    [Senate Hearing 118-525]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 118-525

                             ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT
                          APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024

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

                                    HEARINGS

                                    BEFORE A

                              SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                           COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
                               UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                       ON

                               H.R. 4394/S. 2587

     AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT FOR THE
         FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2024, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                   __________

                          Department of Defense--Civil
                              Department of Energy
                           Department of the Interior

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                                   __________

                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    50-512 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2024

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

                          COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                        PATTY MURRAY, Washington, Chair
    DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California \1\     SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine, Vice
    RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois              Chair
    JACK REED, Rhode Island              MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
    JON TESTER, Montana                  LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
    JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire        LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
    JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon                 JERRY MORAN, Kansas
    CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware       JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
    BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii                 JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
    TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin             SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
    CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut          Virginia
    JOE MANCHIN, III, West Virginia      JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana
    CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland           CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi
    MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico          BILL HAGERTY, Tennessee
    GARY PETERS, Michigan                KATIE BRITT, Alabama
    KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona \2\          MARCO RUBIO, Florida
                                         DEB FISCHER, Nebraska

                          Evan Schatz, Staff Director
                  Elizabeth McDonnell, Minority Staff Director
                                     ------

                  Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development

                         PATTY MURRAY, Washington Chair
    JON TESTER, Montana                  JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana, Ranking
    RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois          MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
    JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire        LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
    JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon                 LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
    CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware       JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
    TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin             CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi
    MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico          BILL HAGERTY, Tennessee
    KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona \3\          KATIE BRITT, Alabama

                               Professional Staff

                                   Doug Clapp
                               Jen Becker-Pollet
                                 Aaron Goldner
                                  Laura Powell
                                 Maria Calderon
                           Lindsay Garcia (Minority)
                          Rachel Littleton (Minority)
                             Anna Newton (Minority)
                          Kathleen Williams (Minority)

                             Administrative Support

                            Ann Tait Hall (Minority)

        \1\ Died September 29, 2023.
        \2\ Appointed to Committee October 18, 2023.
        \3\ Appointed to Subcommittee November 2, 2023.

                               C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                                    HEARINGS
                           Wednesday, April 26, 2023

                                                                       Page

    Department of Defense--Civil: Department of the Army; Corps of
      Engineers--Civil...............................................     1
    Department of the Interior: Bureau of Reclamation................    12

                             Wednesday, May 3, 2023

    Department of Energy: Office of the Secretary....................    37

                                  ----------

                                  BACK MATTER

    List of Witnesses, Communications, and Prepared Statements.......    73

    Subject Index....................................................    75
        Department of Defense--Civil.................................    75
            Department of the Army...................................    75
            Corps of Engineers--Civil................................    75

        Department of Energy.........................................    75
            Office of the Secretary..................................    75

        Department of the Interior...................................    76
            Bureau of Reclamation....................................    76

        ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, APRIL 26, 2023

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 2 p.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Patty Murray, (chair) presiding.
        Present: Senators Murray, Heinrich, Kennedy, Hoeven, Hyde-
    Smith, and Britt.

                          DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

                             Department of the Army

                           Corps of Engineers--Civil

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. MICHAEL L. CONNOR, ASSISTANT
                SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (CIVIL WORKS)

                   opening statement of senator patty murray

        Senator Murray. The hearing of the Senate Appropriations
    Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development will please come
    to order.
        We are here today to discuss President Biden's fiscal year
    2024 budget request for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and
    the Bureau of Reclamation.
        I know we are all thinking of Senator Feinstein and wishing
    her a speedy recovery and return and I want to thank Ranking
    Member Kennedy for being flexible and working with me to make
    this hearing happen today, I really appreciate it, so that we
    can keep our appropriations process on track.
        Today's hearing marks another important step as we work to
    return to regular order and pass in a timely bipartisan way our
    funding bills to keep our families safe, our economy strong,
    and our Nation competitive with adversaries like China.
        Defense spending tends to get a lot of attention, but we
    cannot forget that our rivers and our waterways are some of the
    most critical resources we have. Effective water management is
    essential to keeping our families healthy, our environment
    thriving and our economy competitive.
        We use our water resources managed by the Bureau and Corps
    to irrigate crops that feed families across the country, to
    transport those crops and other foods along our rivers and out
    of our ports to consumers around the world, and to provide
    habitat for keystone species that are essential to local
    economies and ecosystems alike, like salmon in my home State of
    Washington.
        We even count on water and hydroelectric power to literally
    keep the lights on in cities across the country. So when it
    comes to our Nation's competitiveness, this is something we
    can't take for granted. We have to keep our rivers and our
    waterways clean for wildlife and clear for transportation.
        We have to keep our faucets running, we have to keep our
    ports bustling, our farms irrigated, and our electric grid
    reliable, and we have to keep our communities safe and prepared
    for extreme weather events amid the worsening climate crisis
    with levies and seawalls and nature-based infrastructure to
    prevent flooding.
        The President's budget works to do that with key
    investments to strengthen our Nation's port and waterway
    infrastructure, water conservation, and climate change
    resiliency.
        But the President's request is less than we provided last
    year for the Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of
    Reclamation. I think it's clear we have to build on the
    progress we are making and not slow down.
        So I want to see us grow even bolder to make sure we are
    making the necessary investments to give these critical
    projects their due.
        I'm glad to see this budget does include much-needed
    resources for projects to improve navigation through dredging
    our ports and maintaining waterways, support ecosystem
    restoration, like in the Columbia River System in Washington,
    and protecting dangerous species, like the Fish Passage at the
    Howard Hanson Dam, which will open up a hundred miles of new
    habitat for our salmon.
        The Howard Hanson Project is critical in my State and I'm
    going to be watching the progress of that very closely because
    we have to see this work through and there's a lot left to do.
        But, in addition to what is outlined in the President's
    budget, there are other critical projects Congress has already
    said should be a priority, as well.
        So I want to make sure we get funding, like this committee
    appropriated in fiscal year 2023, for water infrastructure
    improvements for the Nation Act Programs focused on water
    storage desalination, water recycling, and environmental
    restoration projects.
        I also want to hear how the Bureau is using and building on
    drought mitigation funding we provided in the Inflation
    Reduction Act. This is an issue that is only growing more
    urgent each year.
        We have experienced historic drought conditions recently,
    which our farmers who are struggling to grow crops, threatens
    families and wildlife who are left at greater risk of
    wildfires, and undermines our economy.
        We need to tackle this crisis now before there is more
    lasting damage.
        Water is just too important to our families, our economy,
    and our Nation to take for granted. We cannot afford to
    shortchange these projects. So I'm glad to have this
    opportunity to hear from our witnesses today, assess our needs
    so that we can work in a bipartisan way to pass the funding
    bill that meets them.
        With that, I will turn it over to our Ranking Member
    Kennedy.

                       statement of senator john kennedy

        Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        First, before I turn to our witnesses, I want to tell
    Senator Feinstein, if she's listening, I hope you're feeling
    better today and come back soon. We miss you.
        Thank you for being here today. America has been blessed in
    many ways and sometimes I don't know if it's a blessing or a
    curse, maybe a little bit of both. In some parts of our country
    we have too much water and in other parts we don't have enough,
    and in some parts of our country it's a little bit of both, and
    we depend on you and your team to manage that and I know that's
    difficult and I know every member of Congress is an expert on
    how you ought to do your job. I appreciate that, as well. So
    let me begin by thanking you.
        One of the things I hope to achieve today is getting your
    thoughts on how we can fine-tune the process that we use to
    allocate scarce resources to do our cost-benefit analysis.
        Sometimes I think we don't spend enough time, our
    shortcoming, not yours, analyzing the benefit, that we focus
    too much on the cost. I'll give you an example and I know the
    Secretary and the General won't recognize this.
        We have a levy project in Louisiana called the Morganza to
    the Gulf Project. Now it's not complete. It's a work in
    progress, but that's been done, completed rather thus far
    through a combination of State, Federal, and local money. My
    people tax themselves to build this levy system.
        In 2005 Hurricane Rita came through, terrible, terrible
    storm, nine-foot storm surge, 11 to 12,000 homes of my people
    were damaged. That's a lot of people and a lot of homes and a
    lot of human misery.
        In 2019, after we had made progress on the Morganza to the
    Gulf levy system, another storm, this one Barry, came through,
    just as bad, same level of storm surge, same level, nine feet,
    11 homes were damaged.
        So we went from 12,000 homes damaged to 11 as a result of
    your good work, and I want to talk today about how we factor
    into our cost-benefit analysis that kind of good work that you
    have done. So thank you for being here.
        Senator Murray. Thank you, Ranking Member Kennedy.
        And I will now introduce our panel. We have Mr. Michael
    Connor, who is the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil
    Works; Lieutenant General Scott Spellmon, the Chief of
    Engineers for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and finally we
    have Ms. Camille Touton, who is Commissioner of the Bureau of
    Reclamation.
        I want to thank all of you and the public servants in your
    agencies for their dedication to our Nation's leadership in
    water infrastructure, water conservation, and commitment to
    climate change resiliency.
        With that, we will proceed with our witness testimonies,
    starting with Assistant Secretary Connor.

                  summary statement of hon. michael l. connor

        Mr. Connor. Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member Kennedy,
    distinguished members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the
    opportunity to be here to discuss the President's request for
    the Army Civil Works Program. I'll quickly summarize my written
    statement.
        The fiscal year 2024 budget request includes over $7.4
    billion for the Army's Civil Works Program, the largest budget
    request in history, complemented by an additional $1.05 billion
    allocated from the bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
        These investments demonstrate President Biden's ongoing
    commitment to funding the construction of critical
    infrastructure projects that will strengthen our economy,
    protect people and property, and restore key ecosystems.
        I appreciate just as a threshold matter the robust funding
    levels from this subcommittee and the bipartisan support that
    there is for the Army Civil Works Program.
        It's important to note that the water resource challenges
    of today and tomorrow are not like yesterday's. Extreme weather
    events, whether precipitation, drought, or hurricane-driven
    storm surge, are increasingly the norm, creating risk to
    communities, the economy, and natural systems. As a result,
    understanding vulnerabilities and increasing our preparedness
    is paramount.
        For that reason, the budget provides $86 million, the
    largest request again in the Corps' history, for research and
    development, over $100 million when accounting for applied R&D
    activities.
        The focus of this work will be on innovative solutions that
    address the emerging water resource challenges of the 21st
    Century and achieve cost savings in the Civil Works Program.
        The budget focuses on the highest-performing work within
    the three main missions of the Civil Works Program: commercial
    navigation, flood and storm damage reduction, and aquatic
    ecosystem restoration.
        In developing the budget, consideration was also given to
    advancing three key objectives that reflect Administration
    priorities. First, decreasing climate risk for communities and
    the environment; (2) promoting environmental justice in
    underserved communities and Trial nations; and (3)
    strengthening the nation's supply chains.
        With respect to climate, the Corps has always been in the
    resilience business and the budget's proposed investments
    include more than $1.4 billion for construction of flood and
    storm damage reduction and aquatic ecosystem restoration
    projects.
        For the second priority, the budget supports the
    Administration's Justice 40 Initiative through investments in
    23 studies and in the construction of 33 projects to help
    disadvantaged and Tribal communities address their water
    resources challenges.
        Supply chains remain a priority which Civil Works supports
    through its Commercial Navigation Program. The budget
    facilitates safe, reliable, and sustainable commercial
    navigation to support U.S. competitiveness and improve the
    resilience of our Nation's manufacturing supply chain.
        Overall, the budget includes over $3.4 billion for the
    study, design, construction, and operation and maintenance of
    inland and coastal navigation projects. Of this amount, over
    $1.7 billion is derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
        As alluded to earlier, flood and storm damage reduction is
    at the center of the Army Corps' actions to support the
    Administration's goal of tackling the climate crisis.
        Accordingly, the budget contains nearly $2 billion for
    flood and storm damage reduction, including funding to provide
    technical and planning assistance to local communities to
    enable them to understand and better manage their flood risks.
        Equally important to building community resilience is the
    work of the Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Mission. The budget
    includes $653 million for AER, including $415 million to
    continue progress in restoring America's Everglades while
    building climate resilience in South Florida.
        We've also included $93 million to support salmon recovery
    efforts in the Columbia River Basin.
        Other significant investments include $655 million for the
    construction of a critical dam safety project at Prada Dam in
    California and $350 million for replacement of the Cape Cod
    Canal Bridges. Importantly, the budget also includes $235
    million to continue construction of the Sioux Locks Project.
        In total, the fiscal year 2024 Construction Program is
    funded at more than $2 billion.
        Of course, the budget also focuses on maintaining the key
    features of the vast water resources infrastructure that the
    Corps owns and manages. Specifically, the 2024 budget funds the
    O&M (operation and maintenance) Program at over $4.4 billion.
    For the Investigations Program, the 2024 budget provides a $139
    million, including $36 million for technical and planning
    assistance.
        Wrapping up the budget summary, it's significant that the
    2024 Regulatory Program is funded at $221 million to protect
    the Nation's waters and wetlands and provide efficiency in
    permanent processing, a very high priority for the
    Administration.
        The Recreation Program is funded at $275 million to ensure
    the Corps, as one of the leading providers of the Nation's
    outdoor recreation, can continue to effectively serve the
    public's desire to experience the great outdoors.
        In summary, the Civil Works budget makes critical
    investments in water resources that will benefit the American
    people and promote greater prosperity and economic growth for
    decades to come.
        I look forward to your questions. Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]
                  Prepared Statement of Mr. Michael L. Connor
        Chairman Feinstein, Ranking Member Kennedy, and distinguished
    members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to be here
    today to discuss the President's Budget request for the Army Civil
    Works program.
        The fiscal year 2024 Budget request includes over $7.4 billion for
    the Army Civil Works program--which is the largest request in history--
    complemented by an additional $1.05 billion from the Infrastructure
    Investment and Jobs Act--or IIJA. These investments demonstrate
    President Biden's ongoing commitment to funding the construction of
    critical infrastructure projects that will strengthen our economy,
    protect people and property, and restore key ecosystems. It will also
    create good paying jobs that provide the free and fair chance to join a
    union and collectively bargain. Overall, we believe in smart
    investments that yield high economic and environmental returns, while,
    also reducing deficits and improving our country's long-term fiscal
    outlook.
        It's important to note that the water resources challenges of today
    and tomorrow are not like yesterday's. Weather extremes are
    increasingly the norm, creating risk to communities, the economy, and
    natural systems. As a result, understanding vulnerabilities and
    increasing our preparedness is of paramount importance. For that
    reason, the Budget provides $86 million--the largest request in Corps'
    history--for research and development. The focus of this work will be
    on innovative solutions that would help achieve significant cost
    savings in the civil works program and address the emerging water
    resources challenges of the 21st Century, including climate change.
        The Army Civil Works Budget focuses on the highest performing work
    within the three main missions of the Civil Works program:
      --commercial navigation,
      --flood and storm damage reduction, and
      --aquatic ecosystem restoration.
        In developing the Budget, consideration was also given to advancing
    three key objectives that reflect the Administration's priorities: (1)
    decreasing climate risk for communities and increasing ecosystem
    resilience to climate change based on the best available science; (2)
    promoting environmental justice in underserved and marginalized
    communities and Tribal Nations in line with the Justice40 Initiative;
    and (3) strengthening the supply chain.
        With respect to the first Administration priority, climate-focused
    investments include more than $1.4 billion for construction of flood
    and storm damage reduction and aquatic ecosystem restoration projects,
    over $64 million to improve climate resiliency and/or sustainability at
    existing Corps-owned projects, and $35.5 million for technical and
    planning assistance programs with an emphasis on actions to help local
    communities identify, understand, and address their flood risks
    including work that would directly benefit disadvantaged communities by
    improving their resilience to climate change. The Budget also funds the
    continuation of studies to investigate climate resilience along the
    Great Lakes coastlines as well as in Central and Southern Florida.
        For priority two, the Budget supports the Administration's
    Justice40 Initiative through investments in 23 studies, and in the
    construction of 33 projects to help disadvantaged and tribal
    communities address their water resources challenges--including funding
    for the Tribal Partnership Program. The Army is committed to helping to
    achieve the broader goals of the Administration regarding equity and
    environmental justice and will continue to improve outreach and access
    to Civil Works information and resources, including technical and
    planning assistance programs; maximizing the reach of Civil Works
    projects to benefit disadvantaged communities; and, ensuring that
    updates to Civil Works policies and guidance will not result in a
    disproportionate negative impact on disadvantaged communities.
        Supply chains remain a priority, which the Civil Works supports
    through its Commercial Navigation program. The Budget facilitates safe,
    reliable and sustainable commercial navigation to support U.S.
    competitiveness and improve the resilience of our nation's
    manufacturing supply chain to support American jobs and the economy. In
    support of the Administration's commitment to our nation's coastal
    ports and inland waterways, the fiscal year 2024 Budget includes over
    $3.4 billion for the study, design, construction, operation and
    maintenance (O&M) of inland and coastal navigation projects. Of this
    amount, over $1.7 billion is derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust
    Fund for eligible projects with an emphasis on operation and
    maintenance, including dredging, of completed projects and over $1
    billion will be used to maintain and improve navigation on the inland
    waterways.
        Flood and storm damage reduction is at the center of the Civil
    Works program's actions to support the Administration's goal of
    tackling the climate crisis. Accordingly, the Budget contains nearly $2
    billion for flood and storm damage reduction, including funding to
    provide technical and planning assistance to local communities to
    enable them to understand and better manage their flood risks. The
    Budget proposes to assist these local efforts, with emphasis on non-
    structural approaches.
        Equally important to building community resilience is the work of
    the aquatic ecosystem restoration mission (AER). The Budget includes
    $653 million for AER, including $415 million for the South Florida
    Ecosystem Restoration (SFER) program, which will enable significant
    progress in restoring America's Everglades while building ecosystem
    resilience to climate change in South Florida. The Budget also includes
    $93 million to support salmon recovery efforts in the Columbia River
    basin, another priority within the AER program.
        Other significant initiatives include $655 million for construction
    of a critical dam safety project at Prado Dam, and $350 million for
    replacement of the Cape Cod Canal Bridges. Additionally, to facilitate
    action on Cape Cod, the Budget includes a legislative proposal that
    would allow the Corps to transfer funds to the Commonwealth of
    Massachusetts to design and construct the replacement bridges.
    Ultimately, the ownership of these bridges will be conveyed to
    Massachusetts, which will be responsible for future operation and
    maintenance. Also, of significant note, the Budget includes $235
    million to continue construction of the Sault Ste. Marie (Replacement
    Lock) project in Michigan.
        In total, the fiscal year 2024 Construction program is funded at
    more than $2 billion. While most of this funding is in the Construction
    account, over $37 million is in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund
    account, and nearly $64 million is in the Mississippi River and
    Tributaries account. By significantly increasing funding of
    construction for crucial infrastructure projects, this budget will help
    us get things done and ensure momentum on much needed infrastructure
    improvements across the nation. The Army also has allocated the $50
    million provided for construction in 2024 in the IIJA for shore
    protection projects that will support coastal communities and improve
    their resilience to storm and climate change impacts.
        As I wrap up the discussion on construction, I want to acknowledge
    that there is no funding proposed from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund
    (IWTF) in this year's budget in view of the $2.5 billion made available
    in the IIJA for construction, replacement, rehabilitation, and
    expansion of inland waterways projects. The IWTF is a very valuable
    funding source and I anticipate there will be ongoing and significant
    use in the future beyond the investments provided by the IIJA.
        Of course, in addition to new projects, the Budget focuses on
    maintaining the key features of the vast water resources infrastructure
    that the Corps owns and manages, and on finding innovative ways to
    rehabilitate it or divest it to others. The Budget invests in operating
    and maintaining the Corps' existing infrastructure and improving its
    reliability and performance. Specifically, the fiscal year 2024 Budget
    funds the Operation and Maintenance program at over $4.4 billion,
    consisting of over $2.6 billion in the Operation and Maintenance
    account, nearly $1.7 billion in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund
    account, and nearly $154 million in Mississippi River and Tributaries
    account. The allocation of funding among projects for maintenance
    reflects a risk-informed approach that considers both project and
    project component conditions and the potential consequences of a
    failure. The Budget also gives priority to the maintenance of coastal
    ports and inland waterways with the highest commercial traffic.
    Additionally, the Budget is complemented by $1 billion for operation
    and maintenance in 2024 from the IIJA.
        For the Investigations program, the fiscal year 2024 Budget
    provides $139 million, consisting of nearly $130 million from the
    Investigations account and over $9 million in Mississippi River and
    Tributaries. Within those amounts, the Budget includes $35.5 million
    for technical and planning assistance programs. These programs help
    local communities, including disadvantaged communities, identify and
    address their flood risks, including flood risks associated with
    climate change.
        Continuing with the budget summary, it's significant that the
    fiscal year 2024 Regulatory Program is funded at $221 million to
    protect the nation's waters and wetlands and provide efficiency in
    permit processing. And the Recreation program is funded at $275 million
    to ensure the Corps--one of the nation's leading Federal providers of
    outdoor recreation--can continue to effectively serve the public's
    desire to experience the great outdoors.
        To summarize, the Budget makes critical investments in water
    resources that will benefit the American people and promote greater
    prosperity and economic growth for decades to come. From solving water
    resources challenges facing communities, to nurturing sustainable
    aquatic ecosystems, the Corps is delivering on its mission to serve the
    public.
        I am very honored to implement the President's priorities for the
    Army Civil Works program and excited to be a part of a great team--
    serving our Nation.
        Thank you for inviting me here today. I look forward to your
    questions.

        Senator Murray. Thank you.
        General Scott.
    STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL SCOTT A. SPELLMON,
                CHIEF OF ENGINEERS AND COMMANDING GENERAL,
                U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
        General Spellmon. Good afternoon, everyone.
        Chairwoman Murray and Ranking Member Kennedy and
    distinguished members of the subcommittee, I am honored to
    testify before you today and thank you for the opportunity to
    discuss the fiscal year 2024 budget of the U.S. Army Corps of
    Engineers, another record appropriation for our Nation's Civil
    Works Program.
        So today I look forward to discussing the status of
    important Corps projects and programs as well as answer any
    questions the committee may have regarding our fiscal year 2024
    budget.
        Most importantly, I look forward to continuing to work with
    this committee, the Congress, and the Administration to address
    the Nation's critical water resource infrastructure needs.
        We greatly appreciate the committee's continued support of
    the Corps program with recent record high appropriations,
    including the $1.4 billion of additional funding provided late
    last year as part of the Disaster Relief Supplemental
    Appropriations Act of 2023.
        The Corps Civil Works Program has experienced significant
    growth over the past several years. This substantial level of
    investment enables critical water resource projects to be
    studied and constructed and it allows us to further develop
    innovative approaches to address some of our most pressing
    challenges through focused research and development.
        The fiscal year 2024 budget reflects a targeted approach to
    continued investing in our water resources programs, to promote
    climate resiliency which will benefit the Nation's economy,
    environment, and public safety now and well into the future.
        The budget also supports the Assistant Secretary's
    priorities for the Corps by upgrading our Nation's waterways,
    protecting communities and ecosystems, better serving
    disadvantaged communities, investing in science and research
    and development, and, finally, sustaining and improving our
    communications and relationships with our many partners.
        The 2024 budget, taken with other recent funding, provides
    the Corps with what the Secretary calls a transformational
    opportunity to deliver water resource infrastructure projects
    that will positively impact communities across our great
    Nation.
        We are also taking advantage of this opportunity to do two
    things. First, transform our organization and our
    decisionmaking processes to safely deliver quality projects on
    time and within budget and, secondly, to identify risks to how
    we are delivering our program.
        Our teams are hard at work seeking out new and better ways
    to mitigate or eliminate these risks so we can further
    strengthen the safety and security of communities across the
    country and territories.
        By evolving our policies, programs, and operations and
    placing increased focus on research and development, we are
    working to overcome impacts of challenges, such as sea level
    rise, changes to precipitation patterns and hydrology, and
    other effects of climate change, including improvement to the
    resilience of Corps-owned and operated infrastructure.
        I will conclude by saying the Corps does not accomplish
    anything on its own. Delivering successful Civil Works projects
    is a shared responsibility. It's a team sport. We draw from our
    engineering expertise and build upon our relationships with our
    non-Federal partners, our project stakeholders, and Congress to
    enable us to succeed.
        I look forward to continuing our great collaboration as we
    continue to pursue our vision engineering solutions for our
    Nation's toughest challenges.
        So thank you, Chairwoman Murray, Ranking Member Kennedy,
    and Members of the Committee. Again, I look forward to
    answering any questions you may have.
        [The statement follows:]
           Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General Scott A. Spellmon
        Chair Feinstein, Ranking Member Kennedy, and Members of the
    Subcommittee, I am honored to testify before your committee today,
    along with the Honorable Michael Connor, Assistant Secretary of the
    Army for Civil Works, regarding the President's Fiscal Year 2024 (FY
    2024) Budget (Budget) for the Army Civil Works Program.
        Through the Civil Works program, the United States Army Corps of
    Engineers (Corps) works with other Federal agencies, and with state,
    tribal, and local agencies, as well as others, to develop, manage,
    restore, and protect water resources, primarily through the study,
    construction, and operation and maintenance of water-related
    infrastructure projects. The Corps focuses on work that provides the
    highest economic, environmental, and public safety returns to the
    Nation. The Corps also regulates development in waters of the United
    States and works with other Federal agencies to help communities
    respond to, and recover from, floods and other natural disasters.
        The Corps uses its engineering expertise and its relationships with
    project sponsors and stakeholders to develop innovative approaches to
    address some of the most pressing water resources challenges facing the
    Nation. I am committed to the Secretary's priorities for the Army Civil
    Works program, including investing in the Nation's coastal ports and
    inland waterways to facilitate waterborne transportation and strengthen
    economic growth; helping communities to manage their flood risks and
    adapt to climate change; restoring aquatic ecosystems in ways that will
    make them more sustainable and more resilient to climate change;
    ensuring that the Civil Works program will better serve the needs of
    disadvantaged communities; investing in science, research, and
    development to deliver enduring water-resources solutions; and
    strengthening communications and relationships to solve water resources
    challenges. I am absolutely focused on ensuring that we deliver studies
    and finish quality projects safely, on time, and within budget. These
    priorities will ensure a better return on taxpayer investment and
    improve the lives of all Americans. Under my oversight and direction,
    and with the leadership of Assistant Secretary Connor and his team, the
    Corps is committed to efficiently and effectively executing the Civil
    Works program.
                       summary of fiscal year 2024 budget
        The Civil Works program is performance-based and focuses on high-
    performing projects and programs within its three main water resources
    missions: commercial navigation, flood and storm damage reduction, and
    aquatic ecosystem restoration. It uses a targeted approach to invest in
    our water resources and promote climate resilience, which will benefit
    the Nation's economy, environment, and public safety--now and in the
    future. This Budget invests in Tribal Nations, as well in economically
    disadvantaged communities that are marginalized, underserved, or
    overburdened by pollution, including those in rural areas.
        The Budget includes $7.413 billion in discretionary funding for
    Civil Works activities throughout the Nation, the largest budget in
    history.
                                 investigations
        For the Corps Investigations program, the FY 2024 Budget includes
    $130 million in the Investigations account and $9 million in the
    Mississippi River and Tributaries account. The Corps uses these funds
    to evaluate water resources problems and opportunities, design projects
    within the three main Civil Works mission areas, and support related
    work. The Budget includes $35.5 million for planning and technical
    assistance programs, where the Corps shares its expertise with local
    communities including disadvantaged communities to help them identify
    and understand their water resources problems and increase their
    resilience to, and preparedness for, flood risks.
                                  construction
        For the Corps Construction program, the Budget includes $2.015
    billion in the Construction account, $37.152 million in the Harbor
    Maintenance Trust Fund account, and $64 million in the Mississippi
    River and Tributaries account.
        The goal of the Civil Works program is to produce as much value as
    possible for the Nation from the available funds. Projects are
    primarily funded based on their economic, environmental and safety
    returns. The selection process includes giving priority to investments,
    on a risk-informed basis, in dam safety assurance, seepage control, and
    static instability correction work at dams that the Corps owns and
    operates, and work to address significant risk to human safety, as well
    as construction of dredged material disposal facilities for high and
    moderate use segments of commercial deep-draft, shallow-draft, and
    inland waterways projects.
        In developing the FY 2024 Budget, we also gave consideration to
    projects that provide climate change benefits to disadvantaged
    communities. To advance priorities in community resilience,
    environmental justice, and with Tribal Nations, FY 2024 is the first
    time construction funding for Environmental Infrastructure and the
    Tribal Partnership Program has been included in the Budget .
        The Budget provides $415 million for the South Florida Ecosystem
    Restoration (SFER) program, the Everglades, as well as $93 million to
    support salmon recovery efforts in the Columbia River basin and $235
    million for the Sault Ste. Marie (Replacement Lock) project in
    Michigan. The largest request within the Construction Account is for
    $655 million for the construction of a critical dam safety project at
    Prado Dam in California.
                        operation and maintenance (o&m)
        All structures age and can deteriorate over time, causing a
    potential decline in reliability. As stewards of a large portfolio of
    water resources projects, the Corps is working to sustain the benefits
    that the key features of this infrastructure provide.
        The Corps continues to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of
    the operation and maintenance of its large portfolio of water resources
    projects. The Corps does so by targeting its investments in
    infrastructure maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation on a risk-
    informed basis. It invests in the highest priority needs with emphasis
    on the key features of the infrastructure that the Corps owns and
    operates, and in work that will reduce long-term O&M costs in real
    terms.
        Generally, the O&M program supports completed works owned or
    operated by the Corps, including operation and maintenance of locks and
    dams along the inland waterways; maintenance dredging of inland and
    coastal Federal channels; operation and maintenance of multi-purpose
    dams and reservoirs for flood risk reduction and related purposes such
    as hydropower; monitoring of completed navigation and flood damage
    reduction projects; and management of Corps facilities and associated
    lands, including serving as a responsible steward of the natural
    resources on Corps lands.
        For the Corps O&M program, the Budget includes $2.630 billion in
    the Operation and Maintenance account, $1.688 billion in the Harbor
    Maintenance Trust Fund account, and $154 million in the Mississippi
    River and Tributaries account. These funds will be used in conjunction
    with the $1 billion provided in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
    Act for operation and maintenance work in FY 2024.
                            research and development
        Through the research and development program, we are making
    investments to tackle future challenges and advance technological
    development in support of the Corps Civil Works mission. The Budget
    includes a historic $86 million investment in research and development
    activities, or over $100 million including technology transition and
    data collection. This investment demonstrates the Administration's
    commitment to engineering innovation to deliver enduring water resource
    solutions for the Nation. This investment will allow the Corps to
    continue addressing the most pressing knowledge gaps practitioners face
    while doing their jobs in the field, such as operational, data-driven
    methods to improve navigation channel maintenance, the beneficial use
    of dredged material, and flood and storm risk management modeling. This
    investment also includes funding to advance longer-term research and
    development needs including: $10 million to accelerate the Forecast-
    Informed Reservoir Operations Assessment, which will further our
    understanding of atmospheric river impacts on flood risk management,
    water supply, and other water uses; and $25.5 million to inform and
    improve our overall asset management strategy, with a focus on work
    that has the potential to achieve significant cost savings in the civil
    works program.
                               regulatory program
        Through the Regulatory program, the Corps protects the Nation's
    waters including wetlands, and regulates development that could impede
    navigation, while allowing reasonable development to proceed. The
    Budget proposes funding for the Regulatory program to enable the Corps
    to protect and preserve these water resources. The FY 2024 Budget
    provides $221 million for this program.
                              emergency management
        The FY 2024 Budget includes $40 million in funding for the Flood
    Control and Coastal Emergencies account to enable the Corps to prepare
    for emergency operations in response to natural disasters. The Budget
    for the emergency management program also includes $5.5 million for the
    National Emergency Preparedness Program.
                formerly utilized sites remedial action program
        The FY 2024 Budget provides $200 million to clean up specific sites
    contaminated as a result of the Nation's early atomic weapons
    development program.
                                   conclusion
        The FY 2024 President's Budget for the Army Civil Works Program
    represents a continuing, fiscally prudent investment in the Nation's
    water resources infrastructure and restoration of aquatic ecosystems.
    The Army is committed to a performance-based Civil Works program, based
    on innovative, resilient, and sustainable risk-informed solutions.
        Thank you, Chair Feinstein and Members of Subcommittee. This
    concludes my statement. I look forward to answering any questions you
    and other Members of the Subcommittee may have.

        Senator Murray. Thank you.
        And Commissioner Touton.

                           DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                             Bureau of Reclamation

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. CAMILLE CALIMLIM TOUTON,
                COMMISSIONER
        Ms. Touton. Good afternoon. My name is Camille Calimlim
    Touton, and I'm the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation.
        Thank you, Chair Murray, Ranking Member Kennedy, and
    members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to discuss the
    President's budget for the Bureau of Reclamation, and thanks
    to, Chair Feinstein for her continued leadership on Western
    Water.
        The Bureau of Reclamation is the largest supplier and
    manager of water in the Nation and the second largest producer
    of hydropower. Reclamation's mission is to support $66.5
    billion in economic activity and 472,000 jobs.
        Meeting our mission means addressing drought resilience,
    water security, climate change adaptation, ecosystem health,
    and issues of equity.
        The need to secure, maintain, and modernize our Nation's
    infrastructure is an Administration priority and we have a
    once-in-a-generation opportunity to utilize our fiscal year
    2024 $1.4 billion budget request with that of the Bipartisan
    Infrastructure Law (BIL) and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).
    The issues we face today are unprecedented, as we experience
    the worst drought in the 120-year history of this organization.
    Record snowfall and rain across parts of the West this year,
    and particularly in California, have brought some relief but
    are not a resolution to our years-long, if not decades-long
    drought.
        Snowpack is at 164 percent of average in the Colorado River
    Basin, but the reservoirs are collectively at 30 percent. In
    California's Central Valley we experienced the 3 driest
    consecutive years on record, only to be followed with 9
    atmospheric rivers in late December and January.
        The cyclical nature of Western hydrology highlights the
    need for immediate actions as well as thoughtful planning and
    on-the-ground work to make both our infrastructure and our
    operational decisions more resilient to withstand future water
    resource variability.
        Reclamation's 2024 budget priorities reflect our commitment
    to drought planning and response activities to promote water
    security, and this budget acknowledges the need to continue to
    develop and deploy science-based drought and climate change
    adaptation strategies.
        Reclamation's WaterSMART and Science Technology Programs
    directly contribute to these Administration priorities,
    including $22.5 million for R&D (Research and Development)
    science and tech.
        We must also plan for our infrastructure. Our dams and
    reservoirs, water conveyance systems, and power generation
    facilities serve as the water and power infrastructure backbone
    of the American West. However, as with all infrastructure,
    these features are aging and in need of critical maintenance.
        Our 2024 budget includes $105.3 million for extraordinary
    maintenance combined with our BIL investments of $825 million
    in 2022 and 2023--and that includes our aging infrastructure
    announcement of $585 million earlier this month.
        We are constructing our largest dam safety modification
    project at BF Sisk Dam in California, supported by our 2024
    budget request of $210 million for dam safety, which includes
    $182.6 million for the implementation of dam safety
    modification actions.
        This funding not only addresses BF Sisk Dam but also El
    Vado in New Mexico and 10 additional projects in the West, in
    Washington, Oregon, Montana, and North Dakota.
        We are able to leverage this funding to more effectively
    address West-wide needs in an accelerated manner due to the
    $500 million in BIL funding.
        We must also address our infrastructure needs and consider
    economic inequities and the needs of rural and underserved
    communities. Reclamation is establishing and rebuilding water
    infrastructure for underserved populations by ensuring that
    clean drinking water is provided to our communities through our
    rural water investments.
        Our 2024 budget request includes $57.8 million and as with
    our Dam Safety and Aging Infrastructure Programs, our Rural
    Water Program leverages the one billion in BIL funding to
    accelerate completion of these long-needed projects, of which
    we've allocated $698 million.
        Our budget also includes $35.5 million for Reclamation's
    American Affairs Program to enhance our technical assistance to
    Tribes. And, lastly, Reclamation's budget request supports the
    Administration's legislative proposal for Indian Water Rights
    Settlement implementation efforts.
        Reclamation will continue to manage the drought in real
    time and plan for the future with a focus on people,
    partnerships, and investments, and Reclamation is committed to
    working with Congress and our partners and stakeholders in
    carrying out our mission, and our fiscal year 2024 budget
    supports these actions.
        I again thank the subcommittee. I'm happy to answer any
    questions.
        [The statement follows:]
                 Prepared Statement of Camille Calimlim Touton
        Thank you, Chair Feinstein, Ranking Member Kennedy, and members of
    the Subcommittee for the opportunity to discuss with you the
    President's Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 Budget for the Bureau of Reclamation.
    I am Camille Calimlim Touton, Commissioner for the Bureau of
    Reclamation.
        The issues we face today are unprecedented as we experience the
    worst drought in the 120-year history of this organization. This
    challenges Reclamation's ability to deliver water and produce
    hydropower in the way we have in the past. Climate change has made it
    likely that we will continue to experience the same, or worse,
    hydrology in the future. Record snowfall and rain across parts of the
    West--and particularly California--have brought some relief. While we
    are thankful for the benefits, we must not forget the cyclical nature
    of western hydrology. Therefore, this is not a time for Reclamation,
    the States and Tribes to take our foot off the gas. It is an
    opportunity to get ahead of the planning. Reclamation will continue to
    manage the drought in real time, focusing on our enduring priorities of
    People, Partnerships, Investments--and Hydrology in the West.
        Reclamation manages water for agriculture, municipal and industrial
    use, the environment, and provides flood control and recreation for
    millions of people. Reclamation's projects and programs serve as the
    water and power infrastructure backbone of the American West,
    constituting an important driver of economic growth in hundreds of
    basins through the Western States. Reclamation's activities support
    economic activity valued at $66.6 billion, and support approximately
    472,000 jobs.\1\ Reclamation delivers 10 trillion gallons of water to
    millions of people each year and provides water for irrigation of 10
    million farmland acres, which yields approximately 25 percent of the
    Nation's fruit and nut crops, and 60 percent of the vegetable harvest.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ U.S. Department of the Interior Economic Contributions Report--
    Fiscal Year 2019.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Reclamation's fundamental mission and programs--modernizing and
    maintaining infrastructure, conserving natural resources, using science
    and research to inform decisionmaking, serving underserved populations,
    and staying as nimble as possible in response to the requirements of
    drought and a changing climate--position it as an exemplar for the
    Biden-Harris Administration's core tenets. The Bureau of Reclamation's
    Fiscal Year 2024 budget provides the foundation to meet our mission,
    and to manage, develop, and protect water resources, consistent with
    applicable State and Federal law, and in a cost-effective and
    environmentally responsible manner in the interest of the American
    public. Reclamation remains committed to working with a wide range of
    stakeholders, including water and power customers, Tribes, State and
    local officials, and non-governmental organizations, to meet its
    mission.
        Reclamation is requesting a gross total of $1,449,314,000 in
    Federal discretionary appropriations, which is anticipated to be
    augmented by over $2.4 billion in other Federal and non-Federal funds
    for FY 2024. Of the total, $1,301,012,000 is for the Water and Related
    Resources account, which is Reclamation's largest account, $66,794,000
    is for the Policy and Administration account, and $33,000,000 is for
    the California Bay Delta account. A total of $48,508,000 is budgeted
    for the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund.
        Activities to Support Tribal Programs & Tribal Water Rights
    Settlements: Reclamation tackles the challenges of racial equity and
    underserved communities through investments in Tribal water rights
    settlements, continuation of the Native American Affairs technical
    assistance program, rural water projects, and investments in specific
    projects for underserved communities through programs such as
    WaterSMART. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law PL 117-58 (BIL) and
    Inflation Reduction Act appropriations both invest substantial portions
    of its funding to underserved populations, and rural and Tribal
    communities.
        The Fiscal Year 2024 discretionary request also includes $35.5
    million for the Native American Affairs program to improve capacity to
    work with and support Tribes in the resolution of their water rights
    claims and to develop sustainable water sharing agreements and
    management activities. This funding will also strengthen Department-
    wide capabilities to achieve an integrated and systematic approach to
    Indian water rights negotiations to consider the full range of
    economic, legal, and technical attributes of proposed settlements.
    Finally, funding also supports Reclamation efforts for Tribal nations
    by supporting many activities across the Bureau, including some rural
    water projects, the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project, the
    Klamath Project, and the Lahontan Basin project, among others.
        Conservation and Climate Resilience: Reclamation's projects are
    able to address the Administration's priorities to address conservation
    and climate resilience through funding requests for the WaterSMART
    program, funding to secure water supply to our refuges, and proactive
    efforts through providing sound climate science, research and
    development, and clean energy.
        The WaterSMART Program serves as the primary contributor to
    Reclamation's and the Department of the Interior's Water Conservation
    Priority Goal. Since 2010, projects funded under contributing programs,
    including WaterSMART Grants, Title XVI (Water Recycling and Reuse
    Program), California Bay-Delta Program, Yakima River Basin Water
    Enhancement Project, and Desalination construction projects have
    achieved a total of 1,682,005 acre-feet water savings.
        Through WaterSMART, Reclamation works cooperatively with States,
    Tribes, and local entities as they plan for and implement actions to
    address current and future water shortages, including drought; degraded
    water quality; increased demands for water and energy from growing
    populations; environmental water requirements; and the potential for
    decreased water supply availability due to climate change, drought,
    population growth, and increased water requirements for environmental
    purposes. This includes cost-shared grants for water management
    improvement projects; water reclamation and reuse projects; watershed
    resilience projects; the Basin Study Program; and drought planning and
    implementation actions to proactively address water shortages. The FY
    2024 request includes $62.9 million for the WaterSMART Program.
        Climate Science: Reclamation's FY 2024 budget for Research and
    Development (R&D) programs includes $22.5 million for the Science and
    Technology Program, and $7.0 million for Desalination and Water
    Purification Research--both of which focus on Reclamation's mission of
    water and power deliveries. Climate change adaptation is a focus of
    Reclamation's R&D programs, which invests in the production of climate
    change science, information and tools that benefit adaptation, and by
    yielding climate-resilient solutions to benefit management of water
    infrastructure, hydropower, environmental compliance, and water
    management.
        The Desalination and Water Purification Research program addresses
    drought and water scarcity impacts caused by climate change by
    investing in desalination and water treatment technology development
    and demonstrations for the purpose of more effectively converting
    unusable waters to useable water supplies. The Science and Technology
    program invests in innovation to address the full range of technical
    issues confronting Reclamation water and hydropower managers and
    includes the Snow Water Supply Forecasting Program that aims to improve
    water supply forecasts through enhanced snow monitoring and water
    management to address the impacts of drought and a changing climate.
        Modernizing and Maintaining Infrastructure: Reclamation's water and
    power projects throughout the western United States provide water
    supplies for agricultural, municipal, and industrial purposes.
    Reclamation's projects also provide energy produced by hydropower
    facilities and maintain ecosystems that support fish and wildlife,
    hunting, fishing, and other recreation, as well as rural economies.
        Dam Safety: Reclamation manages 489 dams throughout the 17 Western
    States. Reclamation's Dam Safety Program has identified 361 high and
    significant hazard dams at 241 facilities, which form the core of the
    program. Through constant monitoring and assessment, Reclamation
    strives to achieve the best use of its limited resources to ensure dam
    safety and maintain our ability to store and divert water and to
    generate hydropower.
        The Dam Safety Program helps ensure the safety and reliability of
    Reclamation dams to protect the downstream public. Approximately 50
    percent of Reclamation's dams were built between 1900 and 1950, and
    approximately 90 percent of the dams were built before adoption of
    currently used, state-of-the-art design and construction practices.
    Reclamation continuously evaluates dams and monitors performance to
    ensure that risks do not exceed the Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety
    Risk Management and the Public Protection Guidelines. The Dam Safety
    Program represents a major funding need over the next 10 years, driven
    largely by necessary repairs at B.F. Sisk Dam in California. The B.F.
    Sisk Dam is a key component of the Central Valley Project, providing 2
    million acre-feet of water storage south of the California Sacramento-
    San Joaquin River Delta. Reclamation is modifying the dam to reduce the
    risk of potential failure resulting from potential overtopping in
    response to a seismic event, using the most current science and
    technology to develop an adaptive and resilient infrastructure. In
    addition to B.F. Sisk, Reclamation has identified 12 projects with
    anticipated modification needs through 2030, as well as 5 additional
    projects that will be assessed for potential risk reduction efforts
    prior to 2025.
        The proposed budget also requests $105.3 million for specific
    Extraordinary Maintenance (XM) activities across Reclamation in FY
    2024. This request is central to mission objectives of operating and
    maintaining projects to ensure delivery of water and power benefits.
    Reclamation's XM request relies on condition assessments, condition/
    performance metrics, technological research and deployment, and
    strategic collaboration to better inform and improve the management of
    its assets and deal with its infrastructure maintenance challenges.
    Reclamation was also appropriated $3.2 billion in the BIL, and the
    allocation plan for FY 2024 funding has been provided to Congress as
    mandated.
        Renewable Energy: Reclamation owns 78 hydroelectric power plants.
    Reclamation operates 53 of those plants to generate approximately 15
    percent of the hydroelectric power produced in the United States. Each
    year on average, Reclamation generates about 40 million megawatt hours
    of electricity and collects over $1.0 billion in gross power revenues
    for the Federal Government.
        Reclamation's FY 2024 budget request includes $3.5 million to
    increase Reclamation hydropower capabilities and value, contributing to
    Administration clean energy and climate change initiatives and
    enhancing water conservation and climate resilience within the power
    program.
        Section 70101 of the BIL established the Indian Water Rights
    Settlement Completion Fund (Completion Fund), making $2.5 billion
    available to the Secretary of the Interior to satisfy Tribal settlement
    obligations as authorized by Congress prior to enactment of the BIL. In
    FY 2022 and FY 2023, the Department allocated $2.26 billion of those
    funds, $608.5 million of which supported Reclamation's Tribal
    settlement implementation actions. Additional funding from the
    Completion Fund will be allocated in FY 2024. In addition to the
    Completion Fund, FY 2024 represents the fifth year of Reclamation Water
    Settlements Fund (RWSF) allocations, which provide $120 million in
    annual mandatory authority for Reclamation Indian water rights
    settlements. Funding made available by previous mandatory authorities,
    such as that authorized in the Claims Resolution Act, remain available
    for settlement implementation, while the ongoing operations and
    maintenance requirements of the Arizona Water Settlement Act are
    expected to continue to be supported within the Lower Colorado River
    Basin Development Fund.
        The investments described in Reclamation's FY 2024 budget, in
    combination with BIL and the Inflation Reduction Act implementation and
    prior year efforts will ensure that Reclamation can continue to provide
    reliable water and power to the American West. Water management,
    improving and modernizing infrastructure, using sound science to
    support critical decision-making, finding opportunities to expand
    capacity, reducing conflict, and meeting environmental responsibilities
    are all addressed in this FY 2024 budget request. Reclamation continues
    to look at ways to plan more efficiently for future challenges faced in
    water resources management and to improve the way it does business.
        Thank you for the opportunity to summarize the President's Fiscal
    Year 2024 Budget Request for the Bureau of Reclamation.

        Senator Murray. Thank you so much.
        We will now begin our round of 5-minute questions and I ask
    my colleagues to keep track of the clock.
        Commissioner Touton, I want to start with you. Last
    Congress, as you know, we passed the Inflation Reduction Act,
    which included $4 billion in funding for Reclamation to address
    declining water levels because of the drought primarily, of
    course, in the Colorado River Basin.
        We're all thankful, of course, this year for much-needed
    rain and snow and as you and I have talked about, one wet
    season does not counter the driest 23-year period ever recorded
    in that basin.
        We do need long-term solutions to effectively manage that
    water and adjust for the impacts of climate change.
        Can you explain how the supplemental environmental impact
    statement that was released earlier this month fits into those
    efforts and highlight other steps that you are taking to
    increase our water security and resilience?
        Ms. Touton. Thank you for that question, Madam Chair.
        With regard to the Colorado River Basin and the Inflation
    Reduction Act, within 60 days of the President signing the
    Inflation Reduction Act into law, we had a request for
    proposals for what we call short-term bridging water and we're
    happy to announce as part of that, earlier this month, we
    announced a 125,000 acre-feet commitment by the Gila River
    Indian Community which amounts to about $50 million. What that
    means in Lake Mead is about two feet of elevation in the short
    term.
        We've also committed $250 million for the Salton Sea to
    mitigate impacts to the Sea as the result of conservation
    efforts and less water in the system, and we've also committed
    $125 million for our System Conservation Program in the Upper
    Basin.
        As it relates to the Supplemental EIS (Environmental Impact
    Statement) that we released earlier this month, the efforts
    that we have--whether in short-term bridging water or our long-
    term investments in sustainable infrastructure--help to keep
    water levels higher in Mead and our ability to keep levels high
    so that we can continue to operate, whether that's through
    voluntary measures or investments in infrastructure. Moreover,
    they help with the process of coming to a consensus solution in
    the basin, to which we remain committed.
        Thank you for your support.
        Senator Murray. Thank you.
        As you know, the Columbia River Basin provides significant
    habitat for salmon and other endangered species. It irrigates
    600,000 acres of farmland. It serves as a water highway and
    provides electricity to the majority of the region.
        I wanted to ask Commissioner Touton and Assistant Secretary
    Connor. I know your teams have been working diligently to reach
    a new agreement with Canada on the Columbia River Treaty. As
    those negotiations continue, would you commit to keeping me
    updated on the progress of that and let us know if there's
    anything we can do to assist your efforts?
        Commissioner? Assistant Secretary?
        Mr. Connor. Madam Chair,----
        Senator Murray. Yes?
        Mr. Connor [continuing]. Yes, absolutely, a modernized
    treaty is incredibly important. We will keep you informed. I'm
    committed to that.
        Ms. Touton. Yes, as well, Madam Chair. Thank you.
        Senator Murray. Thank you.
        This is so important. We have to stay apprised of this
    progress and we need to keep moving on this. So I appreciate
    that.
        Assistant Secretary Connor, I consistently hear from our
    ports and harbors across the country about the importance of
    the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. That is exactly why I
    reached across the aisle to unlock some additional Trust Fund
    dollars for some of our critical harbor work.
        I worked with the donor ports, like Seattle and Tacoma, to
    find targets for distributing those Trust Fund dollars. That
    funding is really key to ensuring high-quality port
    infrastructure and maintaining our national competitiveness.
        But the budget this year does not appear to meet all the
    Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund targets. What steps are you
    taking to make sure the targets are met?
        Mr. Connor. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I will just say I appreciate our conversation on this very
    subject about a month ago. We did not include the 12 percent
    set-aside for energy and donor ports and I appreciate the
    sensitivity of the dialogue that you engaged in and the
    statutory provision that was included that reflects the balance
    that Congress feels is important.
        So I'm committed now to ensuring as we move forward, you
    know. The threshold issue is our priority has always been to
    maintain authorized channels at their authorized depths and
    widths and that's going to be an ongoing effort as priority
    one, but understanding the balance that the Congress has sought
    through those provisions in WORDA I'm committed to ensuring
    that in the next budget cycle we are looking--and I think this
    will help in the next work plan cycle, that we identify the
    donor ports and the energy supporting ports, that we identify
    what are those expanded uses that they anticipate that they've
    identified as needs so that we have that roster, that inventory
    of needs, and I'm committed to doing that and issuing guidance
    to ensure that we have that information available for the next
    decisionmaking process.
        Senator Murray. Well, as you know, I'm going to be watching
    that very closely.
        Mr. Connor. Yes.
        Senator Murray. All right. Thank you.
        Senator Kennedy.
        Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Could you put that up for me right quick? Thank you, ma'am.
        General, I know you can't see that, but it's a page from
    your website and let me read you the relevant sentence. It
    says, ``The Mississippi River and Tributaries Project,'' which,
    of course, is how we pay for flood control and levies, ``The
    Mississippi River and Tributaries Project has prevented more
    than $1.5 trillion,'' not billion, trillion, ``in flood damages
    since 1928 or $95 for every $1 invested.''
        This is from your website. How was this compiled, that data
    compiled, General?
        General Spellmon. Yes, sir. So it's simply taking the cost
    of the project and comparing it to the benefits that you're
    describing, structures saved, acres preserved, recreation
    opportunities. So it's a comparison between the--simple math
    between the cost and benefits.
        Senator Kennedy. So you have the ability at the Corps, your
    economists and others, to calculate losses, potential losses?
        General Spellmon. Yes, sir, we do.
        Senator Kennedy. And what this is telling me is that
    without the Corps of Engineers work funded as I described with
    respect to levies and flood control, the American people would
    have sustained damages of $1.5 trillion, is that right?
        General Spellmon. Yes, sir, I believe that's correct.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. Here's what I'm getting at, General.
    If you have this ability and I believe you do, I'm not
    suggesting this isn't accurate, I'm very grateful that this is
    accurate, and I'm very grateful to the Corps, but if your folks
    have this ability to put a value on the potential losses that
    we are averting, why doesn't that play a bigger role in your
    cost-benefit analysis when you're looking at the feasibility of
    a project?
        General Spellmon. Yes, sir. So this is clearly--it's a
    great question. Clearly something the Corps has to get better
    on in comprehensive benefits.
        So I'll just give you two areas, sir, where we are trying
    to improve. We have a number of fund risk management projects
    and navigation projects that have national security
    implications. We're working on one in North Dakota, in Minot.
    You could use this Sioux Locks as an example.
        The Port of Nome in Alaska, it's a remote subsistence
    harbor, but the Coast Guard and Navy can use that. So we're
    challenged on those type of projects to quantify the national
    security benefit.
        We have flood risk management projects today in Selma,
    Alabama, or in Princeville, North Carolina, that preserve
    cultural and historic properties, and we struggle to put a
    monetary value on that, but it's something with the Secretary's
    leadership, sir, we absolutely get--it's something we have to
    improve upon.
        Senator Kennedy. Well, General, I misspoke. I said $1.53.
    The real figure is $2.73, which your work has prevented, $2.73
    trillion in damages, and your economists-- you stand by that
    number, I assume?
        General Spellmon. Yes, sir.
        Senator Kennedy. And your economists have a way to come up
    with that number.
        General Spellmon. That's correct.
        Senator Kennedy. It just makes no sense to me if we can
    quantify the losses that would be prevented by building a flood
    control project that we wouldn't make that one of the
    determining factors in the cost-benefit analysis. I mean, I
    gave you the statistic, the Morganza to the Gulf Levy System
    prevented damage, flooding, to 12,000 homes, and you can
    quantify that. Don't you think we ought to change the formula a
    little bit?
        General Spellmon. Well, sir, the way you're describing a
    loss prevented is a benefit of these projects. The Morganza
    example, I would argue, sir, we have many of those--we have
    many Morganzas across the country that we have to get better on
    in resourcing.
        Senator Kennedy. Let me ask you one quick question in the
    time I have left.
        The price of the Comite River Diversion Canal has gone up
    $500 million. How? I know inflation, but wow!
        General Spellmon. Yes, sir.
        Senator Kennedy. What are we going to do about that?
        General Spellmon. Sir, you've inflation down. The thing
    that we were taking on--this is a great example where we have
    to get better at communicating to the committees and to
    Congress and the Administration the cost estimates that we give
    you in the Chief's Report in Paragraph 11 and we give you a
    number with some decimal points on it for a project that may be
    constructed down the road, but what we don't give you is the
    percent design that that cost estimate is based on.
        So in a 3-year study, a district might get to a 10 percent
    level design or a 4-year study, they might get to 25 percent,
    and then as that design is matured, like it is now today in
    Comite, you're finding that there are additional requirements
    that we get as we get deeper into the geotech, into the sizing
    of some of these structures. That's what we're experiencing
    here and it's something we've got to get better on in
    communicating to you.
        Senator Kennedy. How do we get that number? We got a hell
    of a mess here, General. Okay. My people expect this to be
    done. We brought it in on time. I mean, then all of a sudden,
    bam, $500 million. How we going to get this price down?
        General Spellmon. Sir, you have our commitment that we're
    going to work through this. We're committed to finishing this.
    I don't have all the answers here today. I can share my
    commitment that we will get this done.
        Senator Kennedy. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Murray. Thank you.
        Senator Heinrich.
        Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Commissioner Touton, I want to ask you about how you're
    balancing the drought relief efforts across the West and I
    think it's clear that as reservoir levels in the Colorado Basin
    have dropped, it's really captured the attention of the
    country, but for the Colorado Basin there are many other basins
    in the West that are experiencing the same dynamic, right?
        We are just dealing with less precipitation, less snow
    pack, less water in these systems than we were 50 years ago.
        Ms. Touton. Yes.
        Senator Heinrich. And that's not drought because it's not
    temporary. It is aridification. It is the result of climate
    change and it is going to be at that level or potentially worse
    for the foreseeable future.
        So how are you making sure that you're addressing that
    issue across basins in places like the Rio Grande that have
    equally stressing situations in their systems right now?
        Ms. Touton. Thank you for that question, Senator.
        What you have outlined is exactly what we're--not only are
    we seeing in the Colorado River Basin but across the West. Our
    facilities were built in the notion that our largest reservoir
    would be snowpack, that it would fall, that it would stay there
    and not melt early and that when it would melt, it would end up
    in our rivers and therefore our reservoirs. That is not what
    we're seeing for the most part. It's drier, snow is falling at
    higher elevations, and when it does melt, it's sooner and the
    grounds are dry.
        Taking into account what you saw in your home State last
    year with the Rio Grande, for the first time in 40 years, parts
    of the Rio Grande ran dry. So, what are we doing about it?
    First, we're maximizing the efforts that we have in the short-
    and long-term both in our budget request but also with
    investments from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, with
    WaterSMART efficiencies, and the lining of canals being more
    efficient for water usage.
        But we're also looking at it from a long-term perspective.
    You and I have talked about how that's not necessarily the
    solution for every place and that our ability to recharge our
    aquifers also means that we have an ability to make sure our
    streams are available.
        So, part of our announcements that we made, as well, is a
    NOFO (Notice of Funding Opportunity)--a Notice of Funding--for
    Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration.
        So our ability to look at these holistically and these are
    short-term tools, but then we're investing in the
    infrastructure. We're really proud of our aging infrastructure
    investments. We had as part of that $30 million for the Rio
    Grande for aging infrastructure and we are looking at the
    Inflation Reduction Act. It says $4 billion for the Colorado
    River and basins at comparable levels of drought.
        So, as we're working through the Colorado River, we're
    working on a lot of things, including that provision, on how we
    can utilize that for long-term projects.
        Senator Heinrich. Assistant Secretary Connor, I want to ask
    you. You're super-familiar with the infrastructure in the Rio
    Grande Basin, with your background, but when we authorized all
    of that infrastructure and I suspect this is true across many
    basins in the West, you kind of had a one-off approach.
        You might have one reservoir that was for flood control,
    you had a different reservoir that was for storage, and as we
    come under more and more pressure and there's less and less
    water in the system as a whole, we really need to be able to
    manage the basin as a whole, coordinating all those pieces of
    infrastructure.
        Last year the Corps was directed to work with the National
    Academies to study reservoir management and operational issues
    within the Rio Grande Basin so that we could come up
    potentially with a more comprehensive management strategy. How
    is that progressing?
        Mr. Connor. It's progressing in pieces rather than that
    holistic approach that you've described, Senator, and I
    absolutely agree and I think this builds upon the
    Commissioner's point.
        We don't have the luxury anymore of having single purpose
    projects doing individual things. So we've got to tie this
    together and that requires the Bureau working with the Corps of
    Engineers and vice-versa so that we can make our current
    infrastructure work harder, that we have better science and
    understanding of the system, that we ensure when we're doing
    flood control that we no longer just channel water away that
    can't be used, we need to incidentally restore our ground water
    for environmental benefits, and we have to look if we can't
    pick up water and specifically incorporate that in managed
    aquifer recharge.
        So I get back to your fundamental question, we've got
    authorities for studies, the Upper Rio Grande Water Operations
    Manual. We're proceeding to continue to refine that based on
    new authorities. Now we can use Abiquiu for water storage as
    well as flood control purposes. We're storing water from El
    Vado under a deviation now because that's undergoing a safety
    of dam project.
        We just need, I think, to think about an overarching study
    or approach that ensures we're integrating. In the meantime,
    we're going to cobble these things together and talk to each
    other and figure out these multi-benefit approaches we can move
    forward with the current infrastructure system.
        Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Murray. Thank you.
        Senator Hyde-Smith.
        Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank
    you for convening this meeting, and thank you guys for being
    here and your willingness to serve, as well.
        I want to talk a bit about the Yazoo Backwater Levy
    Enlargement, specifically the need to enlarge the existing
    Yazoo Backwater Levy.
        Often when people hear Yazoo Backwater Project, they
    immediately assume we're talking about the unconstructed
    pumping station which is a very important issue that must be
    resolved, but the pumps are just one part of the comprehensive
    Yazoo Backwater Area Project.
        Authorized features include levies, floodgates, drainage
    channels, and the pumping stations, but the Yazoo Backwater
    Levy was completed in 1978. It is essentially an extension of
    the Mainline Mississippi River East Bank Levy and it runs along
    the West Bank of the Yazoo River.
        This latest system, along with the Steele Bayou Floodgate,
    serves as the first line of defense of the nearly 2,000 square
    miles of the Yazoo Backwater Area when the Mississippi River is
    high and backs up into the Yazoo River.
        When the river is high and the area receives above average
    rainfall, interior water is trapped inside the levy system
    almost like a bathtub and we have a destructive backwater
    flood. As we've seen time and time again, like the catastrophic
    flood of 2019 and many others since 2008, until a pumping
    station is constructed and operational in the Yazoo Backwater
    Area, we have to ensure the structures we have in place are as
    strong as possible and during that historic flood of the
    Mississippi River in 2011, the historic Backwater Levy came
    within inches of over topping.
        If that happened, the area would have been inundated with
    more than 16 feet of water. Let me repeat that. The area would
    have had more than 16 feet of water.
        From the beginning, the Corps has said the Yazoo Backwater
    Levy would need to be raised at some point during the 50-year
    project life in the recommended plan, but unfortunately the
    President's fiscal year budget in 2024 does not include any
    funding to enlarge the Yazoo Backwater Levy but two million
    could be used for that purpose according to the Corps' fiscal
    year 2024 Total Capability Estimate.
        Secretary Connor or Lieutenant General Spellmon, either
    one, please explain to the subcommittee the magnitude of the
    flooding that would occur should the Yazoo Backwater Levy ever
    overtop.
        Mr. Connor. Yes, ma'am, I'll start. So you're correct that
    we became within two inches of this occurring in the 2011
    event. This would be major flooding. So you have to assume in
    these conditions that the Steele Bayou structure is closed and
    the Yazoo River is high and so we would have a condition where
    the precipitation is gathering behind the other structure in
    those communities in addition to water coming over top of the
    levy.
        As you described in 2019, those conditions in the current
    arrangement could last for months.
        Senator Hyde-Smith. Okay. And I've submitted a fiscal year
    2024 funding request to enlarge the Yazoo Backwater Levy.
        Please explain to the subcommittee that the Yazoo Backwater
    Levy is a separate completed feature of the Yazoo Backwater
    Project and said funds would indeed be used to enlarge the
    levy, which has nothing to do with the construction of the
    pumps.
        Mr. Connor. Yes, ma'am. The levy enlargement is a separate
    feature of the system and we would use the money provided to
    begin the design of that levy enlargement.
        Senator Hyde-Smith. Okay. In other words, comparing funding
    to enlarge the levy to funding to construct the pumps is like
    comparing apples and oranges. They are completely different
    project elements. Am I correct in saying that?
        Mr. Connor. Yes, ma'am. They are different project
    features.
        Senator Hyde-Smith. And do you agree the Yazoo Backwater
    Levy needs to be enlarged?
        Mr. Connor. Ma'am, today it's just under six feet below its
    designed height and so this next enlargement would take it up
    another two feet, consistent with the MR&T System. That's the
    next planned levy raise for this system, but, yes, I agree.
        Senator Hyde-Smith. Great. Thank you so much. My time is
    almost up. I'll yield.
        Senator Murray. Senator Hoeven.
        Senator Hoeven. Thanks, Madam Chairman.
        Commissioner Touton, thanks for coming. We appreciate it
    very much. You've reviewed the issue in North Dakota, the water
    supply project. It's very important that Reclamation help us
    with funding that project.
        Are you willing to continue to work to help us fund that
    project?
        Ms. Touton. It was great to see you. North Dakota is
    beautiful in the summer and I look forward to working with you
    on that project.
        Senator Hoeven. Well, you're invited again. It was great to
    have you out there.
        One more technical question is the funding to comply with
    the Boundary Waters Treaty for biota treatment is being taken
    out of Section 7 instead of out of Section 1, which is taking
    away some of the ongoing funding in Section 7.
        Are you willing to work with us on that see if you can't
    get that addressed?
        Ms. Touton. Our teams are already working on that, Senator,
    and I'm happy to report back and continue to work with you on
    that issue.
        Senator Hoeven. Thank you, and I want to note and thank
    your responsiveness. I appreciate it very much. Thank you.
        Ms. Touton. Thank you.
        Senator Hoeven. Secretary Connor, Dakota Access Pipeline,
    with which you're very familiar, moving more than half a
    million barrels a day of energy, by the way, sweetest crude
    from North Dakota that our Nation badly needs right now.
        Please, give a status update on getting the EIS process
    completed. As you know, it's been operating safely now for
    years, and what do you anticipate for completion of the EIS
    process?
        Mr. Connor. Absolutely. I'll provide an update, Senator. So
    as a result, as you know, but just for the record, in 2000 the
    Corps was ordered to go back and do a full EIS. So right now we
    are at the stage where we have produced an administrative draft
    EIS, shared that with cooperating partners, such as the State
    of North Dakota, and also we went ahead and shared that with
    all the Tribes who have registered interest. So we've got about
    six cooperating agencies as well as 30 Tribes now who have
    reviewed it, provided us comments.
        We are currently taking into account and incorporating
    those comments, having some additional technical discussions
    with the goal of coming out with a draft environmental
    statement for public review by the end of June. So it's a
    little shift from the schedule that you and I have previously
    talked about and it was because of the request for an
    additional review period of the administrative draft EIS.
        So we will put it out for review, probably 45 or 60 days. I
    anticipate we'll get additional requests for time. We're
    prepared to go out a little longer than that but my
    conversations with you and the Governor, I know we need to get
    our work done here and do the full analysis and we've tried to
    incorporate, you know, a better assessment of spill risks,
    spill response, Tribal trust interests, so that we can fully
    evaluate potential impacts as well as disclosing just the
    overall greenhouse gas emissions and social costs to carbon
    parties of the administration.
        So we've now done that. We're taking comments. We'll get it
    out the end of June and hopefully move forward to get to a
    final EIS.
        Senator Hoeven. And you understand the importance of the
    project and getting the EIS completed?
        Mr. Connor. Absolutely understand, Senator.
        Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        General, I'm looking forward to your visit to the Fargo-
    Morehead region next month and your meeting out there, and I
    want to thank you for having your meeting, your Corps USACE
    meeting out there for three days next month.
        This is an incredible project and frankly do you consider
    this, the Red River Valley Flood Protection Project, really a
    national model and are you committed to completing it and
    getting it done on time and as planned?
        General Spellmon. Yes, sir. We're absolutely committed to
    completing this project. I don't often get to report on
    schedule within budget, but this was our project delivery team
    of the year. So we're going to take all 42 district commanders
    and our 13 general officers out there to see how they did it
    but looking forward to this visit, sir.
        Senator Hoeven. Thank you. And in the case of Minot, you
    mentioned Minot earlier, your continued creativity is going to
    be needed in Minot. You've shown that in working with the Minot
    Air Force Base, the only dual nuclear base in the Nation, so it
    truly is a national security issue, but also for completing the
    flood protection particularly for the lower-income areas with
    some of those back channels and some of those kind of things,
    you have some programs that we're going to need to use, as
    well.
        Your people in the region have identified them and so your
    strong support for some of the ideas the region's bringing
    forward from your office would be very helpful in completing
    that comprehensive flood control project.
        General Spellmon. Yes, sir. We certainly want to get after
    resourcing some of the innovation that the district has come up
    with in some of these communities that you're describing.
        Senator Hoeven. And you're committed to supporting that?
        General Spellmon. Yes, sir.
        Senator Hoeven. Thank you, appreciate it. Thank you, Madam
    Chair.
        Senator Murray. Senator Britt.
        Senator Britt. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Thank you all for being here today. We certainly appreciate
    your time and your willingness to be in front of this
    committee.
        We know that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is
    responsible for the design, construction, and maintenance of
    both military construction and Civil Works projects across our
    great Nation.
        I appreciate your consistent commitment to construction
    projects at military installations, including those at Fort
    Novosel outside my home town of Enterprise, Alabama.
        Secretary Connor, thank you for visiting the Port of Mobile
    last week. I know that the Port and the Mobile District
    welcomed the opportunity to show you around.
        In 2019 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers approved what was
    called the General Re-Evaluation Report, examining the costs
    and benefits and the environmental impacts of deepening and
    widening the Mobile Bay Ship Channel to accommodate larger
    vessels and allow two-way traffic.
        In June of 2020 the U.S. Army Corps and the Alabama State
    Port Authority signed a Project Partnership Agreement and the
    fiscal year 2020 U.S. Army Corps Work Plan fully funded the
    Channel Deepening and Widening Project.
        In September of 2020 the Mobile District of the U.S. Army
    Corps of Engineers awarded the first of now seven phases of
    construction for this project. As of today, Phase 1 and Phase 3
    of the project is complete. Phase 4 of the project is scheduled
    for completion in June of 2024, while the remaining four phases
    are scheduled to be done concurrently starting later this year.
        The full project is scheduled to be completed by March
    2025. The deepening and widening of the Mobile Ship Channel
    will bring unprecedented economic growth of the entire State of
    Alabama and to the communities surrounding the Mobile Bay.
        Once deepened, the public and private terminals of the Port
    of Mobile will be able to accommodate larger ships and more
    frequent scheduling, handling a wide range of cargo, including
    mined materials, manufactured goods, bulk cargo, containerized
    cargo, and agro-business cargo.
        Mr. Secretary, from your standpoint, is the project to
    deepen and widen the Mobile Ship Channel on schedule for
    completion by March of 2025?
        Mr. Connor. Senator, yes, the project is still on schedule.
    Can I just say fantastic facility, fantastic tour last week,
    pretty impressive the capabilities there, and the
    diversification in the port as far as the cargo that it brings
    in and out.
        I know there is an issue with utility easements that we're
    working through with Phase 4 and that's the other thing I just
    wanted to mention. I think it's great levels of communication
    with the port as well as State officials all helping to work
    through those utility issues.
        So I think we need to keep up attention on that to be able
    to get to ensure that we get the construction activity done,
    but everything that I learned last week is we're still on
    progress.
        Senator Britt. Thank you so much and thank you for your
    compliments to the great work that's done there.
        There have been many men and women who've been very
    intentional about how we can grow and how we can make sure that
    it was benefiting a multitude of people and places and
    servicing that community and the surrounding States. So thank
    you so much for saying that and I know that all parties are
    committed to working through any necessary paperwork, anything
    that needs to be done to make sure that we stay on time and we
    meet that March 2025 deadline.
        The Port of Mobile is expected to receive $5.4 million in
    fiscal year 2023 in the work plan for the Port Energy Funds.
    Port Energy Funds are funds provided to ports across the Nation
    at which energy commodities comprise more than 25 percent of
    the tonnage moved through the port.
        This year it is my understanding that the U.S. Army Corps
    has revised guidance for the use of Port Energy Funds, such
    that if a port is receiving these funds and it wishes to use
    them for dredging material and management activities, it is
    either not allowed or requires the U.S. Army Corps Headquarters
    to sign off.
        This is different from past practices. In past MOUs
    (Memoranda of Understanding) the Port of Mobile has been able
    to use the Port Energy Funds for berth dredging and surveying,
    post-dredging, hauling, berth dredge materials, and offsite
    upland sites requiring testing of these materials and just a
    wide variety of things.
        I believe that the U.S. Army Corps should maintain its past
    practices of allowing energy ports like the Port of Mobile to
    be able to use their Port Energy Funds to dredge and engage in
    dredge material management activities and that this new
    guidance is overly restrictive to operations and maintenance of
    the Port of Mobile.
        Mr. Secretary, will you commit to reviewing this new
    guidance and ensuring that the Port Energy Funds can be used
    for both dredging and for dredged material management
    activities?
        Mr. Connor. I will absolutely----
        Senator Murray. Before you give an answer to that question,
    Senator Britt, I have to go to another committee hearing.
    Senator Murkowski's on her way. I know you'll not say no, but
    would you mind holding the gavel until Senator Murkowski gets
    here?
        Senator Britt. I would be honored. Thank you.
        Senator Murray. Thank you very much.
        Senator Britt. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Senator Murray. I will turn that over to you until she gets
    here.
        Senator Britt. Thank you so much.
        Senator Murray. Thank you.
        Senator Britt [presiding]. This is the first time, Number
    99 out of 100.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Britt. It's going to take quite some time before I
    get to do something like that again. Thank you.
        Mr. Connor. Senator, I'll just say I was a staff person in
    the Senate when I think Barack Obama was 99th.
        Senator Britt. Okay. Well, there you go, there you go.
        Mr. Connor. I'm absolutely committed to relooking at the
    guidance. I think there's two questions. The beneficial use of
    dredged material, dredged material management is that within
    the definition of expanded uses under the statute, and then I
    think my predecessor, we might have some guidance out there
    that might be causing issues.
        So I will go back and look at that because, quite frankly,
    one of the most impressive aspects of last week's tour was
    the--and General Spellmon gets all the credit for setting a
    high goal for beneficially using dredged material and that has
    a lot of advantages and environmental benefits and I saw a lot
    of that last week.
        We want to incentivize that. We don't want to minimize
    that. So I will go back and look at that guidance.
        Senator Britt. No, and we're really proud. That's something
    that we've tried to do and, you know, I'm sure you saw it there
    with the creation of the island and creating the ecosystems,
    you know, allowing thousands of birds to nest and including the
    Brown Pelican there that was removed from the Federal
    Endangered Species List in 2009.
        So certainly want to make sure that we're being responsible
    and so I appreciate you leaning into that, as well.
        And on that note, you know, I'm going to raise this issue.
    I know that permitting approvals do take time and that you and
    your staff continue to work with the Port of Mobile just to
    make sure that we're doing what we need to do to get this done
    on time and meeting the needs of the community.
        General Spellmon. Ma'am, I'll just say we completely
    acknowledge the space requirements there. So this is a 1,200
    acre beneficial use site. We are working with EPA
    (Environmental Protection Agency) and the port on the
    permitting requirements.
        Ma'am, I don't see any issues. We'll get this done.
        Senator Britt. Okay. Thank you so much.
        I'll tell you what. That concludes my questions. We have
    General Hubbard waiting and I'm not used to even getting
    through a portion of my questions. So this is--you know, who
    knew, but would love to talk to you. I know that you're
    responsible not only for Civil Works but Military Construction,
    as we mentioned earlier.
        Can you share with the committee any challenges that you're
    having in this space, anything that you believe that needs to
    be brought to our attention?
        Mr. Connor. Ma'am, the Number 1 challenge and the Number 1
    opportunity that we have in the Corps of Engineers today is our
    workload. If you go back to the early '90s through 2000, we had
    about a $15 billion program that was across Civil Works,
    Military Construction, and all the other government agencies
    that we do work for and today's not $15 billion. If you add
    that all up, it's about $92 billion and we largely have the
    same size workforce, slightly larger.
        Last year we hired 5,000 new engineers on to our team and
    we lost 4,000 to retirements and transfers. So it's certainly
    the Number 1 challenge but it's also an opportunity in that
    we're looking for more innovative ways to get after our
    projects. We're working more with industry, working more with
    architect-engineer firms in our designs, and we're having to
    break a little bit of internal culture, but I think it's all
    healthy.
        Senator Britt. Yes, Mr. Secretary, thank you.
        General Spellmon. If I could just add on to that, I think,
    you know, in addition to the issues and the workload and the
    ways the organization is trying to adjust and using our assets
    across the entire enterprise, those are incredibly important.
        I think also one of the challenges that we face is not just
    the magnitude of the costs and cost increases and the personnel
    to carry out the work, but, quite frankly, we have some very
    well-intended rules that we operate under with respect to fully
    funding projects or investigations, such as through the
    bipartisan Infrastructure Law, such as BBA-2018, and, quite
    frankly, we've had significant cost increases not just in
    construction activity but even in the investigations as the
    work gets more complex.
        So I think, you know, some flexibility or just recognition
    and Congress has already done this. We had some restrictions of
    having to finish projects with BBA-2018 funding. We got some
    relief in the last Omnibus Appropriations Bill. So we were able
    to supplement those BBA-2018 funds with additional resources
    from the bipartisan Infrastructure Law and move forward with
    the critical project on California's shorelines.
        So I would just say I think that's a dialogue that we need
    to continue to have with the professional staff and with
    Senators about where we're not able to complete work, which
    just gets us high centered and that's in nobody's best
    interests, whether it's investigations or construction
    activity.
        Senator Britt. Absolutely. And, General, can I dig down? So
    you had 4,000 people retire.
        Mr. Connor. Ma'am, it was an arrangement of retirements,
    folks transferring to private construction work, folks going to
    work for other Federal agencies, so a large transition over the
    past year and a half in our workforce.
        Senator Britt. And so what all does the plan entail to
    recruit and to kind of fill that gap?
        Mr. Connor. Yes, ma'am. So we have really energized not
    only our recruiting campaign, I mean, we were advertising in
    Time Square here just a few months ago, but also our retention
    campaigns within the--I mean, this is a unique agency within
    the Federal Government. Seldom are our projects alike. They're
    very, very complicated and that's how we sell when we recruit.
    This is rewarding work that we're doing on behalf of the
    Nation.
        Senator Britt. Excellent, excellent. Thank you.
        General Spellmon. Can I just say I'm attending
    Infrastructure Task Force meeting later on after this hearing
    and so I was just getting the read-out on some of these
    statistics with respect to engineers in particular.
        So I think we anticipate, you know, based on the levels of
    resources we have normally and even increasing that we would,
    you know, have an 8 percent increase on the number of engineers
    that we need and I think even anticipating that, the statistic
    that I was just given earlier today was that we're still going
    to be something across not just government but the private
    sector something like 40,000 engineers short of where we need
    to be to carry out the anticipated level of infrastructure
    design/construction activity over the next several years and
    we're graduating less engineers and so we're losing ground in
    that way.
        So, in addition to hiring and I think we're competing well,
    it's the retirements and the exit that a lot of folks are
    making. We need to somehow get the younger generation more
    interested, more willing to enter into the engineering field
    and profession because we need them.
        Senator Britt. Yes, absolutely. We'll do a little
    recruitment tool then and tell people we need more engineers
    and certainly what an incredible way to serve our country.
        You mentioned Selma earlier in your remarks. Can you tell
    me a little bit about what is going on there and what the plans
    are?
        Mr. Connor. Yes, ma'am. The good news is we're fully funded
    for preliminary engineering and design and we'll have our
    designs complete in October of this year and we'll use that
    design, ma'am, to fully inform what our first size of the first
    construction contract.
        I've had the opportunity to visit this project. Everybody
    on this project is excited about this work ahead. The next task
    is to wrap up the designs and then we look forward to moving
    out on construction.
        Senator Britt. Excellent. As you know, Selma is not only an
    important place in Alabama but obviously a historic marker for
    our Nation and so certainly appreciate your attention to that
    project.
        And you also have responsibilities to manage recreational
    areas. Am I right in saying that?
        Mr. Connor. Yes, ma'am. Hundreds of them across the
    country.
        Senator Britt. Yes. So tell me, I know a lot of those are
    subject to damage and other things. Can you share with the
    committee how you prioritize those fundings, kind of across
    your business line, particularly within that area?
        Mr. Connor. Yes, ma'am. Very challenging mission and we
    have some great rangers in the Army Corps of Engineers that get
    a lot of mileage out of the dollars that we appropriate--we
    give them, and certainly it's just always very, very
    competitive.
        When I give my recommendations to the Secretary every fall
    for the next year's budget, life safety always goes to the top
    and then we have legal mandates, national security requirements
    that lead into our economic and environmental returns, and we
    certainly always want to finish what we start and that's very,
    very challenging for our recreation sites.
        We do the best we can. We try to get the maximum use out of
    every dollar that we are given. It is challenging, but the
    public, the amount of public that comes out to our recreation
    sites along the water just seems to grow every year and it's a
    program that we're extremely proud of.
        Senator Britt. Excellent. Well, I think this was part of
    being new. I think this was a test to see if I could finish
    this out.
        I wanted to thank you all for coming today. This will end
    our hearing. I'd like to thank the witnesses and my colleagues
    for participating in today's hearing.
        I look forward to working together on this year's
    appropriations bill to ensure that we are providing the Army
    Corps and the Bureau the resources that they need.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        I will keep the hearing record open for 1 week. Committee
    members who would like to submit written questions for the
    record should do so by 5 p.m. Wednesday, May 3.
        We appreciate the Army Corps and the Bureau for responding
    to them in a reasonable time period.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
                 Questions Submitted to Hon. Michael L. Connor
                 Questions Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski
        Question. Port of Nome: The Port of Nome project is a strategic
    asset for national security, search and rescue, maritime commerce and
    environmental protection. In recent weeks, we have heard senior
    military leaders testify before Congress as to the need for a deep
    draft arctic port. Yet, this project is a civil works project and I
    worked to deliver the $250mm from the IIJA to fund the first phase of
    the project and good progress has been made on that. Meanwhile, section
    8312 of WRDA 2022 amended the cost share to change the project 90%
    Federal and 10% non-Federal sponsor.
        Mr. Connor and General Spellmon, will the U.S. Army Corps of
    Engineers fully fund the completion of the project through its
    construction budget and workplan from FY25 on?
        Answer. The Administration is committed to considering this project
    for funding, along with other programs, projects, and activities across
    the Nation that are competing for the available Federal resources. The
    Corps is committed to completing the Port of Nome Modification project.
        Question. Considering the cost share modification, I expect the
    administration's budget requests and construction work plan funding to
    account for this change with no delay in budgetary resources. Will the
    Administration honor the WRDA provision for budgeting purposes?
        Answer. Budgeting for this project will be in accordance with the
    new cost share under the amended authority.
        Question. Congressionally Directed Spending. Mr. Connor, last year
    I was able to secure Congressionally Directed Spending for a couple of
    worthy projects in Alaska that had been languishing in the Civil Works
    queue for years. Obviously, this was much appreciated and a good
    example why this CDS process is good for states, like Alaska, whose
    projects do not compete well in the overall Corps budget process. We
    were excited to see them in the FY23 Omnibus, only to be surprised to
    find these projects were not included in the President's FY24 Budget
    Request. If there is no money in the President's Budget request, I do
    not see how these projects can be continued in the FY24 work plan. My
    expectation, and I believe the expectation from my colleagues in
    Congress, was that the Corps would pick-up these projects once they
    received a CDS.
        Whose decision was it to abandon these CDS requests in the Budget
    Request and why were they not included in the President's Budget
    Request?
        Answer. The FY2024 Budget was completed before the FY2023
    appropriations were passed; therefore, CDS projects newly funded in
    FY2023 were not considered for funding in the FY2024 Budget but will be
    considered for future budgets and potential work plans.
        Question. I think we can all appreciate the substantial risks
    intermittent funding poses to projects especially in my state. Do you
    intend on funding my CDS requests to completion?
        Answer. Enacted CDS projects will be considered for funding in
    future President's Budget request and potential work plans, along with
    all other worthwhile programs, projects, and activities across the
    Nation in competition for limited Federal resources.
                                     ______

          Questions Submitted to Lieutenant General Scott A. Spellmon
              Questions Submitted by Senator Christopher A. Coons
        Question. As expressed in the Federal statute that formed the
    Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC), Public Law 87-328, the
    Commission's five members are responsible for financially supporting
    DRBC's operations. The United States share of this signatory member
    funding is $715,000, representing 20 percent of member contributions.
    This percentage is based upon an equitable agreement among the
    Commission's four member states and the United States, and the Corps of
    Engineers is the Federal member.
        Section 5019 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 as
    amended (121 Stat. 1201, 128 Stat. 1306) reads:

        ``The Secretary shall allocate funds to the Susquehanna River Basin
            Commission, the Delaware River Basin Commission, and the
            Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin to fulfill the
            equitable funding requirements of the respective interstate
            compacts.''

        As recently as the FY2023 appropriations bills, Congress included
    the following phrase in the Joint Explanatory Statement:

        ``The Congress has made clear its intent that the Susquehanna,
            Delaware, and Potomac River Basin Commissions be supported, and
            the Corps is encouraged to budget accordingly in future budget
            submissions.''

        Since this payment is a statutory obligation, why does the
    President's Budget not include funding for the DRBC, or any other river
    basin commission or interstate compact where the Corps is a signatory?
        Answer. Consistent with statutory requirements, the Corps has
    requested funds for the River Basin Commissions through its yearly
    budgetary process as part of the General Expenses account for
    participation in the commission meetings. As part of the President's
    budget development process, the River Basin Commissions are considered
    for funding, along with many other worthwhile programs, projects, and
    activities across the Nation in competition for limited Federal
    resources.
        Question. Since the Corps of Engineers has not included funds for
    the River Basin Commissions in almost 30 years, in complying with the
    statute, have you or any of your predecessors filed the report required
    by section 5019? If not, why not?
        Answer. The Administration budgets for the Corps' participation in
    the Commission meetings in the General Expenses account.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski
        Question. Tribal Consultations and Craig Harbor: General Spellmon,
    my understanding is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has adopted Tribal
    Policy Principles to guide your work. These principles are included on
    your website and characterized as part of your mission. I want to focus
    on the principles that deal with tribal consultation specifically. The
    Corps has committed to both pre-consultation which requires the U.S.
    Army Corps of Engineers to involve Tribes collaboratively, before and
    throughout decisionmaking, to ensure the timely exchange of
    information, the consideration of disparate viewpoints, and the
    utilization of fair and impartial dispute resolution processes. The
    Corps is also committed to government-to-government consultation to
    fulfill its obligations to consider the potential effects of Corp
    programs on natural and cultural resources, and Section 810 of the
    ANILCA outlines the procedures for all Federal agencies to evaluate
    impacts on subsistence uses and needs, and means to reduce or eliminate
    such impacts (16 USC 3120). I am concerned that the Corps does not
    appear to have followed these principles regarding the Craig Harbor
    project in Southeast Alaska to the detriment of the community there and
    the Craig Tribal Association ending the project for the near future
    after millions of dollars of Federal, state and city money was spent.
    In this specific case, the feasibility report was completed in 2015 and
    did not include tribal consultation. Six years later tribal
    consultation was attempted retroactively in the context of the
    Validation Report, which I think you will agree is not the ideal
    context for conducting tribal consultation on a project.
        Is there a process or procedure for how to conduct tribal
    consultations for projects that are midstream in the Army Corps
    process?
        Answer. Tribal consultation under Section 106 occurred throughout
    the feasibility phase of the project. The Alaska District consulted
    with Craig Tribal Association four times under Section 106 consultation
    efforts and three times under informal, in person nation-to-nation
    consultation efforts between 2012--2015. Consultation under Section 106
    was reinitiated in 2020, during the start of the pre-construction
    engineering and design (PED) phase. An in-person meeting to continue
    negotiations on the Section 106 Memorandum of Agreement was held in
    2020 and two additional Section 106 consultation efforts led to the
    formal request for nation-to-nation consultation in 2021.
        Question. Can you--should you--proceed with a project, at whatever
    phase, if consultation obligations have not been fulfilled or if all
    parties have not responded to requests for participation.
        Answer. Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
    Preservation Act (Section 106), the Corps is legally required to
    consult with federally recognized Tribes at certain phases of all Corps
    activities; initial project phases cannot be concluded without
    fulfilling this required Tribal consultation. It would be inconsistent
    with Federal statutory requirements for a Corps project to proceed
    without consultation or without robust evidence of attempts to provide
    Tribes the opportunity to respond to requests for participation. In
    this instance, Tribal consultation under Section 106 occurred four
    times during the feasibility phase of the project and four times during
    the Pre-construction Engineering and Design phase of the project.
        Question. Is there a requirement for a Memorandum of Agreement to
    be signed before proceeding? Would it be prudent to make that a Corps
    policy if it isn't already?
        Answer. Corps policy is to follow all applicable legal requirements
    under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). A
    Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) is required to resolve adverse effects to
    historic properties as the project was designed at the time of the Pre-
    construction Engineering and Design phase and Validation Study. In
    accordance with the regulations for the Protection of Historic
    Properties at 36 C.F.R. Part 800, the MOA for this project needs to be
    executed prior to non-planning actions. If the location, size, scope,
    or other factors in the project design change, consultation under
    Section 106 of the NHPA would be re-initiated and the Corps' assessment
    of effects to historic properties revaluated to determine whether an
    MOA is required to resolve adverse effects to historic properties.
        Question. General Spellmon, a report from Congressional Research
    Services in 2021 stated, ``An ongoing challenge for USACE is that
    numerous authorized studies and construction projects remain unfunded.
    USACE has an estimated $109 billion total construction backlog.'' I
    heard about that, and as part of the Bipartisan Infrastructure
    Framework my colleagues and I worked on clearing a small portion of
    that backlog--we provided $17.1 billion of supplemental appropriations.
    Another piece that may help clear that backlog would be to address some
    of these older reports and determine which are relevant.
        How many Chiefs Reports are over 10 years old? 50? 100 years old?
        Answer. The following is a list of projects authorized in Water
    Resource Development Acts based on recommendations from Chief's Reports
    and does not include projects that may have been authorized elsewhere.
    Of note, this list was developed based on resources and information
    available in a centralized manner; a more comprehensive response would
    require additional time and resources to conduct.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Chief's Reports
                         WRDA                              Authorized
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2022..........................................                       25
    2020..........................................                       46
    2018..........................................                       12
    2016..........................................                       30
    2014..........................................                       34
    2007..........................................                       46
    2000..........................................                 2(28\1\)
    1999..........................................               30 (15\2\)
    1996..........................................                31(13\3\)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ 28 projects were authorized subject to completion of a Chief's
      Report by December 31, 2000.
    \2\ 15 projects were authorized subject to completion of a Chief's
      Report by December 31, 1999.
    \3\ 13 projects were authorized subject to completion of a Chief's
      Report by December 31, 1996.

        Question. At what point do they become obsolete?
        Answer. Projects that have been authorized by Congress remain
    authorized until they are deauthorized by law, such as in accordance
    with the periodic deauthorization provisions found in Water Resource
    Development Acts.
        Question. Is there a process for reviewing these Chiefs Reports and
    removing them from the queue once they no longer reflect the need of
    that community?
        Answer. For those projects that have been authorized but have not
    been constructed, Water Resources Development Acts provide direction
    for the Secretary to undertake a process that may result in project
    deauthorizations. Criteria found in WRDA limited the projects subject
    to this deauthorization process to projects that were authorized by
    Congress prior to 2007 and have not had any obligation of funding for
    the past ten fiscal years. The number of authorized projects that fit
    the criteria is very small.
                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator John Hoeven
        Question. The Army Corps of Engineers is conducting an
    environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Dakota Access Pipeline
    (DAPL) and the Line 5 Tunnel Project, two energy projects that are
    vital to our nation's economic and national security. For DAPL, the
    Corps is responsible for reviewing a 0.21-mile crossing of the Missouri
    River. For the Line 5 Tunnel, the Corps is reviewing a 4.5-mile tunnel
    under the Straits of Mackinac. The Corps currently estimates that it
    will take over 4 years to complete an EIS for each project. Why is the
    Army Corps unable to meet the Biden administration's own goal of 2
    years for completing an EIS for DAPL and the Line 5 Tunnel?
        Answer. Line 5 requires a Department of Army permit pursuant to
    Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the
    Clean Water Act. Following the end of the scoping period, the Corps
    established a detailed schedule with the steps needed for information
    gathering and review. These include the collection of information
    associated with compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
    Preservation Act. The updated schedule includes more accurate review
    and comment periods on relevant documents for cooperating agencies,
    federally recognized Tribes, and Section 106 consulting parties. The
    updated schedule also provides for robust Tribal consultation as
    outlined in Presidential directives and in the memo from the Office of
    the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. The updated
    schedule delivers an open, transparent and public process that
    objectively evaluates alternatives to render a decision within the
    scope of the Corps' authorities.
        DAPL has requested the Corps to issue an easement under the Mineral
    Leasing Act to cross Corps-managed Federal land at Lake Oahe. Tribal
    engagement and consultation regarding the DAPL crossing of Lake Oahe is
    critical to fulfilling the Corps' NEPA requirements, including
    coordinating with various Tribes and the State of North Dakota. The
    Corps extended the schedule to specifically ensure that Tribal concerns
    were heard, understood, and addressed in the Draft Environmental Impact
    Statement.
        Question. The U.S. Army Corps' mission is to, ``deliver vital
    engineering solutions, in collaboration with our partners, to secure
    our Nation, energize our economy, and reduce disaster risk.'' Do you
    agree that an efficient and reliable permitting process is needed to
    support this mission? Given that multiple projects under review by the
    agency are impacted by delays that drive up project costs, how can we
    make the permitting process more predictable and reduce the risk of
    litigation, while maintaining reasonable environmental safeguards?
        Answer. Yes, the Corps agrees that an efficient and reliable
    permitting process is needed to support Corps missions. The Section 408
    program verifies alterations to authorized Corps civil works projects
    will not be injurious to the public interest and will not impair the
    usefulness of the project. In September 2018, Engineer Circular 1165-2-
    220 was issued, which provides clarification and a more formal process,
    including delegation of all decisions from Headquarters, elimination of
    the 60% minimum design requirement so information requirements can be
    scaled to the scope of the request, and a 30-day Completeness Review
    and 90-Day Technical review and decision timeline for each 408 request.
    The mission of the Regulatory Program is to protect the Nation's
    aquatic resources and navigation capacity while allowing reasonable
    development through fair and balanced decisions. The Program's ``end
    state'' is to issue balanced, timely, and transparent regulatory
    decisions, rooted in sound science and compliant with applicable laws.
    The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law allocated an additional $160 million
    to the national regulatory program to assist in eliminating the backlog
    of old actions, re-invigorate initiatives that will ultimately help
    streamline the processes, become more transparent, technologically
    advanced, public focused, and timelier in making final permit
    decisions.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Bill Hagerty
        Question. Last time you were before this Subcommittee, we discussed
    border wall construction policy and contracts. At the time, you told me
    there were roughly 20 vendors with which the Corps of Engineers was
    negotiating with to terminate contracts related to a misguided
    executive order issued on January 20, 2021. I have heard from small
    businesses in Tennessee who have been affected by often contradicting
    directives--between USACE directed pauses and termination from the
    Corps. This company tells me that to date, no action has been taken on
    the Termination for Convenience Settlement Proposal. The Army Corps of
    Engineers failure has had real consequences and inflicted real pain on
    small businesses including those in Tennessee.
        Has USACE paid any contractor for ``standby time'' ordered under
    Section 1 of the Proclamation, which required a ``Pause in Construction
    and Obligation of Funds'' at the Border Wall. If the USG did issue a
    standby directive and contractors have not been paid for complying with
    the USACE directive, what authority does the USACE have to withhold
    payments?
        Answer. The agency is not withholding payments. We are evaluating
    requests, to include properly submitted requests for costs associated
    with ``standby time,'' following the process prescribed in the Federal
    Acquisition Regulation (FAR). As part of the process, requests must be
    submitted in compliance with the FAR and are audited by the Defense
    Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) before the contracting officer can make a
    determination regarding payment to prime contractors. The Corps has
    made payments to some contractors for standby costs in accordance with
    the process described above.
        Question. Are there funds included in the USACE appropriations
    funding requests, specifically intended to make Contractors whole for
    contract `pauses' and subsequent terminations in 2021 for work
    performed at the Border Wall?
        Answer. There are no Corps-specific appropriations requests to
    execute the southern border barrier program. The border barrier program
    is funded with Department of Homeland Security appropriations, Army
    Operations and Maintenance funds (through 10 USC 284), and Military
    Construction funds (through 10 USC 2808). Under each of these lines of
    appropriation, there are obligated, but unexpended funds that may be
    utilized to pay allowable, allocable, and reasonable suspension and
    termination costs.
        Question. What are the funding mechanisms available to ensure
    timely and prompt payment of outstanding monies due as a result of the
    USACE's contract `pauses' and subsequent termination of Contracts under
    the Proclamation?
        Answer. Prime contractors have an obligation to submit complete and
    fully supported termination and equitable adjustment requests in a
    timely manner in accordance with the FAR. Simultaneously, Federal
    agencies have an obligation to evaluate such requests with assistance
    from DCAA as needed. Incomplete or unsupported requests can delay
    evaluation. Once the Corps determines that a contractor is entitled to
    compensation, the contractor submits a formal request for payment,
    which would be subject to the Prompt Payment Act. All parties are
    expected to act in good faith to resolve equitable adjustment requests
    and termination settlement proposals.
        Question. Why has the Government failed to respond (pay, reject,
    etc.) to standby work invoices and or respond to numerous formal
    requests for Information concerning the status of these invoices?
        Answer. The Corps is evaluating termination settlement proposals,
    including any costs asserted in connection with ``standby time,''
    following the process prescribed in the FAR. As part of the evaluation
    process, requests submitted in compliance with the FAR are audited by
    DCAA before the contracting officer can make a determination regarding
    payment to prime contractors. USACE strives to respond in a prompt
    manner to all prime contractor inquiries. All communication regarding
    subcontractor information requests and compensation must be with our
    prime contractors.
        Question. Why did USACE Fort Worth District mandate that all
    Contractors stop work and remain in standby mode on 20 January 2021,
    and also order them ``Not to demobilize,'' yet USACE refused to provide
    a new contract line item level (CLIN) or line item authorizing payment
    for the unilateral orders for this ``new'' standby mode, whereby all
    contractors would have been able to invoice and get paid for this work?
        Answer. Pursuant to the Presidential Proclamation dated 20 January
    2021, USACE temporarily suspended all border barrier contracts and
    paused immediately the obligation of funds related to construction of
    the southern border wall. The suspension notices covered demobilization
    activities to prevent or minimize further obligation of funds.
        Contractors seeking ``standby'' costs would do so by making a
    request under the suspension of work clause asserting an unreasonable
    period of suspension, or, if appropriate, as part of a termination
    settlement proposal. Establishing a new CLIN to reimburse contractors
    for valid suspension costs is not the appropriate mechanism to address
    this matter.
        Question. Does the USACE have sufficient funding to cover all costs
    associated with Executive Order 13767?
        Answer. The precise costs of suspension and termination of these
    contracts will be determined via negotiations with each prime
    contractor. As described above, the termination process includes a
    submission of a complete and adequate termination settlement proposal
    by each prime contractor, audit by DCAA, evaluation by the Corps, and
    culminates with negotiation of a fair and reasonable settlement amount.
    It is only when this process is completed for each contract that the
    Corps can determine whether the funds currently available are
    sufficient to cover all costs associated with the suspension and
    termination of these contracts.
        How does the USACE, plan to keep this committee informed on its
    progress to resolve these payment issues to small businesses negatively
    impacted by these contradicting directives?
        Answer. Upon request, the Corps can inform the committee as
    termination settlement negotiations for border barrier contractors are
    finalized and any required contract modifications executed. Any
    payments made by the Corps will be to prime contractors. Please note
    that most small businesses working on USACE border barrier contracts
    are subcontractors.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Susan M. Collins
        Question. Proposed Change to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Maine
    General Permit. I have heard concerns from constituents in Maine about
    changes proposed by the New England District (NAE) to the Maine General
    Permit. The NAE uses state general permits in each New England state
    rather than the nationwide regulatory permits. NAE is proposing updates
    to the Mitigation Standard Operating Procedures in a manner that would
    significantly affect the Maine General Permit, which was last updated
    in 2020. Under the changes being developed, the threshold at which
    compensatory mitigation for adverse impacts to aquatic resources is
    triggered in Maine would be reduced from 15,000 square feet to 5,000
    square feet. My constituents are concerned about the financial burden
    of these changes on many Maine residents and small businesses.
    According to one licensed site evaluator in Maine, if a home builder in
    Cumberland County wants to construct a driveway to his property that
    has a 5,200 square foot wetland impact, the home builder would owe the
    Corps $75 for the permit fee. Under the changes being developed, that
    same home builder would be faced with $30,576 in wetland compensation
    fees in addition to the $75 permit fee. NAE has told local stakeholders
    that this change is necessary because approximately 110 acres of
    wetlands, representing 0.00048% of the land area in Maine, have been
    lost over the last 5 years without compensatory mitigation.
        While conserving our wetlands is important, is the Corps aware of
    the substantial financial impacts this change to the mitigation
    threshold would have on Maine residents and businesses?
        Answer. The New England District has considered the regulated
    public's needs in its determination to modify its mitigation policy.
    The Corps' regulatory mission requires that the Corps balance
    reasonable development while protecting aquatic resources. The change
    to establish the compensatory mitigation requirement for impacts
    greater than 5,000 aligns with neighboring states and the Corps'
    national program. This consistency brings predictability, which has
    tremendous public service value. The Corps' mitigation policy does not
    preclude the need to consider mitigation requirements on a case-by-case
    basis. The Corps will make every effort to ensure that we work closely
    with the public during this transition.
        The fee referenced by the site evaluator is for the purchase of
    mitigation credits through Maine's compensatory mitigation provider,
    Maine Natural Resource Conservation Program (MNRCP). The Corps'
    affiliation with MNRCP is to ensure that the compensatory mitigation
    projects that are constructed as a result of the sale of credits are
    consistent with the 2008 Mitigation Rule. Applicants sometimes prefer
    this mitigation method as it is quick and shifts the responsibility to
    provide compensatory mitigation to MNRCP. However, there is no
    requirement from the Corps to utilize this program.
        Permit applicants can propose their own compensatory mitigation for
    impacts to aquatic resources. This can be fulfilled by restoring,
    enhancing, creating, or preserving wetlands onsite or offsite.
    Compensatory mitigation is only an option if unavoidable adverse
    impacts remain after all appropriate and practicable avoidance and
    minimization has been achieved.
        Question. Why is every state in New England required to have the
    same permit when the states have such vastly different financial,
    geographical, and natural resources?
        Answer. Every New England state operates under a different set of
    General Permits that considers the economic, geographic, and resource
    differences across the states, yet the programs of each state need to
    operate within the same framework within the New England district.
    General Permits can be tailored to a specific state to ensure the
    process is streamlined and reduces duplication with the State agencies.
    General Permits recognize the role that states play in addressing
    certain components of the Corps regulatory review, including compliance
    with laws governing water quality certification and coastal zone
    management. The General Permits are available for impacts that will not
    result in more than minimal individual and cumulative impacts to the
    aquatic environment.
        The New England District's accountability for consistency and
    transparency is not limited to the six states in its area of
    responsibility, but also with the other 41 Corps districts and nine
    divisions located throughout the United States and associated
    territories. In 2007, the Corps published the Nationwide Permits
    (NWPs), establishing that compensatory mitigation would be required
    when adverse impacts exceed 0.10 acre (4,356 SF) to ensure that no more
    than minimal individual and cumulative impacts occur. This standard
    remains in current NWPs. The NWPs mitigation threshold allows for
    reasonable development and provides a tool for avoidance, minimization,
    and compensation. The revision of the district's mitigation standard
    operating procedures would allow the district to be more consistent
    with national policy and ensure the continued use of all New England
    district General Permits.
        Question. Camp Ellis Beach. Section 8342 of the Water Resources
    Development Act of 2022, enacted in December 2022, increased the
    maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended for the Camp Ellis
    Continuing Authorities Program project in Saco, Maine. Work cannot
    begin on this project until a Project Partnership Agreement is signed.
        What is the timeline for signing the Project Partnership Agreement?
        Answer. The Corps is expeditiously developing a Project Partnership
    Agreement (PPA). Upon approval, the Corps will provide it to the City
    of Saco for review and execution.
        Question. Can you commit to prioritizing this project?
        Answer. Yes.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Britt. We stand adjourned. Thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 3:04 p.m., Wednesday, April 26, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
    the Chair.]

        ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024

                                  ----------

                             WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 2023

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:03 a.m. in room 192, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Patty Murray (chair) presiding.
        Present: Senators Murray, Tester, Durbin, Shaheen, Merkley,
    Coons, Baldwin, Heinrich, Kennedy, McConnell, Murkowski,
    Graham, Hoeven, Hyde-Smith, Hagerty, and Britt.

                              DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                            Office of the Secretary

    STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID TURK, DEPUTY SECRETARY
    ACCOMPANIED BY HON. JILL HRUBY, UNDER SECRETARY FOR NUCLEAR SECURITY,
                ADMINISTRATOR OF THE NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY
                ADMINISTRATION

                   OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATTY MURRAY

        Senator Murray. The Hearing of the Senate Appropriations
    Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development will, please, come
    to order.
        We are here today to talk about President Biden's fiscal
    year 2024 budget request for the Department of Energy,
    including the National Nuclear Security Administration.
        As Senator Feinstein, of course, continues her recovery, I
    want to thank Ranking Member Kennedy for being flexible and
    working with me to keep these hearings rolling, and keep our
    appropriations process on track.
        For our country to keep families safe and stay competitive,
    and my colleagues have heard me say this many times now, ``. .
    . we have to work in a timely, bipartisan way, and live up to
    our responsibility here to provide the funding our Nations
    needs.''
        That is why it is so important that we are continuing to
    hold these hearings and return to regular order for the first
    time in years. After all, our competitors, like China, are not
    waiting for us to work out our differences and fund our
    government, and they certainly aren't considering trashing
    their Nation's credit, or cutting the investments that keep
    them competitive, like some House Republicans are suggesting we
    do.
        Our adversaries are doing everything they can to get ahead.
    So, if we are going to continue to lead on the world stage, we
    have to lock arms, work together, and make sure our funding
    keeps pace at this critical moment. And if we want to stay
    ahead we can't just focus on defense spending, we have to
    invest in the many other programs that keep our country strong,
    and safe, and competitive.
        Today's hearing is a prime example, because the work
    happening across the Department of Energy has tremendous
    implications for our national security and our global
    competitiveness. The Department of Energy supports critical
    programs to keep our energy supplies cheap, clean, and abundant
    so people can go about their day, and everyone, from mom and
    pop shops, to large corporations, can do their business.
        DOE (Department of Energy) keeps our energy grid secure, it
    reduces our dependence on foreign energy, it drives down energy
    prices, and a lot more. And the Department is leading the way
    on scientific discoveries, supporting cutting-edge research,
    like the research happening at the Pacific Northwest National
    Lab in my Home State of Washington. Advancements within our
    national lab system, like those we regularly see at PNNL
    (Pacific Northwest National Lab), send a message to the world
    that our Nation is still a global leader in scientific
    discovery.
        It is also a reminder to us all why we must continue
    investing in research. We cannot seed ground and let countries
    like China get ahead of us and capitalize on the defining
    discoveries of the future. As long as those discoveries are
    happening in America, then the jobs that follow should stay in
    America too. And I am sure we all agree on that.
        The Department has a key role in this, as it does in
    helping our country lead in the green energy space. The climate
    crisis is a national security threat, an economic threat, and
    if we invest in research, in green manufacturing, and bringing
    those jobs here to our shores, it is also an opportunity to
    make sure the U.S. remains the energy superpower of the 21st
    century.
        Congress has made promising progress on this in recent
    legislation, between investments in hydrogen power in the
    Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the Inflation Reduction Act's
    policy to usher in a boom in green manufacturing for batteries,
    and electric vehicles, and more, and advancements in
    fundamental scientific research through the CHIPS (Creating
    Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors) and Science Act
    authorizations.
        But there is more work to be done. And this budget request
    shows the Biden Administration is committed to making the
    investments we need to maintain our competitive edge. I am
    pleased to see President Biden is calling for healthy increases
    for the Department of Energy, so we can improve our grid, an
    existing energy infrastructure, develop and deploy new
    technologies, lower our emissions and tackle the climate
    crisis, and of course, safely, maintain our nuclear resources.
        I am also pleased that yesterday DOE, Washington State
    Department of Ecology, and EPA (Environmental Protection
    Agency), announced the conceptual agreement in Hanford Site
    Holistic Negotiations. I look forward to receiving some
    detailed briefings regarding the actual terms and revisions,
    alongside my colleagues in the Washington State Delegation.
        To that end, while I am glad to see this budget request
    includes the largest proposal ever, to see the essential
    cleanup efforts at Hanford Site in Washington State, I am
    concerned that at the same time this budget increases nuclear
    weapons activities by 10 percent, while increasing nuclear
    nonproliferation and environmental cleanup efforts by less than
    1 percent.
        These programs are too important to be treated as an
    afterthought. Just as safely maintaining our Nuclear Weapons
    Program is a critical responsibility, so are our
    nonproliferation and legacy nuclear waste cleanup efforts which
    help keep risks in check.
        So, I look forward to discussing with our witnesses, how we
    make thoughtful choices here, and make sure our nuclear
    deterrence, energy advancements, and research enterprise, are
    getting the funds that they need, because the Department of
    Energy does play an absolutely crucial role in protecting our
    country, and helping us stay in motion, stay competitive, and
    stay ahead of competitors, like China, that are close on our
    heels.
        Thank you. And with that, I will turn it over to Ranking
    Member Kennedy.

                       STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN KENNEDY

        Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Madam ``Double'' Chair. I agree
    with just about everything my colleague said, except for the
    part where she criticized Republicans, but other than that--She
    did say so. I want to thank all of you for being here. I just
    wanted to share a few general thoughts with you. In America you
    can believe what you want, but I am a big believer in free will
    and responsibility.
        A French philosopher of the last century, very famous,
    tough to read, but if you plow through his works he had a lot
    to say. Called Jean-Paul Sartre, said, ``To be is to act''. He
    said, ``All we are is the sum of actions''. And so, despite
    what we say, what you do is what you believe, and frankly,
    everything else is just cottage cheese.
        Now, in government, where you spend your money is what you
    believe. Forget the rhetoric, follow the money. Follow the
    money. I am a big believer in using--and I think it is the
    answer to many, not just of the problems of the United States,
    but our neighbors' problems across the world, at least in terms
    of energy. I believe that we should use technology to make all
    forms of energy more available, cheaper, and cleaner, all forms
    of energy.
        I support green energy, I support nuclear, I support
    hydroelectric energy, I support geothermal, I support oil and
    gas, in terms of trying to provide for a cleaner environment I
    think it is worth pursuing geoengineering.
        And I say all of that because I look at your proposed
    budget, keeping in mind, that what you do is what you believe,
    and in government, where you spend your money is what you
    believe. You are proposing that we increase funding for green
    energy by 38 percent, I support green energy, I think it is
    going to have to learn how to stand on its own two feet, but I
    support it. But you only increase funding for fossil energy by
    2 percent, and you actually cut nuclear energy funding by 12
    percent.
        Now, pull up that first slide for me. Here, I will just
    hold it.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Kennedy. This is from your website, okay, ``Nuclear
    Power is Most Reliable Energy Source and it is Not Even
    Close'', and that is true, particularly in terms of capacity
    factor. Okay.
        So, how come you are not funding it that way? How come? I
    mean, these advanced, small, modular nuclear reactors have
    enormous potential. And if I read, this is part of your
    website, I would say, wow, the Department agrees. But your
    proposal for funding falls millions and millions and millions
    of dollars short.
        LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas), LNG, do you know what most
    countries do when they don't have natural gas, they use coal,
    they burn wood. We should be encouraging LNG. I am hoping to
    hear today what you are doing to make--to cut some of the red
    tape.
        But those are my general thoughts. I don't want to end on a
    negative note. Thank you for being here. I am looking forward
    to your testimony.
        And I am thinking about Senator Feinstein, and Secretary
    Granholm, if they are listening now--well if they are listening
    now I would tell them both to get a life, okay--but if they--
    but I just want them to know that I hope they are feeling
    better. And I look forward to seeing both of them back soon.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Ranking Member
    Kennedy.
        I will now briefly introduce our panel. We have David Turk,
    Deputy Secretary of the Department of Energy, who is here
    filling in for Secretary Granholm who, we all hope is feeling
    better, and Jill Hruby, Under Secretary for Nuclear Security,
    Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration.
        We will begin with the witness testimony from Deputy
    Secretary Turk. You have 5 minutes for your testimony.

                      SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID TURK

        Mr. Turk. Well, Chair Murray, Ranking Member Kennedy,
    Members of the Committee, I am honored to be with you all today
    to discuss the President's fiscal year 2024 budget request for
    the Department of Energy.
        Over the past 2 years, it has been my great privilege, and
    I really want to underline ``privilege'', to support Secretary
    Granholm, to support Administrator Hruby, and all our
    Department of Energy colleagues on our incredibly, incredibly
    important missions.
        And thank you, Senator Kennedy, for the well wishes. And
    our Chair as well, for Secretary Granholm. I just spoke with
    her before this hearing. I think she is actually paying
    attention to this hearing, just because she is so dedicated to
    the cause, but she is feeling much better. And I am happy to be
    here.
        Senator Kennedy. I think there are some Jeopardy reruns on,
    which would be much more interesting.
        Mr. Turk. And we all thank you, all of us at the
    Department, thank you for your leadership and support, from
    strengthening our energy security, reshoring our supply chains,
    catalyzing American innovation through cutting-edge research
    and development, including in our labs, like PNNL, that Chair
    Murray knows so well, to maintaining a strong nuclear
    deterrent. Together, we have taken critical steps to ensure the
    United States can outmaneuver aggressors, out-compete our
    rivals, and create new jobs and opportunities for all our
    people.
        The President's budget request for fiscal year 2024 will
    empower us to drive these endeavors forward, even in the face
    of emerging and historic challenges.
        And I completely agree with you, Chair Murray, on how
    critical this moment is, right now, in particular.
        Vladimir Putin has injected extreme volatility into global
    markets, and left working people in the United States, and I
    would say around the world as well, to bear higher energy
    costs. In response, we are pursuing a strategy of energy
    security through partnerships and energy diversity. We are
    aggressively tackling climate change head-on like never before
    in our country's history, thanks to the historic legislation
    passed in the last Congress.
        Congress, in fact, has made the United States the world's
    most attractive destination for investment and clean energy. We
    are backing unprecedented deployment of cost-competitive clean
    technologies, solar, wind, electric vehicle storage, we are
    funding demonstration like never before of next-generation
    dispatchable sources, clean hydrogen, advanced nuclear, and
    carbon capture.
        We are building a more resilient, reliable grid that can
    integrate these clean solutions, while better weathering
    disruptions, and cyber attacks, and we are shoring up our
    supply chains so that no adversaries will be able to threaten
    our access to energy. And that is all to the benefit of
    American companies, American communities and American workers.
        Over the past 2 years, for example, planned investments in
    America's battery, solar, and wind supply chains have reached
    over $100 billion.
        This will support thousands and thousands of new jobs
    across our country, and it will allow Americans to take pride
    in purchasing technology stamped, ``Made in the USA.''
        We know that we also need to double down even further on
    science and innovation. This is not the time to back off our
    science efforts, it is the time to double down on that part of
    our portfolio.
        In fact, we are proposing the largest ever budget for our
    Office of Science, including over $1 billion for fusion
    research. Our Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management is
    advancing a suite of CCUS (Carbon capture, utilization and
    storage) technologies, as well as technologies for recovering
    critical minerals from carbon sources. The more we can improve
    performance, reduce costs, the faster we can deploy, lowering
    bills, and improving the lives of our fellow Americans.
        This budget also prioritizes DOE's National Security
    responsibilities. Russia's aggression and China's nuclear
    expansion have reinforced the essential role of nuclear
    deterrence.
        In response, the President requested an appropriation for
    NNSA (National Nuclear Security Administration) that supports
    the simultaneous modernization of our stockpile and our
    infrastructure. Importantly, the budget will also allow the
    NNSA to build the Federal workforce needed to meet our
    increasing mission requirements, a particular priority for
    Administrator Hruby, appropriate priority, in my judgment.
        And the request would deepen activities regarding arms
    control, nonproliferation, counterterrorism, and the safe use
    of civil nuclear power.
        In addition, this budget also requests over $8 billion for
    environmental management. This funding allows us to treat
    radioactive tank waste, and address contamination issues at
    Hanford, and across all of our sites.
        And as our Chair knows, and just recognized, yesterday we
    reached a milestone, in announcing a conceptual agreement
    between us, the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), and
    Washington State's Department of Ecology, for how we will
    manage millions of gallons of tank waste at the Hanford site in
    a safe, effective, and achievable manner. And thank you, Chair,
    for all your leadership on this issue, for many, many years.
        Lastly, I want to particularly highlight a small but very
    vital portion of our budget, ``departmental administration'',
    this covers a broad range of work critical to our success,
    including independent data analysis, policy coordination,
    financial management, general counsel, internal safety and
    security and cross office coordination, something particularly
    important in a Department of our size.
        While this account amounts to just over 2.8 percent over
    fiscal year 2024 request, your support here has an outsized
    benefit on achieving all of our missions.
        Let me conclude with another thank you for your past and
    for your future support for all that the Department of Energy,
    and our passionate, our dedicated team, have done, and can do
    further to help our fellow Americans.
        Administrator Hruby, and I, look forward to all of your
    questions.
        [The statement follows:]
                      Prepared Statement of David M. Turk
        Chair Murray, Ranking Member Kennedy, and Members of the Committee,
    it is an honor to appear before you today to discuss the President's
    Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 Budget request for the Department of Energy
    (``the Department'' or ``DOE'').
        Serving the American people as the Deputy Secretary of Energy, I am
    entrusted with the awesome responsibility to lead a highly talented DOE
    workforce. I am continuously amazed by their steadfast dedication to
    our mission and the innovative solutions they bring to some of our
    nation's most pressing problems. As a result of their tireless efforts,
    the Department has made significant strides in ensuring America's
    security and prosperity by addressing our energy, environmental, and
    nuclear security challenges through transformative science and
    technology solutions.
        Together, we have advanced the energy, economic, and national
    security of the United States. We are cementing America's place as a
    trailblazer in the clean energy economy of the future and a leader in
    the fight against the climate crisis. The scientists and engineers at
    our National Laboratories, the crown jewels of the nation's research
    and innovation ecosystem, are paving the way for major scientific
    breakthroughs that will have an immeasurable impact on the world we
    live in. Through funding opportunities and in collaboration with
    States, Tribal nations, institutions of higher education, and local
    governments around the country, we are helping to create thousands of
    good-paying jobs in fields that are critical to the success of the
    American economy.
        The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) does
    extraordinary work to maintain a safe, secure, reliable, and effective
    nuclear deterrent, reduce global nuclear threats, and provide our naval
    fleet with militarily effective nuclear propulsion. It has undertaken a
    needed modernization of our nuclear arsenal and the infrastructure used
    for production and science.
        These new capabilities will position us to execute our challenging
    missions well into the future. Working closely with allies and
    partners, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and the
    interagency, NNSA has provided significant support to reduce nuclear
    risks to Ukraine and the surrounding region since the beginning of
    Russia's further invasion of Ukraine over 1 year ago.
        The Department is committed to advancing this Administration's
    energy, climate, and nuclear security and nonproliferation goals. I
    want to thank Congress for the ongoing, bipartisan support for the
    Department of Energy. The Secretary and I look forward to working
    closely with the Committee as you consider the FY 2024 Budget for DOE.
                                 budget topline
        DOE's FY 2024 Budget Request is $51.99 billion, an increase of $6
    billion (13.6 percent) over the FY 2023 enacted level. The Budget
    addresses some of the critical opportunities we face, making historic
    investments in cutting-edge research at National Laboratories,
    strengthening the Nation's nuclear security enterprise, creating jobs,
    reducing health and environmental hazards for at-risk communities, and
    strengthening the cybersecurity and resilience of the energy sector,
    including advancing critical climate goals. This is urgent work DOE is
    uniquely prepared to continue.
       making historic investments in cutting-edge research at national
                         laboratories and universities
        Within the historic investment of $23.8 billion for NNSA, funding
    builds on cutting edge science for NNSA's laboratories to contribute
    beyond the enduring nuclear missions. For example, the FY 2024 Budget
    Request includes funding to recapitalize radiation and major
    environmental test facilities at Sandia National Laboratories used to
    design and qualify Non-Nuclear Capabilities; and prioritizes the High
    Explosives Science and Engineering facility at Pantex, including
    capital equipment purchases, construction, and transition to operate.
        The FY 2024 Budget Request will also continue funding maturation of
    next-generation simulation and computing technologies. Additionally, El
    Capitan, the first exascale computer for national security, is expected
    to come online at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory this year. At
    over two exaflops it will, for a time, be the world's most powerful
    supercomputer.
        The Budget also provides $8.8 billion for the Office of Science,
    advancing toward the authorized level in the CHIPS and Science Act to
    support cutting-edge research at the DOE National Laboratories and the
    Department's university partners, and to build and operate world-class
    scientific user facilities.
        The Office of Science is uniquely positioned within the Federal R&D
    structure to capitalize on these investments today to enhance our
    nation's innovation capabilities and expand to harness its full
    research potential from this baseline. This level of funding would
    support critical advancements in emerging technologies like Quantum
    Information Science, Artificial Intelligence, and the potential of
    nuclear fusion. These are all promising game changing technologies for
    which the National Labs already have strong programs and user
    facilities.
        Within funding for Science, the Budget provides: over $1 billion to
    achieve fusion on the decadal timescale; provides new computing insight
    through quantum information science and artificial intelligence that
    addresses scientific and environmental challenges; expands innovation
    in the microelectronics ecosystem; leverages data, analytics, and
    computational infrastructure to strengthen and support U.S. biodefense
    and pandemic preparedness strategies and plans; furthers the Nation's
    understanding of climate change; and positions the United States to
    meet the demand for isotopes.
        Finally, the Budget proposes $35 million in the Office of Energy
    Efficiency and Renewable Energy to initiate planning, outreach, and
    proposal solicitation for a new national laboratory at a Historically
    Black College and University, Tribal College and University, or
    Minority Serving Institution. This 18th national lab is expected to
    focus on a just and equitable transition for all communities and
    advancing diversity in the STEM workforce; the lab's expected work will
    be relevant to EERE's mission given its long history of supporting
    place-based analytical work, research and development, and community
    engagement and investment in disadvantaged and marginalized
    communities.
               creating jobs building clean energy infrastructure
        The Budget invests nearly $1.2 billion to support clean energy
    workforce and infrastructure projects across the Nation, including $425
    million to weatherize and retrofit low-income homes, $83 million to
    electrify tribal homes and transition tribal colleges and universities
    to renewable energy, and $107 million for the Grid Deployment Office to
    support utilities and State and local governments in building a grid
    that is more reliable and resilient and that integrates accelerating
    levels of renewable energy. The newly established Office of State and
    Community Energy Programs will launch a new Energy Burden Reduction
    Pilot with $50 million to retrofit low-income homes with efficient
    electrical appliances and systems. These investments, which complement
    and build upon the extraordinary funding in the Infrastructure
    Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), will
    create good-paying jobs while driving progress toward the
    Administration's climate goals, including carbon pollution-free
    electricity by 2035.
                          advancing energy innovation
        To support U.S. preeminence in developing innovative technologies
    that accelerate the transition to a clean energy economy, the Budget
    invests $9.4 billion, an increase of more than 19.7 percent over the
    2023 enacted level of $7.8 billion, in DOE clean energy research,
    development, and demonstration. These investments would improve clean
    power technologies, strengthen clean energy-enabling transmission and
    distribution systems, decarbonize transportation, advance carbon
    management technologies, and improve energy efficiency in industry and
    buildings. This funding would also leverage the tremendous innovation
    capacity of the National Laboratories, universities, and entrepreneurs
    to transform America's power, transportation, buildings, and industrial
    sectors.
                    accelerating industrial decarbonization
        Across the more than $1.2 billion in discretionary DOE industrial
    decarbonization activities, the Budget reflects the importance of
    strategically supporting U.S. industrial decarbonization through
    innovation, targeted investment, and technical assistance. The Budget
    supports an across-DOE Industrial Technologies joint strategy team to
    drive adoption of industrial decarbonization solutions including
    through the Office of Manufacturing and Energy Supply Chains. It also
    supports expanded research and development efforts in the Office of
    Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's Industrial Efficiency and
    Decarbonization Office. Within the $1.2 billion mentioned above, the
    Budget includes $160 million for the Office of Clean Energy
    Demonstrations to support at least two large-scale industrial
    decarbonization projects.
      strengthening domestic and international clean energy supply chains
        The Budget includes a $75 million investment to launch a Global
    Clean Energy Manufacturing effort within the Office of Manufacturing
    and Energy Supply Chains that would build resilient supply chains for
    energy sector components critical to national and energy security
    through engagement with allies, enabling an effective global response
    to the climate crisis while creating economic opportunities for the
    United States to support the global clean technology market.
        In addition, the Administration supports the use of the Defense
    Production Act at DOE to support rebuilding domestic uranium production
    and enrichment capacity to establish a secure supply for the Nation's
    current and future nuclear fleet and also to reduce reliance on foreign
    supplies of uranium, as well as other clean energy technologies to
    ensure robust supply chains for electrical transformers and other
    critical grid components. The Budget also includes $75 million in the
    Office of Manufacturing and Energy Supply Chains for DOE to carry out
    the President's recent determinations under the Defense Production Act.
        reduces health and environmental hazards for at-risk communities
        The Budget includes $8.3 billion for the Environmental Management
    program and reflects this Administration's strong commitment to clean
    up and protect communities that supported defense production programs
    and government-sponsored nuclear energy research. As the largest
    environmental cleanup program in the world, Environmental Management
    plays a key role in cleaning the environment, contributing to national
    security priorities, investing in the future and aiding community
    efforts to build strong economies, growing jobs, and preparing for a
    clean energy future. This investment will enable the Department of
    Energy to treat radioactive tank waste, take down contaminated
    buildings, and ship and dispose legacy waste and clean soil and
    groundwater across Environmental Management sites.
        The Budget includes broad support for underserved communities,
    including $70 million for Community Capacity Building Initiatives in
    the Office of Environmental Management and NNSA, to address areas of
    persistent poverty around the Department's sites.
        The Budget also includes $196 million for the Office of Legacy
    Management to protect human health and the environment by providing
    long-term management solutions at over 100 World War II and Cold War
    era sites where the Federal Government operated, researched, produced,
    and tested nuclear weapons and/or conducted scientific and engineering
    research.
      strengthening the cybersecurity and resilience of the energy sector
        The Budget provides $245 million for the Office of Cybersecurity,
    Energy Security, and Emergency Response to enhance the security of
    energy technologies and the energy supply chain. The Budget supports
    increased assistance to States, local governments, Tribes, and
    Territories for emergency planning and preparation, including for
    events caused by the impacts of climate change. An additional $301
    million is provided for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, including
    $49.8 million in additional funding for the Major Maintenance Program
    for required upgrades to the West Hackberry Physical Security Program.
             strengthening the nation's nuclear security enterprise
        The Budget makes a historic investment of $23.8 billion for the
    Nation's nuclear security enterprise to implement the integrated
    deterrent described in the President's Nuclear Security Strategy, the
    National Defense Strategy, and the accompanying Nuclear Posture Review
    (NPR) through support for a safe, secure, reliable, and effective
    nuclear stockpile combined with nuclear nonproliferation, arms control,
    and counterterrorism. In addition, the Budget continues robust,
    executable funding for the recapitalization of NNSA's physical
    infrastructure, including essential scientific and production
    facilities to ensure the deterrent remains viable without underground
    explosive nuclear testing.
        NNSA has a broad and complex array of priorities that reflect its
    expanded mission and the necessity to adapt in today's changing
    international environment. Our nuclear deterrent remains the
    cornerstone of our national defense and an assurance for our allies
    around the globe. NNSA is currently undertaking five warhead
    modernization programs and a major infrastructure revitalization
    effort. Once complete, NNSA's modernized infrastructure will enable us
    to maintain a safe, secure, and reliable stockpile in the face of a
    wide array of challenges.
        Simultaneously, NNSA is continuing progress on its nuclear
    security, nonproliferation, and counterterrorism efforts. These
    critical programs ensure that we are aligned with our allies and
    partners to prevent an arms race, advance global stability, thwart
    state and non-state actors from acquiring nuclear weapons capabilities,
    and enhance U.S. and global security.
    Stockpile Management
        The Budget proposes $5.2 billion in FY 2024 for Stockpile
    Management to maintain a safe, secure, reliable, and effective nuclear
    deterrent through five areas that directly support the Nation's nuclear
    weapons stockpile: stockpile major modernization, stockpile
    sustainment, weapons dismantlement and disposition, production
    operations, and nuclear enterprise assurance. The Budget incorporates
    $3.1 billion for five major modernization programs that extend the
    lifetime of the Nation's nuclear stockpile, enhancing security and
    safety features, and meet modern deterrence needs.
    Production Modernization
        The Budget includes $5.6 billion for Production Modernization to
    support modernizing the facilities, infrastructure, and equipment that
    produce materials and components to meet stockpile requirements and
    maintain the Nation's nuclear deterrent. The program encompasses five
    components critical to weapon performance and sustainment of the
    Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile: primary capability modernization,
    secondary capability modernization, tritium and domestic uranium
    enrichment, non-nuclear component modernization, and capability-based
    investments. The Budget includes $2.8 billion to reestablish the
    Nation's capability to produce 80 plutonium pits per year as close to
    2030 as possible and continue ongoing plutonium operations at Los
    Alamos National Laboratory.
    Stockpile Research, Technology and Engineering
        The Budget incorporates $3.2 billion for Stockpile Research,
    Technology, and Engineering to provide the scientific foundation for
    stockpile decisions and actions; develop the expert personnel required
    to support the current and future stockpile; and provide the
    capabilities, tools, and components needed to support all missions. The
    funding includes $1 billion in assessment sciences, which funds
    experiments focused on design and production requirements, continues
    the implementation of the Enhanced Capabilities for Subcritical
    Experiments (ECSE) subprogram, and $782 million for Advanced Simulation
    and Computing, which is preparing for NNSA's first exascale high-
    performance computing capability.
    Infrastructure and Operations
        The Budget proposes $2.8 billion for Infrastructure and Operations
    to maintain, operate, and modernize NNSA infrastructure in a safe and
    secure manner that supports program execution while maximizing return
    on investment and reducing enterprise risk. Of this amount, $650
    million is included for infrastructure recapitalization to improve the
    condition and extend the design life of structures, capabilities, and
    systems to meet program demands; reduce future operating costs by
    replacing older facilities with new, more efficient facilities; and
    reduce safety, security, environment, and program risk. The budget
    includes funding for the initial phase of the Kansas City Non-nuclear
    Expansion Transformation (KC NExT), a multi-year effort to increase
    manufacturing capacity to support the nuclear modernization program.
    The budget also includes $718 million in Maintenance and Repair for
    predictive, preventive, and corrective maintenance activities to
    maintain facilities, property, assets, systems, roads, and vital safety
    systems.
       restoring american leadership in arms control and nonproliferation
        The Budget includes $2.5 billion for NNSA to reduce nuclear risks
    and counter the global challenge of nuclear proliferation. As called
    for in the National Security Strategy, the Budget funds
    nonproliferation and nuclear risk reduction-related activities across
    NNSA's Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, Emergency Operations, and
    Counterterrorism and Counterproliferation programs, including programs
    to strengthen the Nation's capability to prevent, counter and respond
    to nuclear incidents at home and abroad. For the first time in our
    history, we face two near-peer nuclear powers in Russia and the
    People's Republic of China (PRC) as well as the expanding nuclear
    programs of North Korea and Iran. Moreover, Russia's war in Ukraine,
    nuclear saber rattling, and recent suspension of the New START Treaty
    are challenging the fundamental framework and principles of the nuclear
    security and nonproliferation regimes at a time when peaceful uses of
    nuclear energy are needed more than ever to address critical climate
    priorities. NNSA is investing in strategic stability, nonproliferation,
    nuclear and emergency preparedness measures--which are even more
    important during times such as these when tensions are high,
    miscalculation is possible, and strategic competition is escalating.
    This Budget also supports the research and development of next-
    generation detection, monitoring and verification tools needed to
    implement high priority efforts, including elements of the Australia-
    United Kingdom-United States (AUKUS) partnership, and prevent strategic
    surprise, supports activities with Ukrainian and regional partners
    associated with radiological and nuclear security, expands efforts in
    safeguards and security for new advanced nuclear power reactors, and
    builds on the bioassurance efforts started in FY 2023.
                           powering the nuclear navy
        The Budget includes $1.96 billion for DOE's Naval Nuclear
    Propulsion Program to ensure safe and reliable operation of reactor
    plants in nuclear-powered submarines and aircraft carriers. The Budget
    prioritizes investments in research and development to maintain
    American dominance while continuing to support improvements to the
    Naval Nuclear Laboratory infrastructure. This includes long lead-time
    technology development for the future nuclear fleet, with support for
    the U.S. Navy's timeline for the next-generation attack submarine.
                      supporting other defense activities
        The Budget provides $1.1 billion to support defense activities
    conducted by the Department including Legacy Management (LM),
    Environment, Health, Safety and Security, Enterprise Assessments,
    Specialized Security Activities, Hearings and Appeals, and Defense
    Related Administrative Support (DRAS). DRAS offsets administrative
    expenses for work supporting defense-oriented activities in
    Departmental Administration.
                          administration and oversight
    Energy Information Agency
        The Budget includes $156.6 million for the Energy Information
    Agency (EIA) to enable EIA to continue delivering the critical energy
    information products on which its stakeholders rely, including weekly
    petroleum and natural gas inventory reports, comprehensive monthly
    forecasts of energy markets, and long-term outlooks for U.S. and global
    energy production and consumption.
    Office of Technology Transitions
        The Budget includes $56.6 million to focus on commercialization of
    promising technologies. This includes funding the Energy Program for
    Innovation Clusters (EPIC) to encourage growth of regional energy
    innovation ecosystems, training National Laboratory scientists and
    engineers on customer outreach and partnership through the private
    sector through Energy I-Corps, supporting an Energy Tech University
    prize, supporting market and commercialization analytics, and
    coordinating tech transfer. Funding is also included within the Budget
    for the Foundation for Energy Security and Innovation to accelerate the
    commercialization of new and existing energy technologies by raising
    and investing funds through engagements with the private sector and
    philanthropic communities.
    Departmental Administration
        The Budget includes $433.5 million for Departmental Administration
    to fund management and mission support organizations that have
    enterprise-wide responsibility for international engagement and
    promotion of global market opportunities, administration, accounting,
    budgeting, contract and project management, human resources,
    congressional and intergovernmental liaison, energy policy, information
    management, life-cycle asset management, legal services, workforce
    diversity and equal employment opportunity, ombudsman services, small
    business advocacy, sustainability, and public affairs. In FY 2024 the
    Budget funds new statistical and trend analysis capabilities within the
    Office of Policy, with support from the Energy Information Agency.
    Office of the Inspector General
        The Budget includes $165.2 million in discretionary authority.
    Also, the Office of the Inspector General would receive funding within
    the Administration's proposed $150 million in mandatory funding.
                                   conclusion
        I want to again thank the Committee for its ongoing and bipartisan
    support for the DOE mission. Thank you for the opportunity to be here
    today. I am happy to answer your questions.

              PROPOSED DOE FUNDING CUTS TO FISCAL YEAR 2022 LEVELS

        Senator Murray. Thank you very much. We will now begin a
    round of 5-minute questions for our panel. I ask my colleagues
    to keep track of the clock and stay within that.
        Deputy Secretary Turk, your budget request for nondefense
    Department of Energy programs recommends a very healthy
    increase for the fiscal year 2023. And that funding, as I said,
    is really critical for programs that support clean energy, and
    environmental cleanup, and scientific discovery, our national
    security, our global competitiveness. It is a lot.
        House Republicans, as you know, have voted to cut overall
    funding back to fiscal year 2022 levels or worse. Can you give
    us some concrete examples of how cutting DOE back to those
    levels will hurt working-class Americans?
        Mr. Turk. Well, thank you, Madam Chair, for the question. I
    will give you three specific examples of what this means, and I
    will compare what the House Republicans are proposing versus
    the fiscal year 2023 enacted; it would be even worse if you
    compared it to what we are proposing in fiscal year 2024, but
    just compared to what is already in law on the baselines.
        So first on consumers, all that we are doing to try to help
    lower energy costs for consumers. What the fiscal year 2022
    level would be is a $62 million cut to weatherization, a
    program incredibly popular. What that translates into is more
    than 12,000 of our fellow Americans not getting the benefits of
    that program, in terms of reducing their energy bills, and
    providing greater efficiency.
        The rebates that was such an important part of the
    legislation that was passed last Congress, and thank you, to
    Senator Heinrich, and Chair Murray, and many others who were
    very supportive of that, this means that American consumers
    will not benefit from those rebates. And our estimates are that
    American consumers, overall, would benefit $1 billion in terms
    of lowering their bills each year, annually, because of that.
    So that will not be out there benefiting consumers across our
    country.
        On the science side, we have done some estimates of what
    that reduction in science, and it is a reduction, it is a
    significant reduction going to that fiscal year 2022 level,
    what that means is we would have to lay off 5,200 scientists,
    and others, who work at our labs.
        It would mean all the science that we were planning to do,
    want to do, need to do to be competitive in the world, just as
    you said, Madam Chair, in terms of China and other countries
    stepping up, we would have less ability to deal with that.
        In fact, we would have 2,600 less users being able to come
    to all of our phenomenal facilities, and they would have to go
    abroad, or somewhere else, to do the science that they want to
    do.
        And then third on the competitiveness side, this is a very
    competitive environment, with China, with other countries
    around the world, all of those provisions in the historic
    legislation passed last year, all those provisions, cutting
    back to the fiscal year 2022 level, at this critical, critical
    moment as we are getting momentum, the $100 billion, I
    mentioned for battery manufacturing, all of that is pulled back
    at this critical moment when we are actually making progress.
        Senator Murray. So, I think it is fair to say that cuts of
    that magnitude would force your Department to really make some
    tradeoffs between key priorities, like keeping pace with our
    competitors' investments in research and innovation, and
    protecting our nuclear arsenal, and a lot more.
        Mr. Turk. Absolutely.

                            HANFORD CLEAN-UP MISSION

        Senator Murray. Okay. Thank you. I was encouraged to see an
    historic request for the Hanford Site in Washington State,
    especially as compared to fiscal year 2023 which was, as we all
    know, completely insufficient, and as I talked about, I am
    pleased that DOE, Washington State, Department of Ecology, and
    EPA have reached that conceptual agreement after more than 60
    mediation sessions.
        In the announcement yesterday, DOE said that the
    President's proposed fiscal year 2024 requests is consistent
    with those conceptual agreements as it relates to tank waste.
    That is great news. But let us remind everybody, the Federal
    Government has a legal and moral obligation to clean up the
    Hanford Site, and protect Hanford workers. I am certain you
    understand how strongly I feel about meeting that obligation.
        So, I am pleased that your budget builds on the progress we
    made at the Office of River Protection, specifically on the
    High Level Waste Facility's Construction, but I am concerned
    that you are taking on unnecessary risks at Hanford's Richland
    Office which, we should just not be robbing Peter to pay Paul.
        Let me ask you what conditions merited the $85.3 million
    decrease to Richland from fiscal year 2023? And what risks
    would we be taking on as a result of that reduced level?
        Mr. Turk. Well, first of all let me completely agree, there
    is both a legal and a moral responsibility that all of us
    share, in the Executive Branch and in Congress, and thank you
    for your leadership again, for many, many years on this issue.
    I know it is something Secretary Granholm is passionate about,
    she has been out to Hanford, I have been out to Hanford. I will
    be going out there in the not too distant future. And
    certainly, our Environmental Management colleagues live and
    breathe this every day, in terms of making progress on this
    front.
        The Conceptual Agreement is a big, big deal, and it is
    great to have reached this milestone, but we have got an awful
    lot of work going forward. Anyone who has visited Hanford knows
    we have got a lot of work going forward, for decades, out
    there.
        Of our over $8 billion budget for the Environmental
    Management portfolio, $3 billion of that is for Hanford; that
    is the largest request in recent history for Hanford. As you
    said, we need to make thoughtful choices, and when we looked at
    that $3 billion envelope in terms of our back and forth with
    the White House and OM, (Office of Management and Budget), we
    made choices, we have made thoughtful choices, but we would be
    eager to have further conversations with you and your staff to
    make sure that we are all going forward in the way we should at
    Hanford.
        Senator Murray. Thank you very much.
        Senator Kennedy.

                THE COST OF THE U.S. PURSUING CARBON NEUTRALITY

        Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Mr. Secretary, thanks for being here. I want to tap your
    expertise for a moment. Give me; give me your best estimate,
    just an estimate, I know, of how soon you think the United
    States of America will be carbon neutral?
        Mr. Turk. So, I think, according to the climate scientists
    around the world, and certainly the cutting-edge scientists
    that we need to rely on here in the U.S., we have got to get
    carbon neutral by 2050. And I am very comfortable with that
    target, and I think that is the appropriate target.
        Senator Kennedy. By 2050?
        Mr. Turk. Which is only 27 years. That is not a long time
    away.
        Senator Kennedy. And how much will that cost?
        Mr. Turk. So, the cost that I focus on even more, is all
    the costs that will happen if we don't get our act together.
        Senator Kennedy. No. The total cost. How much will it cost
    to get us carbon neutral?
        Mr. Turk. It is going to cost trillions of dollars, and it
    will cost tens of trillions of dollars if we don't get our act
    together.
        Senator Kennedy. How many trillions?
        Mr. Turk. I don't have the estimate or the numbers in front
    of me, I have seen a variety of different estimates, but it is
    a large amount. Fundamentally transforming our energy economy--
    --
        Senator Kennedy. Tell me the estimates----
        Mr. Turk [continuing]. Is a big deal.
        Senator Kennedy. Tell me the estimates that you have seen?
        Mr. Turk. I don't have those numbers, right on hand.
        Senator Kennedy. So, you are advocating that we become
    carbon neutral, but you don't know how much it is going to
    cost?
        Mr. Turk. So there is an awful lot of estimates out there,
    it depends on technology improvements----
        Senator Kennedy. You are the Deputy Secretary----
        Mr. Turk [continuing]. And other kinds of things.
        Senator Kennedy. You are the expert.
        Mr. Turk. I know with certainty----
        Senator Kennedy. Give me an estimate of how much it is
    going to cost?
        Mr. Turk. I know with a certainty, of all the experts I
    have spoken about, it is cheaper to get our act together, than
    it is to not get our act together on climate change.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. Then tell me the cost----
        Mr. Turk. It is orders of magnitude.
        Senator Kennedy [continuing]. Versus the cost if we don't
    do it?
        Mr. Turk. I think it is orders of magnitude different. If
    we don't get our act together----
        Senator Kennedy. I know that. But you don't have a cost?
    You want us to get there, but you can't tell the American
    taxpayer how much it is going to cost? Is that your testimony?
        Mr. Turk. It is going to save us money, and there is a lot
    of jobs that a lot of Americans----
        Senator Kennedy. Well, how do we know, if you don't know
    how much it is going to cost?
        Mr. Turk. I would be happy to pull up the latest numbers
    that I have seen and let you----
        Senator Kennedy. How about $50 trillion; is that right?
        Mr. Turk. It is going to cost trillions of dollars; there
    is no doubt about it.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. If we spend trillions of dollars,
    and we achieve--some of your colleagues estimate $50 trillion.
    And it disappoints me that you are not willing to give the
    estimates.
        I hope you are not telling me you have no idea how much it
    is going to cost, that creates a whole new host of problems.
    But if it costs $50 trillion, as some of your colleagues have
    testified, to become carbon neutral by 2050, and I am all for
    carbon neutrality, by the way; how much is that going to lower
    world temperatures? Or how much is that going to reduce the
    increase in world temperatures?
        Mr. Turk. So, every country around the world needs to get
    its act together. Our emissions are about 13 percent of global
    emissions right now.
        Senator Kennedy. Yes; but if you could answer my question.
    If we spend $50 trillion to become carbon neutral in the United
    States of America by 2050, you are the Deputy Secretary of
    Energy, give me your estimate of how much that is going to
    reduce world temperatures?
        Mr. Turk. So first of all, it is a net cost, it is what
    benefits we are having from getting our act together and
    reducing all of those climate benefits. We are seeing----
        Senator Kennedy. Let me ask again.
        Mr. Turk [continuing]. Hundreds of trillions of dollars
    right now----
        Senator Kennedy. Maybe I am not being clear. If we spent
    $50 trillion to become carbon neutral by 2050 in the United
    States of America, how much is that going to reduce world
    temperatures?
        Mr. Turk. This is a global problem, so we need to reduce
    our emissions, and we need to do everything we can to----
        Senator Kennedy. How much, if we do our part, is it going
    to reduce world temperatures?
        Mr. Turk. So we are 13 percent of global emissions right
    now.
        Senator Kennedy. You don't know, do you? You don't know, do
    you?
        Mr. Turk. You can do the math, we need to----
        Senator Kennedy. You don't know, do you, Mr. Secretary?
        Mr. Turk. So we are 13 percent of global emissions, and if
    we----
        Senator Kennedy. If you know, why won't you tell me?
        Mr. Turk [continuing]. Went to zero, that would be 13
    percent less----
        Senator Kennedy. You don't know, do you? You just want us
    to spend $50 trillion, and you don't have the slightest idea
    whether it is going to reduce world temperatures.
        Now, I am all for carbon neutrality. But you are the Deputy
    Secretary of the Department of Energy, and you are advocating
    we spend trillions of dollars to seek carbon neutrality, and
    you can't--and this isn't your money, or my money, it is
    taxpayer money--and you can't tell me how much it is going to
    lower world temperatures?
        Mr. Turk. Very----
        Senator Kennedy. Or you won't tell me? You know but you
    won't?
        Mr. Turk. In my heart of hearts, there is no way the world
    gets its act together on climate change unless the U.S. leads.
        Senator Kennedy. Tell me how much it is going to reduce----
        Mr. Turk. The U.S. needs to lead.
        Senator Kennedy [continuing]. You can't tell me. Either
    that or you won't.
        Mr. Turk. Well, 13 percent, 15 percent off the----
        Senator Kennedy. And that is--the President of the United
    States needs--I have still got a few seconds. I have got 22
    seconds. I am going to use them a different way.
        Mr. Secretary, shame on you for not answering my questions.

                 GETTING PLUTONIUM PIT PRODUCTION BACK ON TRACK

        Madam Administrator, how are we going to get plutonium pit
    production back on track?
        Ms. Hruby. Well, thanks Senator Kennedy. We are doing--the
    most important thing we have to do to get pit production back
    on track is get craft workers in the facilities, finish our
    designs, get craft workers in the facilities, and that is
    happening. And so, we have got great confidence between changes
    we are making in our processes, getting people on board, doing
    equipment pre-buys, particularly for glove boxes, which are
    limited manufacturers in the United States. That we will be
    able to make pits. We are going to be late. We are trying to
    catch up.
        Senator Kennedy. Thank you, ma'am.
        Senator Murray. Thank you. Senator Heinrich.

                    IMPACTS OF INCREASED GLOBAL TEMPERATURES

        Senator Heinrich. Secretary Turk, let me give this a try.
    What is the difference between living in a world with 1 degree
    of increased--1 degree C, of increased temperature and, say, 3
    degrees C of increased temperature and the difference in the
    cost that we will experience, as a Nation, under those two
    scenarios?
        Mr. Turk. So, the orders of magnitude are so much greater
    if we don't get our act together, than if we do what we need to
    do, and we have all those jobs, especially in America, if we
    lead on the clean energy front, orders of magnitude difference.

                IMPACTS OF REPEALING THE INFLATION REDUCTION ACT

        Senator Heinrich. Let us talk about those jobs for a
    moment. The Inflation Reduction Act was signed into law about 9
    months ago, our friends in the House of Representatives have
    put forward legislation to repeal that, that is despite
    announcements representing at least $150 billion in
    manufacturing investments in the United States, 46 factories,
    18,000 jobs that represents, what would be the impact if we
    repealed the incentives that are in the Inflation Reduction
    Act?
        Mr. Turk. So, I think they would be catastrophic at this
    absolutely critical moment, as Chair Murray said at the outset.
    We are seeing the kind of momentum at reshoring American
    manufacturing across the board, not just with batteries, not
    just with solar PV (photovoltaic), but across the board, we are
    seeing that momentum, because Congress has led, because the
    United States Government is leading, putting in place those
    kinds of incentives. You take those away, and those jobs are
    going to go elsewhere, and we are going to see those
    opportunities.
        Senator Heinrich. 2022 was a record year for factory
    investment in the United States. Are we expecting the same
    thing in 2023?
        Mr. Turk. We are expecting even more.
        Senator Heinrich. Yes.
        Mr. Turk. We are seeing momentum, why would we cut back
    as--on the moment we are actually succeeding.

                             NATIONAL LAB STAFFING

        Senator Heinrich. To shift gears a little bit, there is
    approximately 30,000 folks who are employed at Sandia and Los
    Alamos National Laboratories, both of those labs have cited
    workforce retention and recruitment as their primary issue in
    addressing national security missions.
        We appropriated a number of funds through the National
    Defense Authorization Act and the Appropriation Bills, to try
    and address that. Has that had a positive impact? And what else
    can we do to address the retention issues?
        Mr. Turk. So let me turn it over to Administrator Hruby.
        Senator Heinrich. Under Secretary----
        Mr. Turk. I will just say this is a big, big deal for the
    Secretary, for myself, for all of us. And there is an awful lot
    of work we need to do on this front.
        Senator Heinrich. Administrator.
        Ms. Hruby. Thanks, Senator Heinrich. Well, I am happy to
    report we have made some changes that are helping. We are not
    going to take our eye off of it. We can't do our job without
    those 30,000 people, and all the other people in the
    enterprise. Because of the increases in attrition that we were
    seeing after COVID, we made a--we authorized a mid-year salary
    adjustment at the laboratories, plants, and sites. We leaned
    forward in terms of adding flexibility to benefits that were
    more consistent with what we--the high tech industry we have to
    compete with.
        We leaned forward in terms of a competitive raise package
    for 2023, and as a result of those activities, among other
    things we are trying to do to improve the work environment and
    the productivity, the overall attrition is close to normal now,
    at both Los Alamos, and Sandia, and across the complex. We
    still have pockets where it is quite high.
        Senator Heinrich. Mm-hmm.
        Ms. Hruby. Where it is very competitive. Actually, I am
    sure the high tech market has helped us. There is always a
    tradeoff there, but we need to continue to lean forward, and we
    need to provide the very best work environment, because we have
    the very best work, so we can keep people, if we can do that.
    Thank you.

                   INFLATION REDUCTION ACT AND INFRASTRUCTURE

                     INVESTMENT AND JOBS ACT IMPLEMENTATION

        Senator Heinrich. Deputy Secretary Turk, let us go back to
    the IRA (Inflation Reduction Act) for a minute. Can you walk us
    through implementation and all the things that DOE is doing now
    to make that legislation a success?
        Mr. Turk. So, this is a big, big deal, and big piece of
    legislation, and certainly, when you put it together with the
    Bipartisan Infrastructure Legislation, this is the largest
    climate and clean energy legislation, not just in the U.S. by
    orders of magnitude, it is the biggest legislation ever in the
    history of humanity.
        And there is an awful lot we are doing at the Department of
    Energy. So, we have a couple hundred of our folks working with
    Treasury and IRS (Internal Revenue Service) to bring our
    expertise to bear on all the tax provision piece of it. We also
    have about $100 billion that you all, that taxpayers have
    entrusted to us, just at the Department of Energy.
        That is 70 new programs that we are setting up. Many of
    them are competitive cost-share programs, like the hydrogen
    hubs that have gotten so much attention. So we have created new
    offices, we have created a new Under Secretary for
    Infrastructure, we have now hired up over 500 people to fill
    those offices, and taken folks from other parts of the
    Department to have that instant capacity.
        And we are putting out FOAs (Funding Opportunity
    Announcements) almost on a daily--funding opportunity
    announcements for companies and communities across the country,
    almost on a daily, sometimes hourly basis to make sure those
    opportunities are out there for that real-world impact.
        Senator Heinrich. Thank you.

                   IMPLEMENTATION OF FUNDING FOR TRIBAL LOAD

                  GUARANTEE PROGRAM AND INDIAN ENERGY PROGRAMS

        Senator Murray. Thank you. Mr. Deputy Secretary, ensuring
    that our Tribes and indigenous communities have access to
    clean, reliable power is really critical, we recently provided
    $75 million in the Inflation Reduction Act for the Tribal Loan
    Guarantee Program to help our Tribes and Tribal entities deploy
    clean energy. And we also provided the Indian Energy Program
    new funding to start electrifying the 30,000 Tribal homes that
    do not have access to power.
        Can you talk about how the Department is implementing those
    new investments, and making sure that our Tribes and Tribal
    entities know about this, and have access to those
    opportunities?
        Mr. Turk. So this is a top priority for us. On the Tribal
    Loan Program, it was terrific to be able to issue loans
    directly to Tribes. That is not something that we had before,
    and thanks to Congress we have that ability to do that.
        We have been very proactive in all our conversations and
    reaching out to Tribes, to leaders all across the country, we
    have literally had hundreds of outreach meetings.
        The Head of our Loan Program Office, Jigar Shah, was just
    out recently meeting with the Head of the Nez Perce Tribe, to
    make sure that we are making aware everybody who can take
    advantage of these programs. And I am told we are, hopefully,
    on track to have a first loan this summer, with many more to
    come after that.
        And our Indian Energy Office is working all the levers and
    all the authorities that they have as well, to be very
    proactive and forward-leaning here.
        Senator Murray. Well, as you know, Tribes in Washington
    State, and really across the country, they each have unique
    energy demands and challenges. Talk to me about how the
    Department is working, specifically, with Tribes to identify
    their specific needs and opportunities?
        Mr. Turk. Well, I think we--you hit the nail on the head,
    it is unique challenges, it is uniquely situated. I know in my
    own meetings you can't make assumptions about what communities
    or what Tribes need, you have got to listen and put in the
    actual work, and the sweat equity, to not only do the webinars
    and do the calls, but actually go out to the communities, to
    listen to the communities, and to figure out what tools we have
    in the tool belt to help that particular community, and this
    particular community, and have it driven by the Tribe itself,
    as it should be, given the sovereignty of the Tribes.
        So that is the approach that we are taking. It is time
    intensive, it is resource intensive, that is why it is so
    important to keep the funding streams coming on that front so
    that we can have the ability to do that kind of proactive
    outreach, and listening to make sure that we are bringing all
    the tools that we have to the table to help Tribes.

                       INDUSTRIAL DECARBONIZATION FUNDING

        Senator Murray. Thank you. