare, taking basic 
research and applying it.
    And so I would be very interested--and I have got quite a 
few people back in my region interested in some kind of a race 
that would involve new fuels. So maybe think about it and give 
me any advice you might have.
    And I can't thank you--you were just a marvelous panel. 
Thank you so very much, and we hope many people beyond our 
subcommittee members will hear what you had to say today. Each 
of you had something--you are really an outstanding group.
    I want to thank Jaime Shimek of our own staff, and Scott 
and Matt for helping us put this hearing together.
    And if you wish to submit any additional material to the 
record, please do, and we will be in touch with you.
    Thank you so very much.
    Bravo.
    [Questions and answers submitted for the record follow:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
    
    

                                         Wednesday, March 10, 2021.

      INNOVATION AND INVESTMENT IN WATER RESOURCES INFRASTRUCTURE

                               WITNESSES

BECKER BIDTAH, ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY, NAVAJO TRIBAL UTILITY AUTHORITY
KEVIN DEGOOD, DIRECTOR OF INFRASTRUCTURE POLICY, CENTER FOR AMERICAN 
    PROGRESS
JASON UHLEY, GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER, RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD 
    CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
THOMAS J. WINSTON, PRESIDENT & CEO, TOLEDO-LUCAS COUNTY PORT AUTHORITY
    Ms. Kaptur. The hearing will come to order. As this hearing 
is fully virtual, we must address a few housekeeping matters. 
For today's meeting, the chair or staff designated by the chair 
may mute participants' microphones when they are not under 
recognition for purposes of eliminating inadvertent background 
noise.
    Members are responsible for muting and unmuting themselves. 
If I notice that you have not unmuted yourself, I will ask you 
if you would like the staff to unmute you. If you indicate 
approval by nodding, staff will unmute your microphone.
    I remind all members and witnesses that the 5-minute clock 
still applies. If there is a technology issue, we will move to 
the next member until the issue is resolved, and you will 
retain the balance of your time.
    You will notice a clock on your screen that will show how 
much time is remaining. At 1 minute remaining, the clock will 
turn to yellow. At 30 seconds remaining, I will gently tap the 
gavel to remind members that their time is almost expired. And 
when your time has expired, the clock will turn red, and I will 
begin to recognize the next member.
    In terms of the speaking order, we will follow the order 
set forth in the House rules, beginning with the chair and 
ranking member, and then members present at the time the 
hearing is called to order will be recognized in order of 
seniority, and, finally, members not present at the time the 
hearing is called to order.
    Finally, House rules require me to remind you that we set 
up an email address to which members can send anything they 
wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings or markups. 
That email address has been provided in advance to your staff.
    I now recognize myself for a 5-minute opening statement. 
And let me extend a very warm welcome to our members and 
distinguished witnesses. My goal as chair is to help provide a 
better future for generations to come, and I know you share 
that. I hope you will join me on this journey to sustain life 
on Earth, starting in our Nation with today's focus on fresh 
water to help seamlessly address the challenges of a new era.
    As you can see, the United States is a vast network of 
interconnected streams, rivers, and watersheds, underlying 
watersheds comprised of 18 major river basins. These systems 
have sustained the American way of life for generations, and 
they serve as the backbone for feeding our people and growing 
our economy. This continent was explored and developed on these 
same inland waterways that now annually carry 630 million tons 
of cargo.
    Unfortunately, we now face a historic dichotomy of water 
disasters--water scarcity in the West--and water surpluses in 
the heartland and the Mississippi River system.
    Headlines tell the story. In the arid West, millions of 
people are threatened by water shortages that may upend their 
daily way of life. In areas like the Mississippi Valley, the 
Everglades, and in my home region of the Great Lakes, water 
surpluses threaten to swamp our cities' drinking water systems 
as toxic algal blooms proliferate. Along the Gulf Coast, 
stronger hurricanes batter our shores more frequently.
    In 2020, the West endured an unprecedented year. The 
occurrence of historic wildfires, heat waves, and drought 
caused billions of dollars of damage. This photo shows water 
levels at Lake Mead have dropped to dangerous levels. You can 
see the encrusted line.
    In Arizona, planes were grounded during 100 days when 
temperatures were over 100 degrees during last year. 2021 will 
be no different. Most areas from California to Colorado are 
under extreme or exceptional drought conditions.
    In my region, the Great Lakes shown here hold 84 percent of 
our continent's fresh surface water. Climate change resulted in 
harmful impacts that have disrupted delicate ecosystems that 
have sustained life in our region.
    My district is located on the far southwest edge of Lake 
Erie at the southernmost tip of these lakes. The vast 
agricultural region located to the west of the lake, which is 
dark blue shaded, drains large amounts of fertilizer and manure 
into the lake which has only increased since we have endured 
the wettest 12 consecutive months in 124 years.
    Each of our regions face challenges that look nothing like 
one another, but we all have common enemies--a changing climate 
and a rapidly deteriorating infrastructure.
    For our Nation's sake and for our future generations, we 
must act boldly and reinvigorate investment in our 
infrastructure. Doing so, we will spur economic recovery, 
create jobs and protect the environment and public health.
    Let me applaud the water resources agencies under our 
jurisdiction, the Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of 
Reclamation--for they all have done and will do to meet the 
needs of our Nation.
    The Corps is moving forward, as the slide shows, by 
prioritizing the Engineering With Nature initiative which seeks 
to create new ways to develop a more resilient, water resources 
infrastructure. In the photo, you see a proposed design of a 
nature-based jetty. It would use natural features such as marsh 
grasses to benefit the surrounding ecosystem and even raise 
oysters at the same time.
    Reclamation is also doing its part by incorporating climate 
change information into its planning process. I can't thank 
reclamation enough for prioritizing basin, basin studies to 
meet the demands of climate change.
    On your screen, you see a photo of Glen Canyon Dam. This 
dam was constructed in 1963 to harness the Colorado River and 
provide for water and power needs for millions of people in the 
West. As we move forward, projects like this must adapt, and 
evolve to meet the ever-changing needs of the next generation.
    Many challenges we face are daunting, but it is the 
American spirit and ingenuity that will see us through into our 
next period of even greater prosperity and ecological 
sustainment.
    Our witnesses bring a wide array of expertise, and we so 
warmly welcome them. And our subcommittee looks forward to 
hearing from them. And in many instances, the magnitude of what 
is required, the Federal responsibility is ours, because it is 
interstate and sometimes binational.
    I will now turn to our ranking member, the very able, Mr. 
Mike Simpson from Idaho for his opening remarks.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
      
    Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Chairwoman Kaptur. I would like to 
echo your welcome to our witnesses today. We thank all of you 
for participating today and look forward to hearing your 
prospective on innovation and investment in water resources 
infrastructure.
    The Energy and Water Subcommittee is responsible for 
funding the Federal Government's primary water resources 
programs through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works 
Program, and the Department of Interior's Bureau Reclamation. 
These programs provide a wide variety of benefits across the 
Nation. In fact, I doubt there is a single congressional 
district that doesn't benefit from the water resources 
infrastructure supported by these programs.
    For example, navigation projects don't just create jobs at 
the immediate location of the port, they also help farmers to 
move crops and businesses to move products to market elsewhere 
in the United States, as well as around the world. Dams, and 
levees, and other flood and storm reduction--damage reduction 
projects protect people's lives, directly impact floods and 
hurricanes, but they also protect other types of public 
infrastructure, such as roads and drinking water and wastewater 
treatment plants, which are important to helping communities to 
get back on their feet after a natural disaster.
    Congress and this subcommittee, in particular, has long 
recognized the importance of these programs by appropriating 
more funds than proposed in the annual budget request of almost 
all Presidents. It has been bipartisan support also. It hasn't 
mattered which party has been in the White House or which party 
has been in the majority, either in the House or the Senate. I 
suspect that dynamic will continue in future fiscal years as 
well.
    Madam Chair, before I yield back, I would like to ask 
unanimous consent to include in the hearing record a letter 
from the Natural Water Resources Association and the 11 state 
water associations.
    Ms. Kaptur. We will place that material in the record. 
Thank you.
    [The information follows:]    
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
        
    Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, I look forward to 
exploring these topics with our witnesses, and I thank you for 
calling this hearing.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Simpson.
    And I think all of us are just chomping at the bit for a 
real recovery bill. And I am excited by the witnesses that are 
joining us today.
    First, we will have Mr. Kevin DeGood. Mr. DeGood is the 
director infrastructure policy at the Center for American 
Progress. I want to underline ``progress.'' As an expert in his 
field, Mr. DeGood focuses on how our policies from various 
transportation modes impact America's competitiveness and 
provide opportunities for our diverse communities and 
environmental sustainability.
    Next, we will have Mr. Thomas Winston, the president and 
chief executive officer of the Toledo-Lucas County Port 
Authority. He is responsible for the development and 
implementation of the strategic direction of that port and 
oversees all aspects of their activities, including economic 
development programs, brownfields development, and other 
strategic activities of the port authority's multi-modal 
facilities.
    Following that we will have Ms. Bidtah Becker, an associate 
attorney for the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority. She is also a 
member of the leadership team for the Water and Tribes 
Initiative in the Colorado Basin and has focused her career on 
water management frameworks and solutions that benefit Tribal 
members in surrounding communities.
    And, finally, we will have Mr. Jason Uhley who is the 
general manager and chief engineer at the Riverside County 
Flood Control and Water Conservation District. He has served 
this organization for 25 years and is an expert, a strong 
advocate for integrated approaches to storm water management.
    Thank you all for taking the time to be with us today on 
America's behalf. Without objection, your written statements 
will be entered into the record. Please feel free to summarize 
your remarks in about 5 minutes each, starting with Mr. DeGood. 
Welcome.
    Mr. DeGood. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Kaptur and 
Ranking Member Simpson and members of the subcommittee for 
inviting me to testify. Water infrastructure facilities are 
essential to our economic productivity and national 
competitiveness. The Army Corps provides essential service to 
the Nation, including flood control navigation and 
environmental restoration. The Corps estimates the annual 
economic value of the flood protection of more than $138 
billion in avoided property damage and lost productivity.
    Corps projects and facilities also enable navigation and 
trade. In 2018, U.S. maritime ports handled 1.6 billion tons of 
cargo valued at more than $1.7 trillion. Each year, ports along 
the Great Lakes handled more than 100 million tons of cargo. In 
2019, the inland waterways system moved 515 million tons of 
cargo.
    The jobs associated with water board transportation are 
strong and middle class jobs. For example, data from Bureau of 
Labor Statistics indicates that the average wage of the inland 
water transportation workers is $67,000 a year.
    Unfortunately, Federal investments have not kept pace with 
the country's needs. The Biden administration has called the 
robust infrastructure investment, and water infrastructure must 
be a part of any long-term recovery package. However, money is 
not the only issue. The Corps must take a leadership role in 
combating climate change, as well as addressing environmental 
damages caused by past projects.
    Unfortunately, environmental projects are only a small 
share of the Corps' overall work. Fiscal years 2019 and 2020, 
Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration represented just 7 percent of the 
Corps' budget, improving ecosystem performance to serve as a 
foundational goal of all project planning with a co-equal claim 
on Federal funds.
    This is especially true when it comes to flood control 
where natural and nature-based design elements should take 
priority wherever possible over harden grey facilities. The 
catastrophic flooding that occurred in many communities along 
the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers in 2019 provides a powerful 
example of the nature--the broken nature of the Corps' mandate 
and structure of Federal funding. For instance, severe flooding 
in Atchison County, Missouri, inundated 56,000 acres and 
destroyed 121 miles of roadway.
    The levees along this portion of the Missouri River tightly 
followed the river's course, leaving little room for wetlands 
habitat, and limiting the ability of the flood control system 
to accommodate increasingly high waters. Yet, Federal rules 
only require the Corps to reconstruct the damaged levee to its 
prior state. Fortunately, local leaders pushed the Corps for a 
redesign of this system to include a substantial levee set 
back. Unfortunately, the cost of land buyouts to facilitate the 
setback was well beyond the financial capacity of the local 
community.
    In the end, a significant portion of the money for the 
buyouts came through the Emergency Watershed Protection-
Floodplain Easement Program at the Department of Agriculture. 
And while the Atchison County project was a success, it is 
deeply problematic that money for the buyouts was only 
available because Congress happened to pass a disaster 
supplemental in 2019 that included money for conservation.
    We cannot hope to achieve meaningful environmental progress 
if the design and flood control and navigation projects do not 
start with improved environmental performance as an objective 
on par with economic development. The Corps must take a 
leadership role in environmental protection and enhancement, 
not simply make ad hoc improvements when all the pieces happen 
to fall into place.
    Ongoing environmental restoration work in Central and South 
Florida demonstrates the enormous ecological toll or short-
sighted flood control and water development projects that 
failed to balance sustainability with resource utilization. As 
a result, we will spend most of the 21st century undoing the 
damage caused by the Army Corps in Central and South Florida 
during the 20th century.
    Beginning in the early 1960s, the Corps turned the thriving 
Kissimmee River into a series of stagnant pools in the name of 
flood control with devastating effects on wildlife and wetlands 
habitat. In today's dollars, the Kissimmee's channelization 
would cost roughly $200 million. While a partial restoration 
will cost more than $1 billion, a five-fold increase. The 
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Program will cost the 
Federal Government at least $16 billion and take more than 50 
years to complete.
    This cycle of destruction and partial renewal could have 
been avoided if only the deeply talented engineers at the Corps 
had been handed the mandate to balance flood control and 
resource utilization with environmental sustainability. We do 
not have to choose between economic development and sound 
environmental stewardship. And when projects cause unavoidable 
damage, the Corps should compensate with restoration projects 
that provide greater habitat and environmental services than 
what has been lost.
    For nearly two centuries, Army Corps projects have 
furthered our national development. As important as this legacy 
is, the existential threat posed by climate change means that 
the Corps' most profound work lies ahead. The Corps must assume 
that position of true environmental leadership. And any 
additional funding for water infrastructure must come with the 
highest possible standards for sustainable environmental 
performance.
    Thank you again, Chairwoman Kaptur, and members of the 
subcommittee. And with that, I look forward to answering your 
questions.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
       
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much, Mr. DeGood. Thank you for 
taking time with us today.
    Mr. Winston, please begin.
    Mr. Winston. Chairwoman Kaptur, Ranking Member Simpson, and 
esteemed members of the subcommittee, thank you for the 
opportunity to testify today regarding the critical importance 
of investing in the Nation's port infrastructure. My name is 
Thomas Winston, and I am president and CEO of the Toledo-Lucas 
County Port Authority. Today, I would like to discuss how 
investments in the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway System in 
the port of Toledo support our regional and national economy.
    As one of the largest and most cargoed diverse seaports, 
Toledo handles between 8 to 12 million tons of cargo on 400 to 
800 vessels that call upon our 16 marine terminals. Toledo is 
an important part of the bi-national Great Lakes St. Lawrence 
Seaway System that in total supports over 237,000 jobs in the 
U.S. and Canada, while generating $35 billion in economic 
activity.
    The ports on the Great Lakes serve a critical role in 
moving raw materials, grains, and other products throughout the 
interior of the Nation in a matter that is economic and has a 
lesser environmental impact than other modes of transportation. 
The U.S. and Canadian ports in the system do not view one 
another as competitors, but instead as trading partners in a 
supply chain network that has served the Nation well for 
generations.
    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers plays a key role in the 
system by keeping the ports connected, safe to navigate, and 
resilient. The Corps maintains our marine highway by dredging 
shipping channels, constructing, and maintaining breakwaters, 
and confined disposal facilities, and taking on massive 
construction projects, such as the new Soo Lock where 
approximately 80 million tons of commercial commodities pass 
through annually.
    It is critically important that Congress maintain annual 
funding to keep the Soo Lock project on schedule and to avoid 
costly delays. In fiscal 2022, the project would need $229.1 
million in the Corps construction account. An additional $37.3 
million is needed from the construction account to upgrade a 
public well that will serve both existing locks and new locks.
    We rely on the U.S. Congress to appropriate sufficient 
funding so that the Corps can continue to keep the entire 
system open for business. I want to commend the committee for 
its efforts in recent years to expand appropriations for the 
Corps' operation and maintenance activities. These funds are 
desperately needed, because the navigation system suffers from 
a $920 million maintenance backlog. This backlog includes $375 
million to dredge Great Lakes harbors and channels authorized 
dimensions; $320 million in breakwater and jetty repairs; and 
$225 million of maintenance work for the existing Soo Locks.
    At the Port of Toledo, we rely on the Army Corps of 
Engineers to dredge and maintain Toledo Harbor which has a 
greater dredging need than any U.S. Great Lakes port. Each 
year, the Corps dredges between 400,000 to 1.2 million cubic 
yards of material from the Maumee River and Maumee Bay in the 
shadow western basin of Lake Erie. The U.S. Government derives 
a return on the annual investment to dredge Toledo Harbor in 
the form of more than 7,000 jobs associated with the Port 
operations, $375 million in the direct business revenue, $50.3 
million in State taxes, and $129.5 million in Federal taxes.
    Many companies throughout Ohio, Michigan, and Indiana 
depend on the maritime capabilities of the Port of Toledo. 
Without annual maintenance dredging, the Port of Toledo will 
silt-in, and vessels would not be able to safely access 
Toledo's marine terminals, having a devastating impact on the 
U.S. Steel industry, agricultural exports, power generation, 
and many other aspects of the regional and national economy.
    Our Port Authority and the Army Corps has a longstanding 
partnership and work with other agencies, such as Ohio EPA and 
Ohio Department of Natural Resources to ensure that dredging is 
done annually, and that there is a plan for what to do with the 
massive amounts of dredge material. The State of Ohio has 
banned the practice of open lake placement for dredge material 
in all of Ohio's harbors. For the first time in decades, in the 
fall of 2020, all the material dredged from Toledo Harbor was 
placed upland into the Port's confined disposal facility 
instead of in the open waters of Lake Michigan--Lake Erie.
    The 2020 effort was closely coordinated with the Corps and 
the Corps' dredging contractors. We have capacity for 
approximately 10 more years of material into the CDF in Toledo 
before it reaches capacity. The Port, Corps, and other agencies 
continue to explore beneficial uses for the material. We need 
to shift the mindset and begin thinking of it more of a 
resource than a wasted product.
    The Port is involved in several research initiatives 
cooperating with multiple universities at Toledo's Dredge 
Center of Innovation where we are studying how well crops can 
grow and dredge material and what engineered soils can be 
produced with Toledo's dredge material.
    It is our hope that we can one day return the dredge 
materials to the agricultural fields from which it originates, 
as well as make marketable products and use the material for 
wetland construction and in other landscaping applications. We 
view these and other beneficial uses as opportunities. There 
are harbor regulatory barriers that the Army Corps and the 
State of Ohio would need to address so that more beneficial 
reuses for this material are permissible.
    Currently, to use material dredged from the Federal channel 
in certain beneficial use applications, the Corps would require 
individual project permits consisting of a full NEPA analysis 
and other components that are costly, slow moving, and 
burdensome. The end user will always find alternative material 
rather than going through this permitting process to utilize 
dredge material.
    We are hopeful that the State of Ohio and the Army Corps 
can streamline permitting for beneficial use projects moving 
forward so that we can one day harvest material from the CDF 
for beneficial uses to extend the life of the facility beyond 
10 years.
    Thank you for the opportunity to share this information 
with the committee. And I welcome the opportunity to entertain 
any questions now or in the future.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
        
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you so much, Mr. Winston.
    And, Ms. Becker, please begin, and then we will move to 
questions.
    Ms. Becker. Thank you, Chairwoman Kaptur, Ranking Member 
Simpson, and members of this subcommittee. Thank you for 
providing me this chance to speak with you about the 
opportunities for the Bureau of Reclamation to address 
innovation and investment in much-needed infrastructure in 
Indian Country.
    Yaat eeh. My name is Bidtah Becker, and as the chairwoman 
mentioned, I am a member of the Navajo Nation, and I am an 
attorney with the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority. I am 
speaking with you from my office on a Navajo Nation, which is 
about 35 miles northwest of Gallup, New Mexico. And Chairwoman 
Kaptur shared a picture of the Navajo Nation when she showed 
Glen Canyon Dam earlier. So I appreciate that.
    Prior to my employment here, I had the honor of a lifetime 
to serve as the director of the Navajo Nation Division of 
Natural Resources as a political appointee of then President 
Russell Begaye and Vice-President Jonathan Nez, and I was 
confirmed by the Navajo Nation Council.
    As the chairwoman said, I have focused my career, 19 years, 
on water management frameworks and water supply solutions that 
benefit both Navajo Nation Tribal members, other Tribal 
members, and surrounding non-Indian communities. And hopefully 
that work has corrected some historical injustices along the 
way.
    Water is a critical unmet need for many Native American 
Tribes and Alaskan Native communities. Access to clean and safe 
drinking water is essential to public health, educational 
attainment, and economic development, as the two previous 
witnesses have already attested to.
    Today, roughly 400,000 people, nearly 30 percent of homes 
in Native communities across the United States either have 
inadequate or no access to reliable clean water and sanitation 
services. So to put this number in context, less than 1 percent 
of the homes in the entire United States of America lack these 
facilities. One percent versus 30 percent. And the COVID-19 
pandemic has shown a bright light on this inequity.
    COVID-19 has had a disproportionate impact on Native 
American people and Alaskan Native people. Earlier in the 
pandemic, the Centers for Disease Control reported that Native 
people suffered COVID infection, COVID-19 infection rates at a 
rate 3.5 times higher than the White population. I checked the 
website yesterday and now they are reporting 1.9 percent. 
Regrettably, Native people and Alaskan Native people suffer the 
highest rate of infection as compared to any ethnic or other 
racial group.
    And as this chart starkly shows, a chart presented by Dr. 
Fauci in the presentation to the Indian Health Service, Native 
people are dying at a much higher right from COVID-19 than the 
White population. These devastating impacts are largely 
attributable to both persistent racial inequity and the lack of 
public health infrastructure, including the lack of access to 
clean, running water.
    While this is an appalling situation, the silver lining to 
this pandemic cloud is that we can build back better. By 
investing in water and wastewater infrastructure in Indian 
Country, this subcommittee and Congress will be addressing the 
four pillars of the Biden administration.
    By funding the Bureau of Reclamation to design and 
construct a water infrastructure in Indian Country, by funding 
Reclamation's technical assistance program to Native American 
Tribes, and ensuring that Reclamation is a leader and engages 
in a collaborative whole of government approach with the Indian 
Health Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the 
United States Department of Agriculture we will be able to 
address the four pillars. Which are COVID-19, it will address 
economic recovery by creating jobs in the short-term, and 
providing Tribal members and surrounding communities the basic 
services necessary to allow them to work and thrive in the 
future.
    We will be addressing climate change by ensuring that 
resilient appropriate infrastructure is constructed that will 
be able to withstand the impacts of climate change and address 
the effects of the prolonged drought that Chairwoman Kaptur 
discussed earlier. And it will finally address racial equity 
issues.
    The number one indicator as to whether a person lacks 
access to clean drinking water in this country is race. A 
Native person is 19 times more likely than a White person to 
lack access to clean drinking water.
    In closing, I would like to share two pictures of the 
realities of a lack of clean drinking water to home. This is 
called water hauling. The artwork is a beautiful picture done 
by an elementary school child in about 2008 and shows you how 
our children see the delivery of fresh water to their home. The 
picture of the beautiful woman was taken last summer at one of 
the utility authority's water hauling stations. She drives 
about 40 miles one way two to three times a week to fill her 
containers with fresh water.
    This subcommittee can help eradicate the lack of access to 
clean drinking water in Indian Country, and I am confident that 
it will. Thank you so much for this opportunity.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
       
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you so very much, Ms. Becker. I 
appreciate your participation today. And I understand that our 
dear colleague, Representative Calvert is with us, and I know 
he had a lot to do with our next witness, Mr. Uhley, and I 
would like to ask Congressman Calvert for 1 minute to introduce 
this important witness.
    Mr. Calvert. Well, thank you Chairwoman Kaptur and Ranking 
Member Simpson for inviting my constituent, Jason Uhley, as a 
witness for today's hearing. I have worked with Jason to solve 
Riverside County's most pressing flood control management 
issues for nearly as long as I have served in Congress.
    Jason is a general manager chief engineer for the Riverside 
County Flood Control and Water and Conservation District, which 
was established to protect life and property from flood risk. 
Jason has served the district for 25 years, beginning as a 
junior engineer and now manages the district's 250-person staff 
and annual capital improvement budget of over $100 million per 
year.
    In addition to localized flood risk management, Jason 
oversees the Santa Ana River Mainstem and Murrieta Creek Flood 
Control Projects, two congressionally authorized flood control 
projects in my districts. Both have had their fair share of 
challenges over the years, and we have had to continue to make 
progress for its completion thanks to his leadership and 
collaboration with the Corps of Engineers.
    So, Jason, welcome to the subcommittee. I thank you for 
joining us today, and I look forward to your testimony, and I 
yield back. Thank you.
    Mr. Uhley. Thank you. Chairwoman Kaptur, Ranking Member 
Simpson, Congressman Calvert, and members of the committee, 
thank you for the invitation to participate in today's hearing.
    This district was created in 1945 in part to partner with 
the Army Corps of Engineers on flood-risk reduction projects in 
the wake of the devastating 1938 Santa Ana River floods. The 
nascent district corps partnership--next slide, please--the 
nascent district corps partnership would lead to early 
innovative projects, such as the $2.8 billion Santa Ana River 
Mainstem Project, one of the Corps' largest projects, and a 
unique three-county partnership, to address Santa Ana River 
flooding issues at a watershed scale.
    The project will protect over 3.35 million people in 
infrastructure, such as the BNSF Railroad bridge which carries 
over 31 percent of the Nation's imports. We are particularly 
thankful for the recent appropriation of 2018 bipartisan budget 
act funding which is accelerating project delivery.
    The Mainstem is just one of many local and national 
projects that are becoming more critical as changing climate is 
driving catastrophic flood risk. The evolving risks are 
straining the capabilities of local agencies, and they are 
increasingly looking to Federal agencies like the Corps for 
technical and financial assistance. To promote Federal 
investment, larger sponsors are offering planning design and 
construction leadership to accelerate project delivery and 
reduce overall Federal costs.
    Next slide. And there are many shovel-ready projects 
throughout the Nation that could benefit from an influx of 
flooding. One such project is our Murrieta Creek Flood Control, 
Environmental Restoration and Recreation Project. This project 
provides for protection to Old Town Temecula, the gateway to 
Temecula Wine Country, and an interstate destination visited by 
over 2.7 million people per year. This project will protect 
nearly 600 structures worth $1.35 billion, improve water 
quality, and enhance flood protection Marine Corps Camp 
Pendleton, and critical sewage treatment facilities in the 
area.
    The need of this project was highlighted in 1993 when 
floods caused $88 million in damage to Camp Pendleton and $20 
million in damages to our local cities. The district has 
actively partnered with the Corps to develop and refine an 
innovative project that enhances its local and national value 
by integrating trails, parks, and ecosystem restoration 
features that benefit endangered and threatened species. 
Project Phase 1 and 2A are complete and Phase 2B is shovel-
ready awaiting funding.
    We believe there are also opportunities to promote national 
innovation resiliency by addressing limitation in corps 
authorities through an infrastructure funding bill. For 
example, segments of the corps' 1950s-era Santa Ana River 
levee's project were damaged after a 2010 river event. 
Although, Public Law 84-99 eligible, the scope of the exceeded 
PL84-99's annual funding capacity. Further, the aging levee 
needed resiliency improvements, and PL84-99 could only address 
enhancements to the damaged areas.
    The 2018 Bipartisan Budget Act has provided $56 million for 
the PL84-99 damage segments. But nearly half of the aging levee 
will remain at risk due to authority limitations.
    Lastly, I would like to touch on the Salton Sea, its shores 
are shrinking and exposing disadvantaged communities, including 
farm workers to increasing public health risks. We are thankful 
for your support of a Corps feasibility study in WARDA 2020, 
but also encourage Federal support for shorter-term, shovel-
ready projects that can help stabilize the sea's receding 
banks.
    These projects are representative of needs across the 
Nation. There are many incredibly valuable projects that are 
ready for federal funding and legislative language that can 
entangle some of unintended consequences of the Corps' 
authorities that keep these projects grounded.
    Further, we encourage the subcommittee to continue to 
support public private partnerships and other split-delivery 
approaches that can promote cost savings, innovation, and 
leverage the full capabilities of local sponsors. The return on 
investment from Corps projects is tremendous, and the Corps' 
flood-risk reduction role has never been more important to our 
communities.
    As you consider wise use of investments in the water 
resources arena, I encourage to you focus strongly on the 
Corps' flood protection program and the communities across the 
Nation who are partnering and bringing their resources to the 
table. The effect of these decisions is to grow the return on 
Federal investment. Thank you for your time, and I stand ready 
to answer questions.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
        
