[Senate Hearing 117-441]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]






                                                        S. Hrg. 117-441
 
                  THE INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS OF THE U.S.
                    ENERGY SECTOR, WESTERN WATER AND
                    PUBLIC LANDS, AND CONSIDERATION
                       OF A LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                              COMMITTEE ON
                      ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                             JUNE 24, 2021

                               __________
                               
                               
                               
      [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                         


                       Printed for the use of the
               Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
        
        
        
        
                                 ______

             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
 44-972               WASHINGTON : 2023
 
   
        
               COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

                JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia, Chairman
RON WYDEN, Oregon                    JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington           JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont             MIKE LEE, Utah
MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico          STEVE DAINES, Montana
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii              LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine            JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada       JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
MARK KELLY, Arizona                  BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana
JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER, Colorado       CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi
                                     ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas

                      Renae Black, Staff Director
                      Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
                Nicole Buell, Professional Staff Member
             Richard M. Russell, Republican Staff Director
              Matthew H. Leggett, Republican Chief Counsel
      Justin Memmott, Republican Deputy Staff Director for Energy
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                   Page
Manchin III, Hon. Joe, Chairman and a U.S. Senator from West 
  Virginia.......................................................     1
Barrasso, Hon. John, Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator from 
  Wyoming........................................................     2
Wyden, Hon. Ron, a U.S. Senator from Oregon......................     4
Cantwell, Hon. Maria, a U.S. Senator from Washington.............     5

                               WITNESSES

Hogan, Dr. Kathleen, Acting Undersecretary for Science and 
  Energy, U.S. Department of Energy..............................     5
Trujillo, Hon. Tanya, Assistant Secretary of the Interior for 
  Water and Science, U.S. Department of the Interior.............    13
French, Chris, Deputy Chief, National Forest System, U.S. 
  Department of Agriculture......................................    26
Holtz-Eakin, Dr. Douglas, President, American Action Forum.......    33
O'Mara, Collin, President and CEO, National Wildlife Federation..    43
Mills, Mark P., Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute...............    53

          ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy:
    Letter for the Record........................................   103
American Lithium Corp.:
    Letter for the Record........................................   105
Barrasso, Hon. John:
    Opening Statement............................................     2
    Letter from Senators Wicker and Barrasso to FCC Chairman Ajit 
      Pai, dated 10/28/2020......................................   168
    Letter from FCC Chairman Ajit Pai to Senator Barrasso, dated 
      1/6/2021...................................................   169
    Chart depicting CBO estimate of unspent COVID stimulus funds.   170
Cantwell, Hon. Maria:
    Opening Statement............................................     5
Daines, Hon. Steve:
    Photograph of collapsed drop structure in Montana............    72
    Map entitled ``Stonewall Vegetation Project Decision Fire 
      History and Park Creek and Arrastra Creek Fires'' dated 7/
      25/2017....................................................    74
French, Chris:
    Opening Statement............................................    26
    Written Testimony............................................    28
    Responses to Questions for the Record........................    94
Fusion Industry Association:
    Statement for the Record.....................................   113
Hogan, Dr. Kathleen:
    Opening Statement............................................     5
    Written Testimony............................................     7
    Responses to Questions for the Record........................    86
Holtz-Eakin, Dr. Douglas:
    Opening Statement............................................    33
    Written Testimony............................................    35
Manchin III, Hon. Joe:
    Opening Statement............................................     1
Mills, Mark P.:
    Opening Statement............................................    53
    Written Testimony............................................    55
Mumgaard, Robert:
    Statement for the Record.....................................   110
O'Mara, Collin:
    Opening Statement............................................    43
    Written Testimony............................................    45
    Responses to Questions for the Record........................    98
Resources for the Future:
    Opinion piece by Daniel Shawhan, Fellow at Resources for the 
      Future, first published by The Hill on May 20, 2021........   117
    Working Paper 2-10, entitled ``The Value of Advanced Energy 
      Funding'' published in April 2021..........................   119
Trout Unlimited:
    Letter for the Record........................................   156
Trujillo, Hon. Tanya:
    Opening Statement............................................    13
    Written Testimony............................................    15
    Questions for the Record.....................................    92
Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America et al.:
    Letter for the Record........................................   160
WateReuse:
    Statement for the Record.....................................   161
(The) Wilderness Society:
    Letter for the Record........................................   164
Wyden, Hon. Ron:
    Opening Statement............................................     4

----------
 The text of the discussion draft addressed in this hearing is 
available at https://www.energy.senate.gov/services/files/8E5E06C5-
60F6-4C50-8D19-20A80D0F255B


 THE INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS OF THE U.S. ENERGY SECTOR, WESTERN WATER AND 
       PUBLIC LANDS, AND CONSIDERATION OF A LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL

                              ----------                              


                        THURSDAY, JUNE 24, 2021

                                       U.S. Senate,
                 Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m. in Room 
SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Joe Manchin III, 
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.

          OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE MANCHIN III, 
                U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA

    The Chairman. We are here today to discuss infrastructure 
investments to address our energy sector, public lands, and 
western water needs. While we will be focusing our discussion 
on our jurisdiction, let me begin by noting that 
infrastructure, broadly speaking, is truly a bipartisan issue 
that serves as the backbone of society. It is critical at this 
time in our history that we come together to invest in our 
country in ways that are both fiscally responsible and reflect 
the needs of our nation. With the right strategy, reinvesting 
in our nation's infrastructure can also strengthen the economy, 
create jobs, boost our competitiveness, and help tackle climate 
change. Although I do not anticipate we will all agree on the 
size or scope of investment necessary to do this, I think all 
of my colleagues will agree that the areas within our 
jurisdiction are an important piece of the broader conversation 
about our infrastructure needs.
    Let me turn now to the draft legislation before us 
[discussion draft of the Energy Infrastructure Act] and the 
areas in which it invests. First off, the bill funds the 
demonstration of pilot projects included in the bipartisan 
Energy Act in an all-of-the-above way, with billions of dollars 
for advanced nuclear, carbon capture and direct air capture, 
renewables, energy storage, and industrial emissions solutions. 
You have all heard me say time and time again, we need to 
address climate change through innovation, not elimination, and 
that is what this legislation would do. That includes going 
after the low-hanging fruit, like energy efficiency, and doing 
what we can to reduce energy use in our residential, 
commercial, and industrial buildings. This not only results in 
real emission reductions, but it also saves people money.
    The text also builds on and complements the Energy Act by 
investing in CO2 infrastructure that will be needed 
to make CCUS (Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage) and 
direct air capture a reality in the way we need it to be. It 
would invest in technologies that have low or no emissions, 
including supporting our existing zero-emission nuclear fleet 
and advancing hydrogen technologies that can significantly 
decarbonize our energy, industrial, and transportation sectors 
without relying on foreign supply chains. It would also build 
out supply chains that are needed for clean energy 
technologies, including making it easier to responsibly mine 
critical minerals and investing in domestic refining 
capabilities, in addition to onshoring battery manufacturing 
and recycling. We currently rely on other countries for each 
piece of that supply chain, some with questionable mining 
practices, and that is just not right.
    This legislation would also invest heavily in our 
electrical grid to improve the resilience, flexibility, and 
security of our energy infrastructure. We have seen across the 
country, time and time again, that the grid is not as resilient 
as we need it to be from extreme weather events, wildfire, and 
cyberattacks. On the theme of resilience, this legislation 
would also make substantial, targeted investments to restore 
the health of our forests and mitigate the wildfires that have 
been impacting many of the communities in our western states.
    It also includes significant investments into legacy 
cleanup efforts to address issues with abandoned energy 
infrastructure that powered our country to greatness. That 
includes plugging orphaned wells, which not only puts people to 
work, but also curbs methane emissions, which are 84 percent 
more potent than CO2 in the first two decades. It 
also includes investing in the reclamation of abandoned mine 
lands (AMLs). Our coal communities bear the scars of having 
mined the coal to power this country to greatness over the last 
century. While this funding will do a great deal of good, it 
will still not be enough to cover all of the outstanding 
reclamation work that is desperately needed to finish the job 
and protect the health and safety of these communities in many 
cases, and provide new economic opportunities for these areas. 
So I will be continuing to work with my colleagues to 
complement this funding with an extension of the AML 
Reclamation fee that is set to expire in September. Inaction is 
truly not an option.
    These are just a few of the highlights of all the 
infrastructure investments the bill contemplates. This almost 
$95 billion investment would deliver on the President's 
American Jobs Plan in many big ways that can garner bipartisan 
support. I look forward to discussing these proposals and the 
needs they address with our panel today. With that, I turn to 
my friend and Ranking Member, Senator Barrasso, for his opening 
remarks.

           OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING

    Senator Barrasso. Well, thanks so much, Mr. Chairman, and 
thank you for your commitment to develop bipartisan 
infrastructure legislation. We are very grateful. It is 
critical that this Committee and the Senate as a whole proceed 
through regular order, not the partisan reconciliation process. 
I commend you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing to begin 
a regular order legislative process on infrastructure 
legislation. I applaud you also for drafting a bill that 
recognizes the necessity for advanced nuclear and carbon 
capture technologies. I am also grateful that the legislation 
includes money for water infrastructure in the West. If any 
projects within this Committee's jurisdiction meet the 
definition of infrastructure, they are clearly Bureau of 
Reclamation projects.
    At the same time, Mr. Chairman, it is difficult to 
understand the rationale behind the lack of process used to 
draft the legislative proposal before us today. We all 
recognize the need to move infrastructure legislation in a 
timely manner. Neither I nor my staff had the opportunity to 
review or provide input on the draft bill before it was 
released last Thursday. It is also true for most of the 
Republican members of this Committee. So I believe we should 
work to build a broad consensus. The lack of consultation means 
we are not including the priorities for all of the Committee 
members who represent the states with different needs. There is 
time to right the ship to build this consensus and to pass 
something that we can all support. So I am ready to work with 
you, Mr. Chairman, to do just that.
    I believe the draft bill still needs work. It does not 
authorize programs where we should and it does appropriate 
money where we should not. The Senate Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee is, after all, a committee that authorizes 
programs--does not appropriate funds. I am aware of no 
precedent where this Committee appropriated anything close to 
the $100 billion included in this draft bill. I am troubled 
that the bill includes $5 billion for a program that appears 
designed to further bail out the State of California and its 
failing electric grid. The State of California already has a 
$75 billion budget surplus.
    I am concerned that the bill funds the Department of Energy 
to coerce states to adopt building codes which may restrict the 
use of natural gas. I am opposed to spending $500 million for 
schools to plant outdoor gardens and install green roofs. I am 
concerned about appropriating 10 times the amount of money that 
Congress has authorized for weatherization assistance. I am 
opposed to a 20-fold increase for an energy efficiency program 
and am concerned that this bill includes almost no permitting 
reform. Permitting reform is one thing that we really need to 
actually get infrastructure built. The draft also leaves open 
critical questions. How will we pay for this bill? Will the 
bill be incorporated into Majority Leader Schumer's partisan 
reconciliation process or will it go by regular order? Is this 
bill a wise and prudent use of American taxpayer dollars, or 
does it spend money on initiatives which the private sector 
already intends to support?
    Now I, along with all the Republicans on this Committee, am 
ready to get to work, Mr. Chairman. We have policy ideas and 
legislation that address America's infrastructure needs. We 
also need answers to our questions and changes to address our 
concerns. I want to again thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding 
this important hearing and for beginning this committee process 
on this very important topic. I also want to welcome the 
witnesses to the Committee today and look forward to the 
testimony from all of you.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Barrasso.
    I would like to welcome all of our witnesses to the 
Committee and thank you for being part of the important 
discussion today.
    Today, we have with us Dr. Kathleen Hogan, Acting 
Undersecretary for Science and Energy at the Department of 
Energy; Hon. Tanya Trujillo, Assistant Secretary of Interior 
for Water and Science at the Department of the Interior; Mr. 
Chris French, Deputy Chief of the U.S. Forest Service; Dr. 
Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the President of American Action Forum; 
Mr. Collin O'Mara, the President and CEO of the National 
Wildlife Federation; and finally, Mr. Mark Mills, a Senior 
Fellow with the Manhattan Institute.
    Before we get started with you, Dr. Hogan, I have Senator 
Wyden who has a committee that he has to run to real quick.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON

    Senator Wyden. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for your 
thoughtfulness and Senator Barrasso as well. I pledge to make 
this a filibuster-free zone, and I will take just one minute to 
be very brief.
    Mr. Chairman, I want it understood that I think you have 
put out a laudable product here, and I am not saying this just 
because you included three of my pieces of legislation. I do 
want everyone to know--and I see my western colleagues, you 
know, with us--that every living soul in the West is 
collectively holding their breath right now for the next 
devastating wildfire to hit, and people sure have reasons to 
worry. Parts of my state are already on fire because of the 
record-breaking heat and severe drought conditions and it is 
still only June.
    So Chairman Manchin, your hearing on energy infrastructure 
could not be more timely. Obviously, we are working in several 
areas with respect to infrastructure to implement the 
President's Build Back Better agenda. There is an urgent need 
to address this climate crisis and invest in clean, renewable 
energy, and the three bills that I would like to put 
additional, supplemental material into the record on are the 
Disaster Safe Power Act and the prescribed fire legislation and 
additional language with respect to the Forest Service Legacy 
Roads and Trails program. We are going to need, in my view, 
increased funding above what it is in this proposal, but I 
think we all know that we have to work on these issues in the 
way this Committee has always focused, which is to do it in a 
bipartisan way.
    I thank the Chairman for the chance to take this minute and 
the indulgence of, particularly, my western colleagues, because 
I think it would be fair to say, for purposes of the record, we 
are very much like-minded on this issue.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Wyden.
    And also, we have Senator Cantwell.
    Senator Cantwell. Thank you.
    The Chairman. She has to go to her Commerce Committee.

           OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON

    Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the 
indulgence. I hope to come back much later, obviously, in this 
process, but I just wanted to thank you for your draft 
legislation. So important to the very important needs to ensure 
electricity prices remain affordable, harden our grid against 
increasing intense and extreme weather, and the importance of 
cybersecurity as well as the competitiveness to manufacturers 
to export great products around the world.
    Temperatures in Washington State are going to reach a 
record high next week and this weekend. And so I think that 
these debilitating highs that impact so much of our western 
economy now need to be dealt with. Mr. Chairman, you 
incorporated several provisions on the Grid Modernization and 
Expansion Act--very important legislation. I hope that this 
21st century grid is smarter, more resilient, more reliable, 
and more affordable. So thank you for including those 
provisions, and I appreciate your leadership.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
    Is there anyone else in the Committee that wants to make a 
quick statement before we go to the witnesses?
    If not, thank you all.
    We will start with Dr. Hogan.

OPENING STATEMENT OF DR. KATHLEEN HOGAN, ACTING UNDERSECRETARY 
       FOR SCIENCE AND ENERGY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

    Dr. Hogan. Chairman Manchin, Ranking Member Barrasso, and 
distinguished members of the Committee, thank you for the 
opportunity to testify on behalf of the Department of Energy on 
the role of energy infrastructure in achieving the Biden-Harris 
Administration's clean energy and jobs goals and our initial 
evaluation of the infrastructure discussion draft.
    Affordable, clean, reliable, and secure energy is essential 
to a prosperous America, and DOE is already jump-starting 
efforts to improve our energy infrastructure and create jobs, 
enhance national security, and transition to the clean-energy 
economy of the future, and we are prioritizing the communities 
who have been left behind. We have set ambitious new goals to 
cut solar costs, add new gigawatts of offshore wind capacity, 
and reduce the cost of clean hydrogen. And with other agencies, 
we have identified nearly $38 billion in existing federal 
resources to help the hardest hit communities as they shift 
their reliance on fossil fuels. And we are leading an 
interagency working group on coal and power plant communities 
to promote investments in such communities.
    So this discussion draft of the Committee will help us do 
more, but today's challenge will not be met without the scale 
and scope of the American Jobs Plan. President Biden released 
the American Jobs Plan in March. It is the biggest investment 
in America since World War II, positions the U.S. to win the 
global energy market, will put millions of Americans to work, 
and lays the foundation for economic growth for decades to 
come. The plan recognizes the urgency to act. It goes beyond 
addressing critical infrastructure and requires addressing 
head-on the challenges posed to our security and our economy by 
the climate crisis. It proposes investments in clean energy 
research, a full range of demonstration projects, it would 
deploy technologies to deliver clean, affordable energy to 
every community, and invest in factories to propel U.S. 
leadership in clean energy manufacturing, providing good-paying 
jobs. We see this discussion draft as inspired in part by the 
American Jobs Plan and advancing the recent Energy Act of 2020. 
I will speak to some expanded DOE capabilities as well as some 
areas where greater authority and funding would be beneficial.
    First, the discussion draft, building on the Energy Act of 
2020, appropriates important funding toward key research 
facilities and demonstrations, including and as you mentioned: 
energy storage, advanced nuclear, renewable energy, critical 
minerals, and industrial decarbonization. It includes 
additional efforts on carbon capture, hydrogen, carbon 
transportation and storage, grid resilience, and 
cybersecurity--all elements of the American Jobs Plan. It 
broadens key DOE capabilities with the existing nuclear fleet, 
the loan guarantee program, and upgrading our nation's 
electricity transmission system, largely consistent with the 
President's vision for a grid-deployment authority at the 
Department of Energy. It helps lower utility costs for schools, 
federal facilities, low-income homes, and other buildings and 
facilities.
    That said, additional capabilities, flexibilities, and 
funding as outlined in the American Jobs Plan are needed. For 
example, more flexible and larger state, tribal, and local 
grants to advance clean energy throughout the country, greater 
supply chain investment beyond the batteries and critical 
minerals sphere, and more resources to help retool existing 
factories and transition workers. Additional transmission-
related provisions, so DOE can support states and utilities as 
they plan, permit, and pay for hardened, expanded, and 
modernized transmission systems. Additional scope for DOE's 
loan program and additional funding to allow use of the 
broadened scope, and a clean energy standard to leverage 
private sector investment, yield locally tailored energy mixes, 
and offering another way to provide incentives for nuclear 
power as you envision.
    So we do have before us a generational opportunity to 
invest in our future, capitalize on an emerging $23 trillion 
global clean energy market and create millions of good-paying 
careers, while making our electricity grid, our homes, and our 
communities safer, cleaner, and more resilient. So again, the 
Committee's infrastructure discussion draft is an important 
step, but this generational opportunity to Build Back Better 
requires the American Jobs Plan. We look forward to working 
with you throughout the legislative process and here to answer 
questions. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Hogan follows:]
 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]   
    The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Hogan.
    Next, we are going to have Ms. Trujillo.

 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TANYA TRUJILLO, ASSISTANT SECRETARY 
 OF THE INTERIOR FOR WATER AND SCIENCE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE 
                            INTERIOR

    Ms. Trujillo. Thank you.
    Good morning, Chairman Manchin, Ranking Member Barrasso, 
and members of the Committee. Thank you for providing the 
Department of the Interior with the opportunity to testify on 
the discussion draft of the Energy Infrastructure Act. In 
addition to my testimony today, Interior will be happy to 
provide the Committee with additional views and assistance as 
the bill moves forward. We are very happy to be working closely 
with our colleagues at the Department of Energy and the 
Department of Agriculture on these important programs.
    Many of the provisions in the draft bill complement the 
Administration's American Jobs Plan and fit well within the 
Department of the Interior's priority goals. Addressing the 
challenges of climate change and America's aging infrastructure 
are priorities for the Department as we continue to invest in 
measures to increase climate resilience and manage our public 
lands for the benefit of the American people. In my role at 
Interior, I work closely with the Bureau of Reclamation and the 
U.S. Geological Survey, but all parts of the Department are 
united in tackling these important challenges. Faced with 
unprecedented drought and record-setting temperatures, Interior 
is working closely with our sister agencies and with state and 
local entities to provide assistance to farmers, tribes, and 
other water users to help respond to the severe drought 
conditions we are facing. Providing additional capabilities to 
respond to drought and meet water supply needs are some of the 
many examples in the draft bill that are complementary to the 
Administration's proposals in the American Jobs Plan and to our 
ongoing work at Interior. For example, with respect to the 
provisions in Title II, we are utilizing the best available 
science to help ensure that we can meet the Administration's 
recently announced goals to strengthen American supply chains 
and to promote economic security, national security, and good-
paying union jobs here at home.
    With respect to critical minerals, the USGS (United States 
Geological Survey) is responsible for mapping, characterizing, 
and quantifying the nation's geologic resources, including 
critical minerals. The Department will work very closely with 
other federal agencies, tribal nations, and state and local 
entities to ensure we can meet the goals for sustainable 
production, refining, and recycling capabilities for critical 
minerals here at home through environmentally responsible, 
appropriately sited, critical mineral production from our 
public lands. We look forward to working with this Committee to 
achieve those goals.
    In Section 6001, relating to orphaned wells, that section 
establishes a program to plug, remediate, and reclaim orphaned 
wells through grants to states and new programs for tribes and 
federal lands. The Department recently testified before this 
Committee in strong support of that section's goals and for 
remediating the thousands of orphaned oil and gas wells on 
federal and nonfederal lands. Those wells and abandoned mines 
pose serious safety hazards while also causing ongoing air, 
water, and other environmental damage. Reclamation of orphaned 
wells helps to ensure that any impacts on the land and 
resources are not permanent, and the additional reclamation 
creates jobs.
    Section 7001 would provide additional funding for the 
Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund to address legacy abandoned 
coal mine sites throughout the nation. The Administration 
supports reauthorization of the Abandoned Mine Land Fee 
Authority before its expiration on September 30th in order to 
continue this important work.
    Title VIII of the draft bill highlights the magnitude of 
this year's severe heat and drought to emphasize the need to 
improve our wildfire management capabilities before, during, 
and after the fires occur. We agree with the draft bill's 
provisions that there is an urgent need to focus equally on 
wildfire prevention and mitigation efforts while continuing to 
carry out our core wildfire response activities.
    With respect to western water provisions, as I mentioned 
earlier, the Department recognizes the drought impacts facing 
the West. I work on them every day. Drought resilience 
projects, water efficiency projects, and other water management 
improvements provide critical support for our communities and 
stakeholders as they continue to prepare to respond to the 
drought.
    We would also like to see the addition of additional 
provisions relating to other priorities, such as Indian water 
right settlements, rural water projects, and critical dam 
safety improvements.
    Thank you for the opportunity to present the Department's 
views on this discussion draft. The President has made clear 
that this is a top priority, and we welcome the opportunity to 
work with the Committee. This concludes my statement, and I 
will be happy to answer questions. Thank you very much.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Trujillo follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
            
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. French.

   OPENING STATEMENT OF CHRIS FRENCH, DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL 
         FOREST SYSTEM, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

    Mr. French. Chairman Manchin, Ranking Member Barrasso, and 
members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to 
appear before you today. The Energy Infrastructure Act 
discussion draft before us recognizes key investments critical 
to the USDA Forest Service and highlights areas detailed in the 
President's American Jobs Plan. It offers thoughtful solutions 
to many of the issues our agency currently faces.
    First and foremost, our greatest challenge is to address 
the wildfire crisis occurring throughout the nation. We must 
address it at the scale of the problem and bring long-term 
relief to our firefighters, our communities, and our forests. I 
am happy to see that the discussion draft addresses this crisis 
on several fronts. As you know, last year was one of the most 
devastating fire seasons on record. There were too many lives 
lost, more than 10 million acres burned, and more than 17,000 
structures lost. We find ourselves facing another challenging 
year. Drought conditions exist in much of the West, and we are 
seeing record high temperatures. With more than 29,000 fires 
that have occurred so far this year, we have already raised our 
national preparedness level to level four, a level we have not 
been at this early in the season since 2002. We have already 
deployed more interagency resources and are experiencing more 
fires than we did at this same point last year. Again, we have 
a crisis.
    To that end, the discussion draft recognizes the need to 
increase, recruit, retain, and compensate a professional 
federal firefighting workforce. It recognizes the need to make 
key investments in technology, predictive services, and state 
and local firefighting partners. And most imperative, it 
recognizes the need to reduce the risk of wildfires through 
restoring our forested landscapes through a variety of federal 
and state-based programs. As the draft recognizes, federal 
firefighters need to be properly compensated for their work and 
the risks they take. Federal wages for firefighters have not 
kept pace with wages offered by state, local, and private 
entities in many areas of the United States. I know this 
firsthand. Early in my career, I started as a GS-4 temporary 
firefighter. In 1992, I made $7.60 an hour. Thirty years later, 
that starting pay is $11.60 an hour, an increase of only $4. It 
is not enough for us to be competitive, to recruit and retain 
the firefighters, nor does it recognize the risk of the work 
they do. So we share the Committee's concerns about the 
competitive pay and are engaging with the wildland firefighter 
community and the Office of Personnel Management to find 
solutions. I look forward to working with you on this important 
issue.
    Next, the Forest Service carries out nearly three million 
acres of wildland fire treatments a year, but it is not nearly 
enough. To really make progress, our scientists show us that we 
need to accomplish two to four times these treatments per year, 
but they have to be in the right places, where the outcomes of 
those treatments reduce the risk to our communities. In many 
cases, these are not the easiest and the cheapest acres to 
treat, but they are the right acres. President Biden's American 
Jobs Plan, through initiatives such as the Civilian Climate 
Corps, calls for restoring nature-based infrastructure to 
increase resilience and reduce the risks associated with 
extreme wildfires. We believe the investments in wildfire risk 
reduction in Title VIII will make a significant start to 
reducing the threat of wildland fire communities across the 
West.
    We also appreciate the provisions that invest in ecosystem 
restoration. We have a lot of work to do on our post-fire 
restoration needs. For example, wildfires right now create 80 
percent of our reforestation needs and the Forest Service is 
only enabled to keep up with about six percent of that. We have 
a rapidly increasing reforestation backlog. Provisions in Title 
VIII that address restoration activities, post wildfire, 
invasive species, and stream restorations will help us 
accommodate critical work that often goes undone. It is also 
important that we remediate National Forest System lands 
significantly impacted by past use. The Forest Service has 
inherited more than 11,000 orphaned oil and gas wells, and we 
appreciate the Committee's attention to this important issue 
and support the goal of Section 6001.
    Finally, this past year, we saw 168 million users on our 
national forests, a new record and an increase of nearly 18 
million people. We know that national forests and grasslands 
provide restorative experiences and natural connections that 
people needed during the pandemic. The Great American Outdoors 
Act addresses about 20 percent of our deferred recreation 
maintenance, but there is a need to provide facilities and 
services that match the surge in visitor demand and that reduce 
barriers for communities that are not served by our current 
infrastructure. I appreciate that Title VIII includes 
acknowledgement of and some additional funding for recreation 
sites experiencing use beyond their carrying capacity.
    Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I 
would be happy to take any questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. French follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Dr. Eakin.

         OPENING STATEMENT OF DR. DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN, 
                PRESIDENT, AMERICAN ACTION FORUM

    Dr. Holtz-Eakin. Chairman Manchin, Ranking Member Barrasso, 
members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to be 
here today to discuss this important and very timely issue. I 
think I would like to make three brief points and then I would 
look forward to answering your questions.
    First, is that Congress and this Committee have the 
opportunity to do something very important by investing in 
productivity and long-term growth in the United States. The 
Administration's budget, which is more optimistic than the CBO, 
shows long-term growth at two percent or a little bit below. 
Investing in core productive infrastructure of the type 
contemplated by this Committee is a way to raise that 
productivity growth and benefit Americans in all walks of life. 
It is the most important single economic indicator over the 
long term. The composition of the spending is the key there. 
This has to be things that raise productivity. And so, even 
though there are going to be other demands for taxpayer 
dollars, focusing on those core infrastructure areas and 
avoiding spending money on things which will not raise 
productivity, is probably a key design issue for this Committee 
and for the Congress.
    The second thing is that it can do that without 
exacerbating the risk of higher inflation that we are 
experiencing right now. This spending would be very different 
than that in, for example, the American Rescue Plan (ARP), 
which is one of the things that has fueled the rising 
inflation. We have seen in the first half of 2021 an increase 
in inflation across the board. We saw the highest core CPI 
since June 1992 in the Mace statistics. We see supply chain 
price increases. We see producer price increases. Asset prices 
have been extremely high and volatile. All of this is a tribute 
to the kind of over-stimulus that came from the front-loaded 
$1.9 trillion that we saw in the ARP. This Committee and the 
Congress can back-load this plan and pay for it in its 
entirety, avoiding the inflationary risks, but at the same time 
supplementing the pace of long-term economic growth and that, I 
think, would be a tremendous design opportunity for the 
Committee and for the Congress and I encourage you to take 
advantage of it.
    The third point I would like to make about the programs 
that are in the jurisdiction of this Committee is that 
investment in energy infrastructure is what the private sector 
does. Over the past 10 years, if you look at Department of 
Energy and other government programs, they spent about $30 
billion on investments in energy. In 2020, hardly a banner year 
for the U.S. economy and for investment, the private sector 
invested $85 billion in clean energy efforts. So in thinking 
about your policy goals, remember, it is the private sector 
that is going to provide the money, whether it is done through 
paying taxes, buying the bonds that the Treasury tries to sell, 
or investing their own dollars and giving them appropriate 
incentives, is what the market has done. We have seen the 
market apply profits tests to different projects and reward 
innovation in clean energy. That is at the heart of being 
successful in addressing the climate goals that the nation has 
set out. And so I would encourage you to take advantage of the 
private sector in the design to use it for project selection 
and innovation and to allow the economy to continue to innovate 
and grow more rapidly. That would meet all the tests of 
improving the long-term outlook for economic growth, improve 
the long-term outlook for the planet and the climate and 
avoiding near-term risks of inflation, which could be damaging 
to fixed-income seniors and low-income Americans.
    I thank you for the chance to discuss this today.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Holtz-Eakin follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. O'Mara.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF COLLIN O'MARA, 
        PRESIDENT AND CEO, NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION

    Mr. O'Mara. Thank you, Chairman Manchin. Good to see you, 
Senator Barrasso, and members of the Committee. I cannot think 
of a better Committee to be having this conversation with than 
the Committee that last year in the previous Congress managed 
to pass the Great American Outdoors Act public lands package, 
as well as the Energy Act of 2020. And the work that this 
Committee did over those two years has laid the foundation for 
so many of the items that you are proposing for investment 
today. So I just want to thank you for the great bipartisan 
leadership that we see in this Committee.
    Now, the time in which we are talking about these 
investments, coming back to where Senator Wyden started just a 
few minutes ago, the landscape is rough right now. You know, we 
are looking at wildfires--at least 39 major fires across the 
country--already at half a million acres burned across the 
West, 40 million acres burned over the last five years, and 
that is on top of the challenge we are having with drought 
conditions that are at record levels all over the West, as well 
as an above-average hurricane season they are anticipating in 
the East. To have an infrastructure package that is so well 
climate-informed is truly historic. I am greatly appreciative 
of all the language in this bill that does conform, in great 
ways, with the American Jobs Plan that President Biden put out, 
but also showing that some of these investments are bipartisan. 
I just wanted to use my few minutes today to highlight five 
areas that I think are important to keep in the package, maybe 
a few ideas for tweaks and improvements, but again, just 
thanking all of you for coming together to show that we can 
work across the aisle on these important issues to both advance 
our climate goals and our economic competitiveness and 
productivity goals.
    In the energy innovation and industrial sector, thank you 
for including the level of funding that you are proposing--for 
carbon capture and sequestration and the nuclear investments. 
We do think there are opportunities to go bigger on the 
renewable side and the energy efficiency side, but again, these 
are wildly popular proposals--75 percent of the American people 
support energy innovation deployment of these technologies. We 
would encourage you to plus-up Title X. I think there are more 
opportunities to reduce criteria pollution in the carbon 
capture space and that is something we would like to work with 
you on because there are concerns about the pollution that 
comes from some of these technologies. The technology is 
actually showing that you can achieve significant reductions in 
sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, and mercury as you are 
applying these technologies, not so much on NOX, but 
it is an area for potential bipartisan work to make sure those 
technologies are both capturing carbon as well as other 
pollutants.
    We are incredibly excited about Chairman Manchin's 
leadership on abandoned mines and orphaned wells, also working 
closely with folks like Senator Cramer, Senator Lujan, so many 
others, Senator Hoeven, Senator Heinrich, on cleaning up our 
mines and wells. The funding levels are fantastic. Proposing 
them at the same level of the American Jobs Plan is a great 
start. We strongly support Senator Manchin's call for AML 
reauthorization, an incredibly important program because, as 
the Chairman said, $11 billion, as big of a number that is, it 
is not going to clear the backlog. We have much more there. The 
$4.7 billion proposed for orphaned wells--again, a great 
start--but we have tens of billions of dollars in need there.
    We would also encourage the Committee to look at hardrock 
cleanup costs, as well as abandoned uranium mines. That backlog 
is just getting bigger and bigger. We need to look at 1872 as 
part of the conversation, but this is a huge opportunity to 
make a down payment and, frankly, put people to work in the 
places where we need them most right now. I would also 
encourage the Committee to complement this conversation with 
conversations around 1872--the General Mining Act, as well as 
oil and gas binding requirements, so we are not in the same 
mess 20 years from now as additional wells and mines go offline 
and require cleanup, so we do not wind up in the same place 
again.
    The third place is on the forestry piece and kind of 
picking up on my friend Chris's comments, it is fantastic that 
the forestry language is in here, the fire language, the 
ecological restoration. It is not nearly enough. You know, we 
estimate we need an almost $60 billion investment in our 
forests over the next five years, at least $33 billion of that 
should go to the Forest Service. And we also need a lot more 
resources for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). We estimate 
more than $6 billion of need for the Bureau of Land Management. 
A lot of the fires that are starting right now are not starting 
in our forests, they are starting in our grasses. It is our 
buffalo grasses. It is our cheatgrasses. These invasive grasses 
that are growing like crazy when it is wet and then all of a 
sudden when the drought comes, you know, all of a sudden, they 
are tinder for everything. A huge opportunity to put people to 
work and frankly, protect a lot of other assets and 
communities.
    Two last quick ones on critical minerals. We are really 
excited that we are having a serious conversation. The idea of 
having a supply chain that is controlled by the Chinese or in 
the Congo or other places is unacceptable. We want to do it 
safely. You want to make sure that we are recycling more and we 
appreciate Senator King's leadership on recycling. We think 
there is a big opportunity there. We also think there are some 
places we should protect. And again, there is some language 
around 1872.
    And also, we are just very supportive of the language 
around transmission and carbon pipelines. Some of those 
innovative parts of this package are in the transmission space. 
We strongly encourage you to keep them. We appreciate Senator 
Heinrich's leadership and Senator Cantwell's leadership about 
the things around regionalism, around regional planning, loan 
authority. Bolstering the authority is absolutely important 
work. And finally, with my last few seconds, we would encourage 
this Committee to continue working with other committees on 
things like the Civilian Conservation Corps, the Clean Energy 
Standard, working lands, and the Clean Energy Tax Credits.
    And with that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back my one 
second.
    [Laughter.]
    [The prepared statement of Mr. O'Mara follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    
    The Chairman. You did good, Collin.
    Mr. Mills.
    Mr. Mills. Hard act to follow. Good morning.
    The Chairman. He got seven minutes into 4:59.
    [Laughter.]

              OPENING STATEMENT OF MARK P. MILLS, 
               SENIOR FELLOW, MANHATTAN INSTITUTE

    Mr. Mills. Chairman Manchin, Ranking Member Barrasso, this 
hearing is focused on draft legislation regarding the 
infrastructure implications of shifting the nation's energy 
supply toward lower carbon systems. So I think it is prudent to 
consider the full range of options, especially those that could 
be implemented rapidly and cost effectively, but first, permit 
me to offer a global context because this is, after all, a 
global issue.
    The International Energy Agency (IEA) has laid its roadmap 
to net zero and proposes a 1,200 percent increase in the global 
production from wind and solar in just 20 years. It took the 
global oil industry, for context, 50 years to expand that much 
in energy-equivalent terms. So it is the net-zero roadmap that 
everyone is chasing that expects a twofold faster growth rate 
in physical infrastructures of energy machines and one that 
will require using 1,000 percent more materials to build. The 
latter is the physical reality of building wind and solar 
technology. It is, to paraphrase, not ``a feature, not a bug,'' 
it is both a feature and a bug. This is the kind of scale and 
velocity for infrastructure expansion that is truly 
breathtaking, and frankly, I have to go on record as saying I 
do not think it is actually possible. But in the spirit of 
seeking means to reduce global hydrocarbon use, one might 
consider five energy options that do not appear to be on the 
currently favored roadmap.
    So first--greater, faster, and more certain reductions in 
carbon dioxide emissions would happen if the U.S. ensured 
liquid natural gas exports increased as much in the future as 
has already happened. If it were not for the epic increase in 
global natural gas supply and the drop in prices that occurred 
at the same time, the world today would be burning about two 
billion tons more coal per year. That dynamic was driven in 
large part by American production, where in Pennsylvania, Ohio, 
and West Virginia, for the record, collectively accounted for 
nearly two-thirds of that domestic expansion. America's 
Appalachian region is one of the world's biggest producers of 
natural gas and could be far bigger yet. No incentives are 
needed to get America's gas producers to supply more. The key 
to facilitating more exports rests in the infrastructures of 
pipelines and ports where Congress certainly can play a 
constructive role.
    A second, obvious low-carbon energy option would be to 
accelerate next generation nuclear energy deployment, which is 
profoundly superior in physical infrastructure terms. The 
energy in a pound of nuclear fuel matches 60,000 pounds of oil 
or 100,000 pounds of coal or one million pounds of Tesla-class 
batteries. The impediments to grid-scale nuclear power have 
been well-
documented, as this Committee well knows. There are exciting 
options now in the form of mini-reactors that could power even 
small cities to small towns. The key to unlocking this 
technology is commercial validation and production scaling. We 
could consider converting a large share of the Federal 
Government's electric supply to microgrids powered by mini-
reactors, possibly focused on military bases. A program could 
be modeled on the military's competitive procurement process, 
wherein one or two winners are awarded multi-billion dollar, 
multi-year production contracts.
    A third option for reducing oil use is simple, even if it 
is unpopular--encourage greater use of next generation internal 
combustion engines. The world will have hundreds of millions of 
conventional cars for decades to come, even in the most 
optimistic electric vehicle scenarios. The advanced combustion 
engines could yield more oil savings over the coming decade 
than the expansion of electric vehicles. New, superefficient 
designs for internal combustion engines already exist. Some 
have as few moving parts as an electric motor. Federal 
assistance could be useful here, particularly the DOE's 
advanced manufacturing program.
    A fourth action to consider is the domain where I have 
earlier testified. Because the increase in the use of wind, 
solar, and batteries increases the imports of critical minerals 
and materials--this is a critical area, and decades of 
bipartisan proposals have all reached the same obvious 
conclusion--decreasing import dependencies requires increasing 
domestic mining. Any path to net zero passes directly through 
critical infrastructures of mining and minerals processing.
    Finally, a fifth policy action we should consider--it does 
not seem to be on the table at a fulsome level--is pursuit of 
lower carbon energy technologies will require capabilities and 
technologies that are often deemed critical, but do not exist. 
This is something both the IEA and Microsoft, for example, have 
acknowledged. Truly radical innovations and advances will need 
new science that can only be addressed through foundational 
discoveries in physics and chemistry and biology. This, again, 
is a domain where Congress can play a role.
    In summary, given the $100 billion and change of spending 
being contemplated in the legislation under consideration, the 
scale and the long lead times inherent in civilization's energy 
infrastructures require a long-term vision and I think it calls 
for caution to avoid launching short-term initiatives that not 
only would fail to achieve stated goals, but could damage the 
U.S. economy and geopolitical stature.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Mills follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Mills, and thank all of you. 
Now we will start with questions.
    My first question will go to Dr. Hogan. Dr. Hogan, the 
International Energy Agency has recently found that one of the 
most cost-effective options available to reduce emissions while 
maintaining reliability is to ensure continued long-term 
operation of nuclear power plants. As you know, one reactor has 
been shut down in New York, four are on the chopping block in 
Illinois, and we have a goal by 2035 of being net zero. Is that 
possible without nuclear staying online? Do you think the only 
way to meet that is going to be reducing fossil altogether or 
finding technologies that will help make it cleaner?
    Dr. Hogan. Thank you. The Department of Energy is very 
supportive of maintaining the existing fleet of nuclear power 
plants for many of the reasons that you just mentioned. 
Maintaining that fleet has been part of the nuclear energy 
program mission for many years. We certainly are interested in 
the additional provisions that you provided in this 
infrastructure draft.
    The Chairman. It would help with the financing to keep them 
competitive so they will stay open?
    Dr. Hogan. Exactly.
    The Chairman. Can you save the four in Illinois? Because 
they put a moratorium on closing. Can you save the four nuclear 
plants in Illinois?
    Dr. Hogan. We can certainly look at anything we can do 
based on the ability that you give us to take a look.
    The Chairman. Sure. I have sent the President a letter 
basically asking him to intervene on this moratorium on closing 
any more. And also, on your answer on the fossil fuels--
elimination or basically innovation?
    Dr. Hogan. We are all about innovation and certainly we 
know there are a number of ways to reduce the environmental 
impacts of fossil fuels that also you are calling out important 
investments in, in this discussion draft, that we find very 
promising.
    The Chairman. Ms. Trujillo, the Department of the Interior 
estimates that the cost to complete the AML Reclamation work is 
$10.6 billion. According to recent reports at Ohio River Valley 
Institute, there could be as much as $18 to $20 billion in 
unfunded Reclamation across the U.S., and roughly 84 percent of 
remaining damage is concentrated in Appalachian states, which 
is not a surprise--West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kentucky, 
Alabama, Virginia, and Tennessee. Can you explain the 
discrepancy in these figures--what you all come up with, 10 
versus 18--with the Ohio Valley River Institute? Why is there 
such discrepancy?
    Ms. Trujillo. Thank you, Senator Manchin. I would have to 
consult with some experts on the exact rationale, but I know 
there are a number of different inputs that are coming in. We 
are receiving information from states, from other agencies, and 
trying to work to incorporate that information. What we know is 
the number is very large and we have to take action to try to 
address the concerns.
    The Chairman. At the beginning of the 21st century, most of 
our energy for fossil came from that region and that is why we 
have so many properties that need to be attended to.
    To Dr. Holtz-Eakin, it is clear clean energy technologies 
will require more mineral resources, but some projections 
falsely claim that we will run out of these critical minerals, 
let alone the challenges of being able to get a permit to even 
get what we need out of the ground. So that foreign supply 
chain is what we are depending on right now and we are willing 
to change our whole transportation mode based on foreign supply 
chains. What are your thoughts on that and how do you expect us 
to be able to meet market demands? I am understanding the 
demand is going to grow by over 70 times in the very near 
future.
    Dr. Holtz-Eakin. I think what we heard is that the 
expectations--the enormous demands for electric vehicles, for 
solar panels, for all sorts of things that require critical 
minerals--the only way to do that and not rely on the Congo and 
China is to have domestic supplies. And that means public 
policies that permit those to be safely mined in the U.S. and 
processed in the United States and we are behind the curve on 
doing that.
    The Chairman. How do you look at other energy sources such 
as hydrogen--green hydrogen and blue hydrogen--that basically 
would provide us with carbon-free energy? Should we be going 
down that path too, which does not require foreign supply 
chains?
    Dr. Holtz-Eakin. I do not see any reason why we should be 
picking among fuel sources and energy sources. We should be 
trying to develop those which are cost effective and must meet 
market tests and which deliver energy in a reliable fashion.
    The Chairman. And that can be supplied basically by U.S.--
--
    Dr. Holtz-Eakin. Yes.
    The Chairman [continuing]. Supply chains, foreign supply 
chains.
    Dr. Holtz-Eakin. Yes, I think----
    The Chairman. Does anybody else want to comment on that?
    Dr. Holtz-Eakin [continuing]. I think the general--what I 
would emphasize is, U.S. energy policy has been most successful 
when it has been good economic policy, when it has provided 
adequate market incentives and we should continue to do that.
    The Chairman. Mr. Mills.
    Mr. Mills. The challenge with hydrogen as an energy source 
is obvious. It is a carrier, like electricity. It has to be 
produced from something. Proposals to make hydrogen by using--
let's say wind turbines and solar arrays--increase the foreign 
mineral dependency, they don't decrease it. If you make 
hydrogen from natural gas, which is how almost all of it is 
produced today, you eliminate foreign mineral dependencies.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Collin, real quick.
    Mr. O'Mara. The only thing I would add is that right now we 
recycle less than one percent of rare-earth minerals. And the 
numbers are equally bad for the critical mineral list that the, 
in the last Administration, this Administration, put together. 
We talked a lot about lithium recycling. We need to be talking 
about all of it because if we do that together, we can actually 
meet a lot of our domestic needs.
    The Chairman. So you are saying, basically with recycling 
we can put those back into productive use again?
    Mr. O'Mara. Yes, I mean, some elements degrade and some do 
not.
    The Chairman. Sure, sure.
    Mr. O'Mara. We are still only recycling a third to half of 
copper, right? So we need to be much better as a country at 
this.
    The Chairman. We know about recycling. Thank you very much.
    Senator Barrasso.
    Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Dr. Holtz-Eakin, I want to follow up with what you just 
said--good energy policy is when it is good economic policy.
    Dr. Holtz-Eakin. Yes.
    Senator Barrasso. So I have a couple short questions within 
the legislation before us today.
    Will funding energy-efficiency programs at say, 10 or 20 
times their annual appropriated levels, will that help or hurt 
the U.S. economy?
    Dr. Holtz-Eakin. That will hurt.
    Senator Barrasso. Do you want to explain exactly why that 
would be?
    Dr. Holtz-Eakin. I am deeply concerned about this notion of 
scaling up by multiples of 20 times and 30 times programs. We 
have seen this before, notably in the Recovery Act, where we 
did, for example, on a broadband program. We got terrible 
results, wasted a lot of taxpayer money, and efficiency 
standards are a cost that--we do it for their benefits, but if 
we do not get the benefits, then we have just imposed a cost on 
the economy.
    Senator Barrasso. So will buying electric transmission 
capacity, which the private sector is already prepared to 
purchase, will that help or hurt our U.S. economy?
    Dr. Holtz-Eakin. That will hurt. It makes no sense to 
displace what the private sector is already doing.
    Senator Barrasso. How about closing roads and hiking trails 
and therefore eliminating public access to our national 
forests? Will that help or hurt the U.S. economy?
    Dr. Holtz-Eakin. Hurt.
    Senator Barrasso. How about expanding Davis-Bacon? Will 
that help or hurt?
    Dr. Holtz-Eakin. That will hurt.
    Senator Barrasso. So Mr. Mills, the draft bill includes 
very little permitting reform. In your view, how urgent it is 
that Congress include meaningful permitting reform in the 
infrastructure bill? And I am going to ask you, Dr. Holtz-
Eakin, if you would prepare.
    Mr. Mills. I think it is critical, and we can come back to 
the energy minerals and critical minerals issues, which are 
gratefully coming to the top of consideration. The average 
permitting time in the United States to open a mine is 
something on the order of 20 to 30 years. It is half that in 
the world on average and it is half that again in many 
jurisdictions. It is entirely a permitting issue and a 
regulatory issue. It is not because we do not have the 
resources or the technology.
    Senator Barrasso. And Dr. Holtz-Eakin.
    Dr. Holtz-Eakin. I think it is very important, but we have 
some real insight into this from Congress's most recent surface 
transportation bill, where it got some information gathering 
requirements, and if you look at the monitor, the dashboard for 
that, it shows that the paperwork associated with the 
infrastructure financed by that bill--the paperwork takes about 
30 million hours annually and costs $2 billion to comply with. 
So there is a real permitting problem that needs to be 
addressed.
    Senator Barrasso. Mr. Mills, unlike roads and bridges, most 
energy infrastructure in the United States is privately owned 
and privately funded. In fact, even most of the publicly owned 
energy infrastructure is financed through bonds sold to private 
investors. Would passing this bill with close to $100 billion 
in direct federal spending, would that chase private investment 
out of the energy sector?
    Mr. Mills. Well, I think the short answer is yes. When the 
government does direct spending on projects, they do chase 
private investment out. That is well documented. The broader 
question is, how does the government spend money constructively 
to encourage private-sector spending to get leverage? That is 
the proverbial devil in the details, but as we go to one end of 
the spectrum, we do something, to put it in unkind terms, you 
run the risk of Sovietizing our infrastructures.
    Senator Barrasso. Dr. Holtz-Eakin.
    Dr. Holtz-Eakin. That is my concern as well. One of the 
things you get is not just the adequate level of spending from 
the private sector, you get better project selection because 
you are picking the most productive and most sufficient 
investments.
    Senator Barrasso. Let me follow with the--in terms of as 
Congress is considering how to pay for the infrastructure 
bill--would the U.S. economy be better off if we used some of 
the unspent COVID stimulus funds rather than spend additional 
new money?
    Dr. Holtz-Eakin. That would turn non-investment spending 
into investment spending, which is exactly what you need for 
growth.
    Senator Barrasso. So the infrastructure, following up, the 
infrastructure proposal before us today--nearly $100 billion in 
direct spending. In the past, you have explained how expensive 
infrastructure bills, which are designed to stimulate the 
economy, often end up creating economic headwinds instead. 
Could you expand on that for the Committee?
    Dr. Holtz-Eakin. My concern is that when you attach 
stimulus to infrastructure investments you get the incentives 
wrong. That incentive is get the money out the door as fast as 
possible, that leads to excessive demand in the near-term and 
inflationary pressures. We are seeing that right now from the 
recovery program--American Rescue Program--among other things. 
You also tend to run past the project selection criteria and 
invest it poorly and that, as a result, has long-run headwinds 
in your productivity growth and the combination is something 
that I think this Committee and the Congress can avoid this 
time. There is plenty of stimulus out there. There is no need 
to worry about that. What we need to worry about is the quality 
of our investments in long-term productivity and the climate 
objectives of the nation.
    Senator Barrasso. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Heinrich.
    Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I think it is helpful to take a step back and ask, you 
know, why are we here? We are here because I have wildfires 
raging early and hard in New Mexico and I thought it was hot, 
because we have been in triple digits for a few weeks, but NASA 
satellites confirmed on June 20th that surface temperatures in 
Siberia, North of the Arctic Circle, were 118 degrees. Our 
forests cannot maintain themselves if we keep baking the planet 
like this.
    I want to thank you for the investments in this legislation 
in transmission, in hydrogen, in weatherization, and orphaned 
wells and in mine cleanup. I would suggest we need for the mine 
cleanup money to apply to hardrock as well. I think we need to 
look hard at a clean energy standard to meet the scale of time 
that is necessary in this transition.
    I want to talk for a second about hardrock. We all 
acknowledge the need for critical minerals in these new 
technologies, but I will say, our hardrock mining legislation 
framework was written in 1872, and we will produce a lot more 
critical minerals if we actually have safeguards for local 
water supplies, if we have robust public involvement, and if we 
cleanup the hundreds of thousands of abandoned hardrock mines 
that litter the West. I first met former Governor John 
Hickenlooper on the phone because the Animas River and San Juan 
River were running yellow because we did not cleanup that mess 
and it makes it hard to get communities to embrace a mine if 
you have not reformed that fundamental law. So 1872 Mining Act 
reform should be a prerequisite to give communities the 
confidence to actually mine these materials.
    Mr. O'Mara, I wish I could talk as fast as you. You 
indicated the need for an additional $6.5 billion for forest 
restoration, hazardous fuels management on BLM lands, another 
six for rangeland management, water resources, resilience and 
research on BLM and tribal lands. Talk to us about the 
necessity of these efforts in order to break the current fire 
cycle, which is releasing carbon, and talk a little bit about 
the relationship to a potential 21st century CCC program that 
can help us scale-up fast enough to actually turn this around.
    Mr. O'Mara. Yes, thank you, Senator Heinrich and even on 
your previous comment, those abandoned mines could be a very 
rich source of the minerals that we need. So I mean, the work 
that yourself----
    Senator Heinrich. Absolutely.
    Mr. O'Mara [continuing]. And Senator Murkowski have been 
doing, it is incredibly important to harvest what is still in 
those mines.
    Look, I mean, very honestly, right?--we, for decades, have 
not invested in our Bureau of Land Management lands, and the 
decades of disinvestment have led to invasive species on the 
vegetation side just running wild. We have 100 million acres 
right now of cheatgrass that is basically just tinder. And so, 
we have a wet spring. We have all the vegetation growing. We 
have a dry summer, huge heat, all that becomes tinder. And you 
know, whether it is the Great Basin or other places, it is not 
just public lands, it is private lands too, and there is some 
work we have to do on private grasslands, but grasslands and 
tribal lands are--the rate of fire growth is some of the 
fastest in the country. And so we talk about fire as a forest 
problem, but we have to talk about tribal lands and grasslands. 
And that is why having both investments on the wildfire side is 
important, but also making sure investing in the restoration, 
because it is also one of the best ways to prevent drought--by 
having better storage, naturally, in the system, or more 
storage in the headwaters as a way to restore these systems and 
help downstream states like New Mexico.
    Senator Heinrich. And I would add that cheatgrass is not 
exactly forage for anything, right? It is not for livestock. It 
is not for wildlife.
    Dr. Hogan, if we were to simply, you know, we talk a lot 
about innovation on this Committee, but I like to talk about 
implementation on this Committee. And if we were to simply 
electrify everything that we can today, all of the things that 
we could swap out in our homes and businesses where we have 
superior technology today--replacing gas furnaces, stoves, 
water heaters with electric heat pumps, with induction stoves, 
with air-source heat pump water heaters--what kind of an 
emissions impact would we see if we did that throughout our 
economy?
    Dr. Hogan. I mean, certainly there are a number of great 
electric technologies out there and we see them being adopted 
in different parts of the country at different rates. As we 
clean the grid where you can get to--with electrification and a 
cleaner grid from a CO2 standpoint--you can get 
close to a zero-carbon world from the energy that you use in 
the built infrastructure.
    Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    With that, we have Senator Lankford.
    Senator Lankford. Chairman, thank you. Chairman, I also 
want to thank you that you included the Title XVII loan program 
changes that I have encouraged as part of the draft that is in 
this. Dr. Hogan, you also mentioned the importance of those 
program changes in some of your written statements. I 
appreciate that as well. We have to get back to actually 
handling our critical minerals, as all of you, I think, have 
mentioned at some point, to figure out how we are going to 
actually get to them.
    Mr. Mills, I want to follow up on a statement that you just 
made though. You made the statement that it takes 20 to 30 
years to open a mine at this point. Can you go into greater 
depth on that?
    Mr. Mills. Well, yes, I will confess that I look at an 
extraordinarily large body of research done by many agencies, 
both federal and state, on the challenge of opening mines in 
America and I would--to some of the comments, the hazards of 
opening mines. Mining is difficult. I worked for a mining 
company in Canada early in my career. I have been at mine 
sites. I may be the only one in the room that has gone to the 
bottom of a 5,000-foot vertical hardrock shaft. I like mining. 
I know mining is hard. I know communities are challenged by the 
physical infrastructure. I would say that the fact that the 
U.S. has seen the barriers in all the senses--not just public 
barriers, regulatory barriers, state--has chased mining out of 
the country, fundamentally.
    I do not see any evidence that we are going to be able to 
change that in any of the proposals, anywhere, I think. I am 
delighted that we are now paying attention to it. It is 
critical. We are enormously dependent on imports of critical 
minerals for all purposes. The path of chasing wind, solar, and 
batteries will have an astonishing increase in mineral 
dependency imports and the speed with which we increase the 
demand for these minerals is far faster, it is astronomically 
faster than any proposals to do anything that is being 
discussed right now to open up U.S. mines. We will increase 
imports and the balance of trade deficit and depend on nations 
we do not like very much for a lot of minerals. That is just 
locked into these plans.
    Senator Lankford. So the United States figured out pretty 
quickly during the beginning of the pandemic, when the 
Communist Chinese government decided to hang on to PPE--that 
was American companies that were producing in China that were 
destined to be able to come to the United States--that from the 
earliest days, the earliest moments of the pandemic, we could 
not get PPE from American companies manufacturing in China. We 
learned pretty quickly that if they want it, they are going to 
keep it and they are going to turn that on and off. They have 
used leverage already for rare earth minerals, rare earth 
elements, and critical minerals with Japan and others to be 
able to use leverage against them to be able to ship that out.
    You made a statement saying that if we transition to net-
zero emissions, we would need to increase minerals mining by 
700 to 4,000 percent.
    Mr. Mills. Yes, that is correct. It is not my data. That is 
the IEA's data. Other studies--UN studies, IRENA studies--have 
all looked to these issues. The physical demand for not just 
rare earths, but for common minerals, like copper and nickel 
are astronomically large. I completely endorse the need for 
creative, innovative ways to recycle these minerals. We under-
recycle many relatively easy-to-recycle minerals, like copper, 
but the irony here is the rate of velocity of increase and 
demand for the net-zero path would overwhelm. If we recycled 
100 percent of the copper and nickel and manganese and cobalt 
that we now use, it would not come close to supplying the needs 
for the growth paths that are being put in place.
    Senator Lankford. So the TransWest electric transmission 
lines, I have referenced in this Committee before, moving power 
from the Northwest into Wyoming. That process of permitting 
started in 2007. They have yet to break ground on it and that 
is an electric transmission line. So I come back to this issue 
to say I really believe that in this legislation anything we 
talk about on increasing our capacity to go net zero, we have 
to deal with the permitting issues. If we cannot build a 
transmission line in 15 years and we cannot build or start a 
mine in 20 years, how long does it take right now to be able to 
permit one nuclear power plant? What is the number? Does anyone 
know right now if you are going to permit a nuclear power 
facility?
    Mr. Mills. Certainly measure it more than a decade. There 
is no one who has managed to beat that record.
    Senator Lankford. Dr. Hogan, do you have a good guess on if 
someone wants to start a nuclear power plant, how long it takes 
before they can actually break ground right now in permitting?
    Dr. Hogan. I am not going to hazard a guess, but I do think 
we have a next generation of nuclear plants for which the 
permitting issues will be more straightforward.
    Senator Lankford. So it may be eight years rather than ten? 
Again, we will need a guess because we are trying to figure 
out--if we are planning for a net zero by 2035 or 2050 and it 
takes us 15 years to be able to put transmission lines up, 20 
years to be able to do that, we are in the process of heading 
straight toward total dependency on China and we cannot 
actually get all this online.
    Again, I am not an opponent to any of this. We have to 
figure out what are realistic timelines on how we are going to 
handle the permitting and how to be able to solve that or all 
this is good theory and we will still be discussing it in 2060.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
    Now we have Senator Cortez Masto. Oh, she is not there. We 
have Senator King.
    Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I find myself in the 
uncomfortable position of agreeing almost entirely with Senator 
Lankford.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator King. When I was Governor, I did a lot of work on 
environmental permitting in Maine, and what I said was I want 
the highest environmental standards and the most timely and 
predictable permitting process. And quite often, the problem is 
the process, it is not necessarily the standards. So I agree 
that I think that is something that we need to attend to. One 
thing that we did in Maine that perhaps we should be talking 
about here is one-stop shopping. You go to one agency that 
handles all the permitting and they coordinate the activities 
of the other agencies. So I do think that this is something 
that we need to discuss because we are going to have to--as we 
move away from fossil fuels, which, by the way, is a kind of 
mining, to a different kind of mining--we are going to have to 
deal with this problem. We cannot wish it away and we cannot 
just say, ``Oh, we are going to build lots of windmills''--
which I used to do, by the way--or solar panels, but we have to 
think about where these minerals are going to come from and as 
Senator Lankford pointed out, the pandemic taught us we should 
not be dependent upon our pacing adversary or potential 
adversary to supply minerals that are critical to the 
development of our economy.
    So I think that is an important point.
    Mr. French, I want to change the subject entirely. We had 
your boss--I am not sure she is your boss--the head of the 
Forest Service, Ms. Christiansen, was here earlier this week.
    Mr. French. She's my boss.
    Senator King. So okay.
    Well, some significant data came out in that hearing. In 
1988, we harvested 13 billion board feet off of federal land in 
this country. Today, it is three billion. She testified that 
that dramatic cut in the harvesting of timber in our federal 
lands has contributed substantially to the fire problem. Do you 
agree with that?
    Mr. French. What I would say is----
    Senator King. Remember, she's your boss.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. French. She and I talk about this and work on this all 
the time. The issue is that to reduce wildland fire risk, we 
have to remove understories and small-diameter trees from areas 
that have no value.
    Senator King. Which, in Maine, we call pre-commercial 
thinning.
    Mr. French. Absolutely. We have to pay for that most of the 
time.
    Senator King. But that involves working the forests in a 
productive way in order to--if you have greater harvesting, you 
have more pre-commercial thinning because that makes the timber 
more valuable and that lowers the fuel load on the floor of the 
forest. Is that correct?
    Mr. French. In some places, yes.
    Senator King. But will you confirm that this dramatic drop 
from 13 billion to three has contributed to the fire risk, 
along with, of course, climate change, drought, heat and all of 
those elements.
    Mr. French. Senator, it has been a contributing factor in 
some places, but not everywhere. So if you look in and around, 
let's say southern California, in some of those forests there 
that are non-commercial type areas, it is a very different 
scenario.
    Senator King. Well, and the grasslands that you testified, 
that is a separate issue, I understand, but I think this is--we 
cannot ignore though--this is one of these things, we cannot 
ignore the fact that we are not clearing out the understory and 
then we are going to have fires.
    Let me move on for a minute. Dr. Hogan, I found myself, 
again, in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with Mr. 
Mills. Research is critical and I hope that in all of this 
practical application, we do not neglect the importance of 
basic research. For example, I believe one of the greatest 
barriers to a carbon-free future is storage. It may be 
batteries. It may be molten salt. It may be other technologies, 
but if we can beat the storage problem to deal with the 
intermittency of solar and wind, that is a big deal and 
research is where that needs to take place. So is that a 
commitment of your Department?
    Dr. Hogan. It is a tremendous commitment of our Department. 
We totally agree with you.
    Senator King. On the mining, I just want to touch quickly. 
I agree, I think recycling, Mr. O'Mara, we have to do a lot 
better job with that. We can mine our dumps instead of digging 
holes in the ground. There is a tremendous resource there.
    One problem, one place I do disagree with Mr. Mills is on, 
well, I just want to raise a red flag about LNG (liquefied 
natural gas) exports. Two problems that I am concerned about. 
One is effect on domestic prices. We cannot repeal the supply 
and demand, even this Committee cannot do that. And as supply 
is distributed across the globe, it is taken away from 
domestic, and I am just gravely worried about effect on 
domestic prices. Australia did a huge export step and their 
domestic prices went through the roof. So that is a concern.
    Number two is, it's true, and I have always been an 
advocate of natural gas as a transition fuel, that it does burn 
cleaner than coal, oil, and other fossil fuel alternatives. The 
problem is, when you count the methane attributed to the 
extraction of natural gas, natural gas actually comes out right 
equal with coal. And so, if we do not deal with the methane 
issue that is connected with the transportation and mining of 
natural gas, we are not going to gain anything environmentally. 
That is a critical part of a clean-energy future, or 
particularly a short-term clean-energy future as we move to 
natural gas, but if that natural gas has the methane-implicit 
content, we are not going to gain anything in terms of effect 
on the atmosphere because, as we all know, methane is about 80 
times as potent a greenhouse gas as CO2. So this has 
to be something that we pay attention to.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Marshall.
    Senator Marshall. Yes, well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, 
again, for holding this hearing. Certainly, there is lots of 
agreement here on our goals. Our goals of leaving this world 
cleaner, healthier, safer. The goal of using more affordable, 
cleaner energy. The goal of taking traditional energies and 
making them cleaner. That is the great news, is that we agree 
on these goals and then the question is ``How do we best get 
there?'' And I was interested by Dr. Eakin's comments about 
raising productivity as we take American taxpayer dollars and 
invest money, especially in infrastructure, we want to know, 
does it raise productivity? And I certainly never studied the 
economy growing up or in school or much since then, but as I 
understand, GDP increases when we increase efficiencies.
    And if we are not going to increase the efficiency, we need 
to figure out what is the cost for making the environment 
cleaner, right? What is the return of that investment? As you 
look through the plan before us, were there any red flags that 
you were really concerned that the investment was not raising 
productivity and there was not much of an environmental 
impact--a return on investment, so to speak?
    Dr. Holtz-Eakin. Well certainly, in the Administration's 
American Jobs Plan, there are large amounts of resources 
committed to things that are unlikely to raise productivity--
schools, you know, spending $300 or $400 billion on schools is 
not going to raise the productivity of the American worker. 
$400 billion on Medicaid expenses----
    Senator King. Are you serious?
    Dr. Holtz-Eakin. It will not.
    Senator King. Education?
    Dr. Holtz-Eakin. No, no, I didn't say education. I said 
just the school buildings. The education is crucial and I would 
concur with you on that because we are failing America's youth. 
We have 25 percent to a third of fourth and eighth graders who 
cannot read at grade, and that's been true for 10 straight 
years. So do not label me as someone who doesn't think 
education is important, but we're not doing anything about 
that.
    Senator King. Sorry, Senator.
    Senator Marshall. I think----
    The Chairman. We will add that to your time, sir.
    Senator Marshall [continuing]. More specifically as we 
invest in energy, were there some concerns here that it was not 
a good return on investment?
    Dr. Holtz-Eakin. My major concern is that moving from a 
model where you rely on private investment in energy----
    Senator Marshall. It is more efficient.
    Dr. Holtz-Eakin [continuing]. You get some natural 
efficiencies because risk capital is used in the process and if 
you override that, you are unlikely to pick projects as 
successfully. That is less efficient.
    Senator Marshall. Okay.
    My next question is for Mr. French. Again, I am not a 
forest person. We do not grow many trees in Kansas, but 
whenever I turn on the news all the forest fires are in the 
western half of the country. The Southeast certainly has forest 
as well and I guess--why are there hardly any major forest 
fires in southeastern United States, but there are always more 
in the western half?
    Mr. French. Thank you, Senator.
    Different ecosystems, but there is a lot of fire in the 
Southeast. We have been able to maintain those through a lot of 
prescribed fire and through management. And so, when you look 
at the crisis we have right now, we need to both continue to 
maintain those in the southern United States and we need to 
thin and reduce the fuel loadings in those fire-adapted forests 
in the West to get them into a state that we can maintain them, 
like we are in the South.
    Senator Marshall. I mean, again, I guess my frustration is 
this is not rocket science.
    Mr. French. No.
    Senator Marshall. Though what you are describing is 
something that the practice, so you are saying the practices in 
the Southeast have been successful because they have 
implemented them. There is no secret to what they are doing 
there. Why haven't we been implementing these in the past?
    Mr. French. It is different. The topography is different. 
The resources haven't met the need and the systems are 
different. The topography is different. They do burn 
differently. We have been excluding fires for 110 years from 
those places and we have not had prescribed fire or mechanical 
treatments in those places so that now when we have fires, they 
are burning at levels we just haven't seen before.
    Senator Marshall. And I guess I will go back to the why. I 
mean, I feel like we cannot see the forest for the trees, 
really. We are trying to conserve something, but in the end 
without using the prescribed fire, it costs us more in the long 
run. Why have we just ignored this obvious solution?
    Mr. French. You know, quite frankly, Senator, we haven't 
had the resources to carry out that work at the scale needed.
    Senator Marshall. Okay, thank you. I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Hickenlooper.
    Senator Hickenlooper. So this is the kind of lively panel 
that I was waiting for and I am going to try to resist the 
temptation to fan any flames.
    First, Mr. Chair, I wanted to thank you for all the work on 
the infrastructure, as you walk out the door.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Hickenlooper. Well, he is doing the real work, 
certainly there, the highest priority.
    Let me start with Dr. Hogan, asking you a question here on 
the NREL, National Renewable Energy Lab in Golden, and the NREL 
has a Seam study. I am sure you have seen that they are 
building more transmission between largely disconnected parts 
of the grid. This would pay for itself, up to three times, and 
in so doing would provide immense benefit to those states that 
are energy-rich in renewable energy, but do not have the 
population centers to utilize that. Do you agree that building 
more high-voltage transmission would unlock significant 
resource potential? And we have heard a lot about permitting 
and I think that is a valid point--at a time when we have gone, 
we got a COVID vaccine permitted in record time. We had a 
vaccine that was out, ready to go in 300 days. Perhaps this is 
the time to have a bipartisan push on permitting improvement. 
What is your sense?
    Dr. Hogan. Well, thank you and yes, the country would 
benefit from more high-voltage transmission lines for the 
reasons that you point out and are well put forth in the NREL 
Seam study. I think, you know, there are a number of 
opportunities to move, as you say, energy from places that are 
energy-rich to urban populations and to go across areas where 
there is not too much activity going on. And you are absolutely 
right that being really thoughtful about the permitting and 
other-people parts of these conversations is really important. 
I think that is really one of the sets of objectives behind the 
American Jobs Plan proposal for a new grid development 
deployment authority at the Department of Energy, one where we 
could have the Department of Energy be a much stronger 
coordinating force on a lot of these issues as well as having 
access to some creative financing tools that can help 
leverage--not replace--private sector investment in 
transmission.
    So again, a big part of that is in the infrastructure 
discussion draft, but we would also love to talk about some 
additional improvements there.
    Senator Hickenlooper. I think you would find a lot of 
support in the Senate for that.
    Ms. Trujillo, I wanted to ask, as you know, western water 
resource development management is somewhat unique. We have 
projects that serve agriculture, population centers, you know, 
things large and small, outdoor recreation economy. The $5 
billion set aside in the discussion draft is a good start, but 
I will add that many western water providers in Colorado are 
urging that we do more. Do we need to prioritize additional 
infrastructure in terms of water storage?
    Ms. Trujillo. Thank you very much, Senator.
    The issues in the West are very concerning. We are dealing 
with drought on a daily basis and the provisions in the bill 
are a good start. They support many of the ongoing programs 
that we have in place to be able to address drought. We think 
we can include more programs such as Indian water rights 
settlements, rural water provisions, and dam safety. There is 
an all-hands-on-deck approach right now to our water supply 
issues.
    Senator Hickenlooper. Great, thank you.
    Mr. French, when you testified last week before the 
Committee you spoke at some length about the protections that 
could be afforded to Colorado lands through the CORE Act. And 
this week, I would like to shift focus from lands that need 
protecting to the lands that the Forest Service is trying to 
help recover from wildfires. And I thought maybe you could 
speak a moment about the backlog of projects with respect to 
forest fire recovery, not just in Colorado, but across the 
West.
    Mr. French. Yes, thank you for the question, Senator. There 
are at least 63 million acres of our National Forest System 
right now that are in need of a backlog of treatments that are 
in extreme condition to produce wildfire. Our scientists show 
that if you want to reduce 80 percent of the risk to 
communities, there is about 20 percent of those acres that we 
need to treat. Those are the most critical spaces for us to be 
in, and in order to do that we have to scale up our work by at 
least two to four times what we are doing right now. That is 
the backlog that we have to get up.
    Senator Hickenlooper. Right, it is prodigious. Great, thank 
you all very much. I have other questions I will submit in 
writing. I yield to the Chair.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Daines.
    Senator Daines. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Us Westerners love these conversations, don't we, Governor?
    Senator Hickenlooper. We do.
    Senator Daines. Alright. Cleaner, reliable water is 
fundamental to human life. The Montana delegation has worked 
for over a decade to adjust the cost share for the St. Mary's-
Milk River project so that much-needed reconstruction can take 
place, and any rural water package must ensure that folks in 
the Hi-Line of Montana get the help they need. This water 
system is over 100 years old and it is one of the worst cost 
shares in the nation, which is what led to the collapse of a 
drop structure this past summer, you see behind me.
    [The photograph mentioned follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Daines. It was a catastrophic failure and it 
created huge problems for us. We rallied together and were able 
to get a fix put in place here and repaired by the end of the 
year, but it was tough.
    If Congress does not move quickly to pass my bill, we could 
find ourselves in the same situation yet again. Ms. Trujillo, 
can you speak to the infrastructure needs on the St. Mary's-
Milk River system and the risks posed by further inaction?
    Ms. Trujillo. Thank you, Senator Daines. I turned my mic on 
the minute I saw that photo and I knew the question was coming 
this way, so I appreciate your attention and prioritization of 
that issue. We are also very concerned. We worked well in the 
context of the prior emergency and we are looking forward to 
providing testimony next week in the House on the provisions.
    Senator Daines. Thank you and then, thanks again, how we 
came together truly----
    Ms. Trujillo. Yes.
    Senator Daines [continuing]. State, federal, local--just it 
was a great example of working together and getting a good 
result after the failure.
    Let us talk for a moment about forest management. While I 
am glad that this bill, in relationship to the infrastructure, 
funds much-needed forest work, I believe strongly we have not 
had the paradigm shift that Chief Christiansen spoke about, in 
fact, when she was here. We need to include some common-sense 
management reforms. Region 1's litigation rate is higher than 
ever. Here is a startling statistic: 93 percent of these 
lawsuits are forest or fuel and vegetation management projects. 
They are projects that could actually reduce the wildfire risk. 
I just got off a phone call before I came to this hearing about 
Montanans very concerned about what is going on with the 
outlook on this fire season, which has already begun. Half the 
project area on the map behind me burned in wildfire while the 
project languished in the courts.
    [The map mentioned by Senator Daines follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Daines. Because of the threat of litigation, 
agencies are discouraged from streamlining NEPA, based on past 
projects they know will not have significant environmental 
impact. A substantial time and cost savings could be achieved 
by litigation protections and streamlining these processes. 
Sixty-three million acres are at high risk of wildfire at the 
moment. We have to do just that, instead of just throwing more 
money at this problem.
    Mr. French, will this $5.5 billion be more effectively 
utilized if paired with my litigation protections and 
streamlining provisions such as the efforts we were doing here 
to eliminate unnecessary consultation paperwork caused by the 
now infamous Cottonwood decision and to simplify environmental 
review for these collaboratively developed projects?
    Mr. French. Thank you, Senator.
    You know, if you look at our wildland fuel reduction 
projects and our broad-scale restoration projects, two-thirds 
of the effort and time that goes into those is usually through 
the environmental analysis, compliance, and design. An average 
project is going to take, at the quickest, eight months to a 
year and generally it is two years to two and a half years to 
get us through the environmental compliance side of things 
before we can actually start to implement, with litigation that 
could stretch on for years after that. And yes, we have seen in 
many cases where, you know, projects that we had planned to 
reduce fire are overcome by fire before we can implement them 
as we go through those phases.
    I think any sort of collaborative, concerted effort that 
can help us do science-based, environmentally sound and public-
supported approaches to do this work more efficiently and 
effectively, would make any investment like this better.
    Senator Daines. It is so true, and these are collaborative 
projects. These are projects that just make so much sense for 
the vast majority of Montanans, and we have the very small, 
small group here that litigate these that are out of touch with 
where most Montanans are. In fact, Mr. Chairman, just last week 
in this Committee, I heard calls for management reforms on both 
sides of the aisle, and Chairman Manchin, thanks for your 
support in this area. I hope to keep working with you on the 
forest management provisions in this bill.
    As I wrap up, I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, I was very 
encouraged by the language that you added that requires agency 
review of critical mineral permitting. It is a big deal. I do 
believe, as the Chairman does, we need to take more robust 
steps to increase domestic critical mineral production in the 
United States. We are far too reliant on foreign countries for 
the minerals that drive our economy, especially since nearly 
all of them can be found and mined in the United States. It 
should not take decades to permit a mine, Mr. Chairman. So 
thanks for your support on that.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Cortez Masto.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to 
the panelists.
    Ms. Trujillo, let me start with you. I so appreciate 
Senator Hickenlooper's comments. As we are all aware, there is 
a historic drought happening in the West right now. The 
Colorado River Basin is facing its worst hydrology on record, 
which could lead to its first-ever shortage declaration this 
year. I so appreciate your comments. It is all-hands-on-deck 
right now. Please let us know what the Administration needs 
from us as well to address this issue.
    I just want to put something on your radar. Right now, I am 
working on the bill to establish a new competitive grant 
program under the Bureau of Reclamation for large-scale water 
recycling and reuse projects. The bill would also include 
measures that would provide greater clarity and expand 
eligibility under existing drought programs for eligible 
entities to receive federal financial assistance for drought 
planning and drought mitigation purposes. I look forward to 
working with you on that. So thank you.
    Let me jump back to a conversation around critical minerals 
and battery recycling and manufacturing grants. Given all the 
exciting new technologies I see regularly in Nevada, I have 
been pushing what I call in my state, ``the Innovation State 
Initiative.'' This has allowed me, in Nevada, to promote the 
companies and technologies that, in some cases, have helped my 
state weather the current economic and health challenges posed 
by COVID-19. But one of those new, exciting areas is battery 
recycling--of all sizes--and that is why I am proud to be 
supporting Senator King's Battery and Critical Mineral 
Recycling Act, and I agree with Mr. O'Mara's written testimony 
that the entirety of that bill should be seriously considered 
for this package as well.
    I am also working to put together a bipartisan effort on 
battery manufacturing grants, especially recycling, so we can 
be investing in a domestic supply chain and workforce that help 
us compete globally today and tomorrow. I have seen firsthand 
in Nevada where recycling is not only a future economic driver, 
but a necessity as we have more and more of the vehicle 
batteries on our roads and coming off of them and I am aware of 
industries in Alaska, Montana, Idaho--all over--who could 
benefit from DOE grant funds to establish more retrofit 
facilities for this purpose.
    So let me start with Dr. Hogan and Mr. O'Mara. What are the 
broader implications of making investments in our domestic 
manufacturing capacity and would you agree that we need to be 
making strides in this space for global competitiveness and 
national security reasons?
    Dr. Hogan, I will start with you.
    Dr. Hogan. Yes, we agree that the supply chain that goes 
with our batteries is a critical place for us to be taking 
important steps so that that build-out is happening in this 
country. As you pointed out, it is a growth opportunity for 
states like Nevada, but really the whole country, as we move 
toward a variety of battery technologies for electric vehicles 
and for the grid. So we absolutely agree that this is an 
important priority.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. Mr. O'Mara, I want your 
weigh-in on this, but let's talk also about the critical 
minerals for these batteries as we talk about recycling, right? 
Lithium, lithium mining, we are looking at in Nevada right now, 
but cobalt--where is most of the cobalt being mined right now? 
Do either one of you know? Does anybody know? Mr. O'Mara?
    Mr. O'Mara. Congo.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Yes. And that is the challenge that 
we have in this country. And so, if we are really going to 
identify these critical minerals, bring that supply chain back 
from the extraction, through the production, through that whole 
process, we have to look at the mining piece of it as well. And 
so, Mr. O'Mara, if you could address this, I would appreciate 
it.
    Mr. O'Mara. Yes, and I think Senator Lankford said it well 
earlier, I mean, like we have seen the problems when we do not 
have control over our supply chains and you know, I'll be 
damned if we are going to spend the next 30 years buying 
everything from China, or offshore wind turbines from Germany, 
or electric vehicles from Japan, when we could do that all 
here. And there is an environmental piece of this. I mean, 
there has been NIMBYism around a lot of this. We have to be 
smarter. There have also been GAO analyses that show that 
incomplete permits are slowing down the process in some cases 
as much as government inefficiency. But I think combining the 
work that you are trying to do with the work that Senator 
Manchin has been trying to do around advanced manufacturing and 
thinking about everything in between is the best way to create 
good-paying jobs in every part of the country if we do it 
right.
    Senator Cortez Masto. That is right. And I know I have just 
a few minutes left, let me just touch on the rangeland fires 
because I also appreciate this conversation as well. In Nevada, 
most of our fires are rangeland fires. We have cheatgrass 
everywhere and we have been talking about trying to address 
this. This is an invasive species. For all of the reasons that 
I have heard earlier, it is just not conducive or effective 
here in Nevada.
    So the goal here is how to make sure that our federal 
agencies have the resources they need and the information they 
need to really address this invasive species and address what 
we see are the rangeland fires. Listen, we have forest fires, 
yes, but rangeland fires that I have seen in Nevada are some of 
the largest that we have ever seen and they have an impact on 
individuals, on the economy, along with the climate as well. So 
Mr. O'Mara, if you would touch on that very briefly, I would 
appreciate it.
    Mr. O'Mara. Yes, and just building on Dr. Holtz-Eakin's 
point, this is an area where, if you do not make investments, 
the downside on the economy slowing down our GDP is massive. 
This is like collective defense. If we have to invest in our 
natural infrastructure as a way to reduce the risk to 
community, to life, to property, to businesses, then we need to 
do it at scale. The challenge is that it is always an 
afterthought. It is always treated as discretionary spending, 
but I would argue this is as important to our economic future 
as anything else we are talking about right now.
    Senator Cortez Masto. I agree. Thank you. Thank you to the 
panelists.
    Senator Barrasso. I have some second-round questions. Okay, 
thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Assistant Secretary Trujillo, water is the lifeblood of the 
West. It is critical that Congress fund water--western water 
infrastructure programs. As written, the bill before us today 
directs about $5 billion to the Bureau of Reclamation for water 
infrastructure. Does the bill impose any restrictions on how 
the Bureau can spend this money or does the bill give the 
Bureau broad discretion?
    Ms. Trujillo. Thank you, Senator Barrasso.
    The bill as drafted, as I understand it, is a discussion 
draft, so it is an initial proposal that does give us broad 
authority in many of the categories that we already have on the 
books. So I presume we would use our existing authorities and 
the existing processes we have.
    Senator Barrasso. So can you speak about the importance of 
reauthorizing the expiring provisions of the WIIN Act to 
address issues such as building more water storage?
    Ms. Trujillo. Thank you, Senator.
    The WIIN Act has several different provisions and they are 
in various states of application and some of them are expiring, 
some of them are continuing, and we are in the process of 
reviewing all of those with Congress as they may be 
reauthorized or may not.
    Senator Barrasso. So would you agree that the 
infrastructure package should include reauthorizing these that 
are expiring?
    Ms. Trujillo. Some of the provisions would be appropriate 
for a reauthorization.
    Senator Barrasso. Thanks.
    Mr. Mills, the bill before us today seeks to ``Ensure that 
the United States has a viable battery materials processing 
industry to supply North American battery supply chain, expand 
the capabilities of the United States in advanced battery 
manufacturing, and enhance national security by reducing our 
reliance on China for critical materials and technologies.''
    Is a federal grant program, no matter how large, sufficient 
to achieve these goals?
    Mr. Mills. Senator, the short answer is no. And this is 
where I would like to say, I feel it is a point of privilege--
not uncomfortable, but comfortable--in being in the same camp, 
it appears, as Senator King, with respect to regulations and 
the relevance here. I think it is possible to--I am not in the 
position to clarify--be anti-regulation. In fact, most 
businesses will tell you--particularly miners--they embrace 
regulations. They want consistency. They understand the goals. 
They embrace the goals. It is the process. And it is out of 
control and it is damaging America.
    And I do not oppose more wind turbines or more electric 
cars. I think we will have lots more of them. We should have 
lots more of them. The challenge is the process of that and we 
won't get to our goals that are being laid out in many of these 
plans by using American resources and labor, it'll be importing 
a lot more material. And I don't see a path out here yet. I 
want to just repeat again, I embrace the concepts of smart 
regulation with clear deadlines and a participation and a 
process that allows the private market to invest here. Private 
markets have made the decision to invest elsewhere and they're 
doing it epically in very challenged areas, in Africa and in 
South America.
    Senator Barrasso. So do we need to add language to the 
draft bill to meaningfully increase American mining?
    Mr. Mills. I like the word ``meaningfully.'' I agree 
entirely, yes, sir.
    Senator Barrasso. So the bill before us today includes a $5 
billion program that appears, in my opinion, to be designed to 
bail out the State of California and its failing electric grid. 
Now, I would note that the State of California has an 
unprecedented budget surplus of $75 billion. Will the new 
federal grant program for the benefit of the State of 
California and its electric utilities actually keep the lights 
on in California?
    Mr. Mills. I doubt it, Senator. But I guess I would make 
the point that I am not clear why the American taxpayer should 
fund California's--won't call them mistakes--they are 
experiments. We have this--our states have grand experiments 
that are underway in many respects in the energy markets. This 
is a good thing. I am not sure why we should fund it with 
taxpayer money.
    Senator Barrasso. In your testimony, you identify the most 
cost-effective ways for the U.S. to help reduce global 
greenhouse gas emissions. Your list includes facilitating the 
construction of natural gas pipelines, liquefied natural gas 
export terminals here in the country. Your list also includes 
encouraging the development of more efficient internal 
combustion engines. Do you see anything in this bill to 
encourage the construction of natural gas pipelines, liquefied 
natural gas terminals, or more efficient internal combustion 
engines?
    Mr. Mills. Well, first off, I confess I may have missed it 
if it is there, but it wasn't in evidence to me and I just want 
to emphasize that the cost-efficiency metric of looking for 
ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, I think, should be 
paramount.
    Senator Barrasso. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Heinrich [presiding]. Senator Kelly, you are next.
    Senator Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, I commend Senator Manchin and any additional 
members of this Committee for embarking on this process to 
develop a bipartisan infrastructure proposal. The draft bill 
recognizes the urgent need to respond to the crushing drought, 
rolling brownouts, and wildfires engulfing the West. Mr. 
Chairman, I will state at the outset that I look forward to 
working with the Committee to build out the $5 billion western 
water infrastructure provision. Most of the dams, reservoirs, 
and irrigation canals that store and transport water to farms 
and cities in western states are more than 50 years old and 
they are failing and they are wasting water, a resource that we 
do not have enough of. Funding should be prioritized for the 
completion of authorized water storage projects, deferred 
maintenance for dams, and the recently established aging 
infrastructure account at the Bureau of Reclamation. Rural 
water--Title XVI water recycling and desalination programs are 
also a must. Conservation programs and WaterSMART grants to 
promote water efficiency, including lining canals must not be 
overlooked either.
    I also appreciate the inclusion of a proposal that I 
authored to promote grid resiliency through the use of demand 
response technology. Extreme heat waves and polar blasts in 
some places can lead to surging demand for electricity that 
exceeds supply. The widespread deployment of network-smart 
appliances and batteries can help states keep their lights on 
during these peak periods. We saw the success of this in 
Arizona just last summer when smart-thermostat programs were 
able to reduce the strain on the grid by significantly dropping 
the load. Big success story.
    And finally, the draft bill recognizes that our national 
forests are infrastructure too. Forest watersheds funnel 
snowmelt into our rivers and lakes, but megafires, which are 
raging at this very moment--we have the worst fire season on 
record--they have a devastating and long-term impact on rural 
communities and water supplies.
    So my first question is for Ms. Trujillo, and it is about 
water. The Interior Department is expected to declare its first 
ever water shortage on the Colorado River very soon, and 
Reclamation is part of an interstate agreement called the 
Drought Contingency Plan that involves adding 100,000 acre-feet 
of water to Lake Mead to avoid even steeper water curtailments. 
So Ms. Trujillo, what infrastructure will Reclamation need to 
meet this obligation?
    Ms. Trujillo. Thank you very much, Senator Kelly.
    It is no surprise that we are very much focused on trying 
to address the issues in the Colorado River Basin. The 
infrastructure needs we have can include well modernization, 
funding for system conservation projects, funding for support 
for tribal system conservation programs, and additional relief 
that will help build to what the other parties are working on 
as well.
    Senator Kelly. Does any part of that include additional 
funding for dams to increase capacity?
    Ms. Trujillo. Yes, Senator, there will be additional 
funding for increased storage. We also have funding for 
recycling projects and Senator Cortez Masto referenced an 
innovative project that involves large-scale recycling that can 
be beneficial to Colorado River Basin States and local 
communities in the area.
    Senator Kelly. And on the WIIN Act, would you agree that 
the WIIN Act, which expires this year, helps Reclamation manage 
against drought?
    Ms. Trujillo. Thank you, Senator Kelly.
    The WIIN Act has several different provisions and some of 
them are definitely helpful with respect to our drought 
response efforts.
    Senator Kelly. Thank you.
    Dr. Hogan, in the remainder of time, I know we do not have 
a lot of time left, but what is the Department's position on my 
provision to expand demand response programs to all federal 
buildings and in DOE energy efficiency grants to states?
    Dr. Hogan. We are very supportive of using the demand 
response tool as a cost-effective way to contribute to the 
energy grid. We all know that the last kilowatt that is 
provided can be an expensive kilowatt, and this is a way to get 
there more cheaply. We also believe that sending energy 
efficiency related dollars that are good investments in energy 
efficiency are a good way to lower costs and put dollars that 
would otherwise be used to pay bills to better purposes.
    Senator Kelly. Thank you, Dr. Hogan.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Hoeven.
    Senator Hoeven. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
    Dr. Hogan, Dr. Fatih Birol, head of the International 
Energy Agency, has told this Committee that carbon capture and 
utilization technology is, ``The most important technology that 
exists today.'' Do you agree that carbon capture and storage is 
vitally important in meeting our climate goals?
    Dr. Hogan. Yes, we have had a long program in carbon 
capture and utilization and storage and expect to continue to 
be working aggressively on that to reduce its costs throughout 
that entire chain.
    Senator Hoeven. Yes, and isn't it important that we, in 
essence, crack the code on it, because it is not just about 
what we do here in America, it is around the world, right? 
There are other parts of the country that are--or the world--
that are emitting a lot of CO2 and if we do not 
develop that technology to make it commercially viable, then we 
are not really addressing the problem from a global standpoint, 
are we?
    Dr. Hogan. We agree that this is an important technology 
that will have a growth market associated with it and we want 
the United States to be there on the leading edge with being 
able to benefit from this technology in many ways, 
economically, as well as what it can do for carbon.
    Senator Hoeven. Isn't it also true that it is not just 
about fossil fuels, but that it also relates to things like, 
for example, biofuels, where we strip the CO2 and 
sequester. We are working on that in my state as well as for 
our manufacturing industry.
    Dr. Hogan. Absolutely.
    Senator Hoeven. Does DOE stand ready to assist energy 
producers and manufacturers in meeting their goals to retrofit 
their operations because of the investment required?
    Dr. Hogan. Yes, we would be ready to provide any 
assistance, given the authority and resources to do it.
    Senator Hoeven. So it is safe to say you are committed to 
making it happen?
    Dr. Hogan. Absolutely.
    Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Doctor.
    Ms. Trujillo, so the proposal being discussed today, which 
has many good aspects to it, would appropriate $5 billion in 
FY22 through FY26 for western water infrastructure, and I know 
the Ranking Member thinks that most of that should go to his 
state, but the Acting Chairman and I and some others are hoping 
that we will get a little bit of it as well. So tell me, what 
type of projects would be eligible for that proposed funding in 
the draft legislation?
    Senator Heinrich. I would note for the record that Ms. 
Trujillo is from the state that really needs it.
    [Laughter.]
    Ms. Trujillo. Thank you, all. Thank you, sincerely, all the 
members of the Committee for recognizing the severity of the 
drought and the importance of trying to address the drought 
concerns. We work on it every day. The provisions in the draft 
are for discussion and they provide additional funding to many 
of the programs that we already have on the books. So we would 
utilize our existing authorities and our existing criteria to 
use those programs.
    Senator Hoeven. Well, that is what I kind of want to drill 
in on a little bit is, how to determine the allocation, because 
I think it is going to be very, I mean, it is a very good 
provision. It is going to be very much sought after. So how do 
you kind of make that decision in terms of what projects you 
fund and in what priority order?
    Ms. Trujillo. Thank you, Senator. The answer kind of 
depends on which program we are talking about. There are 
criteria that are in place for each of the various authorities. 
In the rural water context, for example, Reclamation utilizes 
criteria to determine which programs should receive which 
funding depending on how far along they are, depending on the 
urgency of the needs. There are several different factors that 
we would be working with.
    Senator Hoeven. Okay, very good.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Heinrich. Thank you.
    I am going to do a quick second round and then I know 
Senator King has a second-round question as well.
    Assistant Secretary Trujillo, talk a little bit about the 
role that climate change is having on your ability to manage 
water west-wide?
    Ms. Trujillo. Thank you, Senator Heinrich.
    The reality is we are seeing higher temperatures, which in 
and of itself creates a dynamic situation for drier soils and 
more evaporation. So our runoff numbers aren't what they used 
to be, frankly. In addition, we see more variable snowpacks. We 
see rain instead of snow in some cases, which causes many 
complex challenges for what we used to see in terms of our 
reservoir supplies. So there's a number of ways that the 
changing climate makes our world more difficult.
    Senator Heinrich. Does any of it make your world--your 
daily water management--easier?
    Ms. Trujillo. Well, it keeps me up at night, for sure, but 
I think the reality is we have to be creative with all of the 
tools that we have available.
    Senator Heinrich. Talk about that, like, talk a little bit 
about the whole suite of tools that we should be investing in 
now that are maybe different than just, I mean, if you do not 
have water--more storage does not get you more storage--if you 
do not have the fundamental water. So you talked a little bit 
about recycling, you know, the people I know are now looking at 
underground storage. We have done a little bit of that in New 
Mexico. I have seen it in California as well. What is the whole 
suite of tools that we should be embracing given the world that 
we live in today?
    Ms. Trujillo. Thank you very much. I was going to bring up 
the example of our home state, in Albuquerque, where we have 
conjunctive management of our surface water and groundwater so 
what we see this year--the surface water is very, very low so 
the city has converted to utilizing its groundwater resources. 
And that may be an example--I was speaking with Senator 
Cantwell earlier--that may be an example of something to expand 
in other areas.
    Water recycling capabilities need to be expanded and we can 
promote that through these large-scale projects or small-scale 
projects. The ability to try to utilize as many tools as we 
have available is what we need to do, ultimately promoting more 
efficient use and more conservation.
    Senator Heinrich. Mr. French, I want to ask a related 
question. How much should we be paying our entry-level 
firefighters? Clearly, it is not 11. It is not 13. What should 
we be paying them?
    Mr. French. Well, I think clearly enough to support a 
family and to compensate the risk that they take on behalf of 
the entire American public.
    Senator Heinrich. And enough to attract someone that would 
want to do this job in the first place.
    Mr. French. Yes, I mean, at the end of the day we are 
training firefighters at an entry level then losing them to 
other firefighting organizations because they are paying double 
or triple the amount by the time we have trained them.
    Senator Heinrich. What is the delta between what you are 
paying and what Cal Fire, say, is?
    Mr. French. Almost three times at times.
    Senator Heinrich. Yes. I have two minutes left on the 
clock. Mr. Ranking Member, is it okay if I yield my last minute 
forty-five to Senator King?
    Senator Barrasso. Or as much time as he would like.
    Senator Heinrich. There we go. Fantastic. Take it away, 
Angus.
    Senator King. Thank you.
    I just want to compliment the Ranking Member and Senator 
Manchin and the staff for putting together this panel. This has 
been the kind of discussion that we should be having at 
Congressional hearings, with a variety of points of view, a 
variety of points of expertise. And I think it is been a very 
productive session, very helpful to me.
    I just wanted to make a final point. A theme underlying our 
discussion today has been the role of public investment versus 
private investment. And there is no question private investment 
is what generally drives our economy. It has created the 
richest nation in the history of the world and that is the 
major focus.
    On the other hand, there is no question that public 
investment has a role to play and I wanted to share with you an 
insight from some time ago. Here is what it says: ``Time and 
experience have verified to a demonstration the public utility 
of internal improvements,'' in other words, infrastructure, 
``that the poorest and most thinly populated counties would be 
greatly benefited by the opening of good roads and in the 
clearing of navigable streams within their limits is what no 
person will deny.'' That was the very first political brochure 
written by Abraham Lincoln at the age of 23, when he ran for 
the legislature in Illinois in 1832. And my addition to that 
would be, although private investment has driven this economy, 
I would argue that the two most important economic development 
infrastructure investments of the 20th century were the GI Bill 
and the Interstate Highway System, both public investments 
which changed the face of the country. I am in a state which, 
if the Interstate Highway System had been strictly built on 
population or economic return, Interstate 95 would probably 
stop at Boston. And yet it has been critical to the economic 
development of my state.
    So I commend our panel today and I think what we are 
striving to do here is to achieve the proper balance between 
proper incentives for efficient investment of private capital, 
at the same time, providing public investment in the image of 
the Interstate Highway System or the GI Bill, which can 
contribute in very significant ways to the development of the 
country, controlling of climate change, and economic 
development that is shared among all of our citizens.
    So again, I want to thank our panel and thank our Chair and 
Ranking Member for, I think, a very productive hearing.
    Senator Heinrich. Thank you and with that, the hearing is 
closed.
    [Whereupon, at 11:26 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                      APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

                              ----------                              

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]