[Senate Hearing 117-523]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                        S. Hrg. 117-523

                          PENDING LEGISLATION

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                              COMMITTEE ON
                      ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                                   on


		S. 3112       S. 4424         S. 4860
		S. 3152       S. 4515         S. 4995
		S. 3915       S. 4542         S. 5129
		S. 3957       S. 4579         S. J. Res 62
		S. 3978       S. 4651         S. __
		S. 4420       S. 4732
 
                               __________

                             DECEMBER 1, 2022

                               __________

[GRAPHIC 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                    
49-939                      WASHINGTON : 2024                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------        
        
               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
                     David Brooks, General Counsel
                 Brie Van Cleve, Senior Energy Advisor
             Richard M. Russell, Republican Staff Director
              Matthew H. Leggett, Republican Chief Counsel
      Justin Memmott, Republican Deputy Staff Director for Energy
        John Tanner, Republican Deputy Staff Director for Lands
                           
                           
                           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
Heinrich, Hon. Martin, a U.S. Senator from New Mexico............     5
Cantwell, Hon. Maria, a U.S. Senator from Washington.............     6
Bennet, Hon. Michael F., a U.S. Senator from Colorado............     6

                               WITNESSES

Huff, Hon. Kathryn, Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy, U.S. 
  Department of Energy...........................................    30
Culver, Nada Wolff, Deputy Director, Policy and Programs, Bureau 
  of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior............    32
MacIntyre, Doug, Deputy Director for the Office of Petroleum 
  Reserves, U.S. Department of Energy............................    55

          ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

American Exploration and Mining Association:
    Letter for the Record........................................    70
American Whitewater:
    Letter for the Record........................................   138
Anaconda Trail Society:
    Letter for the Record........................................    85
Appalachian Trail Conservancy:
    Letter for the Record........................................   142
Archuleta County (CO) Board of Commissioners:
    Letter for the Record........................................    25
Back Country Horsemen of America:
    Letter for the Record........................................    86
Backcountry Hunters Anglers:
    Letter for the Record addressed to Senator Bennet............    15
    Letter for the Record addressed to Senators Manchin and 
      Barrasso...................................................   145
Barrasso, Hon. John:
    Opening Statement............................................     2
Bennet, Hon. Michael F.:
    Opening Statement............................................     6
Butte CDT Gateway Committee:
    Letter for the Record........................................    88
Butte-Silver Bow Convention and Visitors Bureau and Butte-Silver 
  Bow Tourism Business Improvement District:
    Letter for the Record........................................    89
Butte-Silver Bow, MT (City-County of):
    Letter for the Record........................................    84
Cantwell, Hon. Maria:
    Opening Statement............................................     6
Coeur Mining, Inc.:
    Letter for the Record........................................    72
Colorado School of Mines:
    Letter for the Record........................................    74
(The) Conservation Alliance:
    Letter for the Record........................................   146
(The) Conservation Alliance et al.:
    Letter for the Record........................................    16
Continental Divide Trail Coalition:
    Letter for the Record........................................    91
Cortez, CO (City of):
    Letter for the Record........................................    10
Culver, Nada Wolff:
    Opening Statement............................................    32
    Written Testimony............................................    34
    Responses to Questions for the Record........................   125
Dolores, CO (Town of):
    Letter for the Record........................................    11
Dolores County (CO) Board of Commissioners:
    Letter for the Record........................................    18
Dolores River Boating Advocates et al.:
    Letter for the Record........................................     8
Downtown Helena, Inc.:
    Letter for the Record........................................    93
East Ridge Foundation of the Rotary Club of Butte:
    Letter for the Record........................................    94
Essential Minerals Association:
    Letter for the Record........................................   148
Food & Water Watch and Center for Biological Diversity:
    Statement for the Record.....................................   150
Glacier Country (MT) Regional Tourism Commission:
    Letter for the Record........................................    95
Glass Packaging Institute:
    Letter for the Record........................................   153
Heaton, Al:
    Letter for the Record........................................    19
Heinrich, Hon. Martin:
    Opening Statement............................................     5
Helena Area Chamber of Commerce:
    Letter for the Record........................................    96
Helena Tourism Business Improvement District/Visit Helena:
    Letter for the Record........................................    97
Huff, Hon. Kathryn:
    Opening Statement............................................    30
    Written Testimony............................................    57
    Responses to Questions for the Record........................   117
Jagged Edge Mountain Gear:
    Letter for the Record........................................    13
Johnson, Carroll:
    Letter for the Record........................................   155
La Plata County (CO) Board of Commissioners:
    Letter for the Record........................................    20
Lincoln Valley (MT) Chamber of Commerce:
    Letter for the Record........................................    98
MacIntyre, Doug:
    Opening Statement............................................    55
    Written Testimony............................................    57
    Responses to Questions for the Record........................   132
Manchin III, Hon. Joe:
    Opening Statement............................................     1
Martin, Brett D.:
    Letter for the Record........................................    12
Montana Conservation Corps:
    Letter for the Record........................................    99
Montezuma County (CO) Board of Commissioners:
    Letter for the Record........................................    29
National Mining Association:
    Letter for the Record........................................    76
National Stone, Sand, and Gravel Association:
    Letter for the Record........................................    78
(The) Nature Conservancy:
    Letter for the Record........................................    14
Norwood, CO (Town of):
    Letter for the Record........................................    21
Oregon Hunters Association et al.:
    Letter for the Record........................................   161
Oregon Natural Desert Association:
    Letter for the Record........................................   156
Outdoor Alliance:
    Statement for the Record.....................................   157
(The) Pew Charitable Trusts:
    Statement for the Record.....................................   163
Pintler's Portal Hostel:
    Letter for the Record........................................   100
San Miguel County (CO) Board of Commissioners:
    Letter for the Record........................................    22
San Miguel Watershed Coalition:
    Letter for the Record........................................    24
Southwestern Water Conservation District:
    Letter for the Record........................................    26
Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership:
    Letter for the Record........................................   101
Trout Unlimited:
    Letter for the Record dated September 6, 2022................    27
    Letter for the Record dated December 1, 2022.................   164
Trust for Public Land:
    Letter for the Record........................................   102
University of Wyoming School of Energy Resources:
    Letter for the Record........................................    80
USDA Forest Service:
    Statement on S. 4542.........................................   165
    Statement on S. 4995.........................................   166
Ute Mountain Ute Tribe:
    Letter for the Record........................................    28
(The) Wilderness Society:
    Statement for the Record.....................................   170
(The) Wilderness Society et al.:
    Letter for the Record........................................   169
Wild Montana:
    Letter for the Record........................................   104
Women's Mining Coalition:
    Letter for the Record........................................    81
Wyden, Hon. Ron:
    Opening Statement............................................     4

                                 ----------
                                 
                                 
                                 
The text for each of the bills addressed in this hearing can be found 
on the Committee's website at: https://www.energy.senate.gov/hearings/
2022/12/full-committee-hearing-to-consider-pending-legislation