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much, Mr. Uhley, we appreciate 
your participation. And I thank you all for your statements.
    Since this is our second hearing, I will just remind 
members about our hearing rules. As I mentioned at the 
beginning, I remind all members and witnesses that the 5-minute 
clock still applies. If there is a technology issue, we will 
move to the next member until the issue is resolved, and you 
will retain the balance of your time.
    You will notice a clock on your screen that will show how 
much time is remaining. At 1 minute, the clock will turn to 
yellow. At 30 seconds remaining, I will gently tap the gavel to 
remind members that their time has almost expired. When your 
time has expired, the clock will turn red, and I will begin to 
recognize the next member.
    In terms of the speaking order, we will follow the order 
set forth in the House rules, beginning with chair and then 
ranking member, and then members present at the time the 
hearing is called to order recognized in order of seniority, 
and finally members arriving at the gavel by order of arrival. 
A second round of questions may occur after all members have an 
opportunity for a first round.
    We will now begin questioning under our normal rules.
    I would like to begin with a question about investments. As 
I stated in my opening statement nearly every region of our 
country is facing common enemies of changing infrastructure, 
one that is aging and the climate, and the changes that we see 
in that.
    Starting with Mr. DeGood, much has been said about the need 
for incorporating nonstructural, as well as nature-based 
elements into our infrastructure investments. Can you please 
describe for us what this means and provide examples of how 
these emerging innovations can be incorporated into our water 
resources infrastructure.
    I am particularly reminded in some of the discussions this 
morning about dredging. I have worked for four decades to try 
to get the Corps to find alternate uses for the enormous amount 
of dredging material that it takes up from the ports across 
this country, and it has been an utter failure.
    So I identify--I have such high level of frustration. I can 
tell you, I was on the phone this morning with the Corps 
because of their Vicksburg station and trying to find the 
answer they give today is, is well, we can't, you know, turn 
dredge material into a by-product that could be reapplied to 
the land because there might be PCBs in it.
    And you mean to tell me that we can't figure this out? I 
was in a plant yesterday that blew my mind here in Washington 
where they are taking all the raw sewage from 3 million people 
and obviously processing it but turning it into a fertilizer. 
Can you imagine that? Semi-loads of fertilizer going out of the 
DC wastewater treatment plant.
    So I would like to ask you, Mr. DeGood, what kinds of 
recommendations can you give us and examples of how emerging 
environmental innovations can be incorporated into our water 
resources infrastructure?
    Mr. DeGood. Well, thank you very much for the question. I 
would say, you know, natural and nature-based features are 
really any landscape element that mimics a natural system to 
control the characteristics of a flood or a storm surge and 
reduce the risk of property damage, injury, or loss of life.
    Examples of this include restoration of fresh water 
wetlands and flood planes, using dredge materials to, for 
instance, reconstruct barrier islands to provide both erosion 
protection and mitigate storm surge damage.
    Other examples include the stabilization of riverbanks and 
coastlines against erosion with design features that avoid rip 
raft, concrete, or other hard grey facilities. There has been a 
number of decades of research that shows that armoring 
riverbanks and shorelines increases the speed of water flows, 
it reduces vegetation and habitat that fish and other wildlife 
need to thrive among other detrimental outcomes.
    I would just flag a couple of other, at least in the 
coastal arena, these natural and nature-based features could 
include marine forests, oyster and coral reefs, dunes, sea 
grass beds, salt marshes, and other structured and constructive 
facilities that again mimic natural features.
    And I think it is important to note that natural and 
nature-based features can be used in combination with 
traditional grey facilities to produce projects that have but 
not only meet the underlying either storm damage reduction, 
flood control, or navigation purposes, but also have superior 
environmental outcomes that would be possible with grey 
facilities alone.
    But I think to your question about the Corps and dredge 
materials, part of it is about just financial resources, and 
part of it is about, I think, changing the Corps' mindset so 
that they understand that helping port authorities and other 
State and local jurisdictions turn these materials into 
potentially economically useful products is a part of their 
mission, not just, you know, a side frustration or something 
that they get questions every now and then from Members of 
Congress. It really has to be a matter of culture change and a 
formal part of the Corps' mission, I think.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much. Mr. Winston, I don't know 
if you want to comment on that, but I would appreciate your 
thoughts on how our subcommittee can assist our Nation's port 
in overcoming some of their most important challenges. And then 
can you comment on how the interconnected nature of the St. 
Lawrence Seaway System, what kinds of steps can we take to meet 
the challenges facing that coastal system?
    Mr. Winston. Thank you for the question, Chairwoman Kaptur. 
As I alluded to earlier, I would say the biggest challenge that 
we have, particularly at the Port of Toledo is ensuring the 
consistent annual dredging by the Army Corps of Engineers to 
take place at the Port of Toledo. This is critical for 
sustainability and continuity of commodities flowing through 
the Port of Toledo and its connectivity to the Great Lakes 
system, which has a tremendous economic impact for our region 
and for the Nation in general.
    So, specifically, I would say for our area, it is certainly 
the dredging and having the Corps adhere to that 
responsibility. From a more regional standpoint, I would 
certainly say that the funding and investment into the Soo Lock 
system is critical. And having support from this committee 
working with the Corps to ensure proper sustainable funding----
    As I mentioned earlier, there is a backlog of funding in 
basically the Corps, and, particularly, the Soo Lock 
initiative, we are moving in a right direction with some of the 
actions that this committee and the leadership of this 
committee has undertaken over the last few years.
    But, certainly, there is more to--more to be done to ensure 
connectivity between the Great Lakes and the Port of Toledo and 
our other systems.
    With respect to the question on the Corps and some of the 
investment and opportunities, I would certainly say, perhaps as 
Mr. DeGood alluded to, having the Corps look at other means and 
how to invest and ensure that the process is streamlined within 
the Corps and, particularly, mitigating wetlands, I would say 
perhaps relinquishing the control over material when it gets 
into the CDF and have the ports and State agencies, in essence, 
work together on permitting is a great example--and I am sure 
that state agencies will certainly welcome--welcome the 
opportunity to work with local port authorities to remove some 
of the barriers that I mentioned earlier.
    And as I mentioned, we have our dredge center of innovation 
that is looking at ways, we have better utilization of that 
dredge material to be able to put it back into useful and 
beneficial production.
    Ms. Kaptur. I know that my time has expired, and I want to 
go to the next member. One thing I do know about the port, they 
don't have enough environmental engineers. They have a lot of 
civil engineers. And I think it is a real problem in the way 
that they think or don't focus on the environment as much as 
they could.
    We will wait until the second round to ask a question about 
the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, and I will 
turn it to Mr. Simpson.
    Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Chairwoman Kaptur. First, I just 
want to say, this is probably not a question, Mr. DeGood, it is 
a statement that I found in your testimony that I happen to 
agree with--I am not saying I don't with the rest of it, but 
you write in here where you are talking about the Missouri 
River and floods that occurred. You say yet under current 
federal rules for the levee rehabilitation and inspection 
programs, the Corps is only obligated, and I would also add, 
and authorized, to reconstruct a damaged levee to its prior 
state.
    I will tell you as former chairman of the Interior 
Subcommittee and Mr. Calvert as chairman of that subcommittee, 
also, we have run into this with both FEMA and the Army Corps 
of Engineers, particularly when they had the floods there, the 
hurricanes in Puerto Rico, and they had to rebuild some of this 
system. And we were kind of going, you mean you could only 
rebuild it to the--to the state that just got destroyed by the 
hurricane? You can't strengthen it and improve it? That just 
seems rather silly.
    But I guess my statement is this is an authorizing issue 
which we always ran into on the Appropriations Committee, and 
we need to get this before the authorizing committee so that 
they can actually address this and allow, as you say in your 
thing in the Biden administration says build back better. 
Because if you can rebuild it, you need to be looking at how 
can you make it better than it was before it got destroyed by, 
by a natural disaster.
    So I agree with where you are coming from there, but we 
need to work together to see if we can get the authorizing 
committees to take a look at that. I mean, there is reasons why 
this language is the way it is now that we need to take into 
consideration, but we ought to be able to do better than we 
are--than we are currently doing when we are spending the money 
to rebuild. So I appreciate your noticing that in your 
testimony.
    Ms. Becker, I believe this subcommittee, and as I said, Mr. 
Calvert and I have both chaired the Interior Subcommittee also, 
but this subcommittee on a bipartisan basis places high 
priority on fulfilling the Federal Government's Tribal trust 
responsibility, particularly, with respect to the Bureau of 
Reclamation Indian Water Rights Settlements, rural water 
projects, and Native American Affairs Programs.
    I appreciate that your testimony explains some of the 
positive steps you have seen firsthand from these programs. Do 
you have any additional ideas on how we can help the Bureau of 
Reclamation promote success in these areas, and are there 
lessons learned from some of the programs or projects that 
might not have been successful that could help us moving 
forward?
    Ms. Becker. Thank you, Representative Simpson. I am so 
honored you asked the question. So, a couple of things, the 
Navajo Nation has extensive experience with Indian Water Rights 
Settlements, and the bureau was currently constructing what is 
called the Navajo Gallup Water Supply Project. It has, thank 
goodness, started delivering clean drinking water on one of two 
laterals. The second lateral, which is the bigger lateral, is 
expected to be constructed by 2027.
    I think one of the challenges with the bureau through 
Indian Water Rights Settlements has been when these projects 
come to Congress, they are at an appraisal level study, and 
they aren't at that final study. So it is not uncommon for the 
bureau to have--or for the settlement parties to come back to 
Congress and ask for Congress to increase the cost ceiling. 
Because the cost ceiling that was imposed in our case, in the 
case of Navajo Nation back in 2009, and now we are in 2021, you 
know, the cost ceiling is reached and then expected to exceed.
    How the bureau addresses that I think that is the more 
challenging question, because the settlement process doesn't 
always run parallel with the process for getting these 
engineering studies done. So it may be at the front end going 
eyes wide open into these projects and recommending that they 
are--that we need to build in some sort of contingency to 
address the fact that these appraisal level studies are not the 
final--the final design of these projects.
    On the programmatic side, the Bureau, Reclamation--and I do 
want to say the Army Corps as well--they are full of dedicated, 
dedicated civil servants who want to help with local projects, 
and smaller projects. And I think when--when taking nationwide 
Federal regulations and streaming them down into Indian 
Country--and I would suspect that the other witnesses and the 
other Representatives have seen this in their communities, in 
rural communities, employees--civil servants are kind of 
beating up against the regulation. Maybe the need is less than 
the, you know, the threshold that is set.
    And the third part of the answer would be specific to this 
committee, for the Native American Affairs Technical Assistance 
Program, which I can attest to, let me say back to Chairwoman 
Kaptur's comments about the Bureau of Reclamation's basin-wide 
study, they also did a Tribal basin-wide study. It is such an 
important document. It is an important go-to document for 
anybody who wants to understand Tribal water basin.
    The Native American Affairs Program was critical to making 
that happen. But for this committee, the subcommittee's 
consideration--what the bureau could or reclamation, I should 
say, could be assisting more Tribes with greater funding.
    And I truly believe that they could provide tremendous 
assistance in local planning and local climate change issues 
that are so critical to making sure Indian Country projects 
succeed. I hope that is responsive to you.
    Mr. Simpson. You bet. Thank you.
    Ms. Kaptur. The gentleman's time has expired. We will move 
to Congresswoman Kirkpatrick.
    Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks so much 
for having this hearing.
    And, Ms. Becker, I agree with you that the reclamation can 
do much more for the Tribes. So, I was born and raised on 
Tribal land in Arizona, although, I am not Native American, and 
we had--we were right next to a river, the White River, and we 
got our water from the river, but we couldn't drink it without 
boiling it first. So, you know, I know how important it is to 
the Tribes to have drinkable water that is accessible for them. 
So this an issue that is really, really important to me.
    And, you know, I have discussed on the subcommittee many 
times that Arizona and the Southwest are experiencing record-
breaking droughts, and water has become scarce. These 
conversations about water infrastructure are so important and 
have been something I have been working on for 15 years.
    Ms. Becker, I am glad you brought up the unique challenges 
that come with water infrastructure on Tribal lands. And I just 
want to know based on your experience why has it been so 
challenging to get clean, reliable, and safe water 
infrastructure built in Indian Country? And then how can the 
Bureau of Reclamation and this subcommittee work to begin to 
solve some of these problems?
    Ms. Becker. Thank you, Representative Kirkpatrick, and 
thank you for your service to Arizona, and your previous 
service to this region of the country.
    So the United States has historically--in the mid 20th 
century, in early 20th century, the United States invested 
quite a bit in infrastructure development. That infrastructure 
funding did not seem to come to Indian Country. In the 1950s, 
Congress created the Indian Health Service, specifically, to 
address sanitation deficiencies. And I pause on that because I 
don't think sanitation deficiencies meant anything to anybody 
before COVID-19 hit, right? What that means is we are starting 
from an uneven playing field as we enter into something called 
the pandemic.
    So IHS has been chronically underfunded. And in the latter 
half of the 20th century essential vehicle that I just 
discussed with Representative Simpson, is our Indian Water 
Rights Settlements, those became a very--those vehicles became 
very important to getting clean drinking water infrastructure 
to some Tribes. Every Tribe is unique, as you know. Some Tribes 
might be settling for fishing rights or other rights. But for 
many of us in the Southwest, we need those clean drinking water 
projects.
    They are very good vehicles, but they are not without their 
challenges. We discussed one--I just discussed one with 
Representative Simpson. Another one is the time. The length of 
time it takes to get through the settlement process to an 
actual drop of water hitting Indian Country.
    In the case of the Navajo Nation, we have entered into a 
settlement for our rights to the San Juan River in New Mexico 
which flows into the Colorado River. The underlying case was 
filed in 1975, and as I mentioned the first drop of water from 
the Main Settlement Project was delivered last year. That is 45 
years. So those--that decade, decadenal process that we can't 
wait anymore.
    To address your question about what the Bureau can do--for 
those of us watching and have done this for a long time, the 
Bureau does--they can build the long, the big projects that 
serve of hundreds of homes, thousands of homes. Indian Health 
Service does a great job of building the smaller projects that 
serve tens of homes.
    The Navajo Gallup Water and Supply Project is an excellent 
example of a whole of government approach that that the 
technical people, I would argue, kind of force to happen. They 
saw how these different programs could work together to make a 
whole. So the bureau is building the big truck line, they 
partner with the Indian Health Service and with the Navajo 
Nation who build the smaller systems and who get water to 
people's homes.
    It is really the best--it is such a great orchestrated 
process of how government can function at its best, partly, 
because it could have happened sequentially, like kind of like 
what I have described before. You could have built a trunk line 
and then years later built a system, but it is happening all at 
the same time.
    The bureau's funding though is project-based. So how the 
bureau works through these systems versus programmatic-based 
funding, I think, is something they are going to have to think 
about as they pursue a whole of government approach.
    Mrs. Kirkpatrick. I think the fact that these groups are 
working together now and collaborating is huge progress. And 
so, you know, I thank you for that. Thank you for your 
leadership. At this moment, this is very, very important to me. 
We want to make sure that you have got the resources you need 
to build that infrastructure. And I don't want the next 
generation to have to boil their water before they drink it. So 
thank you so much. I yield back, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Congresswoman.
    Congressman Calvert.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Madam Chair. You hear me all right?
    Great. Okay. We often think about fund control projects 
through a parochial lens. Obviously, in all of our 
congressional districts we want to make sure we protect the 
folks' lives and properties. But sometimes the national 
implications can be clear with projects such as the Santa Ana 
Mainstem Project. Can you describe some of the regional and 
national benefits associated with the fully funding projects 
like Murrieta Creek.
    Mr. Uhley. Sure, thank you Congressman Calvert for the 
question. Murrieta Creek was an innovative project that was 
really well ahead of its time and provides benefits well in 
excess of the NED benefits that the Corps uses to justify 
projects. And just as a couple of examples, I would point out 
that it includes very significant national environmental 
benefits, in that this project includes an environmental 
corridor that is going to connect national forests with state 
preserves. They are going to help protect and ultimately 
restore endangered species and threatened species like the 
Least Bell's Vireo and Santa Ana mountain lions.
    The project also includes elements of the national trail 
system, the Butterfield Stage Overland Trail, which 
historically in the 1800s connected San Francisco to San Diego 
and St. Louis. And this project will be part of the restoration 
of that trail over time.
    And, then, lastly, this project incorporates important 
regional economic developments through the incorporation of 
parks that have ball fields that could lead to the Temecula 
area becoming a national destination for youth sports leagues 
because of the adjacency of Temecula Old Town and Wine Country.
    But I think, most importantly, you know, fully funding 
projects like Murrieta Creek will accelerate the delivery of 
benefits and deliver them in a more cost-efficient manner. You 
know, the way Corps--the Corps funds projects now, there are 
starts, there are stops, there is inefficiencies, new staff 
coming in, and then they want to relitigate elements of a 
project.
    It is a very inefficient process. And if we can promote 
fully funding projects, I think we can deliver benefits faster 
and at a significant reduction in costs to both Federal 
Government and local agencies.
    Mr. Calvert. I might also point out Jason, the benefit of 
protecting one of our Nation's largest military installations 
at Camp Pendleton.
    Mr. Uhley. Absolutely.
    Mr. Calvert. We lost $80 million worth of helicopters back 
in 1993. And so we had to put together a significant amount of 
money to--ironically, that would have been more than enough 
money to pay for this whole project.
    Mr. Uhley. Absolutely.
    Mr. Calvert. So we need protect that institution also. You 
also mentioned in your testimony the full range of benefits 
associated with Murrieta Creek were not fully captured by the 
Corps' current economic month.
    What are some of the specific areas where Congress and the 
Corps can improve how we think about benefits associated with 
types of multipurpose projects? It has been frustrating having 
to be----
    Mr. Uhley. Yeah, the Corps focuses on national development 
benefit. And we really need to start with the recent memo that 
ASA James produced before he retired. And that memo basically 
directs the Corps consider the full range of benefits. Other 
societal benefits, environmental benefits, regional economic 
development, that is a good start. But in addition to that we 
need to not only present them, but we need to incorporate them 
into the decision making process both with the Corps, with OMB, 
and ultimately with Congress.
    Second, I point out that I think it is important that we 
take a good look at how NED itself is structured. The National 
Economic Development Alternative can often promote projects 
that don't even provide 100-year flood protection, which is 
FEMA standard, and results in projects where residents still 
have to buy flood insurance. And so I think that is another 
area that is worthy of some investment of time.
    And I would also point out that these more multipurpose 
projects tend to be promoted through LPPs, locally preferred 
plans, because they don't fit well in the NED alternative. And, 
unfortunately, when the Corps evaluates LPP projects, they look 
at it from a total cost versus total benefit perspective which 
completely ostigates that the fact that local sponsors are 
often bringing a lot of resources to these projects. We really 
need to switch to an analysis where it looks at federal cost 
versus total benefit of the project. And if we can do that, I 
think that would enhance the delivery of more innovative multi-
benefit projects.
    And, then, finally, there may be an opportunity for 
Congress to consider a special fund or enhancement of a P-3 
program to be able to target money towards these types of 
projects to promote them and also to evaluate their benefit and 
maybe promote long-term changes to the Corps.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you. And, Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much.
    Congresswoman Lee.
    Ms. Lee. Hello? Did you call on me, Madam Chair?
    Ms. Kaptur. I did, Congresswoman Lee. You are next.
    Ms. Lee. All right. Thank you. I am sorry for that 
confusion.
    First of all, I want to thank the Chairwoman and Ranking 
Member Simpson for hosting this important hearing and for all 
of the witnesses for their participation--hold on, I have got 
to do something here--for participating.
    Listen, I think all of us can agree about that bolstering 
our infrastructure is important, and in theory this should be 
bipartisan work. I think we all can agree that we need to make 
these conversations a reality.
    The recent American Civil Society of Civil Engineers 2021 
report card for America's infrastructure highlights the need 
for investment in our water infrastructure. I reign from Las 
Vegas Nevada, home to the Hoover Dam, so, obviously, this is an 
incredibly important issue for my region; but this extends to 
all congressional districts. And while I am pleased to see that 
there has been some improvement in my home State in terms of 
our overall infrastructure, there is still a lot of work to be 
done, specifically around water.
    For instance, of the 656 State-regulated dams, 154, almost 
a quarter of them, are considered to be high hazard potential. 
And as we move forward in this fiscal year's appropriations, I 
hope that we can work with everyone in a bipartisan manner to 
find some solutions to these problems.
    I was glad to join this committee because I think it is 
important to add regional perspectives, especially as we talk 
about efficient water resource management.
    My State is in the Lower Colorado River Basin where we 
consistently face duress from dry weather conditions, and this 
probably has been compounded by the intensity of climate change 
that we are experiencing.
    Ms. Becker, I was pleased with your testimony, and you 
spoke at length about the Drought Resiliency Program which has 
helped your community to smartly manage water. Can you walk us 
through how this program has helped your community in 
developing a drought mitigation and response plan?
    Ms. Becker. Yes. Thank you for the question, Representative 
Lee. Nice to have a neighbor to chat with.
    So the Bureau of Reclamation local staff works very closely 
with the Navajo Nation staff in developing the drought 
resiliency plan. And most recently the Navajo Nation, we have 
some tremendous young people coming home to work with us and 
water--hydrologist experts who have shared with me that climate 
change is affecting groundwater quality. So when we are 
thinking about climate change in drought, there is also a water 
quality issue that is part of this concern.
    So they applied from the Bureau of Reclamation for drought 
funding to address some water supply issues, one in Oljato, 
which is where the woman, the picture that I showed in the 
beginning of today, that is where she is from. They have a very 
limited water supply there, a system that runs 12 hours a day, 
so they need to relieve the pressure on that.
    So that drought funding is part of the overall response 
that you were asking about. That funding will go help build a 
new well in the Oljato area.
    In addition, the second pot of funding that is coming from 
the Bureau last year and this year from the drought response 
program is addressing a long-term project that the Bureau of 
Reclamation has been working with the Navajo Nation for quite 
some time called the Western Navajo Pipeline.
    In the western part of the Nation, not far from where you 
are--I mean, we are right in your backyard, as you know--that 
is where we have some of our lowest precipitation, and we have 
some serious groundwater problems. So they are analyzing ways 
to bring surface water into the Navajo Nation.
    So these are ways that reclamation has been so helpful in 
addressing issues in our area region.
    Ms. Lee. I must say, yes, I would like to also note that 
your reclamation recently awarded Nevada some grant funding 
through the Drought Resiliency Program. So we appreciate the 
work that the reclamation department is doing with our 
partners.
    My second question is, I really don't have much time, Mr. 
DeGood, just quickly can you talk about how green 
infrastructure can be used alongside or even as an alternative 
to traditional gray infrastructure with the goal of bringing 
multiple benefits to a project in a cost efficient manner?
    Mr. DeGood. That is a great question.
    I think it is important to understand that when we bring 
these nature and nature-based features and national features 
into design, oftentimes we end up with projects that have 
either a lower total cost or a lower total lifetime cost, life 
cycle cost, because natural features tend to need less ongoing 
maintenance, and we often end up with projects that have better 
overall environmental performance.
    So it is so much about mindset, and when you start the 
planning process, if you only start with pure sort of 
navigation or flood control, without considering what these 
other, you know, benefits could be, you are going to end that 
planning process with something that looks like the old kind of 
traditional gray facilities that we are trying to move away 
from.
    If you start with improved environmental performance at the 
beginning, what you will end up with is a project that has a 
mix generally of traditional gray and green infrastructure that 
will again typically be lower total life cycle cost and have 
better environmental performance, but that is a lot about 
Congress providing direction and helping to change the course, 
culture, and mission.
    Ms. Lee. Great. Thank you.
    And I am sorry I ran over. Thank you. I yield.
    Ms. Kaptur. Listen, I am so proud of this subcommittee. You 
have all been doing great. It is hard to talk within 5 minutes 
in complicated issues. Thank you so much, Congresswoman Lee.
    And now we are going to go to Congressman Fleischmann.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member 
Simpson, again, another outstanding topic or set of topics, and 
to all of the witnesses, thank you so much. Madam Chair, I know 
you have championed the Great Lakes for years, and I really 
appreciate that and look forward to working with you on Asian 
carp issues and the like.
    In the past I have supported efforts to widen and deepen 
the Norfolk Harbor in Tennessee's neighboring State, Virginia. 
As many on this subcommittee may recall, I have been very 
enthusiastic in my advocacy for the funding of the Chickamauga 
lock replacement project in my home district. These projects 
are enormously important for commerce and industry in my home 
State, but I also know that Tennessee is not unique when it 
comes to the economic importance of inland waterways.
    So the witnesses, if you could speak a little bit more to 
the role that inland waterway transportation plays in 
supporting the American economy. And I will open that up for 
the witnesses.
    Thank you.
    Does anyone want to take that question?
    Mr. DeGood. I will just go ahead and say that I think the 
story we need to focus on here is really one about efficiency 
and the fact that our water infrastructure allows us to move 
critical, not only agriculture commodities, but commodities 
that are essential to our national industrial production and 
our export sector and our balance of trade and that when we 
have unplanned outages, either due to facilities breaking down 
or because of shifts in weather and water volumes, we know that 
the trucking and freight rail industries can often struggle to 
try and match that unexpected surge in demand to move those 
commodities.
    So even though it is not part of our transportation system 
that is one that probably most Americans think about on any 
kind of regular basis, we do know that it has this essential 
role to play. So I think it is incumbent for the folks on this 
panel and others in Congress to continue to try and tell the 
story to highlight for people why it is essential that this be 
a part of any build back better rescue and recovery package.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you. I really appreciate that 
response.
    Would anybody else like to address that?
    Mr. Winston. Representative, Thomas Winston here.
    Certainly I think an investment and our ability to improve 
our inland waterways will be important. Here, particularly as I 
refer to the Great Lakes and the system and the impact that it 
has, clearly, the Port of Toledo has a direct impact to Ohio, 
Michigan, and Indiana; but at our port we have 16 marine 
terminals, and those terminals supply products throughout the 
Nation.
    We have ADM Grain Corporation and Anderson that is sending 
soybeans and corn across the Nation. We have oats being 
produced, at least exported here, and bulk material. We have 
Mondelez that has the largest flour mill in North America here 
at the Port of Toledo.
    Certainly the impact of the inland waterways, as it relates 
to the Great Lakes, not only has an impact from a regional 
standpoint but certainly the connectivity to across our Nation 
and, you know, certainly being able to distribute goods and 
services. We have Cleveland Cliffs as a result of some of the 
initiatives that we have taken here. We have an internationally 
known company, now Cleveland Cliffs, that made an $850 million 
investment in a plant here. They will be taking in ore from 
Minnesota through the Great Lakes. They will be able to provide 
the hot briquette product for the Nation that will service 
Tennessee, the south, the west and across the channels here.
    So I think your question is well served, and I think some 
of the initiatives that we have talked about earlier, and the 
funding from this particular Appropriation Committee, 
subcommittee to the investment in the waterways and the 
channels and the Great Lakes would be instrumental for success 
across the Nation.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you.
    And my time is about up, so with that, Madam Chair, I thank 
you so much, and I will yield back.
    Thank you.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much, Congressman Fleischmann.
    Congresswoman Frankel.
    Ms. Frankel. Hello. Good to see you.
    Okay. Thank you, everybody, for your comments today, and I 
think these are questions for Mr. DeGood, but if anyone else 
wants to answer, fine.
    My first question is, what are some of the specific aspects 
the Army Corps should focus on more in regards to Everglades 
restoration? And will that require a policy change, a change in 
the law?
    Mr. DeGood. To the best of my knowledge, I don't think 
there are any major pending changes to law that need to happen 
with that. I think it is really about making steady progress 
and continuing to demonstrate both the economic and ecological 
benefits of that project.
    I think something that most folks maybe don't know is they 
think about the Everglades restoration and the Kissimmee River 
and Lake Okeechobee projects that are associated with it 
upstream as being simply about maybe birds and reptiles, or 
something like that, as though it were a side issue.
    In truth, by improving the flow of freshwater into the 
Everglades and by improving the rate of recharge to the 
underlying limestone Biscayne aquifer, you are helping to sort 
of stave off that saltwater infiltration that will be speeding 
up as sea levels rise and the total pressure from that sea 
underneath that lies in the reservoir increases, right.
    So it is not just about the environment as being sort of 
separate and apart from the economy in south Florida, it is 
about making sure that you have water to keep that economy 
going.
    Ms. Frankel. Well, thank you. I absolutely agree. Those of 
us who live in south Florida think about it as our water 
supply, although we do love the Everglades National Park, and 
we know it is a refuge for many species. And, obviously, when 
you don't have water, you don't have an economy. So I 
appreciate those comments.
    Also, again, talking about south Florida, we have, as you 
know, a sea level rise. Parts of south Miami are constantly 
under flood. Any comments on what you think are some of the 
best ways to protect our coastal infrastructure?
    Mr. DeGood. Yes. I mean, I think it needs to be an 
integrated approach, and one of the things that is tricky about 
water is that it moves. And so if you do one-off changes or 
improvements in one area, you can actually create additional 
problems, you know, upstream or downstream for other 
landowners.
    So what we need is for the Federal Government to serve as a 
true partner, not just in a fiscal sense of bringing dollars to 
the table, although that is important; but I also think playing 
a coordinating role so that all of the jurisdictions in south 
Florida, as well as the State, you know, DEQ and other 
agencies, can come up with a plan and a sequencing for those 
projects so that we do it right and so that there is the least 
amount of disruption and the least amount of what I would call 
unintended environmental and economic consequences.
    You know, one of the things I highlighted quickly in my 
testimony was the work that the Corps had done to the Kissimmee 
River in the 1960s in the name of flood control, but it was 
because you didn't step back to think about what the second 
order of consequence of that channelization project would be 
that we ended up with this remediation bill which is more than 
five times greater than the initial cost of the project.
    So it has got to be multi jurisdictional. It has got to not 
just be about funding. It has got to be about smart funding and 
sequencing.
    Ms. Frankel. Are you saying that it should be the Army 
Corps should be the coordinating agency or somebody should be? 
We have to pick one?
    Mr. DeGood. Yes, I don't know I would sit here right now 
and say it has to be the Corps, but I think that should be a 
discussion to figure out who needs to take that lead role.
    Ms. Frankel. Okay. Thank you very much. Madam Chair, I 
yield back, and thank you for this hearing.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you so much, Congresswoman Frankel. You 
have been at every meeting, I think. You have been fantastic.
    Congressman Reschenthaler, please.
    Mr. Reschenthaler. Thank you, Madam Chair, I appreciate it, 
and thank you to Ranking Member Simpson as well.
    You know, investment in our water resources infrastructure 
is actually critical to my district and, frankly, it is 
critical to all of southwestern Pennsylvania. As the eastern 
most gateway of the inland waterway system, the Port of 
Pittsburgh is strategically located to move freight to and from 
the Ohio Valley and the northeastern regions.
    And, Madam Chair, I know you are aware of this because you 
saw it firsthand when you were in the district, when you were 
in southwestern Pennsylvania with my colleague, Conor Lamb. I 
think that was in 2019. I know you were there. Regardless, I 
think you may have witnessed the deteriorating conditions of 
our aging locks and dams, and some of these locks and dams, I 
mean, they are from the 1930s. They need improvement.
    But as a new member on this subcommittee and the 
Appropriations Committee on a whole, I really appreciate the 
bipartisan approach that we are taking when we look at this and 
we look at waterway infrastructure both in corridor work and 
the ecosystem perspective.
    But just historically, my district has benefitted from the 
prior work of this subcommittee, including the New Start 
Designation for the Upper Ohio Navigation project, and then 
going way far back when I was actually like 9 years old, when 
this committee authorized the lower bond project in 1992, which 
is just set for completion in 2023.
    So, again, this is really critical for my district, 
especially when you look at the Elizabeth Lock, which is the 
oldest lock on the Monogahela River and a lock which all river 
transportation entering to and from my district has to pass 
through.
    So I was going to talk and ask the witnesses some questions 
about the T&I package that is coming, the $37 billion funding 
for portions of inland waterways, but my colleague, Congressman 
Chuck Fleischmann beat me to the punch, so I would just like to 
say I appreciated the witnesses answering that question.
    With that, I will move on to another set of questions that 
I have for Mr. Winston. Mr. Winston, in your testimony you 
stressed the importance that the multimodal connectivity, 
including maritime, has with economic development throughout 
your port region in Ohio.
    Mr. Winston, all along the Monogahela River in my district, 
we have former industrial and brown field sites, of course. So 
just a two-part question for you. I am going to ask you these 
and just give you the remainder of my time. But with your 
experiences, can you elaborate on what it takes from both the 
public and private sectors to successfully redevelop, or 
however, redevelopment project?
    And do you have any suggestions for Congress on what we can 
do to better assist communities in redeveloping brown sites, 
former industrial sites, along our waterways?
    And with that, Mr. Winston, I will yield to you.
    Mr. Winston. Thank you for the question, Representative 
Reschenthaler. Thank you for being with us as well.
    I think your question--and I know it is in two parts. I am 
trying to ascertain that here a little bit, and I will try to 
answer that in the abstract. You know, certainly I think it is 
important--here at the Port Authority, we are a very unique 
port authority.
    The State of Ohio provides us with broad powers. We were 
established in 1955 as the first port in the State of Ohio as 
the opening up of the Saint Lawrence Seaway. And since then we 
have certainly continued to involve ourselves in maritime 
activity; but because of the powers that the State has afforded 
us, we are also broadly involved in economic development. We 
can buy, sell property and really deal with that, and that 
gives us a multidimensional aspect to do economic development 
by issuing bonds and debt and, thus, bringing access to capital 
to the market for businesses.
    It also affords us to use some of the expertise that we 
have in certain areas, such as maritime and economic 
development, to take brown field sites and turn that into 
economic development working environments, and we have done 
that.
    I alluded to Cleveland Cliffs project earlier that is on 
what we call the dry side of our Port of Toledo. We have taken 
an old brown field site, redeveloped it, working with the 
private sector, and now we have an $850 million investment here 
that is generating close to 200 jobs for the area.
    So I think the collaboration, if I can answer your 
question, I think the collaboration between the public sector 
and private sector is essential. We are able to do that with 
working with a marine terminal operator on the private side as 
well as with the Federal organizations, like the Army Corps, 
and the Ohio Department of Natural Resources and other economic 
development entities.
    I think a collaboration is essential to making these things 
come to fruition. On the private side, you generally see 
activity happening a little faster than, you know, on maybe 
some of the issues that might present themselves at the Federal 
side.
    So I think working together is essential, and as much as we 
can shift down responsibility to the local level, I think that 
would be advantageous to meet some of that.
    Mr. Reschenthaler. Thanks, Mr. Winston.
    Since my time has expired, I would yield back to the Madam 
Chair. Thank you so much.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Congressman Reschenthaler. You know, 
you have been a really active new member, and we are glad to 
have that energy, and we need it from western PA. And thanks so 
much. Appreciate it.
    Mr. Reschenthaler. Thank you, I appreciate it.
    Ms. Kaptur. That is all right.
    We will now go to Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz from 
Florida, and thank you so much for your faithful attendance 
also.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Madam Chair and thank you 
very much for this really important hearing both to you and to 
Mr. Simpson.
    Mr. DeGood, it won't be a surprise that my questions are 
for you, and I want to thank you for referencing the Everglades 
and the case studies are important on the sustainability and 
the development of water infrastructure.
    As you probably know, given that I represent the area that 
encompasses the Florida Everglades, I care a lot about it. In 
1948, Congress created the Central and Southern Florida 
project, the largest civil works project in the country. The 
Corps constructed a massive flood control system that enabled 
south Florida to township. Unfortunately, as you know, the 
Corps did not really consider the environmental consequences of 
this huge ecological redesign, and now we have spent the last 
two decades trying to restore the Everglades.
    So I am going to ask you my three questions at once because 
I want to get in another one. How can we be careful to avoid 
environmental damage like the kind suffered by the Everglades 
when we build water infrastructure projects going forward?
    And do you recommend that the Corps should be required to 
implement compensatory litigation projects when water 
infrastructure projects result in ecological harm, kind of like 
the mitigation that developers have to do when they destroy 
wetlands and they have to mitigate that somewhere else? So how 
do you envision that policy working?
    And then also I have joined the entire Florida delegation 
in the House, as well as Senator Rubio, in asking President 
Biden to request $725 million for Everglades restoration in 
fiscal year 2022. We have to make these investments to expedite 
this restoration effort and fight climate change and create 
jobs. And job creation has been mentioned by several people as 
a benefit of water infrastructure development.
    So can you, or any of you, elaborate on how we can use 
water infrastructure to address other key national priorities 
as well, like economic recovery and job creation, actually like 
we did in the American Recovery and Investment Plan?
    Mr. DeGood. Thank you for the questions.
    I will say quickly, I know you have got multiple, that I 
think it is important to point out that the Central and South 
Florida Project first authorized in the fifties and then moved 
through construction in the sixties predates the National 
Environmental Policy Act. One of the things that, you know, 
Members of Congress have fought about for a number of years now 
is sort of whether or not we feel there is value in NEPA. And I 
think that it demonstrates just how much damage you can do when 
you don't, on the front end, ask the question what are going to 
be the consequences of this build, right.
    So the benefit of NEPA is that all of the substantive 
protections that Congress has passed, a lot of them in the 
sixties and the seventies. I am talking about the Clean Water 
Act, the Endangered Species Act, Historic Preservation, Title 
VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act which prevents Congress from 
funding anything that is either directly discriminatory or 
discriminatory in its effects, right, all of these substantive 
statutes are important.
    And when we go through the project planning and review 
process, that is how those are surfaced, and NEPA's, I think, 
real value is that it pulls together all of these different 
studies into one place and provides the kind of transparency 
that allows for true democratic and civic input into the 
planning process.
    So I think we get better outcomes. We avoid damages that we 
have to, you know, spend a lot of money to try and remediate 
afterwards. So we should understand the value of NEPA in water 
resource projects.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
    Is there anyone else that wants to elaborate on how we can 
use water infrastructure to address other key national 
properties?
    If not, then I will cram in my last question. According to 
the Congressional Research Service--and I am going to quote--
earmarked moratoria appears to be altering the makeup of Corps 
and reclamation appropriations, particularly by reducing the 
congressional additions of specific projects for the budget and 
by Congress funding broad categories of activities rather than 
specific projects.
    As a result, some projects that historically have 
benefitted from congressional support have reached less or zero 
funding in recently enacted appropriations bills, end quote.
    I know I have run into this obstacle again and again on 
this subcommittee because of the ban of the power to fund 
projects given to agency staff instead of Members of Congress. 
And agency staff don't always take local interest into account.
    So I want to open this question to anyone on this panel 
with the last little bit I have. How do you think the earmark 
ban has impacted funding levels and even new congressional 
authorizations for water infrastructure projects?
    Mr. DeGood. Quickly, I will say that I think it is--
Congress should consider whether or not water projects that 
have received two stages of congressional authorization, one 
for the, you know, initial investigation and then a separate 
one for construction, should even be considered earmarks.
    I think that that process is fundamentally different from 
what happened pre earmark ban with, say, the Surface 
Transportation Bill where you had conference reports that had 
literally thousands of projects that were attached to a 
particular account but had never been actually vetted, had 
never received any kind of oversight, hadn't gone through 
anything nearly as rigorous as what water resource projects 
must go through.
    So I think they should, in a sense, be treated separately 
from the general conversation of earmarks in many respects.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
    Mr. Uhley. Yes. I am sorry, this is Jason Uhley. And I 
would agree, you know, projects get authorized and then they go 
through these funding droughts. And I think one of the impacts 
of earmarks has actually been to depress the ability to fund 
multipurpose, multibenefit projects because a lot of these 
multipurpose, multibenefit projects score inherently lower than 
the NED version of the project.
    And they may still be very valuable projects, provide 
better benefits to the community; but because of the very 
narrow way the Court looks at projects, it tends to depress our 
ability to look at those types of projects and fund them.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
    Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
    Ms. Kaptur. Very good questions. Thank you so much, 
Congresswoman.
    Now I would like to move to Congresswoman Cheri Bustos of 
Illinois.
    Mrs. Bustos. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    This question is for Mr. DeGood. The congressional district 
that I serve covers pretty much the entire northwest corner of 
the State of Illinois, also going into central Illinois. So our 
western border of this district is the Mississippi River, and 
through the southern part of the congressional district I serve 
is the Illinois river. We also have eight locks and dams. So--
and by the way, on a personal note, my front yard is the 
Mississippi River.
    So, you know, I think that inland waterways are often 
overlooked, but are so critical, not just to the district that 
I serve but also to our entire Nation.
    The Upper Mississippi River System is the only river system 
that Congress has designated as a nationally significant 
transportation corridor and nationally significant ecosystem.
    I really appreciate what you said in your testimony where 
you stated the Corps must stop treating the environment as a 
separate business line. I applaud that. A great example of the 
type of innovative project that you are describing is NESP, the 
Navigation Ecosystem Sustainability Program. It was authorized 
to modernize seven locks and dams along the Upper Mississippi, 
while also providing critically important ecosystem 
restoration.
    So, Mr. DeGood, can you please speak to the magnitude of 
investments needed on both inland waterway infrastructure and 
ecosystem restoration? That is part 1 of my question. And part 
2 of that is, do you think that Congress should be using this 
large scale dual purpose model more often?
    Mr. DeGood. To your second question, absolutely. I think 
one of the things that is really interesting about NESP is that 
they took a system-wide approach, right. And so often when we 
look at the kinds of planning the Army Corps does, it is 
through a narrow lens of a particular project in a very 
specific geographic area, and sometimes it sort of misses the 
forest for the trees, if you will.
    I would just note that currently there are 15 lock projects 
with an estimated total cost of roughly $7 billion that have 
completed all of the studies and reviews and are ready to be 
constructed as soon as Congress appropriates the funding. 
Completing these projects will improve overall system 
efficiency by reducing unplanned lock outages and expanding 
system capacity; thereby, allowing tow operators to move goods 
to market more quickly, more cheaply, and just as importantly 
with greater predictability.
    So as I alluded to earlier, I think part of it is about, 
you know, education, because, again, not a lot of folks think 
about the inland waterway system; but for members such as 
yourself that have them in their district and understand how 
vital it is to the environment, to recreation, but also 
critically commerce, we just have to keep making that case and 
make sure it gets its fair share of the recovery package.
    Mrs. Bustos. Very good.
    You also said in your testimony, you referenced the 2019 
flooding along the Mississippi River. You know devastating 
doesn't even begin to cover those events. They really were 
catastrophic, and this is something, again, that I could see in 
real-time. For months the locks along the Upper Mississippi 
were closed. As you know, it literally stopped in its tracks 
the movement of goods, not to mention the property damage and 
the impact of the growing season for our family farmers all 
along our region.
    And while Congress passed hundreds of millions of dollars 
for emergency operations like dredging in early June of 2019, 
the allocation of funds took months, took months. And so while 
relying on the emergency funding is never the ideal scenario to 
be in to begin with, is there a better way to streamline the 
process to get our communities really faster in these emergency 
situations?
    Mr. DeGood. That is a great question and one I am not sure 
I have a particularly good answer for. I would say in deference 
to the Corps, when you are talking about destruction on that 
scale, trying to figure out the process and the sequencing of 
what you can do with the money that Congress has allocated is 
not something that can happen maybe as quickly as we would 
like.
    I do think, though, that the project that I reference in my 
testimony points to a longer term issue of the flood control 
works that were built earlier in the 20th century don't really 
fit the kinds of hydrological cycles that we are experiencing 
now in which we are modeling to experience more frequently in 
the future.
    So I think the question is, are there places where we can 
go in and make improvements to the systems so that it has a 
greater flood stage capacity so that we are less likely to have 
the kind of disasters scenarios that were experienced in 2019? 
And that, again, comes back to we have to be proactive and say 
let's not just build things the way they were done in the 
thirties and forties. Let's think about ways we can make the 
system more resilient but also far more--have better 
environmental performance overall.
    And that, of course, touches on the very politically 
sensitive issue of buyouts, and that is where it needs to be an 
inclusive process and one that happens over time to bring 
landowners in so that they understand the vision the Corps and 
State and local authorities have. They can become comfortable 
with what the proposal is.
    Mrs. Bustos. Thank you, Mr. DeGood.
    My time has expired, and, Madam Chair, I yield back. Thank 
you very much.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you for your faithful attendance and 
excellent participation, Congresswoman Bustos.
    We are going to move now to Congresswoman Bonnie Watson 
Coleman.
    Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. 
I really appreciate this education I am getting here as a quick 
learning curve here.
    Mr. DeGood--first of all, thank you to all of our 
witnesses. They have been excellent briefers, and they raise a 
lot of questions.
    Mr. DeGood, I would like to ask you a question about what 
the Army Corps of Engineers is not considering that it should 
consider when it is advancing projects, particularly the 
environmental impact versus any sort of economic benefit that 
is supposed to be derived from it? Because I have a number of 
small towns that, you know, may not represent an economic 
advantage in any way, shape, or form, but they can get wiped 
out pretty good in bad storms, and they are poorer towns, and I 
think we have a responsibility to them, but I keep kind of 
getting pushed aside on this issue.
    Mr. DeGood. Yes. I think, as some of the other panelists 
have mentioned, part of it comes down to what are the types of 
benefits that the Corps is allowed to try to quantify and put a 
dollar value on so that it can be part of its cost/benefit 
calculation. I think for too long we have focused on the narrow 
issue of really property damage in a sense because, you know, 
from an actuarial standpoint, it was the easiest thing to go 
out and figure out, look, when we damage roads, here is how 
much it costs to rebuild them.
    When we lose houses, here is how much it costs to rebuild. 
When we lose agricultural production, here is how much, you 
know, lost value of that.
    So it tends to be very narrowly focused on property 
protection because it is harder to say exactly what spawning 
fish or wading birds or, you know, other environmental aspects 
are worth; but I think that is wrong.
    So there is really this question of, again, changing how 
the Corps does planning and changing how it calculates costs 
and benefits to be more inclusive to have more integrated and 
more comprehensive projects.
    Mrs. Watson Coleman. So even when these towns are not, you 
know, very high-end homes, you know, rather low-end 
communities, so the cost to actually doing something in those 
communities that would save those communities or even providing 
alternatives to those communities is something that is not even 
being considered.
    Is there anyone else that would like to respond to that for 
a second? And then I have a question for Ms. Becker.
    I guess not.
    Ms. Becker, I listened to your discussion about making sure 
that there was drinkable water that was brought into the Navajo 
community, that infrastructure was built up in order to be able 
to do that. And you kind of said that things are working, and 
there is a whole of government consideration here.
    My question is twofold. Number one is, how far along are 
we? When do you expect to have the infrastructure in place? 
And, number two, to what extent are your issues with sanitation 
being addressed at the same time?
    Ms. Becker. Thank you so much for the questions, 
Congresswoman.
    So let me be clear, the project that I am talking about 
covers one corner of the Navajo Nation. It is arguably 30 
percent done, and the rest of it will be done, the expectation 
is, by 2027. The Navajo Nation is the size of West Virginia. So 
we are just talking about, um, maybe about a third, a quarter 
of the Navajo Nation is what will be covered with that project. 
We have a long way to go.
    It is very hard to determine the number of people living in 
homes today without access to clean drinking water, and that is 
because definitions change or--there is a long explanation 
behind that, but the estimations range anywhere from 20 percent 
to 40 percent of the homes on the Navajo Nation lack access to 
sanitation.
    So for the rest of the Navajo Nation that hasn't enjoyed 
the construction of that sort of project, we are years, we are 
years and years away from sanitation.
    Mrs. Watson Coleman. Yes. Are there barriers to that 
infrastructure being constructed, other than the lack of 
funding?
    Ms. Becker. Yes. There is some regulatory hiccups that 
could be addressed in terms of how much--specifically the 
Indian Health Service, where they can put their funding. And 
then there are continued concerns with land access issues in 
various parts, meaning it can take years to go through like the 
NEPA process to get permission to cross lands.
    Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you.
    Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Madam Chair.
    Ms. Kaptur. Sorry. My finger is on the wrong button there, 
Congresswoman.
    Mrs. Watson Coleman. Madam Chair, can you hear me?
    Ms. Kaptur. I can hear you.
    Mrs. Watson Coleman. I just wanted to say something really 
quickly in closing.
    I would like to close those kind of barriers that Ms. 
Becker is talking about, but I also would like to know what we 
need to be thinking about when we talk to the Army Corps of 
Engineers about how it needs to envision its moving forward and 
its impact and the considerations that go into those decisions 
environmentally and in the long term.
    Ms. Kaptur. Yes.
    Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you.
    Ms. Kaptur. We will work with you on that. Thank you so 
much, Congresswoman. I am glad you are on our subcommittee, I 
am so glad.
    All right. We want to move to Congresswoman Herrera 
Beutler. We go from one coast to the other now.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. All right. Thank you so much, Madam 
Chair.
    And my question, my first question is for Mr. Uhley. I 
thought that you made a key point in your written testimony 
about the importance of local involvement and engagement with 
the Corps on flood management projects. In my district there is 
a project that has been underway for many, many years, longer--
certainly longer than I have been in Congress, in Lewis County, 
Washington, to solve a decades' long flooding threat by--and it 
is by Bottom Up, a community-led process, including, you know, 
everything from local council, city councils to county, local 
stakeholders, more than one tribe, I mean, businesses. It has 
really been an amazing group.
    And while this project is mostly State level with the 
Department of Ecology and the Department of Fish and Wildlife, 
I think we can take some lessons about the importance of the 
local entities engaging with their Federal counterparts, like 
the Corps. When I first got involved with this, the Corps was 
dictating to the locals how this was going to look and what it 
was going to be. And it has taken a long time and a lot of 
conversations and push, but now we have finally flipped it to 
where it is this local driven project, and the Corps is 
stepping alongside as a partner.
    And I was hoping you could share from your experience how 
crucial it is that the Corps work with these local communities 
and stakeholders when executing a Corps project?
    Mr. Uhley. Yes, absolutely, Congresswoman Herrera Beutler. 
I think we are finally turning a corner with the Corps, and we 
are starting to see the Corps interested in true partnerships 
more than they historically have been, and I think that is 
going to lead to better projects.
    In our area, you know, having the locals involved and where 
you have capable sponsors, having them take the lead on 
projects, we are much more vested in the outcomes in a lot of 
cases. And the Corps, you know, in our L.A. District--it is one 
of the largest districts in the Nation--they are dealing with 
some of the most challenging projects in the Nation, the staff 
are stretched. And they can't always put the time in they need 
to find the innovative, creative solutions that are going to 
lead to the projects that are going to benefit our community 
and save money.
    So I think taking--when the Corps can take advantage of 
capable and interested local sponsors, we end up with better 
projects, we end up with better outcomes, and we end up with 
ultimately cost savings.
    So I definitely encourage Congress to consider promoting 
local engagement in projects and local leadership in projects 
where the sponsors have the capability because it allows the 
Corps to focus on some of the more challenging issues that 
really require their expertise and a allows the locals to 
really spend the time and resources to develop fully the 
projects in their area.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. Absolutely.
    Mr. Uhley. So you raise an excellent point. Thank you.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. Absolutely. I think they are more 
attuned to the consensus, the fit within the community where, 
obviously, the Corps's technical capability is unmatched and so 
important, and it does kind of divide up the work more to get 
some of these crucial big projects done.
    My next question is for Mr. Winston. I am really struck by 
the parallels in your testimony with the ports and the 
terminals in my district in southwest Washington State. I have 
15 public ports along the Columbia River, which goes out to the 
mouth of the Pacific. The Lower River Channel is a major trade 
gateway for the Nation. It is, I think, the third largest 
inland waterway in the Nation, moves 60 percent of all U.S. 
wheat exports. It did in 2020. And just like your port, our 
ports have to overcome a lot of hurdles to operate efficiently. 
And if our channel isn't properly maintained, growers, 
manufacturers in many States will be impacted.
    I am especially interested in the opportunity you mentioned 
to better use dredged material for beneficial uses. So could 
you tell me a little bit about how you recommend streamlining 
the regulatory process to make better use of dredged materials?
    Mr. Winston. Thank you, Representative, for the question.
    It certainly has been an issue for the Port of Toledo and 
many of the ports in the Great Lakes, and particularly as it 
relates to Port of Toledo, we have a very shallow port being on 
the western end of the basin of Lake Erie. So dredging is quite 
significant for us and important for our ability to continue to 
have vessels coming in and out.
    As I alluded to in my testimony, we have developed the 
center of dredging innovation here, really collaborating with a 
number of universities, as well as working with the Corps to 
really look at ways to better utilize the dredged material and 
put it back in production.
    I am a big proponent of collaboration. I am a big proponent 
of perhaps having some of the accountabilities more regional or 
local to better expedite and execute on these type of 
initiatives. So certainly having collaborations with our 
leading public and private institutions, with the cooperation 
of the Army Corps and other institutions, will be instrumental 
in being able to identify ways in which we can, you know, look 
at those materials and better put it back into the system.
    It is going to be critical for our infrastructure and our 
ability to move commerce going forward, so I think 
collaboration will be the key, particularly at the local level.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you for that. Thank you.
    Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Ms. Kaptur. I am glad to hear that our ports have 
asymmetry.
    All right. Yes, I would like to call on Congressman 
Newhouse.
    Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    I apologize for being in and out, but, you know, the 
convenience of the video virtual meetings is everybody thinks 
you can have them at the same time and so trying to be many 
places at the same time. But thank you.
    Let me just say, if I could, it is an honor to return to 
this subcommittee to work with you, Chairwoman Kaptur, and also 
with Ranking Member Simpson. I appreciate both of your 
leadership on this subcommittee. It is truly a pleasure. I hope 
the panelists can sense that this is a good committee, very 
cooperative, we work very well with each other, and I 
appreciate being part of it.
    I want to thank the panelists for being with us today and 
sharing your perspective with all of us, a very important 
topic. Actually, Madam Chair, I was delighted to hear that this 
was going to be what we were discussing today. It is important. 
It is a very important subject about innovation and investing 
in water resources to everybody, from Florida to Washington, to 
Ohio, to Idaho. Everybody has interests in this topic.
    And as has been pointed out by the folks that are 
presenting today, we have severe challenges all over the 
country; but I could boldly say that many of those challenges 
are centered in the western United States. I represent a very 
rural and agriculturally rich district in Washington. Many of 
my constituents, as you probably know, are farmers, they are 
ranchers, and they depend on a stable water infrastructure, not 
only for growing, but also for moving cargo on the water via 
barge. A lot of our wheat travels by barge. So water arguably 
is our most precious resource in the west, and reliable access 
is certainly crucial to our way of life.
    So as we continue to debate the infrastructure 
improvements, I do hope that we make investments in water 
storage, in conservation, delivery systems, to not only serve 
today's needs, as you talk a lot about, Madam Chair, but also 
for future generations, our growing communities and those 
people who we will leave this great green earth to at some day.
    Aging federally-owned infrastructure, water infrastructure 
has plagued the west water managers for several decades now. It 
is estimated that 80 percent of the Bureau of Reclamation's 
facilities are more than 50 years old, and many facilities are 
over a hundred years old or near a hundred years old. According 
to the Bureau of Reclamation, over the next 5 years, roughly 
$3.2 billion will be needed to cover for extraordinary 
maintenance costs.
    And if you go out 30 years, that number gets up to over $10 
billion. In many cases local government entities, like 
irrigation districts, which I am a part of, have little to no 
access to affordable long-term financing for their share of 
these expenses of rebuilding and maintaining these projects.
    So that is why last Congress I was very happy to have 
included in our appropriations a bill that I sponsored creating 
an aging infrastructure account, if you recall that. It is 
within the Treasury Department, and it will provide funds 
directly, dedicated to making sure our infrastructure remains 
up to date and efficient.
    In December we made major progress when this language, as I 
said, was included in our year-end spending package. So thank 
you for your support on that.
    This newly created account will be able to be used by the 
bureau to offer long-term loans to water managers and operators 
of Federal water storage and delivery infrastructure. In other 
words, this account would be used to address significant 
maintenance backlog at reclamation facilities, projects that 
must be paid for by irrigation districts like the one that I 
represent.
    While this would be funded through appropriations, 
obviously to get started, the repayment of those loans by 
project operators and the beneficiaries would then be 
redeposited into the account and revolve to meet other needs in 
the future around the Nation.
    So as the funding subcommittee for reclamation, we must 
begin to put away some funding for the aging infrastructure 
accounts so that we can begin reinvesting in our aging and 
vital western water infrastructure. And this is a commitment by 
the Federal Government. It will be a huge win for many 
communities, but certainly those like mine that heavily rely on 
this water infrastructure for our way of life.
    And so I just wanted to thank you all for being here today. 
I want to thank you, Chairwoman Kaptur, for allowing me to make 
some comments on this very important topic.
    Thank you very much. And I will yield back the balance of 
my time.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much, Mr. Newhouse. We are 
always so glad to have you. Your background in agriculture is 
vital, as well as the kind of trade that you do in the far 
northwestern part of our country, so you really are very 
diligent, hardworking member.
    I just want to make sure we don't have anyone else that is 
currently on the list.
    So we will move to our second round, and I want to thank 
all of our witnesses again. Thank you for taking the time to be 
with us, and as you have heard from several people, including 
Congressman Newhouse, this subcommittee actually gets along. 
Every single person is a hardworking member.
    You will never see us on the national news as we do the 
country's business, and that is something for Americans to 
reflect upon, where the hard work is done at the subcommittee 
level, listening to Americans who really have something to say, 
but you can't get it in a three-word sound bite.
    And I just want to thank our members. We have had total 
participation today of our large subcommittee. That says 
something also. And I just wish there were a way to communicate 
this better to America.
    Before I ask my question, I also want to say to the staff 
who are listening, particularly to Jamie Shimek, a clerk on the 
subcommittee side, as well as Matt Kaplan on my own staff, to 
Mike Brain who has done so much work. And I know Mike Simpson 
will recognize those on his side of the aisle. They have just 
done marvelous--young Americans who are contributing and really 
having an extraordinary experience in their own young lives to 
make a difference for our country. So I want to thank all of 
them.
    And also for our members and their staffs, if you want to 
have fun, there is a great little film I was notified, it is 
about 5 minutes or something, called ``Kiss the Ground.'' 
Congresswoman Scott, the Chairman of the Agriculture Committee 
actually told me about it.
    So if you want to think about the kind of challenges that 
we face in this new century, that is a really well done piece. 
If you haven't seen it, you can just go to the internet and 
look at it, and you will have fun watching it. It is about 
regenerative soils. It is about water. It is about what we face 
in terms of carbon capture. And we all have a lot to absorb and 
improve what this country does through our powers on this 
subcommittee.
    The other thing I wanted to recommend is that you go to the 
website to something called the Washington, D.C., the D.C. 
Public Works Department. They have built right near where we 
work here at the Capitol the most amazing building that 
actually works with waste water, treats it, but turns it to 
energy and also a vast fertilizer plant right here at the edge 
of the Capitol.
    It is amazing. It is the new America, and I recommend it to 
every member of our subcommittee to take a look at that website 
and think about what that means for your community and for this 
subcommittee in our work as we move toward a recovery bill.
    All right. Now, in terms of questions, for myself I would 
like to say to--let me see, I just wanted to ask Ms. Becker, I 
will offer my two questions first and then will listen for the 
answer.
    Ms. Becker, the recent drought monitor shows that 80 
percent of the west is in drought and 40 percent in extreme 
drought. Can you clarify for the record how much of that is 
actually on Native American reservations? Are you dryer than 
most of the west? I am just curious whether you would express--
does that fit with what you are experiencing, 80 percent in 
drought but 40 percent in extreme drought? How much of the 
tribal regions that you are aware of are in extreme drought? 
Does that mimic the proportions that I have just stated?
    And then to Mr. Winston, thank you so much for giving voice 
to the Great Lakes today. We need to hear more from the Great 
Lakes region. But I wanted to ask you, in looking forward 
toward investments in a recovery bill, what can you say about 
multimodal links through the Saint Lawrence Seaway system 
working with our Canadian brethren to move cargo with so many 
of our communities, such as Chicago, backed up, Halifax backed 
up, what kind of solutions can the corridor called the Saint 
Lawrence Seaway Development Administration, what can be done 
there with multimodal to make us more relevant in this global 
congestion that we have been experiencing and also as the 
shortest distance to the ports of northern Europe? Do you have 
ideas about that as we move toward a recovery bill?
    Maybe first Ms. Becker.
    Ms. Becker. Thank you, Chairwoman Kaptur.
    The answer is yes, on the Navajo Nation, we are 
experiencing extreme--severe, extreme, or exceptional drought. 
And, regrettably, for many, many months you could see the 
Navajo Nation outlined in red on the drought monitoring. We are 
very much experiencing extreme drought in the four corners 
region of the Navajo in the United States.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much for that clarification. 
Thank you so very much. We will do what we can to help. You 
have been a very excellent witness, and I thank you for coming.
    Ms. Becker. Thank you, Chairwoman. It is an honor.
    Ms. Kaptur. And also Mr. Winston?
    Mr. Winston. Thank you for the question, Chairwoman Kaptur.
    Certainly I believe multimodal linkage, particularly within 
the Great Lakes and just from a national standpoint, will be 
critical for our ability to move goods and services across the 
distribution channel. We have a very good system here, 
particularly at the Port of Toledo where we have the port 
connecting to several first class tier railroad systems, and we 
have the luxury of having I-80, I-90 going east and west, and 
I-75 going north and south here.
    I think it is going to be critically important, as I 
mentioned earlier, supporting the maritime functions and the 
Great Lakes through Soo Locks, the existing Soo Locks system, 
as well as the new lock system that is underway. That is going 
to really be I believe the core opportunity for us to have the 
goods and services and commodities coming through the vessel 
channels.
    That Soo Lock is very, very important. There is a study 
that is being done that if there is some issues within that Soo 
Locks, and I will just say for a 6-month period, that could 
lead to unemployment of 10, 11 million individuals within the 
system, as well as the economic impact.
    And I believe looking at our rail system, from the 
multimodal standpoint, I think is critical as well. There is a 
need to move with expediency, and having these systems connect 
with each other with the latest and greatest technology will be 
astronomical for our success from an industry standpoint and 
moving goods and services across the highway.
    Infrastructure, in essence, is in place. We need to invest 
in some of these infrastructures that have not had the proper 
investment in the past. This committee has been great in doing 
that. There is another committee, I believe, that supported 
port infrastructure, particularly the maritime grant funding 
that helps the ports and other infrastructure that have been 
utilized to help multimodal. And I believe particularly this 
particular committee, as well as some of the other structures 
that are in place working with the private sector, but also 
working with the local organizations, like a port here, that we 
really have our feet on the ground here, and we can expedite 
things much quicker if there is a channel and authority 
opportunities from Federal straight to a regional organization 
or directly to a local organization to get things done in a 
more efficient manner.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much. I look for further 
clarification. The Canadian rail spurs that come into the 
United States and what the possibility is for cooperation with 
the deep water ports in Canada at Halifax and at potentially 
the Straits of Canso. And what--if it is economically feasible 
even. And I am just very, very interested as we move into 
infrastructure what we can do working with our rail companies. 
So there isn't time right now, but just know that I am really 
interested in that.
    Congressman Simpson.
    Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, I don't have any 
further questions, but I would like to thank the witnesses for 
being here today and for their testimony. Interesting subject 
that we will continue to work on.
    Thank you. I yield back.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much. And I want to thank 
Congressman Simpson for just being a royal pleasure to work 
with. And we don't always agree on everything, but we get the 
work done.
    And that concludes this afternoon's hearing. Again, I would 
like to thank our witnesses, each of them, for joining us 
today--Mr. DeGood, Ms. Becker, Mr. Winston, and Mr. Uhley. I 
ask the witnesses to please ensure for the hearing record that 
questions for the record and any supporting information 
requested by the subcommittee are delivered in final form to us 
no later than 3 weeks from the time you receive them.
    Members who have additional questions, for the record, will 
have until the close of business on Monday to provide them to 
the subcommittee. And I will officially say, our hearing is 
adjourned. Thank you all.
    [Questions and answers submitted for the record follow:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
  
    

                                         Wednesday, March 17, 2021.

            DOMESTIC MANUFACTURING FOR A CLEAN ENERGY FUTURE

                               WITNESSES

ROXANNE BROWN, INTERNATIONAL VICE PRESIDENT AT LARGE, UNITED 
    STEELWORKERS
DR. PAT CHOATE, DIRECTOR, MANUFACTURING POLICY PROJECT
TIM CORTES, CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER, PLUG POWER
DR. THOMAS KURFESS, CHIEF MANUFACTURING OFFICER, INTERIM DIRECTOR--
    MANUFACTURING SCIENCE DIVISION, OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY
    Ms. Kaptur. This hearing will now come to order.
    Thank you all for participating. As this hearing is fully 
virtual, we must address a few housekeeping matters.
    For today's meeting, the chair or staff designated by the 
chair may mute participants' microphones when they are not 
under recognition for the purpose of eliminating inadvertent 
background noise.
    Members are responsible for muting and unmuting themselves. 
And if I notice you have not unmuted yourself, I will ask if 
you would like the staff to unmute you. If you indicate 
approval by nodding, the staff will unmute your microphone.
    I remind all members and witnesses that the 5-minute clock 
still applies. If there is a technology issue, we will move to 
the next member until the issue is resolved. And you will 
retain the balance of your time.
    You will notice a clock on your screen that will show how 
much time is remaining. At 1 minute remaining, the clock will 
turn to yellow. At 30 seconds remaining, I will gently tap the 
gavel to remind members that their time has almost expired. And 
when your time has expired, the clock will turn red, and I will 
begin to politely recognize the next member.
    In terms of the speaking order, we will follow the order 
set forth in the House rules beginning with the chair and 
ranking member. Then members present at the time the hearing is 
called to order will be recognized in order of seniority and, 
finally, members not present at the time the hearing is called 
to order.
    Finally, House rules require me to remind you that we have 
set up an email address to which members can send anything they 
wish to submit but do so in writing at any of our hearings or 
markups. That email address has been provided in advance to 
your staffs.
    I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes for my opening 
statement.
    Again, let me extend a warm welcome to all of our members 
and distinguished witnesses. Today we will discuss how domestic 
manufacturing will anchor the Build Back Better agenda. The 
clean energy future of our Nation and our ability to reboot and 
energize the domestic manufacturing economy depends on the 
Department of Energy's programs for inventing the future. We 
must create and even bring back good-paying jobs here at home. 
Addressing climate change is our portal to sustain life on 
Earth for generations to come.
    Headlines coast to coast tell the story. The Earth is 
warming. The rate of increase of damaging weather events is 
unrelenting. We personally experience, our colleagues 
experience the impacts of this historic change. If we fail to 
address this hastening crisis, it is to our collective peril.
    As we discussed at our first hearing, technologies and 
innovations are already helping address climate change. They 
have led to widespread deployment, consumer savings, and good-
paying jobs. For example, solar installations in the year 2020 
set a new record. And there is now enough solar to power 
17,700,000 American homes.
    For motor vehicles, 98 percent of the gasoline sold in the 
United States includes 10 percent ethanol, showing that 
renewable fuels as the future of agriculture, while we watch 
agriculture positioned to plant millions of acres of crop cover 
to absorb more carbon while restoring and regenerating soils 
with higher nutrient content.
    Clean energy jobs are the future. American solar jobs have 
increased 167 percent over the last decade. And according to 
environmental entrepreneurs, clean energy workers earn an 
average median wage of $23.89 an hour, 25 percent higher than 
the national median wage. Clean energy sector jobs are more 
likely unionized and come with better healthcare and retirement 
benefits.
    Beyond installation jobs, our Nation must manufacture the 
wind turbines and solar panels here in the United States. We 
must squarely meet predatory competition posed by nations like 
China that do not hesitate to steal intellectual property. Our 
efforts must be dedicated to commercializing new technologies 
for electric vehicles and obviously hydrogen fuel cells. We 
must reinvent and retool our transportation and our domestic 
vehicle industry and produce those vehicles here at home.
    I applaud President Joe Biden for pointing out serious 
shortages of domestically produced silicon chips impacting our 
manufacturing supply chain. And while we continue to pursue 
innovation for new-age energy technologies like advanced 
nuclear, carbon capture, hydrogen, and efficient grid 
transmission, we must plan ahead strategically so those 
industries and jobs are based here in America.
    Employment in U.S. manufacturing has continued to decline 
from 17.3 million jobs in 2000 to 12.2 million jobs in 2020. 
And that is why we must urgently make the investments in clean 
energy, manufacturing, and infrastructure to provide a much 
needed opportunity for job creation and real-wealth generation 
as distinct from financial markets that surpassed manufacturing 
as the key sector of corporate profits starting back in 1995.
    Innovation will be critical to developing strategies for 
transforming energy-intensive processes like the buildings all 
around us, the ones we are sitting in, like the facilities that 
process water and waste water, along with energy-intensive 
sectors and industries like steel, cement, refining, and auto 
and truck production.
    Investing in manufacturing will create jobs for 
electricians, welders, solar installers, roofers, plumbers, 
pipe fitters, engineers, steam fitters, boilermakers, and many 
others. Training must be extended for workers too often left 
behind so their skill levels will translate to a number of 
jobs. And I am elated that President Biden supports a national 
strategy to develop a low-carbon manufacturing economy, and 
Secretary of Energy Granholm has been promoting place-based 
investment plans to help regions that have been falling behind.
    As you can see in the map, manufacturing job losses have 
disproportionately harmed specific places. We must create jobs 
that reinvest in areas and workers who too often have been left 
behind including manufacturing workers in rural communities and 
blue collar workers in industries that have closed or been 
outsourced. As people and communities succeed, so will America.
    To our witnesses we look forward to hearing from you.
    And I will now turn to our very capable ranking member, Mr. 
Simpson, for opening remarks.
    [The statement of Ms. Kaptur follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
        
    Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Chairwoman Kaptur. I am happy to 
join you once again on the Energy and Water Appropriations 
Subcommittee as we start this new Congress. I would like to 
echo your welcome to our witnesses.
    We thank you all for participating today and look forward 
to hearing your perspectives on domestic manufacturing for a 
clean energy future.
    Frankly, domestic manufacturing to keep and create good-
paying jobs here in the United States is important. It is 
especially relevant when the technology to be manufactured was 
developed here and when it was developed with Federal taxpayer 
dollars.
    The Department of Energy's Advanced Manufacturing Office 
directly supports investigation of new manufacturing 
technologies. Several other programs also support efforts that 
could benefit domestic manufacturing and reduced industrial 
emissions. For instance, the Office of Nuclear Energy is 
working to demonstrate producing hydrogen at existing nuclear 
power plants. Hydrogen as a fuel source has a great potential 
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, especially when the 
hydrogen is produced from clean sources like nuclear energy. 
This process can also help extend the viability of nuclear 
reactors which are a good source of clean baseload power for 
the electrical grid.
    To truly support domestic manufacturing, what we must 
recognize is that there are hurdles beyond the jurisdictions of 
this subcommittee, hurdles beyond technology development. 
Intellectual property must also be protected. Regulatory 
overreach must be corrected, and we must not rely so heavily on 
foreign sources for critical materials.
    The Trump administration initiated strong efforts to 
address these issues, and we must continue and further 
strengthen these measures supporting domestic manufacturing.
    I look forward to further exploring these issues with our 
witnesses. I thank Chairwoman Kaptur for calling this hearing 
and look forward to hearing from our witnesses.
    Thank you.
    Ms. Kaptur. I thank our ranking member very much. Like him, 
I am very excited for our witnesses joining us here today. I 
welcome your observation of how innovation in the energy field 
can confront the challenges of climate change, while creating 
more and better jobs in manufacturing.
    First we will have Dr. Pat Choate. Dr. Choate is Director 
of the Manufacturing Policy Project. An economist and 
development strategist, Dr. Choate has served on several 
presidential and congressional commissions, served as Vice 
President of Public Policy at the TRW corporation, a hi-tech 
international conglomerate.
    Served as an economic advisor to commissions in Oklahoma 
and Tennessee, and has given expert testimony before Congress 
numerous times and is an author of nine books and is proudly a 
preeminent expert on patents, trade, and infrastructure. 
Additionally, he has worked on and advised numerous national 
and regional economic development organizations.
    Next we will have Ms. Roxanne Brown, the International Vice 
President at Large, United Steelworkers.
    Ms. Brown oversees the union's public policy and 
legislative agenda, as well as its political work. She has 
represented the steelworkers with global policymakers including 
at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
    And she was a founding Steering Committee member of the 
renowned BlueGreen Alliance.
    Following that, we will have Mr. Tim Cortes, the Chief 
Technology Officer of Plug Power. Plug Power is a leading 
hydrogen and fuel cell company. Mr. Cortes is responsible for 
the company's long-term technology strategy and vision. And 
prior to joining Plug Power, Mr. Cortes served as Chief 
Technology Officer and Vice President of Engineering at Smiths 
Power.
    And finally, we will have Dr. Tom Kurfess who is the Chief 
Manufacturing Officer and Interim Director of the Manufacturing 
Science division at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Dr. Kurfess 
is responsible for the strategic planning for advanced 
manufacturing at Oak Ridge. And he has significant experience 
in production operations, manufacturing systems, and policy 
issues related to advanced manufacturing.
    Thank you. Thank you all for taking the time to be with us 
today. Without objection, your written statements will be 
entered into the record. Please feel free to summarize your 
remarks in about 5 minutes each.
    We will start with Dr. Choate.
    Dr. Choate. [Inaudible] Makes five points. First, energy 
inefficient buildings are our largest source of greenhouse 
emissions.
    Two, several new technologies are available or will soon be 
available that will allow us to tackle the climate crisis at 
scale quickly and cost effectively. I will describe one such.
    Three, these new technologies can have cities realize 
significant amounts of new revenues through savings.
    Four, manufacturing and installing these technologies 
offers a real chance to create millions of good, new, long-term 
American jobs.
    And five, where these factories are located can help reduce 
the massive regional inequality that has emerged over the past 
4 decades.
    To the first point, both the U.S. Department of Energy and 
the United Nations report that energy inefficient buildings 
create more unwanted emissions than all transportation 
combined--that is, cars, trains, planes, ships--and they create 
more emissions than all industry combined.
    In New York City, 70 percent of greenhouse emissions are 
from buildings. Moreover, 90 percent of those buildings will 
still be in use 30 years from now. And this concentration is a 
good thing for dealing with climate change. As I will explain 
later. Fixing our cities now, therefore, is essential.
    Three, important new clean climate technologies or cost of 
commercialization are at the early stage of deployment. Over 
the past decade I have worked with many of those inventors and 
highlight one such technology in my testimony.
    Specifically, thermal heat extraction from raw sewage can 
harvest massive amounts of clean energy and pour cooling and 
heating through heat pumps while emanating zero carbon 
emissions. Think geothermal. Instead of holes drilled into the 
Earth, which is invasive and expensive, the heat is drawn from 
sewer waste water which uses existing sewer lines, is 
inexpensive, and is quick.
    A striking demonstration of this technology exists \1/3\ of 
a mile from the Capitol at the new DC Water headquarters. In a 
3-year-old, 151,000-square-foot smart glass building, sitting 
atop a 100-year-old sewer pumping station, the heat used to 
cool and heat the building is drawn from the waste water. DC 
Water saves more than $100,000 annually for its heating and 
cooling. It also saves more than 1.5 million gallons of fresh 
water that otherwise would have been used in the air 
conditioning cooling towers. Most pertinent, this waste heat 
system emits zero greenhouse emissions.
    Third point. If this technology is linked by a loop to many 
buildings on the same sewer system, major new revenues can be 
created for cities' water and sewer authorities. This is really 
important.
    Four, creating a clean climate necessitates that these 
climate technologies and machines be manufactured and 
installed. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of new jobs 
can be created. I argue that these machines should be 
manufactured in the U.S.A. And the jobs filled by American 
workers, no offshoring on this.
    Fifth and finally, where this manufacturing is located 
offers the Congress and the President a direct means to 
confront America's growing regional inequality. Today regional 
inequality is out of control. Between the early 1930s and the 
end of the 1970s, incomes converged towards a high single-
American standard of living. But since the late 1970s, the 
inequality between a few locations at the expense of other 
regions has soared. The community distress index reference in 
my testimony reveals this.
    Where the Nation chooses to locate these new factories and 
jobs can help directly reverse regional inequality. In sum, 
climate change is the most dangerous threat the United States 
has faced in generations. But it is also a massive 
manufacturing and jobs opportunity, and it offers an almost 
once-in-a-generation opportunity to reverse the worsening 
regional inequality, in essence, to reinforce a fading American 
dream.
    Thank you for having me, and I look forward to your 
questions.
    [The statement of Dr. Choate follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
       
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Dr. Choate, very much.
    Ms. Brown, please begin.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you, Chairwoman Kaptur and Ranking Member 
Simpson and members of the subcommittee.
    My name is Roxanne Brown, and I am honored to serve as 
International Vice President At Large for the United 
Steelworkers Union.
    Chairwoman Kaptur, I send special greetings to you from the 
over 600 USW members at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion 
facility in Piketon, Ohio. You and the subcommittee have been 
strong and consistent champions for them in the work you do, 
and our union can't thank you enough.
    I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to 
discuss the critical role domestic manufacturing and its 
workers play in the transition to a clean energy economy. Done 
correctly, America can recover from this economic crisis 
stronger than ever before, having maintained and created 
millions of good union manufacturing jobs.
    As the largest industrial union in North America, the 
Steelworks Union has members concentrated in energy-intensive, 
trade-exposed industries that produce primary commodity 
products. We want to ensure that manufacturing and our members, 
some of whom should be appearing on the screen now, are not 
overlooked in the development of clean energy policy. Their 
industries and the products they make are essential for the 
reconstruction of our failing infrastructure systems. But these 
industries are also uniquely at risk of emissions and jobs 
leakage, absent sufficient policies to prevent that leakage.
    Addressing climate change not only meets our environmental 
principles but can also drive job and production growth in the 
United States. For our union, there is never a question about 
the reason we need to decarbonize the industrial sector. Our 
members are not climate deniers. They live and work in their 
communities, and they see and feel the impacts of climate 
change.
    Our members in the refining sector in the Gulf have surely 
experienced their share of superstorms over the years. The 
questions for them are about the unintended impacts of clean 
energy policies, and these unintended impacts would be layered 
on top of ongoing battles with unbalanced trade practices that 
affect almost all of our trade-exposed sectors.
    A robust domestic manufacturing sector, supplying the clean 
energy transition, is not just important to our members but 
also to their communities. The average steelworker is paid 
about $85,000 a year, plus benefits. Those wages ripple out 
into the community and help fund infrastructure projects, 
schools, and hospitals, not to mention the multiplier effect as 
for every one job in the U.S. steel industry alone, seven more 
are created.
    So for our union we have to strike a very delicate balance. 
It is clear that our economy is undercalling an energy 
transition, and it is clear that the industrial sector will 
also need to go through this transition. A key goal of clean 
energy policies has to be to help bring backbone industries 
like glass and steel, chemicals and cement into the new 
economy. My testimony details some of the policies we view as 
necessary as we engage in this conversation.
    But some top lines are, first, workers have to be at the 
table. You can't develop worker-focused policy if workers have 
no input. So we very much appreciate the opportunity to be here 
today.
    Second, investments in clean energy manufacturing. It will 
take a suite of policies to ensure an even more efficient 
manufacturing sector including things like a clean technology 
manufacturing and industrial bank, broader manufacturing R&D, 
grid modernization, investments in carbon capture utilization 
and sequestration and direct air capture technologies.
    Third, make the products and technologies here. We have to 
harness American innovation into products and technologies to 
achieve the transition to a clean energy economy. There are so 
many examples of technologies like wind energy being innovated 
here but widely deployed elsewhere. We have to do better.
    Fourth, buy America. A bedrock policy for our union are 
``buy America'' policies. Taxpayers overwhelmingly want that 
money to be spent creating jobs here in the U.S. It is crucial 
that strong ``buy America'' preferences is applied to 
infrastructure investments.
    American workers in industry are the best in the world. For 
this transition to be successful, manufacturing workers and the 
communities in which they live must be the leaders of this 
transition, not the victims of it.
    That is the mission, and that is the goal. Thank you.
    [The statement of Ms. Brown follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
        
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you so much.
    Mr. Cortes, please begin.
    Mr. Cortes. Thank you, Chairwoman Kaptur.
    [inaudible] Energy and decarbonizing the U.S. economy.
    The Federal Government has a critical role to play in the 
success of this industry.
    And on behalf of our CEO, Andy Marsh, and all the employees 
of Plug Power, I look forward to working with the committee as 
you explore opportunities to accelerate development of clean 
hydrogen and fuel cell technologies across a wide spectrum of 
American industries and economic sectors.
    A hydrogen fuel cell generates power by combining hydrogen 
and oxygen to produce electricity without combustion, producing 
only water and heat as byproducts. This zero-emission 
alternative energy source can be used in a growing number of 
applications including electric vehicles such as forklifts, 
delivery vans, and cars. Additionally, hydrogen fuel cells can 
produce enough energy to provide both primary and backup power 
for a variety of commercial, industrial, and residential 
buildings. Finally, clean hydrogen can be used to decarbonize 
other transportation sectors like aviation and marine, as well 
as heavy industrial processes.
    In addition to decarbonizing entire sectors of the economy, 
it is estimated in the 2020 McKinsey Reporter, the ``Roadmap to 
a U.S. Hydrogen Economy,'' that by 2030 the U.S. hydrogen 
economy can generate $140 billion of revenue and support 
700,000 jobs across the hydrogen value chain. By 2050, this 
number has the potential to raise to $750 billion in revenue 
and a cumulative 3.4 million jobs. Achieving this vision will 
require collaboration between the Federal Government and the 
private sector to establish key economic incentives that drive 
innovation and investment.
    Unlocking the potential of clean hydrogen will require 
progress on three fronts: Federal Government support of key 
programs at the Department of Energy and other agencies 
throughout the government, favorable tax incentives enabling 
the scaleup of clean hydrogen production, and Federal 
Government investment for large-scale clean hydrogen 
production, scaleup of manufacturing of electrolyzers and fuel 
cells, establishing a nationwide refueling network for on- and 
off-road zero emission vehicles, and building the 
infrastructure needed to transport clean hydrogen to markets.
    We are the leading national provider of comprehensive 
hydrogen and fuel cell turnkey solutions. The company's 
innovative technology is an example of the paradigm shift in 
the power, energy, and transportation industries to address 
climate change and energy security, while striving to meet 
sustainability goals. We aim to build the first green hydrogen 
generation network across the U.S. and are working with 
multiple renewable energy companies across the country to 
provide clean energy to our green hydrogen production 
facilities.
    Last year during the COVID pandemic, as an essential 
business, 30 percent of all retail food and groceries in the 
United States went through a distribution center powered by 
Plug Power hydrogen e-mobility systems. We are expanding our 
network and have created jobs nationwide. Last year our company 
added 427 new jobs, 49.47 percent increase from the previous 
year. And importantly we did not eliminate any positions during 
this time. Today we employ over 1,300 people across the country 
and have almost 200 new open positions that must be filled 
immediately.
    We also are honored to be a preferred employer for a 137-
person veteran workforce. These green-collar jobs Plug Power 
provides specifically on our service team complement the 
training and the discipline our employees learned while in the 
U.S. military.
    Plug Power will be opening its innovation center this year 
in Rochester, New York. This will mark a significant expansion 
based on the need and demand in the production and 
manufacturing capabilities for fuel cells and electrolyzers. 
Plug Power will invest $125 million in the local economy, 
creating 375 new jobs and bringing materials and component 
suppliers to the region.
    We are thankful to Congress for its past support for clean 
hydrogen including maintaining robust appropriations for the 
DOE's hydrogen and fuel subtechnology program in recent years. 
In particular, funding through the annual appropriations and 
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Plug Power 
developed hydrogen and fuel cell products for concept and 
commercialization.
    Finally, although it is not in the jurisdiction of this 
committee, other policies will be essential to complement the 
work of DOE to achieve full economic and environmental 
potential of the clean hydrogen industry. Toward that end we 
hope Congress will consider establishing new clean hydrogen tax 
incentives for production and investments in nationwide 
hydrogen infrastructure.
    Again, I want to thank the members of the committee for 
allowing me to testify on behalf of Plug Power, on the ways in 
which the Federal Government may assist in the acceleration of 
the use of clean hydrogen to decarbonize the American economy, 
and create millions of new domestic jobs in the process.
    I look forward to answering your questions.
    [The statement of Mr. Cortes follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
        
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Cortes.
    Dr. Kurfess, please begin.
    Dr. Kurfess. My name is--there you go. We unmuted. Of 
course, that is a typical goof there in terms of WebEx.
    Thanks again, Chairwoman Kaptur and Ranking Member Simpson, 
for the invitation to participate here.
    My name is Tom Kurfess. As was stated before, I am the 
Chief Manufacturing Officer for the U.S. Department of Energy, 
Oak Ridge National Laboratory. My formal training is 
engineering and computer science, but I have got manufacturing 
in my blood.
    I grew up in a small machine shop in the Chicago area, and 
what I am here to tell you today is really what the Department 
of Energy's national laboratories are doing to develop, 
demonstrate, and deploy the latest and greatest scientific and 
technical capabilities for advanced manufacturing here in the 
United States, not just for the big players but for all the 
small, medium-sized enterprises. It is called democratizing 
advanced manufacturing getting out there.
    I don't think it is a big secret in terms of how important 
manufacturing is: 12 million jobs in 2018, $2.3 trillion in 
terms of economic activity, 11\1/2\ percent of the gross 
domestic product. Every dollar you spend in manufacturing, 274 
is added to the economy. And really what we are doing here at 
Oak Ridge National Laboratory is to bring over 5,500 scientists 
and engineers together in more than 100 disciplines to move 
advanced manufacturing forward.
    We are doing this via one of the areas is our manufacturing 
demonstration facility, DOE's only R&D facility of its kind. It 
basically provides our industry partners with infrastructure 
tools and, in particular, expertise to move forward new 
technologies in advanced manufacturing.
    We have work with over 200 industry collaborators, 54 
universities, and we engage our sister laboratories, 10 other 
laboratories we have work with. Our mantra is ``Innovate faster 
than the competition can copy.'' Our vision is rapid innovation 
and ensure a U.S. dominance in advanced manufacturing. And our 
mission is to identify, scale up, and integrate critical 
technologies for new and emerging advanced manufacturing 
sectors.
    We do this with a hub-and-spoke model. We partner with 
industry, university partners, and other national labs 
throughout the country. Actually the University of Toledo is 
one of them. We just had a big workshop in terms of using 3D 
printing, metal 3D printing to generate molds for the 
automotive sector. Rather than waiting for a year or two for 
those molds to come into China, we should be able to produce 
those, here locally, so that we can turn around new car designs 
within just a matter of months.
    Also looking at some of the material models, so instead of 
metal, why not carbon fiber technology? So we have an entire 
pilot plant here that produces 25 tons a year in a roll-to-roll 
process. So it comes off, and it rolls up on a roll. We 
actually worked with Cummins. And we provided a significant 
support. Cummins is now producing 1 million N95 masks a day 
based on the technology developed over here. Not only are they 
producing masks but they have great jobs as well. So the idea 
is really: How do we move this technology forward?
    By the way, you see behind me in my virtual background. All 
this is just about 50 meters away. It is our MedUSA system. 
These three robots are putting down metal in a large-scale 
metal 3D printer that we could use to make these guys for the 
automotive sectors, things that are stamping out car doors and 
so forth.
    So the bottom line is that really together with our 
university and industry partners and the other national 
laboratories we are developing and demonstrating advanced 
capabilities.
    Again, carbon fiber technology, this is what you see on 
lightweight vehicles. If you take a look at the large-scale 
wind turbines, those blades are carbon fiber. The same role-to-
role technology we are using to move battery technology forward 
which is critical for clean energy, where are we going to store 
all that solar energy?
    Speaking of solar energy, again, roll-to-roll, we are 
producing--when you do that, you use--roll to roll--technology 
for solar panels and solar cells. So manufacturing is here. We 
are working together with our industry partner. What we do for 
them is we take a look at the next-generation technology. We 
derisk it. We help them move it into their production 
operations.
    So the bottom line is, together with our university and 
industry strategic partners and the other national 
laboratories, we will innovate faster than the competition can 
copy. We are developing, demonstrating, and deploying advanced 
technology that will keep the U.S. manufacturing sector at the 
forefront of innovation and score the creation of highly-
compensated jobs. By leveraging the assets of the National 
Laboratory system through a variety of agreements, the private 
industry can derisk their innovation and accelerate 
commercialization.
    We look forward to continuing our scientific and 
engineering pursuits in the form of clean, efficient, and 
sustainable manufacturing for the Nation's prosperity and 
security. Anytime you want to come out and take a look at some 
of our facilities, let me know. You are most welcome, and it 
will be looking at something like you were in a Star Wars 
movie, because you can see right behind me there. My kids tell 
me I look like Dr. Octopus with those robots coming out of me. 
But it is unbelievably hi-tech, and it really is next-
generation technology.
    Thanks very much for your opportunity to testify today in 
front of this distinct committee, and I welcome your questions 
on this important topic.
    [The statement of Dr. Kurfess follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
       
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you so very much, Dr. Kurfess.
    And what an outstanding panel this has been, and we have 
had outstanding turnout of members as well today. So your 
message is falling on very fertile ground.
    We are going to begin questions. We have been interrupted 
by votes, and some members may have to go vote and come back. I 
will ask Congresswoman Kirkpatrick to replace me when I am 
forced to leave just to make the vote.
    But I will start questions with Dr. Choate. I would like to 
ask him to please expand on your point that new technology can 
be used to create a new financing mechanism for city, water, 
and sewer authorities. That was a very interesting statement in 
your presentation.
    And then, secondly, how can we confront the regional 
inequality issue as we address the need to give a reboot to 
manufacturing in our country.
    Dr. Choate. Thank you, Representative Kaptur.
    On the question of financing, what happens in this new 
technology that exists out at DC Water is it makes massive fuel 
savings. The energy is pulled out of the wastewater that is 
flowing through there and, as such, DC Water is saving about 
$100,000 a year just on fuel savings. It is saving probably 
another $10,000 or $12,000 on not having to produce water for 
their air conditioning. They save about 1.5 million gallons of 
water per year as such.
    Now imagine, for example, that that building were put into 
a hot water loop with buildings around it. Those savings could 
increase substantially, almost proportionately. Those savings 
themselves could then be capitalized on. They could, for 
example, be used to create a sinking fund. They could be used 
to issue bonds as such.
    The savings from a business perspective are substantial. 
The cost of the device that was put in is about $300,000. The 
installation is about $600,000. This is a system, if it is put 
into a series, can save and can be paid off in 2 to 3 years.
    You take that on a machine that is designed to last for 45 
years. You put it in a city such as Washington or Toledo or 
Cleveland or Denver, and you will generate millions of dollars 
of revenue.
    Now one of the thoughts that comes to my mind doing that is 
to perhaps consider changing the Federal formulas in a way that 
doesn't seem obvious. What if we had a 6 percent Federal match 
and a 94 percent local match but the local match is helped by 
the Federal Government to receive private money?
    In other words, the Federal Government could create a 
regional infrastructure bank. That bank would back the bonds 
with that assured set of revenues dedicated through a sinking 
fund. This could almost be a AAA bond, low interest money, as 
it could pay off very quickly. Those revenues then could be 
used for repair, replacement, rehabilitation, and to further 
expand the system. The water system itself becomes a major 
source of revenues that the city can use.
    As to the regional question, the problems that were 
identified, for example, in your chart, regional income, and in 
the chart that I put up on regional distress are widespread. 
But they are also heavily concentrated. They are concentrated 
in the Great Lakes. They are concentrated in the Mississippi 
Valley. They are concentrated on the Crescent on the southern 
borderer, in parts of the northwestern United States. They 
require special attention.
    The model for dealing with this is the Tennessee Valley 
Authority. Here is an independent authority that has 
supplemental funds. It has wide authority to invest in 
infrastructure, economic development. And more importantly, it 
can deal with problems across the region. Many of the problems 
are not simply isolated to a State or a community but are truly 
regional in nature.
    This will allow those States working together with the 
Federal Government to lay out long-term plans to sustain long-
term efforts and make the case for a substantial increase of 
funds to deal with what is truly a national problem that they 
cannot solve on their own.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you so very much.
    Just this morning I got off a telephone call relative to 
the automotive industry that is a regionally troubling issue in 
the Great Lakes. So thank you for recognizing that our coast 
exists. I truly appreciate it: It is heavy industry.
    So I wanted to move to our ranking member, Mr. Simpson, for 
questions. Then we will have a second round as members rotate. 
And when I am forced to leave to go vote, I will be back. I 
will ask Congresswoman Kirkpatrick if she could take the gavel 
at that point.
    Thank you, Dr. Choate.
    Dr. Choate. Thank you.
    Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Chairwoman Kaptur.
    First, Mr. Cortes, let me ask you. At the Idaho National 
Laboratory, the INL, we are leading a trylab effort on 
integrated energy systems to harness, to process heat from 
nuclear pants and turn it into hydrogen. The research at the 
INL is centered on a high-temperature electrolysis that has the 
potential to deeply decarbonize steelmaking and other 
refractory processes.
    Do you agree than an abundant and inexpensive hydrogen 
produced from non-carbon energy sources such as nuclear can 
make the U.S. manufacturing of these building materials more 
environmentally sustainable?
    Mr. Cortes. Yeah, absolutely. So, Plug Power recently, we 
made two acquisitions last year. One of them was actually an 
electrolyzer company that is based in Boston, Massachusetts. As 
we have looked at our green hydrogen initiative and our 
strategy for the future, we are definitely focused on all 
energies that are considered renewable including nuclear.
    So we are looking at wind, solar, hydro, nuclear and how 
can those--how can we take advantage of those existing 
technologies and those existing energy sources that are 
renewable to help us grow and expand our capacity in terms of 
our green hydrogen.
    So the network that we are build out, that we want to 
building out is a green hydrogen network. It will be based on 
renewables and it will be based on electrolysis and we are 
considering nuclear power, as well as other renewable sources. 
Absolutely.
    Mr. Simpson. Thank you. I appreciate that.
    Dr. Kurfess, a catalyst is a material that speeds up and 
directs chemical reactions. I know that you already know that. 
Catalysts are the backbone of chemical manufacturing. Ninety 
percent of all chemical production relies on a catalyst. We 
need them to make everything from diapers to diesels.
    Over the past several years at this committee's direction 
DOE has provided for research of dynamic catalyst science with 
data analytics. These investments have provided the tools that 
researchers need to study how chemical reactions unfold on real 
catalysts, allowing for a pivot from catalyst trial and error 
to science-based design for advanced catalyst materials.
    This breakthrough will allow for the use of more effective 
catalysts and cut the energy use and carbon intensity of 
chemical manufacturing processes. What benefits do you believe 
radically lower carbon chemical manufacturing processes 
designed for distributed dynamic operations will have on the 
manufacturing sector at large and the U.S. competitiveness?
    Dr. Kurfess. Yeah, so that is a great question, Congressman 
Simpson.
    And I believe that this is--so, first of all, it is a 
perfect area for us to be in because a lot of these catalysts 
and so forth are very important in terms of reducing our energy 
consumption. So, again, you reduce energy consumption, you make 
our processes much more competitive and so forth. It also 
allows us to really scale up more green capabilities as we take 
a look at really being able to leverage our production 
operations, and really you are talking chemical sector. You are 
talking petrochemical and so forth. It is a huge amount of 
energy consumption.
    So if we could use these catalysts and move these catalysts 
forward and, again, to lower the energy requirements for 
consumption, not only is it great in terms of reducing carbon 
output and consumption or production in our processes but it 
also allows us to use lower amounts of energy. A combination of 
these two, again, just makes us more energy efficient. Energy 
efficient makes us much more capable in terms of our 
competitiveness.
    The other thing I really want to point out is we can 
reduce. We all see that energy costs do fluctuate around. They 
fluctuate around the recent situation in Texas, then you could 
have some significant fluctuations. If we could reduce that 
consumption of energy, then you could actually make the 
manufacturing operations more robust to flexible pricing and so 
forth. You could actually have reduced risks in that. You 
reduce the risk for carbon emissions. You reduce the risks for 
energy fluctuation and cost fluctuation. It would pretty much 
guarantee a better profit margin.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
    Let me ask you one more question before I have to go vote. 
This subcommittee previously has heard many anecdotes 
suggesting it is difficult for private companies to engage 
partnerships with the National Laboratory. Your testimony, 
however, discusses the many partnerships that Oak Ridge 
National Lab has, one of our great national laboratories, 
especially through the manufacturing and demonstration 
facilities.
    Could you please discuss any challenges to establishing 
these partnerships, and do you have any suggestions on how we 
can let more companies and innovators know about the 
capabilities available at our labs to help them with their 
manufacturing questions?
    Dr. Kurfess. Yes. So, first of all, I think the biggest 
challenge is really people are concerned about intellectual 
property and who owns it and so forth. The bottom line there is 
we have really streamlined the process. We have put out the 
best possible deal. We are not interested--we are not 
interested in making money off of this. We are interested in 
having U.S. companies make money off of it, strengthening our 
national security. So I think that is a key thing in terms of 
just streamlining the process.
    In terms of what we might do to have people come out, look, 
we have several thousand visitors coming through our facility. 
So we are actually now, I mean, one of the pluses, if you will, 
for the current virus is we do have virtual tours that are 
going on and so forth. Again, we want to make sure these are 
U.S.-type companies going through. We do have these kind of 
operations, but people just come through. I would say let's 
make sure we get the word out.
    And you mentioned a couple of other laboratories. We work 
closely with those laboratories. So, in fact, we are making 
plugs for them. You mentioned Idaho over in the cybersecurity 
area. We are working together in all these different areas to 
make sure that our industry partners really see it. It is that 
engagement, the virtual tours and also just the engagement of 
industry.
    So please send them down to us. As soon as we can open our 
doors, come on down. We are willing to have people come 
through, and you are welcome.
    Mr. Simpson. Well, thank you for that. Thank you for that, 
and thank you for the work you do at Oak Ridge. It is truly one 
of our great national laboratories.
    I yield back.
    Mrs. Kirkpatrick [presiding]. I am taking over for the 
chairwoman while she goes to vote. I am Representative Ann 
Kirkpatrick.
    And at this time I would like to recognize Chairwoman 
DeLauro.
    The Chair. Thank you very, very much, Ann. I would just 
take this opportunity to say to you that I am going to miss 
you, my friend. Going to miss you and just God love you. You 
are the best, and say hello to your children for me as well. I 
have deep, wonderful memories of being with them in New Haven.
    So, my question is for Ms. Brown. I think we all share the 
desire to create good-paying American manufacturing jobs, and 
millions of jobs can be created by a clean energy revolution. 
You know, again, we believe the U.S. has the opportunity to 
reassert itself as a manufacturing powerhouse for renewable 
energy technologies.
    I am concerned about American-led innovations moving 
offshore for skilled-up manufacturing. You know, technologies 
will require a highly skilled workforce that we need to prepare 
for. So I am interested in hearing more about what measures you 
think the subcommittee can take to ensure that American workers 
are in a strong position in this regard. What opportunities 
exist for educational and workforce training for your 
membership? What is the best way to incentivize this expansion?
    Ms. Brown. Thank you so much for the question, Chairwoman 
DeLauro, and it is so great to see you.
    So I think for us it is layered. We are not a building 
trades union, and so we don't offer the traditional training 
halls that building trade unions do. However, a lot of our 
employers, our members' employers, do offer, you know, on-the-
job trainings for, you know, upskilling and learning additional 
skills at their facilities. So that is one piece of it and 
making sure that those partnerships can be created with those 
employers and local community colleges for an example.
    The former ArcelorMittal Steel, which is now Cleveland-
Cliffs, ran the ``Steelworkers for the Future'' program. It was 
a program that allowed, you know, steelworkers to be trained 
up. After they were trained up, they were able to get an 
associate's degree and they were placed at an Arcelor facility. 
That is a great program and a model that can be replicated 
across the manufacturing sector.
    But I think the other piece of it goes to what you said 
about these technologies being developed here and then going 
elsewhere. I think a big thing that we can do rests a lot in 
what is happening at our national labs. You know, innovating, 
breeding the technologies here, making sure that there is buy-
in from the domestic producers of these technologies and, 
therefore, making sure there is buy-in from domestic 
manufacturers, so somehow creating a link between what is 
happening at the labs, what is happening with the producers of 
these technologies, and the needs of domestic manufacturers, 
because in many cases--and you know, this has been been 
discussed--small and medium-sized manufacturers in particular 
know that they need help decarbonizing but they don't know what 
is available for them to do that. They don't know what is 
happening at the national labs. They don't know the types of 
technologies that are being discussed.
    So I think creating that link between the labs, the 
producers of the technology, and the manufacturers would be 
really, really key in making sure there is actually a market 
for the use of those technologies here.
    The Chair. So we can deal with incentivizing the labs and 
linking up the producers and the manufacturing and then your 
emphasis on looking at community colleges and industry so that 
they can partner in terms of apprenticeship programs, 
internship programs, those kinds of the efforts to develop the 
workforce. Thank you. Thank you very much very much. Thank you. 
I have about a minute or more left.
    So let me ask Dr. Kurfess, and I will just truncate any 
introduction to this. We are trying to reduce global greenhouse 
gas emissions. We are trying to make a transition to clean 
energy, critical in reaching the goal. You highlighted ORNL's 
work--wind turbine, carbon capture, battery storage, lower 
emissions.
    Given that we need to move quickly the terms of a 
transition on additional resources, what incentives are 
necessary for greater industry investment in clean energy 
manufacturing, clean energy transition?
    Dr. Kurfess. The bottom line--thanks again, Will, for 
unmuting me.
    The bottom line here is that I think the incentives are 
really in many cases in place. We really need to get that 
carbon out, but the cost of energy continues to go up. The idea 
is sort of let's use less energy. Let's make use of the carbon. 
Really what we are working towards is making it cost effective 
to do this. So how do we move this forward?
    I agree with actually what Ms. Brown has said. The bottom 
line is really making sure that, you know, what we need to 
incentivize is to have the workforce that can use the 
technology. It really increases your profit margin. So, you 
know, to us it is really about how do we make it more 
profitable. The bottom line is the green option is very much 
profitable, and it also really de-risks this. So these are the 
types of things that we look at, but we have got to get that 
right workforce space in there to help us move forward.
    And I want to point out. When we talk about universities 
and colleges, it is about next generation but it is also about 
current generation. That current generation workforce can 
easily be retooled. You take your smartphone. You go check the 
weather. You are accessing constellations of mili-satellites, 
supercomputing models, and a whole to tell you whether to take 
an umbrella out or not. People are comfortable with it. We can 
do the same thing in manufacturing.
    The Chair. Hear. Hear. Thank you. I know I ran out of time.
    Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
    I have got to tell Congresswoman Kaptur and our ranking 
member I love the visuals in the backgrounds here. Done a great 
job with the creatively with the visuals.
    Thank you, and I yield back.
    Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you, Rosa. I appreciate your 
thoughts and your perspective.
    I now like to represent--recognize Mr. Fleischmann for his 
comments and questions.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    As you well know, our ORNL has a tremendous track record of 
facilitating the transition of technologies out of laboratory 
out of a laboratory setting and into the economy. Ment 
companies, universities, and research institutes have 
cooperative agreements with ORNL and other national labs in the 
manufacturing, science spaces. How do we engage our smaller 
companies, mom-and-pop shops that make up the backbone of the 
U.S. manufacturing ecosystem?
    Dr. Kurfess.
    Dr. Kurfess. Well, thank you, Congressman Fleischmann.
    This is a great question because really this is like 85 
percent of our manufacturing operations. It is so critical to 
the middle class.
    Part of the engagement, of course, is working through 
resources like the Manufacturing Extension Partnership out of 
the Department of Commerce. Other elements are really 
engaging--I think we heard from Ms. Brown--really engaging on 
the educational side to make sure that these companies know 
that technology is there. You go to them. They buy a piece of 
equipment. It is state of the art. They are not buying a 20-
year-old piece of equipment. It is state of the art. What they 
need to know is they need to know how to use it, how to connect 
it up in a secure fashion.
    CyManII, our cybersecurity institute that Oakridge is a big 
province. Sandia is in there. Idaho is in there. We are showing 
them how to really connect it up and not worry about a lot of 
the security issues because they are prepared for it. So it is 
an issue of engaging them.
    The hub-and-spoke model is perfect. Really as we engage--
and the larger companies do get it. As we engage the larger 
companies, they know their supply chain needs to be brought 
along as well. I think a lot of what is happening, there is a 
realization that, you know, it is not just the big people are 
putting together the cars or the aircraft. It is everybody is 
making all the way down to the nuts and bolts. They are 
important. That realization and understanding and making sure 
that they can move forward with everybody else is critical. So, 
again, universities, hub-and-spoke type of models, excellent 
way to operate.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you. A follow-up. I will ask for a 
quick response because I have a question for Dr. Cortes. This 
is again for you, Dr. Kurfess. This morning another 
subcommittee on which I serve as ranking member, the Homeland 
Security subcommittee, held a hearing with two former DHS 
secretaries, one Republican and Democratic. We discussed a 
myriad of challenges, threats, and issues but cybersecurity, 
understandable, came up numerous times. Are there any specific 
cybersecurity concerns related to manufacturing that are being 
addressed by your operations?
    Dr. Kurfess. Yes. So I will say there are really a couple 
of large ones. One is on just the personnel side, again, 
getting back to workforce development. Most of our 
cybersecurity problems really come from human errors and so 
forth and people not paying attention or not following the 
right protocol. So there is a lot of training going on that we 
are working on.
    The other one is really just to put together the right type 
of hardware and software to defend against cyber breaches and 
so forth. What I will tell you is it is not about building a 
wall. It is really staying--it is just like I said before: 
Innovating faster than the competition to copy. We have got to 
stay ahead of them in terms of technologies and knowing how it 
is going on, knowing what to look for and knowing how to react 
very quickly. Thank you.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you.
    Dr. Cortes, I understand there will be a renewed focus on 
the Department of Energy's loan programs to support the 
deployment of renewable and clean energy. How could a program 
like DOE's Title XVII loan guarantee program help the hydrogen 
industry and companies like Plug Power.
    Mr. Cortes. Yeah, thank you very much for the question.
    The Title XVII loan program has definitely demonstrated its 
ability to support innovative technologies, being deployed for 
the first time on a commercial scale.
    So if you look at the program's existing portfolio, you can 
see that it has been an instrumental role and played in help 
launching the utility scale's solar industry a decade ago. We 
are very hopeful that the enthusiasm from Secretary Granholm's 
Title XVII and the experience brings together the role of the 
executive director of DOE's loan program office.
    There will, again, be tremendous opportunity to help 
support new technologies and industries particularly like green 
hydrogen and fuel cells that are necessary to achieve near-zero 
emissions by 2050. These programs have been instrumental. We 
are looking forward to the opportunity to continue to take 
advantage and use those as we moved forward to build additional 
opportunities within the sector from a manufacturing standpoint 
but also to, you know, create more additional jobs.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you.
    My time is growing near. As a longtime supporter, Dr. 
Cortes, of hydrogen and fuel cells, I am pleased to see the 
wide range of activities that the DOE around hydrogen, energy, 
and fuel cell technologies across various offices. What should 
DOE do to ensure there is a coordination and effort between 
these programs to ensure that we are maximizing our investments 
and preventing duplication of effort, sir?
    Mr. Cortes. Yeah, absolutely. So Plug Power in the 
industry, you know, are very pleased and appreciate the R&D and 
the other support for hydrogen energy and fuel cell 
technologies within the hydrogen fuel cell technology office, 
as well as within the Office of Fossil Energy.
    As new sectors emerge to utilize hydrogen to decarbonize 
the industrial processes and operations, it is even more 
important, we feel, for interior and intra-agency coordination 
with the DOE and other Federal agencies, as well as with 
industry, to ensure that these investments truly have the 
maximum impact in moving the industry and all the applications 
forward. So that better tightly-coupled communication and work 
together between the other offices we think can really bear a 
tremendous amount of fruit as the potential for hydrogen within 
other sectors becomes readily available.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Cortes.
    Thank all the witnesses, and I yield back.
    Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Fleischmann. I appreciate 
your perspective, especially because I think Oakridge is in 
your district, isn't it? Yes. I thought so.
    Mr. Fleischmann. That is correct.
    Mrs. Kirkpatrick. I don't see Congresswoman Wasserman 
Schultz is on. So I am going to call on myself for questions.
    You know, my home state of Arizona is the second fastest 
growing state in the country with massive population growth and 
development in some parts of the state. At the same time 
Arizona is really on the front line of climate change. 
Temperatures are rising every year and we are seeing more 
extreme flooding and our wildfires are getting more and more 
severe.
    I talked to manufacturers in Arizona who tell me that it is 
too expensive to stay in Arizona when they could just move 
their operations to Mexico just a few miles away. This can't 
continue. We have to ensure that our workforce has access to 
good-paying union jobs here in the United States, and we must 
prioritize clean energy solutions at the same time.
    So my question is--and this is for everyone on the panel--
how can this subcommittee best prioritize underserved 
communities, job training, and expanding the capabilities of 
the American workforce as we looked to modernize our energy 
infrastructure and workforce?
    Ms. Brown. Congresswoman Kirkpatrick, this is Roxanne 
Brown.
    You know, I think a key way to do that is to build equities 
into the policies that the committee--that the subcommittee 
will be advancing. And one of those equities, as I mentioned in 
my testimony, buy America. You know, if there is a preference 
placed on the products that American workers--in many cases, 
union workers--are making across the spectrum--you know, I 
mentioned our members are in all of commodity based industries, 
from steel to glass to aluminum, cement, you know, mining.
    If we are placing a preference on those products that are 
being made by American workers domestically and we are saying 
that for all of our systems, you know, for infrastructure, for 
these clean technology systems, wherever taxpayer dollars are 
used, there should be a preference placed across the board on 
domestically produced products. I think that is one piece of 
it.
    The second piece of it is also something that is in my 
testimony. Buy clean, you know, which would be layered on top 
of buy America. That is another equity that can be built in for 
domestic industry. You know, U.S. manufacturers are really the 
most efficient in the world, and so, with benefit from a policy 
that places a preference on goods made in the cleanest, most 
efficient ways, again, in many cases, by union workers.
    So I think, you know, building those types of equities into 
the policies that are generated are key ways of ensuring that, 
you know, there are investments being made--they lead to good 
business decisions, I think--would be really key.
    Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you, Ms. Brown. Thank you very 
much.
    Anybody else on the panel like to comment on that?
    Dr. Choate. Yes.
    Dr. Kurfess. I would. I will just add very quickly--this is 
Tom Kurfess--that Ms. Brown couldn't be more correct. And let 
me tell you the other thing that I look at is--so I want to 
make sure that there isn't a misconception that--that I am all 
for having it made in America. So moving this technology 
forward, really leveraging the technology, having the well-
trained workforce makes us much more efficient, as she has 
directly said.
    And what a lot of companies are starting to find is you can 
build things in the United States of America, you can make 
money, and you can actually do better than building them 
anywhere else in the world. So the bottom line is we are 
competitive, and we need to drive that across.
    And, by the way, this is not just me blowing smoke here. It 
really is. We see a lot of our large industry partners shifting 
over here. I'll just give you an example. BMW's largest 
production facility, South Carolina. So, I mean, yeah. This is 
just one of the things that we should be looking at.
    So it is--it is not a pipe dream. It is not charity and so 
forth. It is a reality that it makes business sense.
    Dr. Choate. Congresswoman, I am Pat Choate. May I make a 
couple of comments?
    Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Sure. Please.
    Dr. Choate. I live in Tucson, and I am very pleased that 
you represent me and my family, and we were disappointed to 
learn that you will be retiring.
    Several things can be done. The first thing is we need to 
create a national capital budget for our infrastructure. We 
need to lay out a long-term plan specifically what we are going 
to do.
    Secondly, we should buy the materials and the equipment 
from American companies, or even foreign companies but are 
located in the U.S. and/or have a domestic content. There are 
other things that we can get into, but we need some very 
specific agendas.
    Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you. Thank you very much.
    I would like now to recognize Mr. Fleischmann for--I mean, 
Newhouse for any questions he might have.
    Mr. Newhouse.
    Mr. Newhouse. Thank you very much, Acting Chair 
Kirkpatrick. Let me just say I too am disappointed to hear 
about your retirement plan, so look forward to continuing 
working with you in this term.
    Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you.
    Mr. Newhouse. Yes. Yes. Thank you very much. This is an 
important topic, and I appreciate the hosting of this hearing 
on the domestic manufacturing for our clean energy future.
    And, if I could just humbly, but proudly say that I am a 
champion for clean energy. My district in central Washington 
State, if you didn't know, we are at the forefront of leading 
our Nation's clean energy solutions. We are a leader in both 
clean energy production and innovation.
    And I believe our region should serve as an example for 
this committee, but also for the country, the importance of a 
diversified energy mix and how a holistic approach to energy 
production can provide reliable energy to millions while 
supporting thousands of well-paying jobs.
    So I am glad to see a representative for the United 
Steelworkers with us today--thank you--as we discuss domestic 
manufacturing jobs in America's energy sector.
    From our world-class hydroelectric system to the only 
nuclear-generating station in more than a dozen States, to 
hosting the largest solar and wind farms in the State of 
Washington, which are only made possible due to our hydro and 
our nuclear baseload systems, we love our clean energy in 
Washington State, and we love our clean energy jobs. And I 
really am very proud of the example we set.
    What I am not proud of, though, if I may, Madam Chair, is 
this administration recklessly and heartlessly tearing away 
thousands of American jobs in the middle of a global pandemic. 
What I am not proud of is President Biden, on his first day in 
office, unilaterally signing away thousands of well-paying jobs 
by halting construction of the Keystone XL pipeline with the 
flick of a pen.
    What I am not proud of is this administration leaving local 
communities in the west in limbo as they try to manage the dire 
implications of the moratorium on Federal oil and gas leasing 
on their State, local, and education budgets.
    Madam Chair, these unilateral approaches by President Biden 
and his administration are simply, in my view, unconscionable 
in the face of a global pandemic that, as we all know, has 
wreaked havoc on rural communities in the west and across the 
country.
    I simply refuse to lend any credence to the notion that the 
greatest country on the planet cannot both champion clean 
energy innovation, which we do, and climate solutions, which we 
do, while recognizing the continued need for traditional energy 
resources and ensuring American workers in these sectors are 
not having their livelihoods ripped away from them with the 
flick of a pen, but that is exactly what President Biden has 
done. It is heartless, it is unconscionability, and I believe 
it is absolutely wrong.
    Ms. Brown, again, welcome. Your brothers and sisters at the 
North America's Building Trades Union recently released a 
comprehensive report assessing job quality in the energy 
sector. The results of the study found quality job 
opportunities in the oil and natural gas construction sector, 
and both union and nonunion energy construction workers report 
that oil and natural gas jobs are better overall careers for 
them.
    If I may quote Sean McGarvey, the president of the Building 
Trades Union, quote, ``the findings outlined in these reports 
demonstrate that today's oil and natural gas jobs are better 
for energy construction workers across the country in both the 
short and the long term. Research confirms what our members 
tell us. The career opportunities for renewables are nowhere 
near what they are in gas and oil, and domestic energy workers 
highly value the safety, reliable duration, and compensation of 
oil and gas construction jobs,'' end quote.
    Madam Chair, I ask that this report be entered into the 
record.
    Mr. Newhouse. So my question for you, Ms. Brown, with the 
short time we have remaining, with millions of Americans 
unemployed because of the impacts of COVID-19 and the lockdowns 
on our economy, is it a smart idea to unilaterally eliminate 
existing jobs simply because they happen to be in an industry 
that many of my Democrat friends find unfashionable?
    Ms. Brown.
    Ms. Brown. Congressman Newhouse, I really appreciate that 
question.
    Two things, I would say. Number one, there was an 
opportunity for the Keystone XL pipeline project to actually 
have significant jobs benefits across--across the country, both 
in the building and construction trades, and also on the 
manufacturing side where our union lives. And unfortunately it 
was extremely lacking on the use of domestically produced steel 
pipe. They chose to source pipe from India. And so it was 
questionable in terms of the overall jobs impact that that 
project would have had.
    But the second piece of your question, it is a very little 
known fact, I think, about our union, is we represent more than 
30,000 men and women in the domestic refining sector, and the 
crux of your question, I appreciate, because this is why it is 
difficult for labor. Our members in the refining sector make, 
on average, you know, $120,000 a year, and it is a--we can't--
we can't tell them that they then should look to--forget about 
their jobs and look to jobs installing solar panels, right, 
that would pay them, you know, maybe $20 an hour.
    So, to your point, we are focused on making sure that the 
jobs that do exist for our members are able to exist for the 
long term, and that is why, for us, for our members in the 
refining sector, we are looking at carbon capture utilization 
and sequestration technology. We want to make sure that that 
technology is deployable at scale so that those existing jobs 
at those existing facilities can be brought into the future. 
And that is our focus.
    But you pinpoint a very complicated issue that remains 
within the labor community.
    Mr. Newhouse. Well, I appreciate that. I really--I have to 
say, though, that there certainly were jobs lost due to that 
one decision--8 to 10,000 jobs immediately lost. And, you know, 
the things that you talk about are great goals. I don't argue 
that.
    But we have got to get to the future. We just can't, you 
know, wiggle our nose and blink our eyes, and we are there. 
There has to be opportunity for people to continue to make a 
living in the meantime, and these jobs are being ripped away 
now. And that is, you know, not--whether a pandemic or not, 
that is not a good thing.
    And so I appreciate your response. But I have been to some 
of these small communities in the areas where they are directly 
impacted by these decisions, and I wish I could bring those 
folks here so that you and the rest of the committee could see 
their faces, hear their stories.
    When I use those words I used, it is not just some 
rhetoric. These are things I have witnessed myself, seen in 
people's eyes the struggles that they are having, and I just 
wanted to point out the fact that these have consequences. 
These decisions have hard consequences for working men and 
women across this country.
    And I appreciate your answer.
    And, Madam Chair, I know my time has long expired, but 
thank you very much for helping answer that question.
    Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Without objection--without objection, the 
report is entered into the record.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
        
    Mr. Newhouse. Thank you very much.
    Mrs. Kirkpatrick. And thank you for your kind words.
    So I would like now to recognize my neighbor from Nevada, 
Representative Susie Lee.
    Mrs. Lee. Thank you. I want to thank the Chairwoman Kaptur 
and ranking member for having this important hearing today, and 
thank you, Congresswoman Kirkpatrick, for filling in.
    You know, I think that boosting the manufacturing is going 
to be crucial to helping fuel an economic recovery for working 
families, and I have been pleased to see that the Biden 
administration is rolling out policies to support manufacturing 
growth in the United States.
    But we must also support the expansion of clean energy 
generation capacity ensuring that we are on the forefront of 
clean energy export markets for the future.
    And I am really proud that my home State of Nevada is one 
of seven States to have committed to 100 percent clean energy, 
and this progress has been achieved with the leadership and 
partnership of the private sector, with companies such as 
Switch, which is a technology company focused on the design and 
operation of data centers. Switch is now using 100 percent 
renewable energy for all of its operations.
    We have gotten great results in Nevada with our State 
seeing an increase of 66.6 percent in the use of clean energy 
over the past decade, while the national average has been just 
a 20 percent increase.
    There is still plenty of work to be done on a national 
level, and I am looking forward to working in a bipartisan 
manner on this subcommittee to find some real solutions to 
these issues.
    Dr. Choate, I wanted to ask you: In your testimony, you 
talked about the heating and cooling making up the majority of 
energy use in the building sector. As you stated, since 2010, 
space cooling is the fastest growing use of energy in buildings 
growing by 8 percent a year.
    As I am sure you can imagine, coming from a State 
representing the Las Vegas area, this problem is especially 
concerning because we are in a hotter State, and, despite being 
a leader in renewable energy, Nevada's electricity consumption 
often exceeds our in-state generation, and additional 
electricity supplies are often brought into Nevada over high-
voltage transmission lines from other States.
    Can you speak to challenges that States are facing in 
keeping up with the energy demands while incorporating a shift 
towards renewable energy within the overall grid?
    Dr. Choate. Yes, ma'am, I can.
    Basically, I live in Tucson. We have experienced the same 
problems of energy demand. What we now see is a real 
breakthrough in technology in heat transfer, blowing heat from 
sewer. There is an inventor and a company in Germany. There is 
one in Canada.
    What is happening in parts of Europe, what is happening in 
parts of Canada, is you are having a major shift where 
buildings are adopting this new technology and are pulling 
their heat from the sewer systems. Vancouver is under a process 
to put roughly 20 million square feet of heating and cooling to 
drive it off of sewer heat.
    Washington, D.C. has the--is the only city in the country 
that has representations of the two technologies, one from 
Germany. It is at the American Geophysical Building at 2000 
Rhode Island, I think, and then the D.C. Water System.
    If we make the shift in cities such as Las Vegas and Reno 
and Tucson and Phoenix to these types of systems, first of all, 
we can cut the cost of heating and cooling in old buildings by 
up to as much as 70 percent, and, in new buildings that are 
super energy efficient, such as D.C. Water, we can cut it up to 
30 percent.
    And we can do that--when we do that, there will be zero 
emissions from our heating and cooling. This is a wonderful 
opportunity. I am convinced this technology is going to be 
adapted worldwide.
    There will need to be tens of thousands of units 
manufactured. These are the kinds of jobs that the steelworkers 
do. I have worked with the steelworkers over many years. These 
are the kinds of jobs that--of installation that our existing 
trades can do.
    We can do this very quickly. The very fact that most of the 
infrastructure is in place--we have the sewer lines. We have 
the water lines. All we need is that connection of this device 
to pull it out. We can take the existing heating and cooling 
equipment in the building and modify it, leaving the existing 
boilers as backup.
    This is a great new potential that this technology offers 
to the country.
    Mrs. Lee. Thank you. It sounds very exciting. Love to bring 
you out to Las Vegas and introduce you to some of our big 
hotels and see if we can lead the way. I am not--
    Dr. Choate. May I say something?
    Mrs. Lee. Yeah.
    Dr. Choate. The D.C. Water System is a third of a mile from 
the Capitol. I am sure they would be delighted to show you the 
system in operation so you can see what is really possible for 
Las Vegas and other parts of the country.
    Mrs. Lee. Absolutely. Thank you.
    I am over my time, and I yield. Thanks.
    Ms. Kaptur [presiding]. Thank you, Congresswoman Lee.
    We are going to do a special committee meeting up there. I 
don't know how we are going to do it, but I think our 
membership would be astounded to see what is going on, and you 
really see the future. That is for sure.
    I talked to Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton about that. 
And so, Congresswoman Kirkpatrick, thank you for subbing. I 
really do appreciate your efforts.
    Congressman Reschenthaler.
    Mr. Reschenthaler. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate it.
    You know, critical minerals are necessary to manufacture 
everything from cell phones to weapons systems. Additionally, 
some on the left fail to recognize this, but critical minerals 
are also needed to build things like Tesla batteries and even 
wind turbines.
    And, despite having a $6.2 trillion value in our domestic 
critical mineral reserves, we as the United States still rely 
on China for roughly 80 percent of our rare earth elements.
    What makes this even worse is that the Department of the 
Interior and DOD listed 35 minerals as critical. China has 23--
has a leading edge on 23 of the 35 of those minerals. So 
basically 23 out of the 35 critical minerals we need are 
controlled by the Chinese Communist Party.
    At the same time, not only is that a threat to us in terms 
of national security; it is also a threat to the global 
environment, because China emits more greenhouse gases than the 
United States, Japan, and the European Union combined.
    So, given our reliance on Chinese minerals, given the fact 
that China has a horrible record of being good stewards of the 
environment, we need to recognize that any green manufacturing 
policies that we implement in the United States will simply be 
undercut by China's abysmal standards on the environment.
    So, if we are serious about reducing manufacturing--
reducing manufacturing impact on the environment, we have to 
come to the reality that we have got to mine critical minerals 
here in the United States. And, remember, thanks to American 
innovation, the United States currently leads the world in CO2 
emission and reduction. In fact, prior to COVID, we were the 
only Nation--even though we had not--we had gotten out of the 
treaty, we were the only Nation in the Paris Climate Accord to 
actually do anything to reduce CO2 emissions.
    So we can and we should deploy American ingenuity to take 
advantage of our domestic supply chain of critical minerals to 
not only strengthen our industrial base, improve our national 
security, but also to make sure that we are good stewards of 
the global environment.
    So, that said, Dr. Kurfess, in your testimony, you note 
that Oak Ridge National Laboratory's work on green 
manufacturing and advanced battery areas rely heavily on these 
critical minerals. Do you have a recommendation for how this 
subcommittee can facilitate solutions to reduce our Nation's 
reliance on China and their stranglehold on critical minerals, 
in particular how Congress can help cultivate our own domestic 
supply chain?
    Dr. Kurfess. Yes, Congressman. Excellent question.
    And I really think that there are a couple of different 
approaches here. One certainly is to say, you know, how do we 
mine these critical minerals? So a good chunk of them are 
available here in the U.S., but it actually has not been very 
cost effective due to, you know--you know, due to technology 
limitations and so forth. So one of the things that is really 
taking a look at next-generation technology is to allow us to 
mine these and then subsequently really process them, will 
actually give us a very good opportunity to move forward. That 
is one approach to this.
    Still, I think that you do have these rare earth minerals 
and so forth that are difficult to mine, and they are hard to 
process and so forth.
    The other one is really coming up with new designs. And we 
are working very closely with a number of different partners 
both on the battery side as well as, for example, electric 
motors side, where we can eliminate the use of these materials 
in the product.
    And I think, if you do that, all of a sudden, you have a 
tremendous advantage over our international competition, 
because now we can produce those here in the U.S. We can market 
those abroad. And number one is we are no longer relying on the 
foreign supply, for example, from China.
    And, number two, we are also meeting a lot of the standards 
that we are seeing other nations are also putting forward. So 
it is going to allow us to mine things and process things using 
the latest technology, but number two is figure out how we 
substitute if we don't make use of those types of materials.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Reschenthaler. Thank you. No, thank you.
    And, Ms. Brown, in your testimony, you said--and I quote--
''we must invest in, expand, and refocus existing DOE energy 
and manufacturing loan programs to establish strength, domestic 
clean technology manufacturing and supply chains.''
    Do you believe that USW believes that critical minerals 
should--and the supply chain of critical minerals should be 
included in these efforts?
    Ms. Brown. Absolutely. I will keep it very short and just 
say absolutely. And, in fact, in 2019, we held a summit on 
sustainable mining with our union, a handful of environmental 
organizations, and a large global miner, Rio Tinto, to talk 
exactly about this. And we have been heavily engaged in this 
work since then, because we need critical materials, as you 
pointed out.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Reschenthaler. Okay. Thanks, Ms. Brown. I appreciate 
it.
    And thanks, Dr. Kurfess.
    With that, Madam Chair, I yield back, and thank you.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. Very good. And I think it would be 
useful to submit those--the names of those minerals and 
substances to the record, Congressman, and let's get DOE to 
respond a little more thoroughly, okay? With me on that?
    Mr. Reschenthaler. Yes. Yes, Madam Chair. I will get you 
those for the record. Thank you.
    Ms. Kaptur. All right. Very good. Thank you. Thank you so 
very much.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
       
    I think Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz is next.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Brown, I want to thank you for raising the often 
overlooked issue of carbon leakage. I really believe, in many 
cases, offshoring emissions has gone hand-in-hand with the 
offshoring of manufacturing jobs to countries with weaker labor 
standards.
    Ms. Brown. Uh-huh.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So we need to not only create 
manufacturing jobs here in America, but we also need to make 
sure that they are clean manufacturing jobs that we create here 
in America. And I know that is possible.
    So, if you or anyone else on the panel can chime in as 
well, can you talk about this relationship? And how can we stop 
carbon-intensive activities from being offshored rather than 
being actually mitigated?
    Ms. Brown. I think it really boils down to investment, and 
I think, you know, I am--I am heartened to be a part of this 
panel, because I think, to a person, the theme--the two key 
themes are investment and innovation. And, you know, I think, 
if we focused all of our collective efforts in those two 
places, then that will, without question, lead to the 
competitiveness of domestic industry so that it could--it 
could, you know, prevent that leakage to other nations.
    But this is where it is critical to have the programs that 
DOE operates in terms of low-cost loans and grants and other 
funding mechanisms to make it affordable for domestic industry, 
again, especially small and medium-sized facilities and 
industries, to be able to make those investments.
    If the investments don't have--happen, industry will not be 
here, because clearly we are transitioning. And, if it is not 
profitable for them to ultimately do business here because they 
haven't been able to reduce or decarbonize their facilities as 
we move into this regime, you know, survival is not there.
    And so those are the two areas that I would say as we focus 
on investment and innovation for domestic industry.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. It sounds like you are saying it is 
really three Is, investment, innovation, and incentives?
    Ms. Brown. That is right. That is right.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. So----
    Dr. Choate. May I--may I add another----
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Yes, please.
    Dr. Choate [continuing]. Element to that?
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Yes, please.
    Mr. Choate. Basically what we are doing is we are competing 
with the government of China, as such. American industry, when 
they compete with China, it is not a Chinese company. They are 
competing with the Chinese government.
    What we require, I believe, is a national overarching 
policy, for example, on advanced technology products. Last 
year, we ran 192 [inaudible] And 500 advanced technology 
products. The preponderance of that came from China. When you 
take a look last year at trade--global trade in advanced 
technology products, China exported more than $600 billion. We 
were fifth in the world at $171 billion.
    Now, the Chinese engaged in the strategic policy to control 
not only the rare earths, the 17 rare earths; they had a 
strategic policy to control key technology, such as 
semiconductors.
    What we need is an across-the-board advanced technology 
product agenda. We need to be in a position where we simply 
say, if you are going to sell advanced technology products, 
particularly the critical ones, that you are going to make them 
in the United States--it really doesn't matter who owns the 
company, but you must have 100 percent of local content. So you 
have got the R&D, you are training the workers, and ideally you 
would have at least two suppliers in that.
    So we do that, we link it with our universities, we link it 
with our research, and we have a holistic--whole-of-government 
approach. The difficulty that we have now is we have a trade 
policy that doesn't recognize this, and we have a policy, as we 
are dealing with it in bits and drabs here and there in various 
departments. We need the whole-of-the-government approach and a 
whole-of-the-government strategy on advanced technology 
products. It will create hundreds of thousands of new jobs in 
the process and better secure our national security.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. And, in my final 30 
seconds, I want to just ask Dr. Kurfess: Given the life cycle 
emissions for solar and wind are far lower than coal and fossil 
fuels, manufacturing clean energy source technologies like PV 
panels still generates some emissions. The National Renewable 
Energy Laboratory found that 60 to 70 percent of those solar 
panels' life cycle emissions come from upstream processes like 
extraction--materials extraction and manufacturing.
    How can we reduce these upstream emissions, and what kind 
of R&D is already out there looking at this challenge?
    Dr. Kurfess. So, in terms of reducing it, really we do see 
it--we do see a lot of carbon capture techniques or 
capabilities that we are developing here at Oak Ridge and at 
some of our other national laboratories to ensure that, as you 
are producing something, that you are capturing the carbon, you 
are actually recycling the carbon, sequestering the carbon. So 
there is a lot of good work there.
    The other thing, of course, is that, as we look at really 
improving the capability of these solar panels, for example, or 
the wind turbines, for example, their lifetime expands further 
out. So, if I double my lifetime, really the carbon impact is 
50 percent. It really reduces it down.
    So improved product, as well as processes that are low 
carbon emission, and actually capturing that carbon would be 
a--I mean, a great way to go, and this is the direction that we 
are moving. So thank you.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you so much.
    Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much, Congresswoman Wasserman 
Schultz.
    And I hope that our witnesses will provide to the record, 
Dr. Choate, the various trade accounts that you referenced in 
your answer to Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz where you feel 
that, in terms of advanced technologies, that we are falling 
behind.
    And then I wanted to ask Ms. Brown if she could provide to 
the record--she is not appearing on my screen right now. I hope 
she is there----
    Ms. Brown. I am here.
    Ms. Kaptur. Okay. You mentioned in our opening remarks an 
infrastructure bank. I am very interested in your submitting to 
the record how you think that should be structured.
    We have loan programs at the Department of Energy and so 
forth, and I will be honest with you. I have been reflecting a 
lot on the role of the Department of Energy in helping to 
finance some of what we are doing going forward. So I would be 
interested in reading that proposal, and I know our members 
would as well.
    We are going to now go to Congresswoman Frankel of Florida.
    Ms. Frankel. Hello, everybody. Thank you, Madam Chair. 
Thank you to the panel.
    This--my question is sort of a follow-up to yours, Madam 
Chair. Since we are the funding committee, Appropriations 
subcommittee, I would like to ask each of you if you could, you 
know, give me your priorities of where--of what we should fund. 
Where should we put our money, the United States Congress?
    Who would like to start?
    Dr. Kurfess. I will keep going. I will be fairly quick 
about it. I mean, the bottom line there, our facilities like 
the manufacturing demonstration facility, where we could take 
next-generation or newest-generation technology, really scale 
it up--so we are talking benchtop type of capabilities and so 
forth, scale it up for use not only as--and, again, you know, 
Ms. Brown continues to hit this on--the nail on the head. Not 
only for the big companies, but also for the small, medium-
sized enterprises that are really the backbone of 
manufacturing.
    So the ability--I mean, invest in facilities like this that 
really reach out, and provide us with the funding that allows 
us to engage our key industry sectors and move them forward. 
That would be a really critical opportunity and a great 
opportunity, not only for Oak Ridge, but for all of the 
national labs and a lot of our government entities out there.
    Thank you.
    Ms. Frankel. So, just to follow up on that, would that be 
through a grant process, a direct appropriation? What are you 
recommending?
    Dr. Kurfess. So--and it is a great question.
    One of the ways that we fund our partnerships with 
industry--now, there are some that are direct grants that say, 
yes, we really need to work in this area. This is important for 
the Nation, and move it forward.
    The other way is a company will come to us and say, Hey, we 
are moving forward in certain technologies. So you see the big 
3D printer behind me. That was with Lincoln Electric. That is a 
CRADA, cooperative research and development agreement. And we 
have funding--if Lincoln says, We are going to work on this, 
they put in--they send us a system and so forth, and that is 
part of their cost sharing, their engineering is cost shared, 
Department of Energy matches it dollar for dollar to fund us to 
work with them.
    They supply about 80 percent of their technical know-how, 
but we have got 20 percent of some unbelievable technical know-
how that they just don't have, and so we can apply that, really 
derisk it for them, and help them to move it forward.
    This gives us flexibility to meet what industry and what 
U.S. industry is looking to--you know, looking to grow in. So 
that--there are a couple of different avenues there.
    One is, you know, where does the government like us--want 
us to go? The other one is really what is industry voting for 
with their wallet and signing CRADAs with us?
    Thank you.
    Ms. Frankel. Thank you.
    Ms. Brown, do you have a recommendation?
    Ms. Brown. Sure. You are--it was already mentioned that it 
would be great to have an infrastructure bank, and that is 
something that we think would be wholly beneficial to domestic 
manufacturers, but two other areas.
    I mentioned before carbon capture and storage, as well as 
DAC, direct air capture. Those are two technologies that are 
very clear would be very beneficial to industries like steel 
and cement and fertilizers and refining in the United States. 
So I think funding more direct loans or grants through DOE to 
help get that stuff off the ground and at a deployable scale 
would be tremendously beneficial.
    But that is also, you know, just one piece of it. We have 
the 45Q tax credit that was expanded.
    We also really need to fund building out the infrastructure 
for carbon capture. That has not been done to a sufficient 
level. And I keep thinking in my mind--because there are no 
domestic producers, especially in the steel industry, that are 
using carbon capture technology, and I keep thinking in my mind 
that, if we build it, they will come, right?
    And so we have the tax credit that tries to attract. We 
have these programs at the Department of Energy that would seek 
to, you know, fund a little bit of this technology some more, 
but we also need to have the infrastructure built out 
throughout the country to actually move the carbon that is 
sequestered through this technology.
    So I feel, if we build it and we fund, you know, these core 
pieces, then industry will look to these technologies as 
viable, because right now, they don't.
    Ms. Frankel. Thank you.
    Dr. Choate.
    Dr. Choate. Well, I would say--I would look for some basic 
opportunities that can immediately move to create jobs.
    First, I would recommend doing a national energy capital 
budget, where you go to the cities and you find out what kinds 
of energy projects that they have, where there are deficits, 
and then lay out a plan to deal with that.
    I would recommend going with heat capture. This is a brand-
new technology. It is commercialized. It is ready. I would work 
with cities to try to reduce their carbon emissions 20, 30 
percent. I would design a program around an infrastructure bank 
to deal with that. I would invest moneys in new materials to 
move those forward.
    Those are some of the things that I think fall within your 
purview.
    Ms. Frankel. Thank you.
    I yield back, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Kaptur. Sorry about that. I can never put the arrow 
exactly where it goes yet on the screen.
    I will mention to the guests, our witnesses, that 
Congresswoman Frankel is a former mayor, so I watched her 
listen to those answers very, very carefully.
    And I will just inform the panelists that I represent a lot 
of refineries, and nobody has reached out from anywhere to try 
to help us capture what is being emitted other than through EPA 
regulations. So, if there is no technology out there, it hasn't 
arrived where I live, and I doubt that it has arrived in 
adjacent States that also have a lot of refineries.
    All right. Now, let's see. Who is next here? We are at 
Congresswoman Bustos, please.
    Mrs. Bustos. All right. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    I really appreciate you holding this hearing. You are doing 
a wonderful job of really enlightening us on so many important 
issues as it pertains to energy and water. And I want to thank 
our witnesses for testifying also today.
    Today is a pretty important day from my perspective in that 
Congressman Veasey and McKinley and I introduced the 
bipartisan--always love being able to say that--bill called the 
Storing CO2 and Lowering Emissions Act. And, because we like 
acronyms, we call it the SCALE Act.
    And what it would do--this flows perfectly into this 
discussion that we are having around Lois Frankel's question 
that she just asked. It would make critical infrastructure 
investments in carbon capture and storage so we can have net 
zero emission--an economy driven by that.
    So the SCALE Act is estimated to directly and indirectly 
create nearly 13,000 jobs per year over each of the next 5 
years. And I am from the State of Illinois. We in our State 
would be fourth in the Nation in terms of new jobs created as a 
result of this legislation. That is why I am pretty excited 
about it.
    So, Ms. Brown, I have a question for you. You started 
hinting at this just a little bit with Lois Frankel's question, 
but can you speak to the benefits that the SCALE Act would have 
in terms of jobs for steelworkers?
    And, specifically, I would like to learn more about the 
indirect impact this legislation--of this legislation from your 
perspective when it comes to things like feeder lines and 
facilities that would be associated with a large-scale 
transport infrastructure system?
    Ms. Brown. Definitely. And thank you so much for the 
question, Congresswoman.
    I think, again, this is an extension of what we were just 
talking about before about building out the infrastructure to 
support technologies like carbon capture. And, you know, right 
now, it is completely absent. And we are strong supporters of 
the SCALE Act, so we really appreciate your leadership there.
    For our union, I think the jobs benefit would be in a few 
places. We are the steelworkers. We make steel pipe. And there 
would be a tremendous potential benefit to steelworker jobs in 
the United States who are making domestic steel pipe to 
actually have their products used in the infrastructure to 
build out this--these carbon pipelines. So that is one.
    But, in terms of constructing the pipeline itself, you 
know, you mentioned the trunk--trunkline. That would be roughly 
between 1,200 to 1,500 jobs. Rhodium recently did a study that 
really broke down the jobs numbers associated with scaling out, 
not to--no pun intended--the carbon infrastructure, and that 
was one of the projected job numbers that they put out there. 
In terms of the operation jobs of the trunkline, it would be 
between 8 and 20. The feeder lines would be about 200 to 370 
jobs in terms of getting that going.
    The steel, you know, in terms of the steel mills and carbon 
capture, the jobs that would be associated with creating a 
carbon capture system at a steel mill would be about 3,000.
    So there are huge opportunities kind of directly and 
indirectly in terms of the actual construction, the downstream 
in terms of the manufacture of the pipe, but then also the 
operation of the system once it is up and running.
    Mrs. Bustos. Yeah. That is significant, great to hear. And 
anytime we can create union jobs, we are all in. So we are 
excited about that.
    I think I have time to ask, and we will get an answer in 
the remaining time, but the Energy Act that obviously passed 
and was signed into law at the end of last year, it authorized 
$775 million for demonstrations, pilots, front-end engineering 
and design studies, and to deploying carbon capture at power 
and industrial facilities.
    In the congressional district that I represent, we have 
seven biofuel refineries that are scattered in and around our 
congressional district. So, for the broader group, how do you 
see these robust investments in retrofitting some of our 
industrial facilities like steel mills and ethanol refineries, 
bolstering our domestic manufacturing capacity?
    And if you could talk about how that would affect job 
retention and creation.
    And, again, this could be for the broader group.
    How about if I call on Tom Kurfess.
    Dr. Kurfess. Sure. I was just about to--I was just about to 
hit my unmute button there.
    So, I mean, I think basically what this does, once again, 
is it makes us more competitive, because the bottom line is we 
see new technology and so forth, and the way that the--the way 
that we could really move forward on this is, again, to 
leverage the capability of places like the national labs that 
really do have centralized R&D capability, again, hub and 
spoke.
    Let--you know, let us work with our industry partners. We 
are not going to work in a vacuum. We are working together to 
make this, see and understand what works. And then let's get it 
out to the spokes to make sure it is being utilized accordingly 
and so forth.
    And then also continues in terms of what should the new 
materials be, how do we want to refine it? You know, part of my 
operation is all in the chemical processing side and the 
petrochemicals side, and so a lot of the biofuels. So there is 
a lot of work that could be done there to really help it move 
forward, including things like sensors.
    We could measure some of the quantities--people said, Well, 
we just don't quite know what we should be looking for, how to 
do it. Once we can start to measure it--it is like your O2 
sensor on your car. Once we have that thing working and we 
figured that one out, we can do a lot of things in terms of 
emissions control and so forth.
    So just a better understanding of what we have, leveraging 
our really powerful national lab and university system to 
really move this forward, let us take some of the heavy lift 
out of it so we can move some of these facilities forward.
    Mrs. Bustos. As much as I would love to hear other people 
respond to this, my time is up, and I will yield back, Madam 
Speaker--Madam Chair.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much, Congresswoman Bustos, and 
congratulations on introducing your bill. And I know many of us 
will want to get on to that. I hope all of us.
    And, as I listen to your concerns and I listen to many 
members, as I listen to these brilliant witnesses, I am saying 
to myself: Some of this is going to be done by public 
financing. Some is going to be done by private financing. Some 
is going to be done by joint capability. And what is the role 
of the Department of Energy in all of this?
    And, as we think about a green infrastructure bank, we 
think about infrastructure banks, there is climate banks. There 
are so many different proposals out there. I hope that our 
witnesses and our members are thinking: What is the role of the 
Department of Energy as a partner in financing some of these 
new technologies, where we have technical expertise and not 
just accounting expertise?
    And so start thinking hard about what this looks like as we 
move forward with Build Back Better.
    All right. We are going to go to Congresswoman Watson 
Coleman. I understand there is a photo that Congresswoman 
Speier is planning for those of us who just voted on the Equal 
Rights Amendment, and I am not quite sure where it is. But I 
just want to inform those listening.
    Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Mrs. Bustos. It is on the steps, just so you know.
    Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. And 
thank you to the witnesses.
    An advantage to being one of the last questioners is that 
you get to learn a lot, but your questions also get to be 
asked.
    But let me turn your attention to just sort of jobs in 
general. Dr. Kurfess and Mr. Cortes in particular, both spoke 
to the fact that there were jobs available. Mr. Cortes, you 
spoke to that in terms of your industry. And, Mr. Kurfess, you 
talked--Dr. Kurfess, you talked about it in terms of 
manufacturing industry in general.
    I am interested in knowing what kind of jobs we are talking 
about. What kind of experience, what kind of education and 
training are we looking for, for people to fill these jobs? So 
if you could just tell me quickly some of the categories of 
jobs.
    Mr. Cortes. Sure. Absolutely.
    So, with respect to our industry, the types of jobs are 
very vast. So all the way from scientists and engineers and 
individuals doing R&D all the way to the implementation of the 
product through into manufacturing. And then, as far as beyond 
that, even into installation.
    So we have well over a hundred refueling stations across 
the country with our customers, and those installations 
require, you know, trades and mill rights and electricians and 
folks that actually know how to install the equipment.
    Now, we have actually utilized quite a bit of individuals 
from the oil and gas industry who are trying to look at how 
they can make a change from their current industry that they 
are working into, into a clean energy environment. So we are 
creating many green-collar jobs, but----
    Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you.
    Mr. Cortes. But, you know, the vastness of what we can 
provide in terms of, you know, all of that expertise, but also 
the--you know, the high-tech positions as well in terms of the 
development and the R&D is really important to us, so we are 
looking for those new positions----
    Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you.
    Mr. Cortes [continuing]. That I mentioned before. You know, 
they are very vast.
    Mrs. Watson Coleman. Let me just ask you really quickly in 
your experience in observing diversity, both women and 
minorities, in these jobs that you all apparently pay decent 
salaries for.
    Mr. Cortes. Yes.
    Mrs. Watson Coleman. And it is very important.
    Mr. Cortes. Yes. So, from a diversity standpoint, that is 
something that we are very, very attuned to, and we continue to 
look across the country to find skilled labor and a diverse 
workforce.
    We currently have plans in place to continue to look for 
that. We have been pretty successful. We have hired quite a few 
women engineers and minorities in the field, and we are going 
to continue to look forward.
    Mrs. Watson Coleman. Right. Do you have a relationship with 
the Historically Black Universities and Colleges when you are 
recruiting?
    Mr. Cortes. We don't, but it is an interesting question 
that you ask. In my role as the chief technology officer, one 
of the things that I want to focus on this year is our 
relationships with universities. And part of that is finding--
--
    Mrs. Watson Coleman. Good.
    Mr. Cortes [continuing]. Universities, you know, from a 
representation standpoint in coordination with the technology. 
So those two things marry together. How do we take advantage of 
universities in the technology sectors that we are in, and also 
look at those, you know, diverse universities that we can pull 
from.
    Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you.
    Dr. Kurfess, same kind of questions for you.
    Dr. Kurfess. Sure. So, you know, I mean, I think, if you 
take a look at it, one of the things that we are going to look 
at in the industrial sector is a lot of good technically savvy.
    What is interesting is really, you know, you don't have to 
be a math or science guru or genius to really know what is 
important in terms of what you want to do. You need to be 
technically savvy. So, you know, even these kids that are not 
focusing on the technical area, if they understand how to use a 
tablet and a smartphone, they have all done a little bit of 
programming in Arduino and so forth.
    Mrs. Watson Coleman. Uh-huh.
    Dr. Kurfess. They are good to go. And so we are working 
with--and, in fact, we actually--we work with the team over at 
University of Tennessee Knoxville, where they just put out some 
free courses, hey, here is how you would take your current 
skills set and morph them over into something that a machine 
shop might use. And so that has worked out really well.
    Mrs. Watson Coleman. Yeah.
    Dr. Kurfess. In terms of the HBCUs, we actually work--and 
all of the national labs. I have to say we have a lot of 
integration there and so forth. We all work very closely with 
the HBCUs to help move them forward and really get them going a 
lot.
    Our recruiting efforts, of course we really do focus on the 
underrepresented groups. We have--I have to say we have some 
tremendous young female engineers. And it turns out that they 
are some of our best spokespeople out there. They have--they 
are out there doing podcasts and so forth. And so we are 
working with some of the different societies.
    We have got Amy the Engineer. She is one of the people on 
my staff, and the kids love her out there, and she is really 
being a role model, you know, for the kids out there. I see 
great engagement.
    Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you. I just have a really quick 
question for Dr. Choate. I just dropped my tablet, so here 
goes.
    I am really interested in this extraction of energy from 
wastewater, and even the use of the water to use for air 
conditioning and other purposes.
    What stands between having this and not having this? Is 
this something that we as a Federal Government ought to be 
investing in and making possible?
    Dr. Choate? Maybe I lost him?
    Dr. Choate. I am here. I am sorry.
    Mrs. Watson Coleman. Madam Chair----
    Dr. Choate. Yes. Can you hear me now, Congresswoman?
    Mrs. Watson Coleman. I can, yes. I am really interested in 
that whole issue of extracting energy from wastewater and just 
repurposing any kind of waste that we have, but what you talked 
about was very interesting to me.
    How do we make this happen?
    Dr. Choate. Well, first of all, the technology is 
developed. There is a company in Canada that is installing it 
in various places in Canada and the United States.
    What we need is to scale that up dramatically. The cost 
savings to cities are phenomenal. I would suggest that perhaps 
you and Ms. Kaptur could go out to the D.C. Water and see a 
demonstration of it.
    From that point on, I earlier gave some suggestions on how 
to finance this thing. I think that this can be a type of 
technology where massive amounts of private money can be 
brought in and where only a small amount of Federal money is 
necessary to be brought in, and the savings is--are phenomenal 
on the freshwater.
    The whole question of freshwater conservation is going to 
be increasingly important, but this is technology that gets you 
to net-zero emissions immediately on your heating and air 
conditioning. I think--
    Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you.
    Dr. Choate [continuing]. It should be a priority.
    Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you. I do as well.
    And, if I had a chance to ask--to talk to Ms. Brown, I 
would remind her that the city of Trenton is the capital of the 
State of New Jersey and where the--where Roebling factories 
were--we made iron. We made steel. We made pottery. We made 
everything. And I just would love to make sure that my capital 
city becomes a positive target for reinventing itself in this 
new clean energy field.
    Thank you. I yield back, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much, Congresswoman Watson 
Coleman.
    I wanted to ask a question myself. And I offer the panel or 
committee a chance to go up to D.C. Water. I talked to 
Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton last week, and she has been 
up there, but she agreed to join us at such time as we would 
want to go together if members have a deep interest in that. I 
really do think it is worth the effort.
    I am worried about the financing of everything as we move 
into a infrastructure bill, and I am thinking about our 
subcommittee's work and how we include some provisions in that 
bill to advance these technologies that we are talking about on 
the clean energy front.
    And I wanted to ask Dr. Choate and anyone who wishes to 
comment if they could provide some historical context about how 
places like the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Appalachian 
Regional Commission, the power marketing authorities in the 
west have fueled a generation of industrial growth and 
community growth in those regions of the country, and most of 
those instrumentalities come under our subcommittee.
    So the question really is: Can you--as I look at my region, 
the Great Lakes, we don't have anything like that, and we have 
got massive problems with nuclear power plants that are failing 
because of natural gas competition. We have got automotive and 
heavy truck and U.S. Army tank operations that are huge energy 
users. And we don't have the competitive energy rates, plus we 
have the problem of base power load being threatened on the 
nuclear front because of natural gas competition.
    So it is very complicated and very difficult to figure out 
how you get yourself out of this cobweb, so--and go forward. So 
I wanted to ask about these other instrumentalities and what we 
can learn.
    And, Dr. Kurfess, you live there in the Tennessee area. You 
might want to comment as well as we try to embed some of our 
thinking in the infrastructure bill that is moving forward on 
behalf of our energy Appropriations Committee.
    Dr. Choate, and then Dr. Kurfess.
    Dr. Choate. Well, just as background, when I was working 
for the State of Tennessee, I was the representative for the 
Ozarks Commission, a commission forum.
    And then, when I was commissioner of development for the 
State of Tennessee, I was the Representative for the State for 
Appalachia and worked closely with the Tennessee Valley 
Authority.
    I think, as you go to the future, the TVA is the model to 
go with, because it has an independent authority. It has 
significant funds. It has operational capacity.
    I would use the regional commission, such as the Crescent 
Commission, the Border Commission, et cetera. I would take the 
organizational structure and use it. The organizational 
structure there is the president appoints a co-chair, and then 
the involved governors appoint a co-chair.
    I would have a professional staff, as the Appalachian 
Commission has. And I would have within the bounds of those 
regions a development of long, forward-looking capital budgets, 
education policies that blend what the Federal Government and 
the State governments are doing, and then add supplemental 
funding, because more than what the country needs as a whole, 
those regions require--the Great Lakes has a special 
obligation. Those eight States are the trustees for 90-plus 
percent of freshwater. And dealing with it by individual States 
or just by EPA alone cannot really safeguard and clean up.
    Now, in your region, you have major problems with 
transitioning with the older nuclear plants. A plan is going to 
be needed there. It needs to be a regional plan.
    So my suggestion would be to have TVA-type authorities and 
have a commission form of governance, have joint capital 
budgets with the State and the Federal Government and with the 
Federal agencies, and bring real focus to what you are 
undertaking.
    Ms. Kaptur. Dr. Kurfess.
    Thank you, Dr. Choate.
    Dr. Kurfess.
    Dr. Kurfess. So I think Dr. Choate just made some very good 
points on some of the policy sides.
    The other thing I would really take a look at are really 
what are some of the next generation of energy capability? So 
you have mentioned, Congresswoman, some of these big nuclear 
power plants, and of course they are very centralized, and that 
does put a lot of stress on the grid right by that plant 
because it is trying to get all of that power, all of that 
energy out.
    So some of the work that is happening, for example, in 
solar and wind, where it is more distributed over a broader 
area is very critical. And so I think that this is really a 
very good opportunity to try and distribute it so now you are 
not loading up your grid as much, and that helps out with the 
grid.
    Of course the other problem--people do say this--the wind 
isn't blowing all the time. The sun isn't shining all the time. 
So, somehow or other, we have to be able to store that energy 
so we can use it a little bit later on.
    So, there, we would actually take a look at--so, there, we 
would actually take a look at some of the battery technology 
that can store the energy for use later and try and level it 
out.
    The other one that is really very exciting is the small 
modular reactor. So these are reactors that are using--and, in 
many cases, are using things like 3D printing and so forth that 
allow us to build a whole next generation of reactor that might 
be on a 3 megawatt level and so forth, that can be used just to 
power just a neighborhood.
    So, again, these can be distributed around. You have a much 
more robust system, and it also just locally helps to keep that 
cost of energy at a fairly level and ultimately lower--you 
know, lower price level so you don't worry about some of these 
big spikes in energy when you have spikes in cost and fuel 
costs and so forth.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Brown, did you have any comment on that based on what 
you have said about the steel industry and your associated 
companies?
    Ms. Brown. No, I think both Mr. Kurfess and Dr. Choate had 
really good responses. Thank you. Thank you, Chairwoman.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much.
    I think Ms. Lee, Congresswoman Lee? She is no longer on. I 
understand that Congressman Simpson has no questions.
    Is that correct, Ranking Member? Are you there?
    Mr. Simpson. Yes. That is correct.
    Ms. Kaptur. All right.
    Mr. Simpson. Very interesting panel. They have been great 
to listen to.
    Ms. Kaptur. All right. Hasn't it been an outstanding panel? 
I would agree. We are just glad you are Americans, and we are 
glad to be pulling with you.
    We will leave the record open to further answer the 
questions that we have.
    I want to thank our staff, Jaime Shimek and Scott McKee and 
all those who have helped us put this together today, Matt 
Kaplan, and obviously on the minority side, Angie Giancarlo.
    So officially this concludes the afternoon's hearing. I 
would like to thank all of our witnesses for joining us today. 
I ask the witnesses to please ensure for the hearing record 
that questions for the record and any supporting information 
requested by the subcommittee are delivered in final form to us 
no later than 3 weeks from the time that you receive them.
    Members who have additional questions for the record will 
have until the close of business on Monday to provide them to 
the subcommittee office.
    At this moment the hearing is adjourned, and I thank you 
all.
    [Questions and answers submitted for the record follow:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
       

                                               Monday, May 3, 2021.

                              MEMBERS' DAY

    Ms. Kaptur. This hearing will come to order. As this 
hearing is fully virtual, we must address a few housekeeping 
matters. For today's meeting, the chair, or staff designated by 
the chair, may mute participants' microphones when they are not 
under recognition for the purposes of eliminating inadvertent 
background noise.
    Members are responsible for muting and unmuting themselves. 
If I notice that you have not unmuted yourself, I will ask you 
if you would like the staff to unmute you. If you indicate 
approval by nodding, staff will unmute your microphone.
    I remind all members that you will have 5 minutes for your 
oral testimony, and we welcome you warmly. If there is a 
technology issue, we will move to the next member until the 
issue is resolved, and you will retain the balance of your 
time.
    You will notice a clock on your screen that will show how 
much time is remaining. At 1 minute remaining, the clock will 
turn to yellow. At 30 seconds remaining, I will gently tap the 
gavel to remind members that your time is almost expired. And 
when your time has expired, the clock will turn red, and I will 
begin to recognize the next member. In terms of the speaking 
order, we will follow the predetermined order that has been 
provided to your offices, beginning with the chair and ranking 
members' brief opening remarks. We will then turn to the 
Members present at the time the hearing is called to order, who 
will be recognized according to the schedule and move forward 
from there.
    Finally, House rules require me to remind you that we have 
set up an email address to which Members can send anything they 
wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings or markups, 
and that email address has been provided in advance to your 
staff.
    I now recognize myself for up to 5 minutes for my opening 
statement which will not take 5 minutes. The subcommittee will 
come to order, as we begin our Member Day hearing. Thank you to 
all of our colleagues who will come before us today. We 
appreciate the time you have taken to be here today and your 
desire to serve your district and Nation.
    The purpose of today's hearing is to take testimony from 
Members on the fiscal year 2022 budget, and we look forward to 
hearing from our attendees about your priorities, including 
Federal programs of importance to your districts. There are 
several who couldn't be here who have submitted testimony for 
the record.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
       
    Today we will hear from our colleague in 10-minute blocks, 
with two Members scheduled for each time block. Each Member 
will have 5 minutes to testify, and with that, I will turn to 
our esteemed ranking member, Mr. Simpson of Idaho, for his 
opening remarks.
    Mr. Simpson. Well, thank you, Chairwoman Kaptur. I 
appreciate the opportunity to be here today. I don't really 
have an opening statement. I am here to listen to our fellow 
colleagues about their priorities in the Energy and Water 
Appropriation Committee, and I think it is important that we 
hear from them in person.
    So I appreciate the opportunity to be here and listen to 
them. Mostly what I am going to be doing today is listening 
more than asking questions. So thanks for putting this 
together. I look forward to working with all of our colleagues 
as we get into the 2022, I guess it is, appropriations cycle 
this year. Thank you.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. Thank you very much, Ranking Member 
Simpson.
    And now we would like to invite Representative Frank Mrvan 
from the greater Gary, Indiana, region of the country, and then 
subsequent to his remarks, we will hear from Representative Kim 
Schrier from the State of Washington. We welcome both of you.
                              ----------                              --
--------

                                               Monday, May 3, 2021.

                                WITNESS

HON. FRANK J. MRVAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 
    INDIANA
    Mr. Mrvan. Good afternoon. I would like to thank Chairwoman 
Kaptur and Ranking Member Simpson for holding today's Member 
Day hearing. I appreciate the opportunity to engage with all 
members of this subcommittee and advocate for the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers projects that are essential to strengthening 
the economy of northwest Indiana, the entire Midwest, and our 
Nation.
    I have the great honor and privilege of representing 
Indiana's First Congressional District, following in the 
footsteps of my mentor and friend, Chairman Pete Visclosky. Our 
district is at the center of vital road, rail, air, and port 
networks, and home to major manufacturing industries.
    This infrastructure, coupled with our incredible workforce 
and adjacency to the great city of Chicago, enables our region 
to continue to attract new businesses and talent.
    Northwest Indiana is proud to have the largest 
concentration of steel production, and the largest inland oil 
refinery in our country. These industries foster economic 
activity and provide good-paying union jobs to thousands of 
workers in my district.
    From maintaining the Federal navigation depths of our 
commercial harbors to ensuring northwest Indiana residents have 
clean drinking water, the Chicago district of the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers is a true hero and unparalleled, 
longstanding partner when it comes to facilitating economic 
development and promoting environmental stewardship in 
northwest Indiana.
    Chairman Visclosky would often state that the U.S. Corps of 
Engineers' projects serve as an economic driver in Indiana's 
First Congressional District, and I agree wholeheartedly.
    I appreciate that Community Project Funding is an important 
step in reasserting the constitutional prerogatives of the 
legislative branch, and I fully understand the importance of 
the subcommittee to thoughtfully scrutinize Member requests.
    I believe it is critical that we exercise our 
constitutional authority to direct funding to our districts, 
and it is incumbent for us to submit scrutinized project 
requests that are beyond reproach and focused on the criteria 
set forth in this subcommittee.
    For the First District of Indiana, I would note, in the 
interest of time, that the subcommittee has my written 
testimony and additional community supporting material. And 
should you need any other information or material, please do 
not hesitate to let me know.
    But in short, I have asked this subcommittee to appropriate 
Community Project Funding to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
construction account for the specific purpose of undertaking 
environmental infrastructure projects in the Calumet region, 
funding to complete the Corps' construction activities of the 
Confined Disposal Facility and assist the Indiana Harbor and 
funding for the Corps' operation and maintenance activities in 
Burns Waterway Harbor.
    In closing, I would like to, again, take a moment to 
recognize my predecessor, Chairman Pete Visclosky, who served 
on this subcommittee with distinction for many years. Mr. 
Visclosky showed myself and northwest Indiana the incredible 
value of the House Appropriations Committee and what 
responsible Federal investments can do to transform local 
communities.
    Chairwoman Kaptur, Ranking Member Simpson, and all members 
of the subcommittee, I look forward to building on Congressman 
Visclosky's most positive legacy in developing a strong 
relationship with all of you so that we may work in a 
collaborative and productive manner to deliver for northwest 
Indiana and all the American people. I thank you once again for 
the opportunity to testify today. Thank you.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
        
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much. Thank you for your respect 
of the time limit as well.
    Congresswoman Schrier.
                              ----------                              --
--------

                                               Monday, May 3, 2021.

                                WITNESS

HON. KIM SCHRIER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 
    WASHINGTON
    Ms. Schrier. Thank you, Chairwoman Kaptur and Ranking 
Member Simpson, for allowing me this opportunity to testify 
today about my priorities as Representative of Washington's 
Eighth Congressional District.
    The Eighth District is vast, stretching from the suburbs of 
Seattle in the west, over the hayfields of Kittitas County, and 
onto the sun-drenched banks of the Columbia River in the east.
    Washington State is the Nation's largest producer of 
hydroelectric power, and much of that is generated by publicly 
owned utilities in my district.
    But water doesn't just power our cities. Water flowing 
through an innovative network of reservoirs and canals has 
allowed abundant orchards and our grain fields to flourish in 
the dry central Washington climate, and the food grown here 
feeds the world and supports rural communities at home.
    So today I ask the committee to support programs that help 
my constituents make use of water in efficient, environmentally 
sound, and productive ways. So I am submitting a longer letter 
to address all of these priorities in some detail, but I would 
like to highlight just a few for you today. First, I urge the 
committee to continue its support for Yakima Basin Integrated 
Plan. This plan was developed by State, local, and Tribal 
authorities, as well as irrigators and environmental advocates. 
And the goal is ambitious--to provide enough water for fish, 
farmers, and the Yakima Basin communities to thrive well into 
the future in the face of a changing climate.
    The first phase of the plan built on the Bureau of 
Reclamation's Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Program was 
authorized by Congress in 2019. The State of Washington has 
spent $244 million since 2013 on projects related to the plan.
    The State and the Yakima River Basin water users contribute 
a minimum 50 percent of the overall cost to implement the plan. 
So more Federal investment is needed to balance this local 
commitment.
    We do not yet know the President's budget request for the 
Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project and whether 
critical priority projects are included in that request, but it 
is my hope that this committee will work with the President and 
local stakeholders to ensure these efforts are fully funded. I 
also ask this committee to support full funding for two 
important hydropower incentive programs within the U.S. 
Department of Energy's Water Power Technologies Office and 
established through the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
    Section 242 created a hydropower production incentive 
program to spur new development on existing infrastructure, for 
example, adding power generation to already existing nonpowered 
dams and conduits. I urge the committee to provide $10 million 
in annual appropriations for the purposes of section 242.
    Section 243 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 created a 
program to encourage efficiency improvements at existing 
hydropower facilities by providing incentive payments of up to 
10 percent of the cost of capital improvement, up to $750,000 
for a single facility.
    The public utility districts in Washington State are 
constantly working to improve productivity and efficiency, and 
I have heard from them about how much the section 243 program 
would help them continue those efforts. However, despite being 
reauthorized on a bipartisan basis last year as part of the 
Energy Act of 2020, the section 243 program has never received 
appropriations. So I urge the committee to provide $10 million 
in annual appropriations for that section. I also ask your 
support for the Army Corps of Engineers section 2106 program. 
This program will help maintain competitive ports in the 
Pacific Northwest by allowing a harbor maintenance tax donor 
ports, like Seattle and Takoma, to receive better return on the 
revenue that they generate.
    Section 2106 will allow shippers utilizing our ports to 
receive payments to help offset our HMT cost disadvantage and 
help them compete with Canadian harbors that directly target 
U.S.-bound cargo. Strong domestic ports are critical.
    Now, finally, I want to share my support for the Bureau of 
Reclamation's WaterSMART program which improves water 
reliability for communities while increasing resilience to the 
impacts of climate change.
    Several projects in my district have made excellent use of 
WaterSMART funds in recent years, and I would urge this 
committee to continue its commitment to fully funding the 
program.
    So thank you for your leadership during this process, and I 
yield back the 12 seconds of my time. Thank you.
    Ms. Kaptur. [inaudible]
    Ms. Schrier. And you are muted. I will mute myself. Thank 
you.
    [The information follows:]
    
 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
   
   Ms. Kaptur. And I will claim those 12 seconds just to thank 
you, Congresswoman Schrier.
    And also, Congressman Mrvan, we couldn't have two different 
districts represented on this first panel which makes our job 
so interesting. I am sure Congressman Simpson agrees with that.
    But while I have got both of you, I wanted to just comment 
that for Congressman Mrvan's district, the uniqueness of his 
harbor being able to ship commodities through the Great Lakes-
Saint Lawrence Seaway out toward the Atlantic and then down the 
inland waterway system to the Gulf is pretty amazing. So it is 
a very interesting part of the country.
    In terms of your efforts in the State of Washington, I am 
jealous of the thinking that has gone in, in the State of 
Washington on hydropower. I am trying to get anybody to think 
about hydropower in Ohio at the basin of the largest inland 
seas in the world, and it is very hard to get any attention to 
hydropower. So you have a lot to teach us in other parts of the 
country.
    But I wanted to ask each of you very quickly, what, in 
terms of climate change, have you seen in your area that might 
tell us that conditions are changing in the environment? Is 
there something unique that would be beneficial for the Nation 
to understand if any of you wish to comment? And then we will 
move to the next set of witnesses.
    Ms. Schrier. I will comment quickly that what we are seeing 
is less snowpack and heavier rains, which is making for an 
earlier growing season and a shorter growing season. And 
because we don't have snowpack, it means that really carefully 
using those water sources, water storage, and then water 
allocation through the rest of the year becomes more important.
    So projects, then, like the Yakima Basin plan, which has 
reservoirs and systems to make sure that the water is there all 
year become even more critical with this changing climate.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much.
    I don't know if Congressman Mrvan is still at a microphone.
    If not, Ranking Member Simpson, did you wish to comment or 
ask a question?
    Mr. Simpson. No. Just want to thank them for their 
testimony, and we will certainly take these things under 
consideration as we try to develop this bill for the next year, 
but thank you for taking the time to be here and explain your 
priorities for us.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. Thank you so much. We are now going 
to move on to our next set of witnesses.
    I am told that Representative Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas 
is prepared to testify, and I am not quite sure who is the 
second panelist. I believe it is Representative H. Morgan 
Griffith as well. So if we could bring those witnesses forward. 
Thank you. There we go.
    Congresswoman Jackson Lee, the time is yours.
                              ----------                              --
--------

                                               Monday, May 3, 2021.

                                WITNESS

HON. SHEILA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 
    TEXAS
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman and 
to our Ranking Member Simpson,and the distinguished members of 
the subcommittee. As a senior member of committee on Judiciary 
and on Homeland Security, let me offer my appreciation and 
thanks to Chairwoman Kaptur and Ranking Member Simpson for the 
difficult work and choices that must be made to produce a truly 
bipartisan energy and water spending bill, for their commitment 
to producing a bill that fairly reflects the interests and 
priorities of the American people.
    Count me as a teammate. Although I am not on the committee, 
I have to offer to you, both of you and your subcommittee, 
heartfelt appreciation. When we were in the despair of 
Hurricane Harvey, your committee could not have been--
Chairwoman Kaptur, you could not have been more thoughtful, 
more generous, more caring when 51 trillion gallons of water 
came on our community.
    Interestingly enough, we just had rain just over the past 
weekend--it was not a hurricane--and we have streets and roads 
that are covered. We now have a whole segment near my 
congressional district, near Jacinto City, that are without 
water and are now on a boil-water need.
    This is right here in the 21st century, right here in 
Houston, Texas, and the surrounding areas where families are 
suffering. So, again, I will remain forever appreciative of 
your cooperation working with me to ensure that the victims of 
Hurricane Harvey receive the assistance and resources needed to 
recover from one of the greatest water catastrophes in recent 
history.
    I look forward to working with on you some language dealing 
with making sure that those dollars are continuing to be 
funneled through to the local communities. I understand that my 
entire statement will be made part of the record. I will keep 
my remarks brief, but I had to get my thank yous in.
    In the few minutes allotted to highlight the energy water 
and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers programs which warrant the 
committee's continuing attention and support, I would like to 
acknowledge I support $1.59 billion for Harbor Maintenance 
Trust Fund.
    The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund is so necessary. It is 
collected to ensure reliable maintenance and operations in our 
Nation's ports. I strongly support full utilization of the 
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and urge the committee to fund 
harbor maintenance activities at the highest possible level.
    And I think that I will allow myself to say that the 
Houston port, one of the largest tonnage ports, and maybe 
number one, is desperate in need of dredging because it is a 
man-made port.
    I support $275 million for weatherization assistance. WAP 
helps low-income families, seniors, veterans, and individuals 
with disabilities improve the energy efficiency of their homes, 
freeing up limited resources for other essentials like food and 
medicine.
    I support $6.0 million for U.S.-Israel energy cooperation, 
and that is to provide $6 million for the implementation of the 
U.S.-Israel Energy Cooperative Agreement.
    This funding will be utilized to further implement section 
917 of the Energy Independence and Security Act and the May 
2008 agreement between the U.S. and Israel on energy 
cooperation. The funding will provide for ongoing, 
collaborative U.S. and Israeli research and development of 
efforts in the fields of energy technologies and increase 
energy efficiency.
    I support $130 million for DOE's Wind Energy Program. The 
Wind Energy Program is very important to Texas, as many other 
States, improves our Nation's renewable energy goals by 
furthering advancement in wind energy research and 
technologies, including wind energy project design optimization 
testing.
    The program also conducts important research to increase 
capacity for distributed wind, which has the ability to harness 
the full potential of rural America to play a major role to 
lower the cost for consumers.
    During our freeze here in the southern region in the early 
part of the year, wind did suffer, but it certainly was a major 
component in helping us to get wind. So we are very much in 
need, and we thank you.
    I support $2.7 billion for energy efficiency and renewable 
energy, the DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
Energy, its critical programs, to partner with the Federal 
Government on industry, academia, research, and our 
universities.
    I support $7.0 billion for DOE Office of Science--that is 
so crucial--to request funds, activities, that, in close 
coordination with the NIH and the Presidential BRAIN 
Initiative, will develop next-generation tools and 
technologies. It also has the ability to interact with the 
Department of Education where many of our schools, inner-city 
schools, do not have access to the important issues of science. 
This would be a very important program.
    I support $75 million for State energy programs. Funding 
will allow States to take on energy efficiency, renewable 
energy projects, and grid modernization projects. I can assure 
you that we have the importance of those projects here for 
Texas.
    Quickly, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, $185 million for 
the Army Corps of Engineers to continue their projects.
    I support $80 million for continuing authorities funding 
for USACE Civil Works Program, which includes Emergency Steam 
Bank, section 103 Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction, $4 
million, a number of other programs that I will comment on if 
there are questions.
    And I support $5.7 million for U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers' water operation, $7.5 million for the coastal and 
ocean data system.
    And, concluding, I am eager to have considered my community 
project, which is the Port of Houston Army Corps dredging and 
sediment study project. We are most interested in making sure 
we make a dent there, and we are gratified for the committee's 
kind consideration and your knowledge of what goes on in 
Houston, Texas. You know it well. And the State of Texas and 
the rural areas, you know it very well, and we thank you so 
very much because you have been very, very helpful.
    Had to go through fast, but you have a lot of vital, 
important programs for the Nation. We thank you so very much.
    With that, I yield and wait for questions. Thank you so 
very much.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
       
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Congresswoman, for your very 
thorough set of suggestions and proposals for our subcommittee 
to consider. I can't think of a community that has been 
hammered as much as Houston has, and we thank you for your 
leadership and keeping people positive and rebuilding with all 
that you have had to endure there.
    We have been informed that we will have to take a brief 
recess now because we are having technical issues, and we are 
going to just be briefly recessing for a second here, let them 
address those, and we will be back very quickly. Sorry to do 
this. This hasn't happened before, but it is a new age. So give 
us a couple moments.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I will wait.
    [Recess.]
    Ms. Kaptur. Representative Griffith, can you hear me?
    Mr. Griffith. Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Kaptur. All right. Very good. Sorry for that break 
there. They had to fix the livestreaming. It wasn't working. So 
I think all is repaired now, and we welcome Representative 
Morgan Griffith from the great State of Virginia to testify 
this morning. Thank you very much.
                              ----------                              --
--------

                                               Monday, May 3, 2021.

                                WITNESS

HON. H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 
    VIRGINIA
    Mr. Griffith. Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member 
Simpson. I appreciate the opportunity to highlight matters of 
great importance to my district, the country and, I would 
argue, to the rest of the world as well.
    As you all move forward in your appropriations process, I 
would like to address the importance of research and 
development, R&D funding, at the Department of Energy in 
general and specifically at the Office of Fossil Energy.
    I believe there needs to be research parity between 
renewable fuels and research on ways to better utilize fossil 
fuels. As we examine our global climate, it is imperative that 
any effective plan to counter climate change include our 
Nation's vast supply of natural resources and our talent for 
technological innovation.
    China is anticipated to increase its emissions over the 
next decade and is currently the largest consumer of coal. This 
does not take into account the large number of coal-fired power 
plants China is financing in Africa and other countries with 
emerging economies.
    We know the rest of the world will continue to use fossil 
fuels for decades to come because for them more energy means 
less poverty. In India, coal still accounts for nearly three-
fourths of the country's annual power output.
    Though they have recently set a target to install renewable 
energy in the coming years, hundreds of thousands of rural 
Indians still do not have access to reliable, around-the-clock 
electricity in their homes. Their government will want to 
resolve that problem and will likely use coal in that effort.
    India will use renewables, but to lift the poorest citizens 
out of the 19th century conditions, they must use coal.
    Many other countries are in the same situation. They can 
use mid-20th century coal-burning technology, or they can use 
21st century American cleaner coal-burning technology. 
Accordingly, I believe a role for American ingenuity is to 
produce and export better, cleaner, more efficient technology 
for the world.
    The Northern Hemisphere shares its air. While cleaning up 
the air in the United States is helpful in order to stop 
climate change and eliminate environmental hazards, we must 
also work to clean the air in coal-rich Kazakhstan and in the 
Uttar Pradesh state in northern India.
    The Department of Energy plays an important role in this 
R&D, but it can do more for exploration and innovation in the 
energy space with the right support. I would like to highlight 
a team of experts at Virginia Tech who are developing a process 
to extract rare earth elements from coal byproducts.
    A consortium of universities, including Virginia Tech, has 
won grants from DOE to test a hydrophobic-hydrophilic 
separation process to produce clean coal and specialty carbon 
products from discarded coal waste.
    As a result of this research, they have found ways to 
improve the quality of coal burned at steel plants. They are 
licensing this technology to steel mills in India, which will 
reduce the mills' carbon footprint. This serves as just one--an 
example of how DOE R&D funding can be used, in conjunction with 
our national labs and research universities, to get projects 
like this off the ground.
    Another example I would like to share today involves 
innovative small business in Pulaski, Virginia. MOVA 
Technologies has developed filtration bed equipment to remove 
pollutants from flue gas streams and recycle them for other 
uses.
    The technology can be applied to a number of industries, 
including energy generation, cargo ships, manufacturing 
processes, livestock farm air control systems, or direct carbon 
capture.
    This type of creative thinking and design will help us 
solve the environmental and economic challenges we and the 
world face. I am not advocating to reduce research for 
renewable fuels. I think that is important as well. And what I 
am advocating is there should be parity between the two types 
of energy: the fossil fuels and the renewables, particularly 
with the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
    Last year hearing testimony in the Select Committee on 
Climate, both Democratic and Republican witnesses thought 
research parity was desirable. A comprehensive, all-of-the-
above energy policy must include robust funding for research 
and development at the Federal level.
    These funds will continue to shorten the timeline to ready 
many clean energy technologies for commercial use, both here 
and abroad.
    I appreciate your consideration of this request, and I look 
forward to answering any questions that you may have.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
     
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much, Congressman Griffith, and 
we heard you loud and clear. We know research is our friend, 
and it is too bad research didn't keep up with reality in the 
past. Though we have plussed up that budget consistently. And 
so thank you for reminding our subcommittee.
    I wanted to ask both you and Congresswoman Sheila Jackson 
Lee what I asked the earlier witnesses today, and that is, in 
terms of the changing environment--I am sitting in a very wet 
Ohio right now, and our Great Lakes are at an all-time high, 
obviously with what has happened in Houston consistently, but I 
am not sure about Virginia. I know more about coastal Virginia 
compared to interior Virginia--if you have noted changes that 
are of significance impacting energy and water systems that you 
have to contain and manage in your respective States. Could you 
just briefly give us a little bird's-eye view of your regions 
in climate change.
    Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Madam Chairwoman, thank you for the 
opportunity. It is good to be here with my colleague as well. I 
think we both show a great enthusiasm for this Appropriations 
Subcommittee.
    First I would like to say that the eagerness and the 
attentiveness to the idea of climate change, I have seen a 
rising interest, even beyond governmental entities, research 
institutions, really in day-to-day people. They are very 
cognizant.
    We live not only coastal--I am 58 miles in from the Gulf, 
and at any moment, I can be overrun by the Gulf in terms of 
that is what the combination was to Hurricane Harvey. We were 
sort of squeezed in between the waters rising in the Gulf and 
the actual 51 trillion that we actually--it hit us with.
    But we have bayous, and our bayous are very susceptible 
with the rising tide concept because waters run through 
Houston, literally run through our neighborhoods, and we have 
had to create bayous to contain those waters.
    And so whenever we have this climate circumstance, we can 
have rain that creates rising waters in what I call naked 
bayous, meaning that they are not sufficiently restored or 
sufficiently girded. They don't have the moneys from the Army 
Corps of Engineers. And we create a very disastrous set of 
circumstances.
    We have experienced, in our community or in our area, 
droughts where we have had a long period of time of great 
heat--that was like two summers ago--great, great heat and, of 
course, little water. And that is very strange to those of us 
here.
    And then, of course, we have had something, a phenomenon 
that happened--we are still speechless--and that was the 
freeze. There is nothing that we can even comprehend in this 
region on the freeze.
    We had at least 20-plus people die in their bed, including 
an 11-year-old. We were on boiled water for weeks. We had 
broken pipes that were extensive because, in construction, our 
pipes are not placed underground. Those broken pipes destroyed 
homes and particularly those in low-income.
    So we have seen--and the temperature at that time was 
single digit, and for single digit in Houston or in the region, 
it kills.
    And then we were able to see the fright of not having a 
grid that could confront these tragedies.
    The answer was a little long, but I wanted you to see that 
we are warm country people, and so any disruption in that, and 
any spiking of that which we have seen over the last couple 
years, does generate concern.
    But I will conclude by saying as I started, the interest in 
working on climate change responsibly has exponentially grown. 
And our mayor, Mayor Sylvester Turner, is now chair of the U.S. 
Conference of Mayors Subcommittee on Climate. This is a Texas 
mayor in an energy-focused community that focused for very long 
years on fossil fuel.
    We are opening our eyes to renewables and wind and many 
others that we can work with in order to meet this new day of 
climate change.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much, Congresswoman Jackson Lee. 
I think these statements of Members are extremely important to 
our record and to the American people. Thank you for walking us 
through that history over the last few years. It really is 
dramatic. Thank you for your strength. Congressman Griffith, 
would you wish to reply to that in any way?
    Mr. Griffith. Yes, ma'am. I mean, she obviously--great 
respect for Congresswoman Jackson Lee. She obviously has a very 
different district than mine, but they are both related to 
fossil fuel industries, and it is one of the reasons why I 
think we have to work on climate change by working on research 
and development, as I said in my statement because we are not 
going to get rid of the fossil fuels, as much as some may wish 
for that, in the near future.
    To go to a total renewable system as one of the witnesses, 
Ms. Silverstein, said in front of Energy and Commerce a few 
weeks back, we have to build a lot of high-powered electric 
lines across the country in order to carry the electricity from 
these new sources of energy, whether it be wind, solar, or 
other renewables.
    That is going to take, her estimate--I gave her a number; 
would it be more than 20 to 30 years? She said yes. So we have 
to keep that in mind, and when we look at the rest of the 
world, obviously, other parts of the world are not ready to go 
in that direction anywhere near as much as we are.
    So that is why I am a big believer that we must do more 
research, and I thank you for that opportunity to say that yet 
again. And I don't think that is in disagreement with what 
Congresswoman Jackson Lee was saying. It is just maybe a 
slightly different look at it, but it is the same idea.
    And I will tell you in my district--and I have had one of 
those rare opportunities that come around sometimes in life--I 
have lived in the same community for more than 60 years. And 
during that time, we have had some warmer winters than others. 
I would say, on general rule, over the last 10 or 15 years, it 
is a little bit warmer. Being in the mountains of Virginia, not 
the coastal area, but in the mountains of Virginia, we have 
always been subject to flooding, and, you know, it is in my 
high school yearbooks when there were big floods.
    And we still have some flooding, but I don't see any really 
large increase in that amount of flooding. It is just that we 
have it, depends on the year, depends on the part of my 
district because it is a district the size of the State of New 
Jersey, a little bit bigger. And so sometimes we will get 
flooding in one part and not in other parts of the district.
    I would say that, my sense is that our spring migration of 
birds--I am a birder, and so I pay attention to those things--
seems to come a little bit earlier. So we are seeing some 
effects but nothing nearly to the catastrophic level that Texas 
has seen or some of our lower areas and some of our warmer 
areas have seen already.
    And so, obviously, we will have to try to figure out how we 
manage that, manage those changes in the environment, at the 
same time trying to reduce our carbon footprint by all means 
necessary.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much. What excellent witnesses. 
Congressman Simpson, do you have any questions?
    Mr. Simpson. No, no questions. I thank the witnesses for 
their time.
    Ms. Kaptur. I reiterate that. Thank you both very, very 
much. We will now move on to Congresswoman Jenniffer----
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you for having me.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you both. I would now like to--there, 
okay, I think we can be heard.
    I have Congressman Greg Stanton on the witness list and 
also Congresswoman Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon as our next 
witnesses. Congressman Stanton is from the great State of 
Arizona, and Congresswoman Gonzalez-Colon is from Puerto Rico.
                              ----------                              

                                               Monday, May 3, 2021.

                                WITNESS

HON. GREG STANTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 
    ARIZONA
    Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Kaptur and 
also Ranking Member Simpson and members of the subcommittee, 
and I want to say thank you for opportunity to testify on the 
importance of Federal investments to meet Arizona's water 
resource needs.
    Arizona has long been a leader when it comes to effectively 
managing water supplies. It is how we have managed to flourish 
in a desert climate for so long.
    Climate change, though, presents us with many challenges--
rising temperatures and less predictable rain cycles. These 
changes have left the Southwest in a prolonged drought. Extreme 
heat wears on our infrastructure and alters our watersheds. And 
heavy intense rains, combined with dry hard ground make our 
urban areas more prone to flash floods.
    The kind of infrastructure we need to adapt requires 
Federal investment, and I have worked with community leaders 
from small, rural, and Tribal communities, as well as our major 
metropolitan areas to identify Arizona's priority projects to 
prepare us for the challenges ahead. These projects address our 
environmental infrastructure needs, flood protection, and water 
supply preservation.
    Arizona will have more than $15 billion in drinking water 
and wastewater infrastructure needs over the next two decades. 
To begin to address these needs and the fiscal constraints for 
our communities to make these investments, the 2020 Water 
Resources Development Act included my legislation to add 
Arizona to the section 595 Environmental Infrastructure 
Program.
    Earlier this year, the first project was funded, and many 
communities across our State our eager to participate in the 
program. I urge this subcommittee to provide strong funding for 
the Environmental Infrastructure Program.
    Although Arizona is a desert State, it is no stranger to 
flooding, and there are several projects in need of investment. 
The first project is Tres Rios, an ecosystem restoration effort 
along the Salt and Gila River corridors in Phoenix.
    This project is partially complete. However, construction 
has been halted since it reached its 902 limit. As a result, 
funds are needed for a post-authorization change report. 
Completing Tres Rios would improve flow conveyance and support 
Native riparian habitat, remove invasive species like the salt 
cedar and improve wildlife habitat.
    Second, the Cave Buttes Dam in Maricopa County provides 
flood protection for more than a million residents and $15 
billion in residential and commercial property. Unfortunately, 
seepage in the dam has sounded the alarm for us to reduce its 
risk of failure.
    Similarly, thousands of residents and hundreds of critical 
facilities, including Luke Air Force Base, depend on the Agua 
Fria River Trilby Wash or McMicken Dam for flood protection. 
But because of dam safety deficiencies, land subsidence, Earth 
fissuring, and urbanization, its level of protection is 
questionable at best. We must begin new feasibility studies for 
both Cave Buttes Dam and the McMicken Dam to allow the Corps to 
evaluate flood risk management needs and safety modifications. 
Third, I urge this subcommittee to provide new construction 
starts, so projects like the Little Colorado River at Winslow 
can proceed. This project would protect the city of Winslow and 
part of Navajo County, including the communities' critical 
public facilities.
    And, fourth, I request increased funding for section 205 
and 206 under the Continuing Authorities Program, which is 
currently overextended and underfunded. Arizona has at least 
four projects seeking to utilize this program.
    To secure Arizona's water future, we must respond to the 
ongoing drought in the Colorado River Basin. The 2019 Drought 
Contingency Plan directs the Interior Secretary to create or 
conserve a hundred thousand acre feet per year. I urge the 
subcommittee to provide the Bureau the resources necessary to 
fulfill this critical commitment.
    Finally, we need to ensure the continued reliability of the 
water provided by the Salt River Project to the Phoenix 
metropolitan area. Colorado River shortages exacerbate the need 
for central Arizona to have reliable alternative surface water 
supplies.
    Unfortunately, natural sediment accumulation in the Verde 
River Basin has impacted the water storage capacity of the 
Horseshoe Reservoir, one of the federally owned reservoirs of 
the Salt River Project.
    The Bureau of Reclamation is conducting an appraisal study 
to evaluate options to restore storage capacity, and I urge the 
subcommittee to include funding for the next phase of this 
critical effort.
    Thank you so much for the opportunity and for your support 
of our Nation's water infrastructure.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
    
    
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Congressman Stanton for excellent 
testimony. We want to hear a little more about Arizona in a 
second, and thank you for your recommendations. And now 
Congresswoman Gonzalez-Colon.
                              ----------                              --
--------

                                               Monday, May 3, 2021.

                                WITNESS

HON. JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON, RESIDENT COMMISSIONER OF PUERTO RICO
    Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman Kaptur and 
Ranking Member Simpson for hosting these opportunities for 
members and allowing me the opportunity to testify from Puerto 
Rico.
    While I have multiple requests submitted for your 
consideration as you prepare the energy and water development 
appropriations bill for the next fiscal year, I would just 
focus my remarks on my requests in support of the Cano Martin 
Pena Channel Ecosystem Restoration Project.
    As you may know, the eastern half of the Martin Pena 
Channel in San Juan is currently clogged with sediment, debris, 
trash, and water polluted with human waste.
    In 2017, the Hurricane Cecil exacerbated the poor 
environmental conditions and persistent flooding that are still 
experienced today. The detrimental conditions of the channel 
have been present for decades, currently challenging the health 
and well-being of approximately 26,000 residents across eight 
communities' economic development of the area and critical 
infrastructure, like the Luis Munoz Marin International 
Airport, which is our main venue for people coming in and out.
    The Cano Martin Pena Channel was authorized by Section 5127 
of the 2007 Water Resources Development Act, and since then, 
the government of Puerto Rico, which is the non-Federal 
sponsor, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have collaborated 
to develop this project throughout different phases leading to 
construction.
    However, construction has not commenced, and neither have 
the dredging efforts that will provide relief and safety to the 
communities and establish--reestablish, actually, the natural 
tide exchange between the San Jose Lagoon and the San Juan Bay, 
two bodies of water that are of great significance for native 
species and the ecosystem function.
    The construction phase must start to restore the channel 
and its surrounding habitat and improve the current conditions 
that affect my constituents. This is why I have selected the 
Cano Martin Pena Project as my first request for Community 
Project Funding for fiscal year 2022.
    Specifically, my request consists of $32 million in 
construction funds to initiate the construction phase, which is 
divided in three distinct contracts. If you look at the second 
slide on the screen, the first construction contract is 
highlighted in red.
    Receiving funding for construction will allow the Corps of 
Engineers to work with the non-Federal sponsor, ENLACE, to 
initiate the work on the first contract, which prepare main 
disposal sites and including dredging of the San Jose Lagoon up 
to the Barbosa Bridge, which will excavate more than 140,000 
cubic yards of material. This contract is shovel-ready, and the 
non-Federal sponsor has already met the real estate 
requirements.
    I think communities at the channel are ready to see some 
real progress in what is one of the most densely populated 
areas on the island, and I do believe that Congress has a 
remarkable opportunity to support this project throughout the 
Community Project Funding process available for the next fiscal 
year.
    I respectfully request you fully consider this request and 
the benefits it will bring to our ecosystems, our communities, 
our flood mitigation, our preparedness capabilities on the 
island, and, of course, the health of these residents who have 
been waiting for a long time.
    So, having said that, thank you, all of you, and I yield 
back.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
        
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much, Congresswoman Gonzalez-
Colon, and I wanted to ask both you and Congressman Stanton 
what I have asked every other witness this morning. As we look 
at what is happening environmentally across our world, some 
places have felt the brunt of change more greatly than others.
    As you look at Puerto Rico and Arizona, these are two 
places that have really reeled from the environment being a 
little inclement at times. So, in Puerto Rico, I was just 
stunned at the devastation that the oceans can yield, and in 
Arizona, I read where last year, your people endured in the 
State 100 days over 100 degrees. That is really--that would be 
hard.
    And I wanted to get your comments about how you have seen 
your region change relative to climate and some of the 
challenges you face now compared to prior decades.
    Mr. Stanton. Okay. I can jump in first, Chairwoman, if that 
is okay.
    Ms. Kaptur. Fine.
    Mr. Stanton. Okay. So, Chairwoman, look, climate change is 
discussed on the issue of rising water levels on the coastal 
areas, but I would argue that climate change has been as 
devastating in Arizona as anywhere else.
    And there are three major areas of devastating impact in 
Arizona as a result of climate change. Extreme heat. The 
temperature is going up dramatically, and the issue of the 
livability of our community if that extreme heat continues is 
really questionable. And, sadly, we see many people, many 
residents dying as a result of this extreme heat. So extreme 
heat. Record number of 100-plus days, et cetera, is a huge 
impact directly related to climate change.
    Second, drought. We are now 20 years into drought 
conditions in the State of Arizona. The Colorado River, which 
provides water for not only Maricopa County but also southern 
California. Tens of millions of people rely on the Colorado 
River.
    We had to declare shortage on the river for the first time 
ever, and people are now talking about, if we don't take strong 
action, the possible collapse of the Colorado River as a water 
source for millions and millions of people. So the drought 
conditions in Arizona are a direct result of climate change.
    And the increase in the number of forest fires. Each year, 
we see almost a new record in the number of forest fires in 
Arizona, and elsewhere in the western part of the United 
States. Again, a direct result of climate change.
    So I would quietly argue that the impact of climate change 
is as devastating on the people of Arizona as anywhere else in 
America.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Congressman. I had read where for 
several days airplanes could not take off in Arizona. They were 
grounded because of the very high temperatures last year. Is my 
understanding correct?
    Mr. Stanton. Yes and no. It has to do--and I am not an 
expert on this, but it has to do with the weight of the 
airplane. So certain airplanes at certain weight levels weren't 
able to take off, but it didn't completely shut down our 
airports.
    But, yes, the extreme heat does have an impact on the 
ability to provide aviation services, which obviously has a 
massive impact on our local community.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much.
    Congresswoman Gonzalez-Colon.
    Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    I will tell you this. You know, I have been living in 
Puerto Rico since I was born. So, as an island that lays in the 
Caribbean, we are used to hurricanes. I mean, all life 
hurricanes have been there.
    And they will not go away. So we must prepare and have the 
resiliency to deal with this natural phenomena when they occur. 
We met earthquakes 2 years ago. We are still dealing with that. 
The hundred-year wave got a big impact on the island as well. 
Floodings, droughts, fires, now coastal erosion, but I think, 
yes, it could be changes in the climate. Those things happened 
before. So we are not talking about anything that is different. 
Just now with more development in many areas, we are facing 
those issues, and their cost much money to deal with them, like 
the flooding areas in the metropolitan areas.
    I think the mitigation is a big issue, and how we met with 
those situation, I think the Army Corps of Engineers has been 
working in Puerto Rico, and we appreciate Congress stepping in 
2017 and the next years for allocation of funds for many of 
these areas.
    Right now, we are dealing with coastal erosion in the whole 
island. That is a big issue, and the Army Corps is doing a 
study in that regard.
    Hurricanes, again, we are going to be facing hurricane 
season now in May again until November. So we are just praying 
not to have any strong hurricane, but we are used to storms, we 
are used to these.
    Thank God, we don't have volcanoes on Puerto Rico, but we 
do have in the Caribbean as well. So the ashes from different 
islands, when they got eruptions, they come all the way through 
the Caribbean.
    So I know this is happening also in California with the 
fires and many others. It is just how we can learn to recover 
fast and resilient from these experiences.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you both very, very much.
    Congressman Simpson, any comments or questions?
    Mr. Simpson. No. No questions. I appreciate the testimony 
of the witnesses.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. Thank you very much, and we will do 
what we can to help as we proceed forward. We want to thank our 
witnesses, Congressman Stanton and Congresswoman Gonzalez-
Colon.
    Now we will go to the next two witnesses. We are doing 
pretty well this morning. Congressman Bill Foster of the great 
State of Illinois, and Congressman John Moolenaar from the 
State of Michigan.
                              ----------                              

                                               Monday, May 3, 2021.

                               WITNESSES

HON. BILL FOSTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 
    ILLINOIS
    Mr. Foster. Thank you. Am I on and visible here?
    Ms. Kaptur. You are not real--you are a little cloudy. I 
don't know for Mike Simpson. Do you see the same thing, a 
little bit----
    Mr. Simpson. No.
    Ms. Kaptur. You are visible but not----
    Mr. Foster. Okay. Well, it is mostly----
    Mr. Simpson. Yeah. I can see him fine.
    Mr. Foster. Okay. I am just going for adequate here. 
Anyway, well, good afternoon. Thank you, Chairwoman Kaptur and 
Ranking Member Simpson, and the members of the subcommittee for 
holding this Members Day and for allowing me to testify.
    I would like to first thank you for your past support of 
the Department of Energy Office of Science and urge you to 
continue to prioritize and expand its investments in science.
    For decades, investments at the DOE Office of Science have 
resulted in important discoveries and fundamental science and 
emerging technologies, many of which have recently played a 
critical role in our Nation's response to COVID-19.
    In recent months, we have seen bipartisan and bicameral 
proposals to double or even triple the R&D budgets of our 
country, if for no other reason, to keep pace with comparable 
R&D investments from China.
    You have an opportunity to get an early start on this 
consensus to ramp up research funding with a strong 
appropriations mark for the DOE Office of Science.
    I would also like to highlight the Brandon Road Lock and 
Dam Project. Now, the Brandon Road Project is the last line of 
defense to prevent the spread of Asian carp and other aquatic 
nuisance species from getting into the Great Lakes. And this 
project is urgent in order to prevent these nuisance species 
from passing freely into the Great Lakes and every tributary 
connected to the Great Lakes.
    This would be a body blow to the economies of all the 
States which border the Great Lakes. So I urge you to implement 
report language to encourage the aggressive continuation of 
this project.
    Another specific project that I would like to bring your 
attention to is the Advanced Photon Source upgrade at Argonne 
National Lab. This facility has played a foundational role in 
the Nation's response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
    Researchers from across the Nation have used X-rays from 
the APS to determine the protein structure of the viruses, 
which are then used to design techniques, drugs, and vaccines 
that fight the virus more effectively.
    The upgrade will enhance the capabilities of the APS, 
ensuring the U.S. remains at the forefront of X-ray technology 
and is able to respond to future national emergencies, which is 
why I am requesting $101.2 million in funding for this upgrade.
    I would also like to express my support for $225 million 
for the Department of Energy's Long-Baseline Neutrino Facility, 
the LBNF/DUNE Project that is in Illinois and South Dakota.
    Neutrinos are among the most abundant and mysterious 
particles in the universe, and understanding their nature may 
provide the key to answering some of the most fundamental 
questions about the nature of our universe. LBNF/DUNE would be 
the most powerful tool in the world to study these particles.
    And this funding is particularly important for DUNE to 
complete its underground construction and to overcome the 
impacts that it has felt from international collaborators 
delaying their contributions due to COVID-19. So it has 
received sort of a double whammy from COVID-19, and full 
funding for this is very important.
    Our national laboratories, like Argonne National Lab, are 
also national leaders in other fields, and the work they are 
doing is crucial to the United States to remain a global 
science leader.
    For example, in Illinois, the Chicago Quantum Exchange is a 
group of researchers with a common goal of advancing the 
science and engineering of quantum information. Based at the 
University of Chicago, the Chicago Quantum Exchange is anchored 
by Argonne National Lab, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, 
and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
    Quantum information science is a revolutionary technology 
that will allow us to achieve groundbreaking advances in a 
variety of fields. Similarly, the Argonne Leadership Computing 
Facility, ALCF, at the Argonne National Laboratory, enables 
breakthroughs in science and engineering by providing 
supercomputing resources and expertise to the research 
community.
    The ALCF will be home to one of the Nation's exascale 
computers when Aurora arrives in 2022. Exascale computing 
researchers have already shown work that models 3D printing 
processes with metals that could have major implications for 
the manufacturing sector. It is your emphasis on science 
funding which drives programs like these.
    And, finally, I would like to request your continued 
support for low-enriched uranium naval fuel research and 
development, for the pressurized water reactors, for propulsion 
of aircraft carriers and submarines.
    High-enriched uranium, or HEU, can be used to make nuclear 
weapons whereas low-enriched uranium cannot. This makes HEU 
fuel vulnerable to theft by terrorists during manufacturing and 
transportation from civilian sites and very dangerous for other 
countries to have around in large quantity because of the 
proliferation risk.
    Using LEU has the potential to reduce security costs and 
support naval reactor research and development at the cutting 
edge of nuclear science, which is why I urge you to provide an 
additional $20 million for naval LEU research and development.
    Thank you again, and I yield back the balance of my time.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
        
                                               Monday, May 3, 2021.

                                WITNESS

HON. JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 
    MICHIGAN
    Mr. Moolenaar. Well, good afternoon, Chairwoman Kaptur and 
Ranking Member Simpson and members of the committee. I am very 
grateful for the opportunity to speak with you about the 
importance of the Army Corps of Engineers and the vital work it 
does for Michigan and the Great Lakes.
    The President's budget proposes an annual budget cut of $1 
billion below what Congress appropriated last year for the Army 
Corps, and I hope the committee will reverse that cut and fund 
the Army Corps at or above last year's level.
    The Army Corps plays a vital role in Michigan, maintaining 
water levels on the Great Lakes and engineering navigable 
waterways that are crucial to shipping, manufacturing, and the 
hardworking men and women who make things here in America.
    The Soo Locks in the Upper Peninsula keep our country 
moving. The iron ore and taconite that pass through the locks 
is used in agriculture, steel, household products, and a whole 
lot more.
    Right now, there is only one lock that can be used by all 
the freighters on the Great Lakes to move iron ore from the 
upper Midwest to the other ports on the Great Lakes.
    With the support of this committee and Chairwoman Kaptur, 
who I am very grateful went to the Soo Locks with me in 2019, 
construction has begun on a new lock. And I urge the committee 
to support $483 million in next year's budget for the continued 
construction of this new lock that will keep our country moving 
and support American manufacturing.
    The Army Corps is also working on stopping invasive species 
in the Great Lakes, and as Congressman Foster mentioned, the 
Brandon Road Lock and Dam Project is necessary to prevent Asian 
carp from entering Lake Michigan and jeopardizing the health of 
the Great Lakes.
    Asian carp would also harm the billions of dollars and 
thousands of jobs in the Midwest that rely on fishing, tourism, 
and boating on the Great Lakes. I urge the committee to improve 
$5 million for this project in the coming year. Finally, I want 
to mention flooding that struck my hometown last year. Two dams 
failed, causing destruction downstream to homes and businesses.
    I hope the committee will approve language I have submitted 
that urges the Army Corps of Engineers to participate in future 
flood mitigation efforts with State, local, and Tribal 
Governments, as well as business and nonprofits within 
Tittabawassee River Watershed. This will help prevent future 
disaster and help communities in my home district as they plan 
for the future.
    I hope this committee will continue to support investment 
in the Army Corps of Engineers and the infrastructure of our 
Nation.
    Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
    
    Ms. Kaptur. [inaudible] State and that said by a Buckeye, 
so that is pretty good. I just also have to say this has been 
the most wonderful set of witnesses this morning. And what is 
going through my mind as I am listening to all these Members is 
the impression the public may have of Congress when they don't 
really see it at work. And if any American wonders about how, 
on a bipartisan basis, we can move the country forward, I 
invite them to take a look at this committee hearing this 
morning. It has just been--it is from all over the country, 
Members from all over the country, and Representatives, 
obviously, from Gulf and Atlantic regions. In addition to that, 
a very diverse panel on any level you want to measure it, 
regionally for sure. And the depth of your testimony. We are 
about serious business. And I just think sometimes some Members 
of Congress get short shrift because they are actually in the 
boiler room doing the work. And that is the way the institution 
should work. So I am proud of all of you. I just had to state 
that.
    I wanted to also move to questioning very briefly. For 
Congressman Foster, you are well-known for your work with the 
labs and the impact that you have had. I don't know if he is 
still on the line or not, but I am hoping to be able to work 
with him on targeting a very organized approach to see what the 
labs might be able to offer to help us deal with one of the 
most serious health problems we have in this country, and that 
is an answer to mental illness, using some of that 
supercomputing capacity, some of the quantum capabilities that 
are available, some of the light imaging that is done. But I 
just want to say for the record that in most county jails in 
Ohio, upwards of 30 to 40 percent of their inmates have mental 
illness in some forms, sometimes co-occurring with substance 
abuse and certainly in our Federal prisons. This is the wrong 
answer to try to help very ill people. And I haven't seen the 
labs come forward, to my knowledge, with anything very 
astounding in this arena, but I just wanted to put this on the 
table.
    Mr. Foster. Chair Kaptur, I am in fact on. And I just would 
like to point out that Argonne National Lab has supercomputers. 
We are very important players in the BRAIN initiative, which 
are trying to make a real three-dimensional map of all the 
inter--neuron interconnections in the human brain, which will 
be transformative to understanding at a deep level how the 
brain actually works. And the technology and the computing 
power necessary for that are--they are going to be a challenge, 
but I think one that all of the national labs working together 
can rise to meet.
    Ms. Kaptur. Well, Congressman Foster, I am going to ask 
your help in helping me think through how to squeeze from each 
of the labs something along with the brain banks that we have--
and several other Members of Congress are interested in this. I 
am not the only one--but to really yield more from our labs 
collectively across this country. We simply can't let this 
suffering go on unaddressed. And if we can't do better in our 
lifetime, shame on us. And you are one of our great leaders in 
this area. So I thank you for staying for the entire hearing.
    Mr. Foster. The laboratory work is also very important in 
dealing with the fundamental basis of addiction. The actual 
advance photon source at Argonne Lab was used to directly image 
these molecules, very complicated molecules, called G-protein 
coupled receptors. When the opioid hits the brain, they are the 
things that get triggered, and they were able to take pictures 
of them in action. And so, when you have a deep understanding 
of exactly how the addiction works at a molecular level, you 
have the possibility of designing treatments which reverse that 
effect.
    Ms. Kaptur. Well, I think what you are saying is extremely 
important. And we know dopamine, and serotonin, and other 
substances that the body has inside of it sometimes being 
handled in an orderly way and sometimes in a very disorderly 
way.
    I think the labs can really help us partner with NIH, NIMH, 
and other places in our country, our defense research labs. I 
would like to elevate this as an area of heightened inquiry for 
the country. So just be aware of that. And I thank you very 
much for responding.
    And I ask you, as well as Congressman Moolenaar, any 
evidence in your part of the United States where you see 
changes in the environment compared to when you were maybe in 
school, high school or college, what have you seen happen in 
your area that is worthy of note in terms of climate change?
    Mr. Foster. One thing I can mention, as you recall, the 
lake in Madison, Wisconsin, would freeze hard for many months. 
And it is barely freezing at all these days.
    Ms. Kaptur. I couldn't believe--I am a graduate of the 
University of Wisconsin.
    Mr. Foster. Right.
    Ms. Kaptur. And when I went back there for my reunion, I 
could not believe how high the lake was and the degree of 
rainfall that--this was about a year ago--that Madison had 
endured. That was really a wake-up call because I haven't been 
back there in quite a while. So thank you for mentioning that.
    And I wanted to ask Congressman Moolenaar if he had any 
comment on that point relative to Michigan.
    Mr. Moolenaar. Well, I would just say, as you know, 
Chairwoman Kaptur, the Great Lakes are at a very high level 
right now. They tend to be cyclical, as you know. And I can 
remember the first decade of 21st century where we were very 
concerned about the need for dredging and just the lower 
levels. And we were concerned about water withdrawal. And so we 
ended up passing legislation to make sure there was a 
consistent policy on water withdrawals in the Great Lakes. So, 
anecdotally, I can certainly see changes and cycles. But I do 
think this is an area where our agriculture leaders need to be 
monitoring this because, as you know, different crops grow 
better in certain types of weather. And they are monitoring any 
changes as we go forward.
    So I think we are very fortunate, as you know, to have the 
Great Lakes. And we will continue to see how that works out 
this year. It seems like they are down a little bit this year 
from where they were last year, but I guess we will know more 
in the weeks and months ahead.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much. I can guarantee you, on 
the agriculture front, and our district is located a bit south 
of Congressman Moolenaar's, the seed packets that you buy to 
plant actually--the climatic zones have moved one zone north. 
So we are actually planting Tennessee tomatoes in Ohio now. It 
is just interesting. So that is a change that I have noted. And 
I want to thank both of you for testifying.
    Before you shut off your video, I wanted to ask Congressman 
Simpson if he has any questions or comments.
    Mr. Simpson. No questions. But I would like to say thank 
you to Congressman Foster for his work on the importance of 
research at our national laboratories all across the country. 
They are truly the research gems of this country. And I want to 
work with you on making sure that they have the resources to do 
the job we expect them to do.
    Secondly, Congressman Moolenaar, I would just say that 
every administration, whether it is Republican or Democrat, 
always comes back with a budget request for the Army Corps of 
Engineers that is below the level of the year before. This 
committee has always been very cognizant of that fact. It made 
sure that that didn't happened. And I suspect that is going to 
be the case again this year, but thank you for recognizing 
that.
    Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Congressman Simpson, very much. You 
are a bright light for the country.
    Now, I want to thank you and bring up the final panelists, 
Representative Joe Wilson and Representative Jefferson Van 
Drew. Thank you both for desiring to testify this morning. And 
we look forward to your testimony as our hearing has gone a bit 
into the afternoon.
    Congressman Joe Wilson.
                              ----------                              --
--------

                                               Monday, May 3, 2021.

                                WITNESS

HON. JOE WILSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH 
    CAROLINA
    Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. Thank you. And good afternoon 
top Chairman Marcy Kaptur and Ranking Member Mike Simpson. 
Thank you for your determined leadership on the committee.
    I am here today representing the Second District of South 
Carolina, where I am grateful that we are the home of the 
Savannah River Site, which is so supported by our communities 
of South Carolina and Georgia. The Savannah River Site was 
constructed during the 1950s to support our national defense 
programs for victory in the Cold War. The site maintains that 
responsibility 70 years later through its national laboratory, 
NNSA missions, and environmental cleanup.
    I ask the committee to consider the following for the site. 
One, $30 million for the Tritium Finishing Facility. The site 
is home to the Savannah River Tritium Enterprise, which 
prepares the Nation's only tritium supply for international 
defense. This new facility will replace an aging facility 
constructed in the 1950s that is necessary to maintain a 
nuclear deterrent.
    Second, $495 million for the Savannah River Plutonium 
Processing Facility and $200 million for the Savannah River 
Plutonium Operations. As part of a two-site solution to 
plutonium pit production, this facility will provide the 
capability of producing no fewer than 80 plutonium pits by 
2030, reinforcing again America's nuclear deterrent.
    Third, $115 million for the surplus Plutonium Disposition 
Project. This project at the site will safely dispose of 24 
metric tons of surplus plutonium through the dilute and dispose 
process.
    Fourth, $11,549,000 for the Savannah River site community 
and regulatory support. This request secures payments in lieu 
of taxes for Aiken, Barnwell, and Allendale Counties, which I 
represent with Congressman Jim Clyburn, which provide for the 
vast acreage of the site.
    This funding request matches what has been appropriated 
previous years to support the local school districts, emergency 
services, and county operations.
    Fifth, $543,784,000 for the Savannah River risk management 
operations. This request will allow critical missions like H-
Canyon at the SRS to proceed to continue processing spent 
nuclear fuel. These funds will also maintain operations aligned 
with the liquid waste lifecycle program.
    Six, $1,046,000,000 for the Savannah River radioactive 
liquid tank waste stabilization and disposition. This request 
includes continuation of hot operations of the Salt Waste 
Processing Facility, SWPF, the defense waste processing 
facility, as well as the continued construction of saltstone 
disposal units to accommodate for the increased amount of waste 
being processed.
    Seventh and finally, $80 million for the Savannah River 
National Laboratory RAD facilities. The Savannah River National 
Laboratory operates a suite of radiological facilities that 
provide for critical, technical, and operational support to the 
EM and NNSA missions. Effective June 2021, the lab will become 
a separate management and operations contract. To cover the 
high cost of operating and maintaining radiological facilities, 
the lab overhead rate would increase significantly. By 
increasing a controlled point for the lab, it will allow the 
SRNL to safely operate.
    Thank you again for your time and your great service on the 
committee and in Congress for each of you. And I appreciate 
your consideration for these requests.
    I yield back.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
    
    
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Congressman Wilson, very much.
    Where in South Carolina do you actually reside? What is the 
largest town or give us a sense?
    Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. Chairwoman, I am adjacent to 
the city of Columbia.
    Ms. Kaptur. Columbia----
    Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. --Aiken, the I-20 corridor, 
and so it is the central part of South Carolina.
    Ms. Kaptur. The central part of South Carolina. If you had 
to mention a facility or a college or a place that other 
Americans might know, what would you pick?
    Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. The University of South 
Carolina, Gamecocks. I am adjacent to that, of course. And the 
real USC. Okay? And we are happy, hey, we are also happy to 
claim next door the Augusta National Golf Course, and so the 
Masters brings worldwide attention to the communities I 
represent.
    Ms. Kaptur. All right. Well, thank you for ringing in hard 
for the southeastern part of our country. We appreciate your 
testimony today.
    And now we are going to move to another coastal State on 
the East Coast, obviously, Representative Jefferson Van Drew. 
Thank you so much for testifying today.
                              ----------                              --
--------

                                               Monday, May 3, 2021.

                                WITNESS

HON. JEFFERSON VAN DREW, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 
    NEW JERSEY
    Mr. Van Drew. Madam Chair, thank you. Thank you for having 
these hearings and as well to the ranking member. I truly 
appreciate it.
    I am here to advocate for a long overdue and much-needed 
Army Corps of Engineers project. The dredging of the mouth of 
the Maurice River on the Delaware Bay Shore in New Jersey.
    This project will generate high economic operational and 
environmental returns in a cost-effective and innovative 
manner. The Maurice River has been federally authorized for 
dredging for over 1 century. Maintenance dredging should be 
done every 5 to 8 years, but it has been nearly 25 years since 
the Maurice River was last serviced.
    As it stands, vessels must idle and wait until high tide to 
access the river channel. The neglect of the Maurice River 
Channel has limited the ability of local industry, mostly small 
businesses to flourish and expand. It has cost them large 
contracts.
    There is also increased cost for government agencies, 
including the U.S. Army, the United States Coast Guard, the 
Army Corps, and the New Jersey State Police, which all rely on 
this channel. Government vessels that would otherwise be 
serviced at Maurice River now must instead travel to Rhode 
Island or Virginia or other areas, which increases the time and 
the monetary cost of the operation to all these different 
agencies. The proposed dredging will open the channel to larger 
vessels and more frequent navigation, which is what we want. 
And it will increase the capacity for commerce across the Mid-
Atlantic to facilitate the interstate commerce by keeping the 
Nation's waterways open and safe is one of the Army Corps' 
original and most vital missions.
    This project has outstanding community support. It has 
received letters of support from the surrounding 
municipalities, the county, the State legislative delegation, 
and the entire local business community. The local and regional 
community is totally united in support for this project.
    Most notably, this project has received a very rare letter 
of capability from the Army Corps of Engineers, which I have 
submitted to the committee. The Army Corps has an innovative 
beneficial-use plan to execute this project in a cost-effective 
manner and amplify the benefits of the project and utilize the 
dredge spoils for environmental resilience, which is what is so 
wonderful about this particular project.
    This project, if funded, will open a new world of 
opportunity for the Delaware Bay Shore community. This is a 
community that is near and dear to my heart and, sadly, one 
that is too often left behind. We can truly make a positive 
impact on this community. I urge you to grant this request for 
$4,010,000 in community project funding to the Army Corps of 
Engineers in the Philadelphia district and to conduct this 
literally one-of-a-kind project.
    Thank you so much for your time, and I yield back.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
       
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Congressman Van Drew.
    And you are our last panel. But I did want to comment to 
both of you that, and our able ranking member earlier stated, 
generally administrations submit a budget to us and underfund 
the Corps because they know how popular the Corps is and 
Congress will fix it. Well, shame on them.
    We have tens of billions of dollars of backlog Corps 
projects all over the country. The most important 
infrastructure bill we could write would put those projects up 
at the top of the list because the Corps could move them. They 
are restrained somewhat internally by not having enough staff 
to process, but, nonetheless, you know, when we are serious 
about something, America can get it done. So I view their unmet 
backlog as one of our key elements for the upcoming 
infrastructure bill. And I hope we can get it done.
    I am very happy to hear your emphasis, Congressman Van 
Drew, on environmental restoration. And one of our challenges 
with the Corps--I couldn't figure out why it has been so slow 
for them to do environmental restoration. And I asked them for 
a list of which engineers they hire and how many are civil 
engineers, environmental engineers. They have almost no 
environmental engineers. So, when you talk about reuse and 
recovery of material, it isn't that they are not talented; they 
are very talented. They just don't think in that category. They 
don't have the staff to do it. So it is a problem for us all 
over the country.
    I want----
    Mr. Van Drew. Madam Chairman, this would be a brave new 
start because it is something that would help the environment, 
the wetlands, and so forth in the area, and at the same time 
reduce costs, which usually doesn't always go together. So we 
are really proud of this project, and it has tremendous 
potential. And, again, as I said before, the Army Corps is on 
the same page with this. It is one of those rare projects, 
which, as you know, doesn't happen that often, where 
environmentalists are happy, where the Corps is happy, where 
all these other agencies are happy as well. So it is not the 
largest price tag project in the world for sure, but it is a 
very, very important one to people whose safety and literally 
their way of life depends upon it.
    Ms. Kaptur. I wanted to ask Congressman Wilson and 
yourself, in terms of what is happening to our environment, you 
both are coastal Representatives. You are further north, 
obviously, but New Jersey's coast has been battered. Obviously, 
South Carolina, Florida, North Carolina, Louisiana. I mean, I 
wondered if could you reflect on what you have seen happening 
in your regions compared to maybe 40 years ago when you were in 
school or starting your careers. Do you have any comments you 
could make to us on changes that you have seen in the ecosystem 
in your areas?
    Mr. Van Drew. It certainly does seem a bit warmer, and that 
is something that I think anecdotally a lot of people feel. 
Interestingly enough, we have a tremendous amount of fishing. 
The port of Cape May, if you are familiar with Cape May, is in 
the top five on the whole East Coast. And the fishing, the type 
of fish that they are catching, the type of fish that they are 
seeing is a little bit different because of the change of the 
temperature of the water. So that also has been a very 
interesting change. And we had Superstorm Sandy, which was a 
huge storm. But at the same time, you know, we have had storms 
like that before, unfortunately, or almost like that. We don't 
have them nearly as regularly as say Puerto Rico or even the 
Carolinas, but we do. So we don't know what the cause of that 
particular thing is.
    And I would say this one thing, as we go forward--and I was 
glad to hear we were talking about--I always see this as a 
basket of ideas. So I believe that wind has a use. I believe 
that solar has a use. Fossil fuels are still going to be there 
for a while. I believe that nuclear could have a use, without 
question. One of the issues that is a real challenge for the 
coast of New Jersey and our area is there are a great number of 
wind turbines that are slated to go up. And it is creating a 
real difference of opinion between commercial fishermen and 
recreational fishermen and the people who want to do the 
windmills because it is going to profoundly--they are a 1,000 
feet high, and on top of that 1,000 feet, they have a light, so 
they are as high as the Statue of Liberty. And so people do 
worry about the birds, literally the birds and the bees and the 
bats. And people are also worried about we don't want to 
replace one industry for another, that there be enough room for 
navigation for the commercial fishing boats and the 
recreational fishing boats because, in Europe, where they do 
have these wind turbines to a much greater degree, they don't 
have fishing, other than in the U.K., right around them. So 
they are worried about the cold pool. The cold pool is a rich 
area, an abundant area environmentally species-wise and for the 
fishermen as well. They are worried about the floor, literally 
the floor of the ocean. So I think, as we go through with this, 
we all have to have open minds and see what the best is to do 
in a particular situation. This isn't going to be one easy, 
quick answer in my mind, that it is just going to be wind or it 
is just going to be solar or it is just going to be nuclear, or 
it is just going to be--certainly, you know, a mixture, I 
think. And I just wanted to put that in because it is quite a 
thing that we are going through right now.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much for those comments.
    Congressman Wilson.
    Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. Chairwoman, first of all, I 
want to thank you for your tribute to the Corps of Engineers. 
My youngest son is a graduate of Fort Leonard Wood as an 
engineer and has served for a year in Afghanistan. And so I am 
really grateful for his service. And then, indeed, I actually 
represent of interior part of South Carolina, but we 
obviously--I grew up in the very historic coastal city of 
Charleston, South Carolina. And so every year, Chairwoman, we 
would have the threat of a hurricane coming straight toward us. 
And then, fortunately, only one time, 1959, with Hurricane 
Gracie, did it actually hit Charleston. But due to the Gulf 
Stream, it normally directs a hurricane--and I don't want to 
hurt the feelings of people in Outer Banks of North Carolina, 
but it directs it straight to the Outer Banks of North Carolina 
like a catcher's mitt. And so we have been very fortunate. We 
did have in 1989 Hurricane Hugo. But the hurricanes fortunately 
along our coast, sadly for our adjacent States, go north. Like 
Hurricane Sandy to New Jersey, where Congressman Van Drew found 
out the consequence. But bottom line, we have a temperate 
climate. And so that is why South Carolina is one of the 
fastest growing States in the United States.
    Ms. Kaptur. Very interesting. Well, thank you both 
Congressmen.
    Congressman Simpson, would you like to ask any questions or 
make final comments?
    Mr. Simpson. No questions. Thank you both for testifying. I 
always look forward to working with Joe on the issues dealing 
with the nuclear facility in South Carolina and how we get this 
dilute disposed moving forward and where we are going to 
dispose after we dilute. That is always--that is the challenge 
right now. So I look forward to working with you on that.
    Thank you both for testifying and being here today.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you.
    And, for the record, I would just say following Congressman 
Simpson's comments that we are looking very seriously at 
interim storage of spent nuclear waste. And we are trying to 
figure out a way to get that moving for the sake of the Nation. 
So all ideas on that front are welcome.
    I want to thank Congressman and Ranking Member Simpson for 
his steadfast engagement.
    And this concludes today's hearing.
    But I would like to thank all of our colleagues for joining 
us today. I think this was a great hearing, learning from our 
Members and hearing their ideas and their experiences.
    Members who would like to submit written testimony have 
until the close of business today to provide this information 
to the subcommittee office. And this hearing is adjourned with 
thanks to all.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]