 
                          PENDING LEGISLATION

                              ----------                              


                       THURSDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2022

                                       U.S. Senate,
                 Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 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. The Committee will come to order.
    Before we turn to the Committee business, I want to take a 
minute to point out the beautiful Christmas tree that was 
delivered to our committee room this week. I appreciate the 
National Park Foundation for securing a generous donor, Larry 
Smith, who drove the tree up from his Christmas tree farm in 
Newland, North Carolina this week. Thank you very much, Mr. 
Smith. I appreciate it. It will make for a cheery backdrop for 
our work today, which is both a business meeting for three 
nominations and a legislative hearing.
    The three nominations are David Crane, to be Under 
Secretary of Energy for Infrastructure, Jeffrey Marootian, to 
be Assistant Secretary of Energy for Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy, and Gene Rodrigues, to be Assistant Secretary 
of Energy for Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability. We 
are going to turn to that as soon as we get a quorum.
    But today we also have three witnesses before us to provide 
expert testimony on 15 bills, one resolution, and a discussion 
draft of the Nuclear Waste Administration Act. There have been 
huge strides made in the 117th Congress to support both 
continued operation and to expand deployment of nuclear energy, 
but what to do with our nuclear waste is a nut that we have yet 
to crack. It falls to this Committee to address the back-end of 
the fuel cycle. We are responsible for finding an equitable, 
consent-based solution to storing and disposing of our nuclear 
waste. What has occurred to me after 35 years of stalemate is 
that a new approach is needed. The Nuclear Waste Administration 
Act forms an entity that is properly funded and has the mission 
of working with communities and states to site, construct, and 
operate nuclear waste facilities. It opens up possibilities for 
us to move forward and find an environmentally and socially 
responsible solution to deal with our nuclear waste. This is a 
solvable problem, and I hope my colleagues will join me in 
working on it as we move forward, and I look forward to Dr. 
Huff's testimony on this draft.
    Secondly, I would like to highlight Senator Casey's and 
Senator Braun's STREAM Act, which would ensure that abandoned 
mine land grants from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law can be 
utilized in the same way as grants allocated from the 
traditional AML Trust Fund to address the acid mine drainage. 
For generations, West Virginians in coal communities around the 
country have done the heavy lifting that made us the world 
leader that we are today. These communities still bear the 
scars of those sacrifices. I am proud to co-sponsor this bill 
because it will be a huge help in repairing the nearly 1,500 
miles of AML-impaired streams in my State of West Virginia 
alone. With the advancements that WVU has made in our ability 
to extract rare earth elements from acid mine drainage, 
cleaning up watersheds impacted by pollution from abandoned 
mines will not only make our communities safer, it is also 
going to provide a unique opportunity to onshore our supply 
chain for critical minerals. It is truly a win-win situation.
    Another way we can strengthen our domestic supply chain is 
by ensuring that we have a skilled workforce in the mining 
field for years to come. That is why I am also pleased that we 
will be discussing a bill that I have been very focused on with 
Ranking Member Barrasso--the Mining Schools Act. By providing 
targeted support for the mining and geological programs at our 
colleges and universities, this important bill will help ensure 
that the next generation is prepared to design and operate all 
of the new mines that are needed to meet the supply chain 
challenge that we have.
    We also have a handful of public lands bills on today's 
agenda. The Committee has processed several dozen public lands 
and water bills this Congress, and I remain hopeful that, 
working with Senator Barrasso, we will be able to reach 
bipartisan agreement on a lands package. While our 
subcommittees typically hold hearings on land and water bills, 
given the late date, we have included these bills on the agenda 
today so that we can get the Administration's input and 
potentially have these bills available if we are able to reach 
an agreement on the package.
    With that, I am going to turn to 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.
    You know, if confirmed, Mr. Crane would oversee more than 
$70 billion in appropriations. He would have authority to loan 
another $250 billion. It is an extraordinary amount of the 
American people's money. In the wrong hands it could create an 
enormous liability for American taxpayers. Mr. Crane is a 
former CEO who got fired for his poor investment strategy. He 
is an activist who has called for bullying other companies that 
do not subscribe to his self-described ``green dream.'' That 
dream is an ideology that would kill traditional energy, such 
as natural gas and coal, without a reliable, affordable, and 
secure replacement. He is in lockstep with President Biden's 
goal of shutting coal plants down all across America, and I 
must oppose his nomination.
    Mr. Rodrigues has a wealth of experience in the electricity 
sector. For the past eight years, he has served as Vice 
President in the Energy Environment and Infrastructure Practice 
Group of ICF, a consulting firm. For 24 years before that, he 
served as an attorney, manager, and director at Southern 
California Edison, one of the nation's largest electric 
utilities. He served on the boards on the American Council on 
Energy Efficient Economy and the California Efficiency Demand 
and Management Council. He understands that baseload sources of 
energy, such as natural gas, play a critical role in providing 
consumers with secure, reliable, and affordable energy. Mr. 
Rodrigues is well qualified to lead the Office of Electricity 
and I will support his nomination.
    I commend Mr. Marootian for his public service. Unlike Mr. 
Rodrigues, Mr. Marootian's background and experience have 
little to do with the organization for which he has been 
nominated to lead. His skills and expertise may be appropriate 
for the Department of Transportation, but they do not qualify 
him to lead the largest applied energy office at the Department 
of Energy. I therefore cannot support his nomination.
    I will now turn, Mr. Chairman, to the hearing statement as 
we look forward to hearing from a number of special people 
today who will testify, and I am going to limit my remarks to 
the five bills that I have introduced or co-sponsored with you 
and with other members of this Committee. The first is S. 3152. 
This bill would prohibit entities that have defaulted on a 
Department of Energy loan or loan guarantee in the past from 
receiving a new loan or a new loan guarantee. This summer, 
Congressional Democrats increased the Department's lending 
authority from $40 billion to $290 billion. They also provided 
more than $11 billion to cover the cost of serving those loans, 
a cost that applicants typically have paid in the past. That 
means the Department has a greater chance of wasting taxpayer 
dollars on projects that do not deserve support. We all 
remember Solyndra and the many other bad loans that the Obama 
administration made. It is basic good governance to ensure that 
an entity that has failed to repay a federal loan in the past 
is not rewarded with another taxpayer-backed loan.
    The next bill is one that you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, S. 
3915, the Mining Schools Act of 2022, which both of us have so 
far introduced and co-sponsored. This bill would establish a 
grant program to help mining schools recruit students. 
According to the American Exploration and Mining Association, a 
large portion of the workforce in the U.S. mining industry is 
nearing retirement age, heightening the need for qualified, 
well-educated college graduates to enter the workplace soon. I 
believe our legislation, Mr. Chairman, will help address that 
need.
    The next is S. 3978, the NO RUSSIA Act of 2022. This 
summer, we considered my bills to eliminate imports of Russian 
uranium and accelerate the domestic availability of high-assay 
low-enriched uranium for advanced reactors. Today, we are 
considering my bill to ensure a domestic supply of low-enriched 
uranium for existing reactors. Together, these three bills 
provide the comprehensive solution needed to eliminate our 
reliance on Russian uranium. Since these bills have been 
introduced, I have worked closely with you, Mr. Chairman, as 
well as Senator Risch, to develop a comprehensive solution to 
these issues. Congress needs to act to ensure this solution is 
enacted into law by the end of the year. We need to stop 
funding Putin's war machine immediately and need to restore our 
domestic supply chain for nuclear fuel.
    I also introduced S. 4651, a bill to prohibit the 
Department from selling crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve to rogue states. Earlier this summer, the Department 
sold our emergency oil reserves to Unipec. Now, that is a 
subsidiary of China's state-owned oil company, Sinopec. My bill 
would eliminate sales to countries, like China, that violate 
religious freedom. It would also bar the sale to entities that 
purchase oil from sanctioned nations, such as Russia and Iran.
    The last bill, Mr. Chairman, that I plan to discuss is S. 
4579, the Colorado River Basin Conservation Act. This bill 
would provide incentives to farmers and ranchers to use 
techniques that conserve water to help address the declining 
levels of Lake Mead and Lake Powell. In June, Camille Touton, 
the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, called for 
additional action from the Basin states to generate two- to 
four-million acre-feet per year of additional water in the 
Colorado River system. In response, the Upper Basin states 
developed a five-point plan. In July, Senator Hickenlooper and 
I introduced legislation reauthorizing the System Conservation 
Pilot Program, a key plank of that plan. The Committee already 
passed that bill as an amendment. We are considering it today 
as a stand-alone measure. Reauthorizing this program is an 
important step that we can take to help answer the Bureau's 
call for these historic water reductions.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
    Before we go to our witnesses, and as we accumulate our 
quorum, I have a few of our Senators who want to speak to their 
bills. We will start with Senator Wyden and then we will go to 
Senator Heinrich.

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

    Senator Wyden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I 
will be brief.
    Mr. Chairman, I thank you for giving us a chance to discuss 
a groundbreaking piece of legislation--the Owyhee Act, which 
will put us in a position to protect some of America's most 
special places, their environmental treasures, their 
agricultural way of life, and new economic opportunities for a 
region hungry for them. The Malheur CEO Act has multiple 
benefits across Malheur County in Eastern Oregon, and this 
legislation was developed in years of negotiation that I 
personally led. It was all about building trust and 
understanding with our local ranchers, our small businesses, 
our tribes, environmental groups, and hunters and all of those 
who make their living in the backcountry. And reflecting the 
importance of this bill, I am very pleased that Diane Teeman, 
Chairwoman of the Burns Paiute Tribe, with whom we have been 
working to restore indigenous lands in this bill, is here and I 
just wanted to close my opening remarks by recognizing her.
    I thank you again, Mr. Chairman. It's supposed to be the 
post-election time, and things were thought to be a little 
quieter, but the Finance Committee has got a couple things that 
we are talking to colleagues about. Thank you.
    The Chairman. If the Senators who are going to speak on 
their bills can give us the time to do our business right now, 
since we have the quorum, I would like to move to that.
    [RECESS TO BUSINESS MEETING]
    The Chairman. We will now resume the hearing, and we will 
turn to Senator Heinrich.

          OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARTIN HEINRICH, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO

    Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Chairman.
    Chairman Manchin, Ranking Member Barrasso, I want to thank 
you both for holding this hearing and for including S. 4995, 
the Continental Divide Trail Completion Act. I introduced this 
legislation with Senator Daines to improve the safety, 
accessibility, and quality of this trail that connects 
Americans to incredible landscapes and ecosystems across five 
states. Public lands and trails serve a vital role in 
conserving natural resources and providing space for diverse 
communities to experience the outdoors. The Continental Divide 
National Scenic Trail spans 3,100 miles from the deserts of New 
Mexico to the peaks of the Northern Rockies, passing through 
some of the nation's most scenic terrain and most treasured 
natural and historical and cultural sites. It provides vital 
opportunities for both recreation and economic development to 
20 official CDT gateway communities and to numerous others 
located along its expansive route.
    Today, the gaps in the trail add up to over 160 miles 
currently, requiring hikers to reroute onto roadways and 
highways. Another 600 miles of the trail route inadequately 
fulfill the designated purposes of the trail because of their 
distance from the Continental Divide, their scenic quality, or 
their topography. These gaps and needed relocation 
significantly impact trail safety and enjoyment for visitors, 
detracting from the trail's purpose of recreation and 
conservation along the Continental Divide. S. 4995 would create 
a joint Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Trail 
Completion Team to facilitate the completion of the Continental 
Divide Trail by its 50th anniversary in 2028. The bill directs 
the federal completion team to collaborate closely with states, 
with local governments, with landowners, with Native American 
communities and others who live, work, and recreate along this 
trail. And in passing this legislation, we can ensure that the 
natural, cultural, and economic value of this incomparable 
trail will be conserved for generations to come.
    Thank you to the Committee for your consideration of my 
legislation. I yield back the remainder of my time.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
    Now we will turn to Senator Cantwell.

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

    Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for 
holding this important hearing on Senate bill 4420, the CREST 
Act, which Senator Collins and I introduced last June, and I 
would also like to thank Committee members, Senators Cassidy 
and King, for also agreeing to co-sponsor this legislation.
    According to a new report from the world's top scientists, 
removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is essential to 
blunting the impacts of climate change. In other words, just 
reducing future emissions is no longer enough. So we need to 
figure out how to remove and trap carbon pollution from the 
atmosphere in order to avoid the more frequent and intense 
extreme weather that we are seeing across the United States. An 
example from the Pacific Northwest--my colleague from Oregon 
just left, but I am sure he will never forget when his hometown 
of Portland hit 114+, shattering century-old records and 
corresponding with wildfires that raged across the Northwest. A 
new study found that in 2021, heat was not just some black swan 
event. It would be virtually impossible in the 1950s, but 
today, because of multiple trends driven by climate change, 
heatwaves like these will occur about once every 200 years, but 
if we allow global warming to reach 2+ Celsius, and we are on 
track to exceed that level, the Pacific Northwest will suffer 
from devastating heatwaves.
    That is why it is so important to advance promising tools 
of carbon removal. Most of us on the Committee know and have 
supported this in the past--the first comprehensive federal 
carbon removal R&D program in the Energy bill of 2020, and $3.6 
billion directed at direct-air capture in the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure bill, and again, the game-changing expansion of 
the 45Q tax credit in the Inflation Reduction Act. What the 
CREST Act brings to the table is a focus on promising the 
leveraging of natural carbon removal processes--solutions such 
as reforestation, algae cultivation, advanced geological 
mineralization, and direct ocean capture. The bill also 
provides support for entities that are figuring out how to 
quantify emissions reductions from capturing carbon, and the 
CREST Act creates a five-year pilot carbon removal purchase 
program in order to spur and support private-sector efforts in 
this area as well.
    So I will look forward to asking Dr. Huff about this, but 
thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to my colleagues on the 
Committee, also Senators Cassidy and King, who are co-sponsors 
of this legislation.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
    And now we have the presence of our dear friend, Senator 
Michael Bennet, who would like to make a statement on his piece 
of legislation.

           OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL BENNET, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO

    Senator Bennet. Thank you. Chairman Manchin, thank you so 
much for having me back to the Committee, and Ranking Member 
Barrasso, I thank you and the members of the Committee. I 
really appreciate the chance to speak about my bill with 
Senator Hickenlooper. He had to go chair a Subcommittee, so he 
said I am carrying the weight for both of us. I am happy to do 
that on the Dolores River National Conservation Area, a special 
management area act. I want to spend a minute on why this bill 
matters to Colorado and why it deserves this Committee's 
bipartisan support.
    The Dolores River is vital to Southwest Colorado. The 
canyon carved by the Dolores is renowned, not just in our 
state, but across the country for its majestic red rock walls 
that tower over the Ponderosa Pines. I hope all of you have the 
chance to visit one day. The Dolores River is not only a 
critical source of water for Southwest Colorado, it is central 
to the region's farming, ranching, outdoor recreation, and way 
of life. But as with any river, over the years, different 
groups have had different priorities for its long-term 
management. While some wanted stronger federal action to 
protect the river and its native fish, others worried these 
steps would go too far and restrict local water uses. In 
another place, these disagreements often result in perpetual 
conflict and stalemate, but in Colorado, all sides came 
together to find a middle ground to secure the future of the 
Dolores River. They understood that uncertainty over the 
river's long-term management was unacceptable, so they spent 
nearly two decades debating how best to manage the river for 
the next generation over literally hundreds of meetings. And 
the result is a thoughtful compromise bill, written on the 
ground in Colorado, by Coloradans.
    It enjoys the support of Republican and Democratic 
officials in three counties in Southwest Colorado--Dolores, 
Montezuma, and San Miguel Counties, along with the Ute Mountain 
Ute Tribe, local agricultural and ranching interests, and 
conservation groups. The bill would protect over 68,000 acres 
of public lands in Colorado and designate a national 
conservation area and a special management area for a portion 
of the Dolores River that runs through the three counties. The 
bill includes a range of designations that reflect the range of 
interests in the Dolores River to conserve native fish, honor 
water rights, and protect existing uses for farmers, ranchers, 
communities, and outdoor recreation. This bill represents a 
balanced, sensible way forward to resolve many of the 
longstanding disagreements, protect the river for all parties, 
and provide long-term certainty for generations.
    It is why the bill enjoys bipartisan support, not only in 
Colorado, but in Congress. Earlier this year, every Republican 
in the Colorado delegation introduced an identical version of 
this bill, and this morning, I have come with letters and 
testimony from counties, tribal leaders, conservation groups, 
sportsmen, water districts, and community leaders across 
Southwest Colorado, all supporting this bill. Mr. Chairman, I 
ask unanimous consent that these letters be entered into the 
hearing record.
    The Chairman. Without objection.
    [Letters of support for S. 4542 follow:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Bennet. But let me just end by saying how grateful 
I am to this Committee for considering this bill, Mr. Chairman, 
and honoring Colorado's decades of hard work. I hope that once 
you have the opportunity to look at it more closely, it will 
earn a strong, bipartisan vote in the Committee.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
    We have one question from a fellow Westerner, Senator 
Heinrich.
    Senator Heinrich. Senator, I wanted to ask you what the 
best way to navigate Snaggletooth Rapid is on the Dolores?
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Bennet. Come anytime. We'll do it together. That 
will be fun.
    Senator Heinrich. I look forward to it.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator. We appreciate it very 
much.
    Now we are going to turn to our witnesses for today's 
hearing, and we have Hon. Dr. Kathryn Huff, Assistant Secretary 
for Nuclear Energy at the Department of Energy.
    We have Ms. Nada Culver, who is the Deputy Director of 
Policy and Programs at the Bureau of Land Management within the 
Department of the Interior.
    And we have Mr. Doug MacIntyre, Deputy Director for the 
Office of Petroleum Reserves at the U.S. Department of Energy.
    We thank all of you for being here.
    Dr. Huff, we will start with you.

STATEMENT OF HON. KATHRYN HUFF, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR NUCLEAR 
               ENERGY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

    Dr. Huff. Thank you, Chairman Manchin, Ranking Member 
Barrasso, and distinguished members of the Committee. It is an 
honor to appear before you representing the Department of 
Energy along with my colleagues to discuss the various energy 
bills under your consideration. To meet our ambitious carbon 
reduction goals and rebuild U.S. leadership globally, the 
Biden-Harris Administration is prioritizing activities that 
keep the existing nuclear fleet operating, deploy advanced 
reactor technologies, secure and sustain the nuclear fuel 
supply, and expand international nuclear energy cooperation. 
New nuclear reactor deployments also have the potential to 
decarbonize many industrial sectors in the United States and 
abroad. Ensuring this future for our nation and our allies must 
include a secure source of fuel for today's nuclear power 
plants and those of tomorrow. To support the existing fleet of 
nuclear reactors, DOE recently announced initial certification 
decisions for the Civilian Nuclear Credit Program, authorized 
and funded by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. We are also 
working hard to publish guidance outlining certification 
criteria for the second round of the program.
    The Russian Federation's invasion of Ukraine has 
demonstrated the grave threat to global energy security posed 
by dependents on Russian-supplied fuels. Russia, the largest 
global enricher of uranium, currently supplies a significant 
fraction of the nuclear fuel used by the United States and our 
allies and partners. In particular, conversion and enrichment 
services from trusted sources are not sufficient to replace 
current imports from Russia, and without expansion of domestic 
fuel cycle capacity, the United States cannot securely support 
the low-enriched uranium needs of today's reactor fleet or make 
high-assay low-enriched uranium available for advanced 
reactors, research reactors, and medical isotope production.
    With regard to the NO RUSSIA Act of 2022, America's 
dependence on Russian uranium threatens our energy security. 
Energy security is national security, and untrustworthy, state-
sponsored programs have no place in our energy policy. However, 
any ban on uranium imports from the Russian Federation should 
be accompanied by strategic investments that strengthen our 
domestic nuclear fuel supply chain. S. 3978 recognizes the need 
to eliminate reliance on Russia and establish secure domestic 
sources of nuclear fuel materials, proposing a national 
strategic uranium reserve. The reserve would contain uranium 
produced and converted in the United States to be used in the 
event of a supply disruption. Further, the legislation seeks to 
allow for the expansion and refilling of the American Assured 
Fuel Supply, which will be helpful to mitigate any future 
supply disruptions.
    With regard to the Nuclear Waste Administration Act, and 
looking forward, the promise of new, advanced reactors can most 
responsibly be realized in conjunction with progress on the 
management of their spent nuclear fuel. The draft bill, the 
Nuclear Waste Administration Act--NWAA--aims to support the 
future of U.S. nuclear energy by addressing the back-end of the 
fuel cycle, which is an ongoing concern that the Department is 
working on to address in partnership with Congress. The bill 
recognizes that a consent-based siting process should be used 
for developing interim storage and disposal options, and in 
September of this year, DOE issued a $16 million funding 
opportunity announcement to provide resources for communities 
and other stakeholders interested in learning more about 
consent-based siting and the management of spent nuclear fuel, 
as well as interim storage facility siting considerations. We 
expect to make those awards in 2023. DOE looks forward to 
working with Congress to develop the draft Nuclear Waste 
Administration Act.
    With regard to other bills, on behalf of my colleagues 
across the Department, I would also like to briefly touch on 
other legislation considered today. With regard to the Mining 
Schools Act of 2022, it would authorize the Secretary of Energy 
to establish a program to strengthen domestic mining education 
to recruit and educate the next generation of mining engineers 
and other qualified professionals to meet the future energy and 
mineral needs of the United States. DOE looks forward to 
working with the Committee on this legislation.
    S. 4420, the CREST Act, supports the advancement of carbon 
dioxide removal research and development, which has a critical 
role in helping the United States achieve net-zero emissions by 
2050. Many of the activities authorized in the CREST Act align 
with DOE's existing work on the Carbon Negative Shot. DOE looks 
forward to working with Congress on the continued development 
and deployment of CDR technologies.
    Regarding DOE's Loan Program Office, S. 3152 would prohibit 
DOE from making a loan guarantee if a borrower has previously 
defaulted on an obligation guaranteed under the Title 17 Loan 
Guarantee Program, or if the borrower has previously defaulted 
on an obligation under the Advanced Technology Vehicles 
Manufacturing Loan program. We are committed to working with 
Congress to ensure transparency in the LPO project portfolio, 
its due diligence and risk management processes, and oversight 
of the programs.
    S. 3112, the Hydrogen Technologies for Heavy Industry Grant 
Program, would authorize the Department to provide grants to 
commercial-scale demonstration projects that demonstrate 
industrial end-use applications of hydrogen. The Department's 
H2@Scale initiative, by demonstrating hydrogen's versatility to 
decarbonize heavy industry at a commercial scale, would be 
supported by this.
    Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the 
Committee today. I am happy to take your questions.
    [The written testimony of Dr. Huff and Mr. MacIntyre was 
submitted as one document. It appears following Mr. MacIntyre's 
opening statement on page 57.]
    The Chairman. Thank you, Doctor.
    Now, we have Ms. Culver, Deputy Director of Policy and 
Programs at the Bureau of Land Management.

  STATEMENT OF NADA WOLFF CULVER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, POLICY AND 
  PROGRAMS, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE 
                            INTERIOR

    Ms. Culver. Chairman Manchin, Ranking Member Barrasso, and 
members of the Committee, good morning. Thanks for having me. 
As mentioned, I am Nada Wolff Culver, the Bureau of Land 
Management's Principal Deputy Director. Thank you for the 
opportunity to discuss the bills of interest to the BLM on 
today's agenda. Several of these measures include provisions 
which align with important Administration priorities, and we 
look forward to continuing to work with the sponsors and the 
Committee on them.
    The BLM manages approximately 240 million acres of surface 
land located primarily in 12 western states, as well as 30 
percent of the nation's onshore mineral resources across 700 
million subsurface acres under the Federal Land Policy and 
Management Act, or FLPMA. FLPMA sets forth the BLM's diverse 
mission of multiple use and sustained yield. The BLM's mission 
advances the President's priorities of protecting and 
sustaining public lands and the wildlife, natural resources, 
and ecosystems they encompass for current and future 
generations while also emphasizing the importance of these 
lands to the nation's economy and the lives and livelihoods of 
millions of people across the country. Respecting the ties that 
communities have to public lands and welcoming and valuing 
diverse views is vital to managing resilient, working public 
lands. The bills on the agenda today exemplify this commitment. 
I will briefly touch on the four bills affecting the BLM as 
well as those for which the Department has submitted statements 
for the record.
    S. 4424, the Recreation and Public Purposes Tribal Parity 
Act, would amend the Recreation and Public Purposes Act to add 
Indian tribes to the list of entities, along with state and 
local governments and non-profits to which land can be sold or 
leased for recreational or other public purposes. The 
Department supports amending the act to add tribal eligibility. 
It is long overdue and brings parity to tribes under this act.
    S. 4542, the Dolores River National Conservation Area and 
Special Management Area Act, establishes the Dolores River NCA 
on approximately 45,000 acres of BLM-managed public lands in 
southwestern Colorado. S. 4542 continues Colorado's long 
tradition of locally driven conservation efforts guided by the 
people who live and recreate in Western Colorado to protect 
these special places for future generations. The BLM supports 
the bill, as it aligns with the Administration's conservation 
goals, and we look forward to working with the sponsor on some 
technical modifications.
    S. 4860, the Malheur Community Empowerment for the Owyhee 
Act, would designate approximately 1.1 million acres of 
wilderness while providing for increased grazing flexibility on 
certain public lands in Malheur County, Oregon. It would also 
release approximately 200,000 acres of wilderness study areas 
and transfer about 32,000 acres to be held in trust for the 
Burns Paiute Tribe. The BLM supports S. 4860, as it aligns with 
the Administration's conservation goals through its wilderness 
designations as well as its approach to improving the 
ecological health of working lands and restoring tribal 
homelands to tribal ownership. We look forward to continuing to 
work with the sponsor on this measure.
    S. 4995, the Continental Divide Trail Completion Act, 
directs the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to complete 
the 3,100-mile Continental Divide National Scenic Trail by 
November 10, 2028, the 50th anniversary of the trail's 
designation. The Department supports S. 4995, as it aligns with 
our priorities to provide safe and equitable access to outdoor 
recreation opportunities for all Americans.
    Additionally, the Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation, 
and Enforcement has submitted a statement for the record on S. 
3957, the Safeguarding Treatment for the Restoration of 
Ecosystems from Abandoned Mines Act, which would authorize 
states and tribes receiving Bipartisan Infrastructure Law 
grants to deposit up to 30 percent of their annual grant 
funding into a state or tribal fund to address acid mine 
drainage. The Department appreciates the opportunity this would 
provide to states and tribes for the mitigation of legacy water 
pollution now and in the future.
    Finally, the Bureau of Reclamation has provided a statement 
for the record in support of S. 4579, the Colorado River Basin 
Conservation Act, and the National Park Service has provided 
statements for the record in support of S. 4732, the Enslaved 
Voyages Memorial Act, and in support of Senate Joint Resolution 
62, approving the location of a memorial honoring journalists 
who sacrificed their lives in service.
    The Department again looks forward to continuing to work 
with the Committee and Congress on the important public land 
issues addressed in these bills. Thank you again for the 
opportunity to be here today, and I look forward to your 
questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Culver follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    The Chairman. Thank you so much.
    Now we have Mr. Doug MacIntyre.

STATEMENT OF DOUG MACINTYRE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR THE OFFICE OF 
         PETROLEUM RESERVES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

    Mr. MacIntyre. Thank you, Chairman Manchin, Ranking Member 
Barrasso, and distinguished members of the Committee. It is an 
honor to appear before you and represent the Department of 
Energy at this hearing. This morning, I will speak to the 
proposed legislation under my purview as the Deputy Director of 
DOE's Office of Petroleum Reserves, commonly referred to as 
OPR.
    The energy sector provides critical resources, electricity, 
and fuel that we all depend on. OPR's role and efforts are 
instrumental in addressing the continuously evolving risk 
facing the energy sector today. The mission of the Office of 
Petroleum Reserves is to protect the United States from severe 
petroleum supply interruptions through the acquisition, 
storage, distribution, and management of emergency petroleum 
stocks and to carry out the U.S. obligations under the 
International Energy Program. The OPR manages the operational 
readiness of three emergency stockpiles--the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve, often called the SPR, the United States 
crude oil stockpile; also the Northeast Home Heating Oil 
Reserve, often referred to a NHHOR; and the Northeast Gasoline 
Supply Reserve, often referred to as the NGSR. In the event of 
a natural disaster or other national emergency, the U.S. can 
rely on these emergency stockpiles to maintain a constant 
supply of crude oil and other petroleum products. In this way, 
OPR directly supports the Department of Energy's goal of energy 
dominance by ensuring energy security for America. Collective 
preparedness and collective response are at the heart of our 
work, which is why the Department strengthened the Office of 
Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response's--or 
CESER's--role with the addition of the OPR this summer. The 
transition of OPR to CESER consolidates and streamlines the 
Department's critical emergency response function. It improves 
the Department's ability to utilize the Office of Petroleum 
Reserves as a critical resource during natural disasters and 
other emergency events.
    I will now turn to the two bills under consideration today 
that relate to the SPR. Senate bill 4651, the Prohibiting 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve Sales to Rogue States Act, would 
limit the sale and export of petroleum products from the SPR to 
countries that are designated as countries of concern for 
religious freedom under the International Religious Freedom Act 
of 1998. The legislation would limit the sale of SPR crude oil 
to state-owned entities subject to a ban or imposition of 
sanctions. These companies would be required to certify they 
have not purchased oil from countries subject to U.S. sanctions 
or bans while they were in effect. If the Department of Energy 
determines these companies have purchased oil from these 
countries of concern, they would not be able to bid on SPR oil 
at auction.
    The second piece of legislation, Senate bill 4515, the No 
Emergency Crude Oil for Foreign Adversaries Act, would require 
the Secretary of Energy to stipulate as a condition on the sale 
of SPR crude oil at auction that the oil cannot be exported to 
China, Russia, North Korea, or Iran. The proposed legislation 
also requires a report on the route to destination and place of 
refinement of SPR crude oil and the ownership of the refinement 
facilities of all crude oil sold at auction from the SPR since 
November 23rd, 2021. The SPR currently has no way to track the 
movement of the crude oil sold after delivery. Custody transfer 
of crude oil from the SPR takes place at either a pipeline 
boundary of the SPR site, commercial crude oil storage 
facility, or at the vessel on which the crude oil is loaded. 
Once the vessel is loaded, the crude oil on that vessel may be 
sold multiple times prior to reaching the intended destination.
    In closing, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. 
OPR is and remains committed to protecting our nation's energy 
security and resilience. I look forward to your questions.
    [The jointly prepared statement of Dr. Huff and Mr. 
MacIntyre follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    The Chairman. Thank you. Now we will start the questions, 
and I will begin. It stays with you, Mr. MacIntyre.
    We have a bill before us on the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve, and I would like to better understand the plans to 
refill. First of all, you might give us a little bit of a 
background on when we started the SPR. I think it was after the 
1974 oil embargo. A few of us are old enough to remember that. 
How did we determine 700, almost 800 million barrels? Why did 
we think we needed 800? Where is the mark now? I think we are 
down around 400 now or in that neighborhood. And where do you 
think we need to go?
    So if you would give us a little bit of history, it might 
help the Committee understand what we are trying to achieve, 
and I am understanding also, in the caverns that we use for 
this, you cannot be taking oil out and putting it in at the 
same time. Is that correct?
    Mr. MacIntyre. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Okay. Also, if you can tell me if any of our 
caverns have been damaged--we have had one collapse as I am 
understanding. We have lost one, correct?
    Mr. MacIntyre. No, sir.
    The Chairman. We haven't? I thought we had. Yes, we know we 
had damage to one, and we thought that was because of how we 
were managing it, but I could be wrong. Anyway, explain that--
the shape that we are in. What is our total capacity to store 
oil, and where do you think we need to be? And give us a little 
bit of background, if you will.
    Mr. MacIntyre. Thank you, Senator, for the question.
    I wasn't old enough to be buying gasoline during the Arab 
oil embargo, but I was old enough to be in my dad's car while 
he was waiting in line.
    The Chairman. While he was raising Cain and cussing. I 
remember those days.
    Mr. MacIntyre. So yes, sir. So, as you said, the SPR was 
created as part of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, and 
was created in 1977-78 as a result of the Arab oil embargo. It 
took several years for us to build up the reserves.
    The Chairman. Did you have a target? What was it? How did 
you set a target of where you had to get and how much we had to 
have in the United States?
    Mr. MacIntyre. So initially the target was set at 500 
million barrels.
    The Chairman. I got you.
    Mr. MacIntyre. It was then increased to a billion barrels. 
We eventually got to 715 million barrels of capacity. We 
reached that capacity in around 2013-2014. We had about 700 
million barrels in 2017, when we started the Congressionally 
mandated sales. A number of laws have mandated us to sell since 
2017.
    The Chairman. Mandated the sales--your evaluation of the 
sales that were mandated by Congress--was it to stabilize 
pricing or fill a void?
    Mr. MacIntyre. No, sir, it was for deficit reduction, 
providing funding for those bills for----
    The Chairman. Pay-fors.
    Mr. MacIntyre. Absolutely.
    The Chairman. We understand those.
    Mr. MacIntyre. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. We have a verbal over here--awful.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. MacIntyre. Yes, so since we were at 700 million 
barrels, we sold a number of Congressionally mandated sales. We 
had 180 million barrels of emergency sales this year as a 
result of Putin's invasion of Ukraine. So right now, we are 
sitting at around 400 million barrels. Currently, we have a 
study underway. It wasn't requested by Congress. It was 
something that we started on our own. It is under 
administration review that would look at various levels of the 
SPR and determine what kind of disruption that would mitigate 
against. In other words, if you consider the SPR as insurance, 
what are you getting with the----
    The Chairman. Do we have legislative mandatory sales coming 
up?
    Mr. MacIntyre. Yes, sir. We have----
    The Chairman. Starting when?
    Mr. MacIntyre. So we have been doing it from 2017 and we 
have got them through 2031. We have got the key----
    The Chairman. Does that fulfill the pay-fors that we----
    Mr. MacIntyre. That would fulfill the pay-fors, yes, sir 
and----
    The Chairman. So we have to have that. So give me your 
plan. I think you have a little bit of an idea here.
    Mr. MacIntyre. Yes, sir. So as you said, we cannot fill and 
release from the same site at the same time.
    The Chairman. I got you.
    Mr. MacIntyre. It does not make sense for us to be 
releasing oil while we are trying to refill the SPR from the 
emergency sales. So we are trying to create an opportunity in 
FY24 through FY27 to stop those sales--either delay them to 
further out, or cancel them and then do a rescission on our 
account to make sure those pay-fors are accounted for.
    The Chairman. How much money do you have? Selling the 180 
million barrels, how much money do we have to spend, to take 
off the----
    Mr. MacIntyre. So fortunately, yes, sir, fortunately we 
sold high, and so the average sales price for these emergency 
sales is about $96 a barrel, and the plan would be to purchase 
at roughly $70 a barrel or somewhere around that. So we would 
have enough money to refill the----
    The Chairman. And how much? What did our sales--35 million 
a year starting, I mean, as of 2025, we?
    Mr. MacIntyre. So starting in 2024, we are doing 35 million 
barrels a year.
    The Chairman. In order to meet----
    Mr. MacIntyre. And more in '25, '26 and '27. So at 140 
million barrels, plus the 60 million barrels that we are 
planning to purchase, physically, would more than cover the 180 
million barrels that we sold this year.
    The Chairman. I hope that helps the Committee a little bit 
to get an idea of where we are right now because it is 
alarming.
    Dr. Huff, I am out of time in consideration of my 
Committee, but I really want to talk to you concerning our 
disposal of nuclear waste, and they had a blue-ribbon committee 
and we want to hear about that. So if I get a second round, if 
one of my colleagues here doesn't ask that question, I would 
like to get into that with you.
    With that, I will turn to Senator Barrasso.
    Senator Barrasso. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
    Dr. Huff, before getting into some of these specific meaty 
issues of nuclear issues, I want to talk about security 
clearances. You know, on July 20th of this year, I sent the 
Department a letter, specifically to the Secretary, requesting 
a review of the security clearance procedures. I have not yet 
gotten an answer from the Department. This week, and the 
national press reported today, we discover that one of the top 
deputies in your office, who has a security clearance, has been 
charged with felony theft. Can you assure the Committee that 
the Department will now undertake comprehensive review of its 
security clearance procedures, as I have requested?
    Dr. Huff. Thank you, Senator.
    It is certainly correct that when a DOE clearance holder is 
charged with a crime, the case is considered by DOE personnel 
security officers and the matter would be handled pursuant to 
DOE Order 4722A. This addresses personnel security matters. And 
depending on the circumstances, that could result in immediate 
suspension or revocation of the clearance. I assure you that 
the integrity of our nation's classified information 
protections, particularly classified nuclear information, is 
pivotal to our nation's security. I, along with the rest of the 
Department of Energy, take this security very seriously.
    Senator Barrasso. So is that a yes that you will now 
undertake a comprehensive review? That the Department will take 
a comprehensive review of its clearance procedures, as I have 
requested?
    Dr. Huff. Senator, we will take this back to DOE and I will 
discuss it.
    Senator Barrasso. It is pretty disturbing when you see what 
the allegations are and the fact that this person has a 
security clearance.
    Moving on to the next. Last month, the Department of Energy 
awarded Centrus a $150 million contract to produce the fuel 
that advanced nuclear reactors use. I am glad the Department is 
taking steps to encourage the production of this fuel right 
here in the United States. Centrus continues to buy and sell 
Russian uranium. The Department should not use American tax 
dollars to prop up a company that finances Russia's war in 
Ukraine. So what steps are you taking to ensure Centrus does 
not use Russian material to produce this high-assay low-
enriched uranium that is needed for this project and additional 
projects in the future for our nuclear future in America?
    Dr. Huff. Thank you, Senator. I really value your 
leadership and the concern about the provision of HALEU. At 
this time, none of our demonstration projects plan on importing 
high-assay low-enriched uranium from Russia for their first 
cores. However, there is very little highly enriched uranium 
available here in the U.S. that we can use to make the needed 
quantity. So this demonstration award to Centrus will allow us 
to make material very soon--in the 2023 timeframe--and that is 
an important first step, but we need your support in 
incentivizing a sustainable market-based HALEU production 
capability in the United States, capable of providing those two 
first cores.
    Senator Barrasso. Mr. MacIntyre, I am sorry, let me go to 
Ms. Culver first.
    Conserving water has been a priority for Wyoming and other 
Upper Basin states for years. This is not something new. In 
fact, over the past two decades, municipal water use across the 
four Upper Basin states has declined per capita despite 
population growth. To help address the declining water levels 
of the Colorado River Basin, the Upper Basin states have come 
together to prioritize this reauthorization of the System 
Conservation Pilot Program. Senator Hickenlooper and I, in a 
bipartisan way, have introduced legislation to do just that. 
This program is a key tool to conserve more water in the Upper 
Basin to help the Colorado River system. States have 
successfully worked together to find conservation solutions. In 
light of this, will the Department of the Interior prioritize 
working through the states and their delegations to address the 
declining water levels in the Colorado River Basin?
    Ms. Culver. Thank you for the question, Senator.
    As you know, the Bureau of Reclamation and the Department 
have submitted a statement for the record in support of the 
act, and I am happy to get more information directly from the 
Bureau of Reclamation, but I can certainly say the Department 
is committed to working with states and to using all available 
tools to address this problem.
    Senator Barrasso. Thanks, Ms. Culver.
    Mr. MacIntyre, now to you. Earlier this year, the 
Department sold a portion of our emergency oil reserves to the 
subsidiary of China's state-owned oil company, Sinopec. Does 
the Department currently have discretion to decline to sell our 
emergency oil reserves to entities owned by the Chinese 
government?
    Mr. MacIntyre. Thank you, Senator, for that question.
    Currently, we are obligated, by law, to sell for the 
highest value to the taxpayer, to whatever companies provide 
that. The exceptions are any countries that currently have 
sanctions against them placed on by the U.S. Government or 
Congress.
    Senator Barrasso. So if you do not have the discretion to 
decline, do you agree that the two bills before us today would 
empower the Department to decline bids from China's state-owned 
oil companies?
    Mr. MacIntyre. Thank you, Senator. The two bills related to 
the SPR that I spoke to in my oral testimony do prohibit sales 
to China. It would include the U.S. subsidiary Unipec. As with 
everything, we follow the law. So if Congress changes that law, 
we will follow suit.
    Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Heinrich.
    Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Chairman.
    Dr. Huff, the Russian invasion of Ukraine demonstrates the 
need for the U.S. to continue ensuring domestic energy security 
and I support the development of a domestic strategic uranium 
reserve as part of a broader plan to decouple ourselves from 
Russia's supply of uranium. The U.S. market for uranium 
enrichment could potentially supply our nuclear fuel needs as 
long as there is a very clear, stable, and long-term U.S. 
market signal. So can you describe for us how DOE is playing a 
role in that market and discuss what additional authorizations 
DOE might need to ensure that we fully decouple from Russian 
uranium?
    Dr. Huff. Thank you, Senator.
    Right now, we are working on a draft request for proposals 
that should acquire the needed high-assay low-enriched uranium 
from new capacity built here in the United States to support 
our two demonstration projects. That comes from the $700 
million allocated in the Inflation Reduction Act. So we are 
grateful for Congress's leadership in this. In addition to 
this, this is part of a much broader, cross-DOE uranium 
strategy, which seeks to identify ways to support the market 
through targeted, long-term offtake agreements, and needs to be 
coupled with appropriate import restrictions. And this uranium 
strategy identifies ways in which we can create a signal for 
the market that is long enough term, that investments from the 
private industry will be confident enough to stand up for that 
new capacity. And while not all of it is yet funded, we 
certainly are already working on the part that is. Thank you.
    Senator Heinrich. Great, thank you.
    As you mentioned in your opening testimony, nuclear energy 
has an opportunity to play a key role in decarbonizing non-
electricity markets--things like industrial heating processes 
and heavy duty transportation. In addition to the nuclear fuel 
supply chain risk that you mentioned, what do you see as the 
key challenges in making nuclear energy more flexible--things 
like adding thermal storage or combining hydrogen production 
with nuclear energy, to increase its marketability in other 
sectors, things like high-temperature industrial heating, clean 
fuels for transportation, and how can we, in Congress, help?
    Dr. Huff. Thank you for that. I think, you know, the United 
States nuclear industry has some exciting near-term wins coming 
up with the Vogtle Unit 3 and Unit 4 soon to come online, and 
these gigawatts of clean electricity were hard to come by and 
suffered, you know, some delays, and that, I think can be 
helped by a future of smaller, more modular nuclear reactors 
that are built, as they say, more like airplanes than airports. 
We are really excited about this modularity in construction, 
which we expect will lower the cost of these units. 
Additionally, as you mentioned high temperature applications, 
thermal and combined heat and power applications are a critical 
part of our decarbonization that will lead to net-zero.
    That decarbonization can happen really well with a nuclear 
reactor, particularly high temperature nuclear reactors, like 
the ones that are being demonstrated through the Office of 
Clean Energy demonstrations in our Advanced Reactor 
Demonstration program. Those include, for example, the Natrium 
reactor from TerraPower, which is a sodium-cooled fast reactor. 
It includes one of these molten-salt storage systems that you 
described that helps with flexibility. Additionally, the X-
energy Xe-100 reactor, which is a high temperature gas 
reactor--it gets up to temperatures, you know, in the many 
hundreds of degrees Celsius, well beyond what our current 
reactor types can get to--can be really helpful in that process 
heat where extremely high-quality process heat is needed.
    Senator Heinrich. Ms. Culver, in the remainder of my time, 
as I mentioned in my statement, over 160 miles of the current 
Continental Divide Trail route currently require diversions 
onto roads and highways for hikers. How would closing those 
gaps better achieve the purpose of the trail?
    Ms. Culver. Thank you for the question, Senator Heinrich.
    You know, the Continental Divide Trail is a scenic trail, 
and the purpose of the trail was to ensure scenic beauty, 
cultural significance, and experiences for visitors as well as 
conservation for generations. Diversions to roads and highways 
do not serve that purpose. They also--especially in New 
Mexico--include a lot of risks to safety of visitors and 
hikers. So we feel that working on those gaps would better 
serve the overall purpose of this trail and are working 
currently with other agencies and partners, including 
volunteers, on both closing the gaps and rerouting the trail.
    Senator Heinrich. Great. Thank you.
    Senator Barrasso [presiding]. Before turning to Senator 
Daines, I have a number of letters in support of the record of 
a bill I introduced on mining schools legislation. Without 
objection, I will submit those for the record to the Chairman.
    [Letters in support of S. 3915 follow:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Barrasso. Senator Daines.
    Senator Daines. Ranking Member Barrasso, thank you.
    So I am here to share some comments about Senate bill 4995, 
the Continental Divide Trail Completion Act. I want to thank 
Senator Heinrich for his leadership there. I am the lead 
Republican co-sponsor. It is bicameral, bipartisan legislation 
that will spur recreation, economic development, and grow jobs 
in Montana in local gateway communities. The history of the 
Continental Divide is fascinating. The early surveyors, they 
looked at it, but if you start from north to south, we begin in 
Montana and then we end up in New Mexico.
    Senator Heinrich. I think you have that backwards.
    Senator Daines. Depending on the season, you could start in 
New Mexico and end in Montana.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Daines. So it depends on if you are a snow bird or 
not.
    Senator Heinrich. It is all a matter of perspective.
    Senator Daines. That is very true, but of course, it goes 
right through Wyoming, north to south, Colorado, New Mexico. 
What a great, great part of our country that we have. It 
literally spans over 2,100 miles, and in Montana, that trail 
starts or finishes, depending on Senator Heinrich's 
perspective, in Glacier National Park. It runs 1,020 miles 
south along the Montana-Idaho border, through much of it, to 
end in Yellowstone National Park. The tourism and recreation 
economy that is generated from this trail is a boon to many 
small towns in Montana. Shuttle services, hotels, restaurants, 
sporting goods stores, and more, all benefit from this 
Continental Divide Trail. In fact, as we look at the State of 
Montana, outdoor rec represents one of the state's largest 
economic sectors, contributing nearly $3 billion to the 
economy, 27,000 jobs, and accounts for 4.4 percent of our 
state's GDP. Our national parks, our forests, our trails all 
help contribute to Montana's economy. And that is why I believe 
it is so important we pass this bipartisan bill to help 
complete the Continental Divide Trail.
    There are a number of gaps in Montana that require hikers 
to travel long distances on highways or other unsafe locations. 
Specifically, there is a major gap near Butte that the 
community has long worked to connect. This bipartisan bill 
would bridge these gaps by working with our local communities, 
expanding resources and partnerships. It will also strictly 
prohibit the use of eminent domain for acquisitions ensuring 
that private property rights are protected as we expand public 
access. Before I get to questions, I would like to ask 
unanimous consent to enter into the record a long list of 
supporters and letters of support, and let me just quickly 
rattle off a few of them--Helena Chamber of Commerce, City and 
County of Butte-Silver Bow, Beaverhead County Commissioners, 
Lincoln Valley Chamber of Commerce, the Glacier County Tourism 
Commission, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, 
the Montana Conservation Corps, Wild Montana, and a lot more 
Montana national groups.
    Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
    [Letters of support for S. 4995 follow:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Daines. Now, I will turn to my questions.
    Ms. Culver, maintenance, operation, and planning for the 
trail is a community effort. The Forest Service and the 
Department of the Interior must rely on partners such as county 
commissions, gateway communities, as well as recreation and 
conservation groups such as the Montana Conservation Corps to 
maintain and manage the trail. My question for you is, how does 
the Continental Divide Trail Completion Act help promote 
community engagement to complete the trail?
    Ms. Culver. Thank you for the question, Senator Daines.
    The bill creates a trail completion team and directs that 
team to work with other federal agencies, but also states, 
tribes, local governments, acequias, communities, land-grant 
mercedes, as I mentioned, and the coalition that currently 
works on the Continental Divide Trail, other groups as you 
mentioned, and volunteers. So you know, it really continues the 
spirit and commitment to collaboration and community engagement 
to complete the trail.
    Senator Daines. Ms. Culver, the bill allows for multiple 
methods to complete the trail--donations, exchanges, easements, 
cooperative agreements. It also strictly prohibits the use of 
eminent domain. I will tell you, Montanans always have a little 
bit of fear when somebody says we are from DC and we are coming 
out here to help you. Can you verify that if passed, this 
legislation would prohibit the use of eminent domain and 
require the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management to 
seek community-supported solutions and willing agreements to 
complete the trail?
    Ms. Culver. Senator Daines, the bill does prohibit the use 
of eminent domain to complete the trail, and we support the 
bill as it is written in that way and believe it is consistent 
with the Administration's support of locally driven and 
voluntary conservation efforts.
    Senator Daines. Thanks for that very clear answer. It is 
appreciated.
    Lastly, the Mining Schools Act, Mr. MacIntyre, it is my 
understanding that S. 3915, the Mining Schools Act of 2022, 
defines an eligible mining school as an accredited mining 
school in a state with a mining GDP of $2 billion or more. 
Would Montana Tech--they are in Butte, Montana--qualify under 
the definition as currently written in the bill, and would 
other mining schools be ineligible?
    Mr. MacIntyre. Thank you, Senator, for that question. While 
this program will fall under DOE's Office of Fossil Energy and 
Carbon Management, the Department has not yet developed a full 
list of eligible entities based on the draft legislation, and 
once that is completed, we will be happy to get back to you.
    Senator Daines. Okay, and I would appreciate once you 
understand that, the status of Montana Tech, if you would 
there, I appreciate it.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you.
    The Chairman [presiding]. Thank you.
    Senator King.
    Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Huff, you uttered, I think, a very important phrase at 
the beginning of your testimony. You said, ``Energy security is 
national security.'' And I think that it is very important to 
illustrate that point. Just this week in the Intelligence 
Committee we had a hearing on energy options for this country 
because of its relationship to national security. The 
development of safe and cost-effective nuclear power could be 
one of the key drivers of the future economy. The problem is 
both technology, as you know, and also cost. I love the analogy 
of the airplane and the airport. Guess how many 737s Boeing 
builds in a month in Renton, Washington?
    Dr. Huff. I don't know, sir. Thousands?
    Senator King. The answer is 31. One a day. One a day to 
that immensely complex piece of machinery. I am not suggesting 
we can build one nuclear reactor a day, but I am suggesting 
that we have a long way to go. My concern is that the effort 
toward the development of this technology is somewhat diverse, 
and I want to know if we have the resources and the 
coordination to do something which really should be one of the 
Federal Government's highest priorities, working with the 
private sector. Do we have the resources? Are they being 
allocated coherently? And do we have coordination? It concerns 
me that maybe we have Department of Energy. We have the Defense 
Department. We have other people working on this project and 
frankly, it just keeps getting further and further away. I have 
been in these hearings for ten years now and it was always ten 
years away. Well, here we are and it is now five to ten years 
away.
    Please reassure me that this is getting the priority it 
deserves.
    Dr. Huff. Thank you, sir. It is an all-of-government 
priority, from my experience. You know, you listed a number of 
agencies that have equities in this endeavor and I think they 
are all very interested in seeing this achieve its promise. In 
the Department of Energy, one of the tactics that has worked 
really well is, from Congress, we have been very lucky to 
receive the appropriations certainty from the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law that fully allocated the $2.5 billion for 
the completion of the two Advanced Reactor Demonstration 
Program demo reactors. And this really reduces the uncertainty 
that those two demos will be completed on time, this decade. 
There's a number of different sources of uncertainty in the on-
time, on-budget completion of a nuclear reactor plan, 
everything from project management by the company building it, 
financing certainty and regulatory certainty, fuel supply, 
supply chain issues. And I think the government, across these 
all-of-government agencies, is working in a way that we hope 
will reach that, but I think that model around the Advanced 
Reactor Demonstration Program with public-private partnerships 
that support those demonstrations is a really critical one.
    Senator King. I hope you are right and I just, I want to 
just suggest a sense of urgency. My concern, whenever I hear 
the phrase around here, all-of-government, to me that means 
nobody is in charge. I want one throat to choke on this. I want 
to know who's responsible for producing a cost-effective, safe, 
reliable, modular reactor. I think that should be one of our 
highest priorities. And I hope you'll take that sense of 
urgency back.
    Ms. Culver, just to emphasize, the CREST Act, we are not 
going be able to deal effectively with climate change simply 
with carbon capture. We are going to have to pull carbon out of 
the atmosphere, and that is the biggest challenge that we have, 
and I hope that you will work with us and the Energy 
Department, all the departments, on this issue of a natural 
carbon capture and retention. So I just want to emphasize the 
importance of that bill.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Murkowski.
    Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 
to those who are here to testify today.
    Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Barrasso, I also want to 
acknowledge that not a member of this Committee, but we may as 
well call her a member, Darla, has been here for, I don't know 
how many years on the Committee. And I understand that this may 
be 21 years on the Committee, all right, ten on this Committee.
    The Chairman. Ten on this.
    Senator Murkowski. Oh, only ten on this Committee. Well, 
Darla--
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Murkowski. As one who has appreciated your guidance 
throughout all of these Committee hearings that happen here in 
the Energy Committee, know that we wish you well in your 
retirement, but thank you for all that you have done. Nice to 
have your services.
    [Applause.]
    Senator Murkowski. Now, I expect you to give me my full 
five minutes here on the clock.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. It doesn't matter because I knew it would 
always be reserved for you.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I want to follow up with your questions 
regarding the Strategic Petroleum Reserve because I think it is 
important that, as a Committee here, we understand the status 
of this insurance policy. And I have always viewed it as an 
insurance policy and one that we should not draw down just when 
we are attempting to ameliorate prices or the politics that may 
come with it. And I think we saw when President Biden took the 
steps to withdraw significant volumes from the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve--180 million barrels of oil over the course 
of 180 days. There is consequence to that. It is not just 
drawing it down. It is my understanding that the salt caverns 
actually degrade with each and every draw-down. Now, some years 
ago, we directed significant resources to the Department of 
Energy for the life extension of the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve. We talked about the imperative to modernize and to 
effectively be able to move forward with a Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve that worked when we needed it to work.
    So the Life Extension II project is underway. I am 
wondering if you can give the Committee a little bit of a 
status update on that, when it is scheduled to be completed and 
then, if you can speak to whether or not this really 
unprecedented draw-down--is that contributing to the need for 
this emergency supplemental funding that has been requested for 
maintenance of the SPR?
    Mr. MacIntyre. Thank you, Senator. I just want to 
personally say, it is an honor to be here today because I was 
in one of those back benches back when another Senator 
Murkowski was Chair of this Committee.
    Senator Murkowski. You go back a ways.
    Mr. MacIntyre. There is a long history there.
    Senator Murkowski. Yes.
    Mr. MacIntyre. With regard to the SPR modernization, 
Congress authorized us to raise funds from sales over four 
years, up to $2 billion. We ended up raising $1.4 billion as we 
thought that was what would be sufficient to accomplish 
everything that we intended. Unfortunately, a number of 
factors, including supply chain problems and labor shortages 
and everything, we have seen rising costs associated with the 
project, just like everyone else has. So this $500 million that 
the Administration has asked to be provided would allow us to 
complete all activities as part of the life extension.
    Senator Murkowski. What is the timeline on that then?
    Mr. MacIntyre. So the timeline right now is to complete all 
activities by FY27, although a lot of them will be completed by 
a lot sooner than that, FY25 and FY26.
    Senator Murkowski. So can you speak to the degradation of 
the salt caverns then with these withdrawals?
    Mr. MacIntyre. Yes. So we used Sandia National Labs to help 
us monitor our caverns. Without our caverns, we don't have an 
SPR. And so, we take the condition of them very seriously. We, 
as you said, every time we pump water in to push oil out--I 
wouldn't say it degrades--but there is a limited amount of 
times that we can do that. So we work closely with Sandia to 
make sure that we still have plenty of opportunity to remove 
oil from the caverns.
    The--I will just stop there.
    Senator Murkowski. Okay. I want to--
    Mr. MacIntyre. I lost my train of thought.
    Senator Murkowski. Well--
    Mr. MacIntyre. That is what happens when you are around 
this long.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Murkowski. But there clearly is impact. I think we 
get that.
    I have just one minute remaining here, and I want to direct 
it to you, Ms. Culver, and it relates to the Ambler Access 
Project. As you know, less than 50 miles of this proposed road 
is across federal land. The remaining is across state land and 
ANC-owned land. Can you share with me or explain why the BLM 
has exerted authority across the entirety of the project area 
and really, what gives the agency the authority to deny the 
ANCs the ability to conduct these non-groundbreaking, 
preconstruction activities, the baseline data-gathering 
activities, whether it is cultural assessments and inventories? 
I know the State of Alaska has directed some correspondence to 
the District Manager there in Alaska--this was mid-November--
asking for an answer to the state's request, asking for an 
answer by today. I don't know whether a response has been sent 
to that, but can you speak to how you believe that the BLM has 
the authority here when again, so much is not part of the 
federal domain?
    Ms. Culver. Thanks for the question, Senator.
    I do believe, I do know that our Alaska State BLM Director 
is in contact with the State of Alaska. So I expect they are 
communicating about that request. You know, the process around 
the Ambler Road is ongoing. We have taken that back from the 
court and we have committed to not engaging in or permitting 
surface disturbing activities while ongoing supplemental 
environmental analysis and consultation is underway.
    Senator Murkowski. I do understand that, as it relates to 
federal land, but again, when the vast majority is on state-
owned land and ANC--Alaska Native Corporation-owned land, I do 
not understand how the agency feels that they have that 
authority to disallow any non-groundbreaking activities, 
whether it is cultural assessment, which you would hope would 
be delegated to the ANCs in the first place.
    Ms. Culver. And our authority that we are looking at is 
currently--I think what you are referring to relates to our 
agreement under the National Historic Preservation Act and the 
programmatic agreement that is in place that applies to all 
aspects of these projects and we are, again, committed to the 
court to avoid disturbing activities.
    Senator Murkowski. Right. And if you will go back to this 
letter dated November 18th, you will see that these 
preconstruction activities have been approved by the state and 
they have been determined by the SHPO that these activities 
will have no adverse effect to historic and cultural resources. 
So again, we are going to have additional conversation about 
this, but I think it is very clear from the state's perspective 
and I think it is very clear from our perspective back here, 
that the decisions coming out of the agency right now are in 
direct contrast to what we believe the authorities are.
    Ms. Culver. I appreciate that and look forward to ongoing 
discussion.
    Senator Murkowski. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Senator Cortez Masto, thank you.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
And also, I want to thank you for your commitment to work with 
me and my home state on the consent-based siting process in 
order to find a suitable repository for our nation's nuclear 
waste. And I greatly appreciate the discussion draft that you 
put forward, which includes text from my bill, S. 541, the 
Nuclear Waste Informed Consent Act. I look forward to 
continuing that work to amplify the blue ribbon panel 
commission's report that came out.
    Dr. Huff, let me start with you. Since the mid-1970s, it 
has been suggested that the nuclear waste disposal program 
should be managed by a stand-alone, single-purpose agency, and 
that an agency, separate from the Department of Energy would 
better manage a long-term waste repository. Does the Department 
support the establishment of a Nuclear Waste Administration or 
similar new, independent executive agency to take on the 
responsibilities of the nuclear waste program? And what would 
be the benefit of separating these responsibilities beyond 
DOE's administration?
    Dr. Huff. The Administration has not taken a particular 
position on that, but I will say the effect would certainly be 
to reduce the year-on-year uncertainty of appropriating the 
nuclear waste fund and would enable that Administration to 
separately and independently move forward without, sort of, 
annual uncertainty, if they were to be given access to the 
Nuclear Waste Fund. And I think, you know, there is a 
potential, a lot of benefit to that.
    Senator Cortez Masto. But the Department has not taken a 
position on its support of an independent agency----
    Dr. Huff. No, the Administration----
    Senator Cortez Masto. Or excuse me, the Administration. 
Okay. Thank you.
    When it comes to all aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle, can 
you expand on the importance for engagement and consent from 
all stakeholders, including state, local, tribal, and private 
input?
    Dr. Huff. Yes, state, local, tribal, and private interests 
around consent are critical. We need consent that is broad and 
deep, passing through the hierarchy from federal, state, to 
local, to individuals in communities. And I think what we are 
seeking in our consent-based siting process is more capacity 
building around the information part of that informed consent, 
and I really appreciate your leadership on this issue.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
    With more countries tackling site characterization, 
designs, and safety assessments for nuclear waste geologic 
repositories, I am curious, are there any new significant 
concepts and lessons learned that could help inform the U.S. 
Nuclear Waste Repository Program?
    Dr. Huff. Thank you so much for this question, Senator, 
because there is a lot we are learning from other countries. 
That includes Finland, Sweden, and Canada. I think when we look 
out at the broad set of countries enabling this kind of 
progress through consent-based siting approaches, Canada is 
really similar to us. In particular, their Nuclear Waste 
Management Organization, NWMO, has had some very impressive 
progress with regard to siting their repository, which, again, 
should be, you know, much harder than siting interim storage, 
which is our current goal, right? And they have, you know, a 
more similar structure to our government, having provinces like 
we have states, and that really plays a role in our ability to 
understand the role of local and state and federal engagements. 
And we think NWMO is making really good progress.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Good. That is good to know and 
something for us all to watch.
    You talked a little bit about this earlier--there is 
growing support for the advanced reactor technology, but there 
is still much to consider as it relates to the accommodation of 
the back-end of the fuel cycle. What are some of the waste 
implications of new, advanced reactors and how could they 
affect the search for workable waste disposal solutions?
    Dr. Huff. Thank you for that. Some advanced reactor types 
reduce the volume and lifetimes of spent nuclear fuel, some 
reduce the radiotoxicity in the near term, but largely we look 
at this in the context of making sure that we, the Federal 
Government, when we plan to store and dispose of that waste, we 
have the scientific backing to know what to do with all kinds 
of waste. And we have had a number of decades to prepare for 
the kinds of fuels and fuel cycles that are coming down the 
pike here. And so, we are reliant on our national laboratory 
research, as well as reports recently, like by the National 
Academies on this topic to help inform what remains and what is 
needed, but I think we are in a really good, forward-leaning 
posture around identifying gaps around how to handle advanced 
nuclear spent fuel.
    Senator Cortez Masto. And you believe that at this juncture 
we are more prepared now to accommodate that waste than we had 
been in the past?
    Dr. Huff. Absolutely. Every day, new science is made, new 
data is created in our national labs to support that in our 
integrated waste management portfolio in the United States, and 
my office also helps to support the storage and transportation 
components of this, not just the final disposal.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
    The Chairman. With that, we will start a second round. I 
have just a few questions, very quickly.
    Mr. MacIntyre, very quickly. I know you have about $2 
billion in identified damages to the salt caverns. You have 
been allowed $1.4 billion of that. You are about $500-plus 
million short. Do you need appropriations for us to basically 
transfer the money in the profits you have made from what we 
have been able to sell of the 180 million barrels to allow you 
to complete your restoration, I believe? Has the $1.4 billion, 
has it been expended already?
    Mr. MacIntyre. Thank you for that question, Senator.
    We do need legislation to be able to move any funding out 
of our one account that funds--that we get, that we have 
revenues from the emergency sales into our Life Extension II 
account and with--there is, we spent about $1.1 billion of the 
$1.4. I mean, we have not spent that, but it has been committed 
to, so most of it has been committed to. So that additional 
$500 million could come from the sales----
    The Chairman. But you still, I mean, your cost of repairs 
are still in the $2 billion range?
    Mr. MacIntyre. Yes, to complete the whole project, it would 
be the $1.9 billion.
    The Chairman. So we would have to give you appropriated 
authority to use money that you already have?
    Mr. MacIntyre. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. I got you. Okay.
    With that, Dr. Huff, we talked briefly and I know Senator 
Cortez Masto is extremely, extremely concerned and we all, we 
think, all 50, we are responsible--all 50 states benefit from 
our nuclear program and we all have a responsibility and with 
that should be a fair process. I have talked to some of our 
friends in Australia and they seem to be very aggressive on 
looking at some of their opportunities of taking this waste 
because, basically, they are a big supplier of uranium also. 
They have supplies, which we are going to be needing. What are 
your concerns about Russia right now being able to put an awful 
lot of harm to our nuclear commercialization if they would cut 
off their uranium supply?
    Dr. Huff. Thank you, Senator.
    Continued reliance on fuel, particularly conversion and 
enrichment from the Russian Federation, puts our energy supply 
chain at risk for the 20 percent of the electricity in this 
country that is provided by clean nuclear power. And we are 
very concerned about making sure that we can support strategic 
investments that will expand that domestic fuel cycle. We are 
talking to our partners and allies that are capable of helping 
us with that supply chain and engaging with them on a forward-
moving plan over the course of the coming years that should 
expand it, but it will require investment and you know, We are 
really----
    The Chairman. I might say, also, they have a big problem 
permitting also, getting it done in a timely fashion.
    Dr. Huff. That's right. So it does certainly require, if 
you are going to stand up, for example, a new enrichment 
facility, that you engage with the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission for a license to create that facility here in the 
United States, while some facilities may already have standing 
licenses that enable new capacity to be stood up quickly. We do 
expect that for a diversity of suppliers, some new licenses 
will have to be issued.
    The Chairman. Because you mention that 20 percent of our 
energy comes from nuclear, if that supply of uranium stops, and 
it could stop immediately, what damage and how quickly will we 
realize this damage to our energy supply?
    Dr. Huff. Thank you, Senator.
    We are taking this very seriously at DOE, and have 
conducted a number of analyses. We believe that there is time. 
Nuclear reactors only refuel every year and a half or so.
    The Chairman. If they shut down next month, and say Russia 
is putting a blockade on that and not sending any more in 
retaliation to our support of Ukraine for the war?
    Dr. Huff. Right. We would have a little time to continue 
operating our plants and refueling them, but yes, an immediate 
blockade of Russian Federation fuel would require that we draw 
down some of the inventory in our borders. We expect that there 
is a few years of that inventory available that could be shared 
among----
    The Chairman. We have some of our Free Trade Agreement 
countries that we are able to rely on, and can they quickly 
ramp-up to supply the loss that we have?
    Dr. Huff. We are engaging actively with our allies and 
partners across the world, but there would be a broad deficit 
in supply were Russia to stop supplying to all of the peaceful 
democratic world. So everyone would have to work together to 
expand that.
    The Chairman. So it could be of critical, I mean, concern 
to national defense?
    Dr. Huff. Correct.
    The Chairman. And you are willing to pull the trigger if 
you have to?
    Dr. Huff. Yes, sir. I think we need to be prepared for a 
disruption in supply only because----
    The Chairman. Well, I am just saying to get to be able to 
process, I mean----
    Dr. Huff. That is right.
    The Chairman. Getting the stock feed is one thing.
    Dr. Huff. Oh, yes.
    The Chairman. Processing it, and how many opportunities are 
there around the world for us to process with countries that we 
have a free trade agreement with or allies?
    Dr. Huff. Yes, and enriching nations are very limited among 
the nations of the world. It is very specialized technology, 
converting and enriching uranium.
    The Chairman. Well, I know we will keep talking about 
disposal of waste. We are not talking about basically producing 
the energy that we need. That is the problem, and that is what 
I am concerned about, and I have been concerned. So we are 
talking, whether it be our friends in Canada or whether our 
friends in Australia, whether it is basically relying on 
ourself a little bit better than what we do, but we need your 
direction and guidance on that and we appreciate it.
    Any other further questions at all?
    Let me thank all of you for a great hearing today and the 
expertise that you all have, and bringing it is helping us 
immensely--all three categories, everything we talked about 
today. We are very much concerned about the SPR, as you know, 
Mr. MacIntyre, and your expertise and your longevity and your 
expertise has all played to our comfort zone, if you will. But 
we are concerned about 400 million barrels. We are concerned 
about how we are going to get back to 700. We are concerned, 
basically, do we have the spare production to do that, or spare 
capacity, because the world is demanding more and more and we 
are not energy independent as we are now, and with supply 
chains, I don't know if we are able to get back there. If you 
don't, do you have the salt caverns that are going to be 
basically deteriorating because there are not the great amounts 
of oil that we should have in there? And you can't be taking 
out. So we have to make some decisions here. Are we going to 
allow them, basically, to stop the mandatory sales and use the 
resources, the sales we just had, in order to replace that to 
meet our pay-fors that we have already obligated ourselves to? 
It is a mess. It is really a mess. But we are in it, and we 
have to get out of it, and we can.
    Senator King. It is nice that they bought low and sold 
high.
    The Chairman. Yes, but I think we are about ready to buy a 
little bit higher that we bought before. But still, yet, I 
think we are watching it very carefully there.
    Nuclear, Dr. Huff, we feel we are comfortable with it. You 
are there in that position, but with that, we are really very 
much concerned about the ability for us to maintain the energy 
we need for our country, and we are going to be expanding more 
nuclear. I have been very much hawkish on this. If we are going 
to meet any type of our goals and targets that we are setting 
for emissions, nuclear plays a big part, and the SMRs are going 
to come on strong, I believe. We are seeing an awful lot of 
activity all over. So we are very active in that.
    Also, a proper way to dispose of our waste. We have to come 
to grips with this. And I am very respectful of Senator Cortez 
Masto. If I was in Nevada, I would want to be heard. I wouldn't 
want the government to make a decision without my input. And I 
think that is all you asked for. So we are very much involved 
in this and very much concerned.
    What can I say about Interior and BLM? Most--25, 35 percent 
of our energy comes off BLM lands, and the responsibilities to 
do it, and the Investment Reduction Act is a balanced approach 
to saying we are going to extract the minerals that the people 
of the United States need and use and should be rewarded for, 
but also we are going to be using that land for a lot of the 
new technology, whether it is going to be major wind farms, 
major solar farms with new transmissions and things that are 
going to be needed, but also be able to continue to have the 
horsepower we need to run our country.
    So my dear friend from Alaska, Senator Murkowski, has some 
unusual challenges and I have been there and seen them 
firsthand, and all she is asking for is the help that those 
people need and they deserve.
    So with that, members will have until close of business 
tomorrow to submit additional questions for the record.
     And with that, the Committee is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:31 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                      APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

                              ----------                              

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                   [all]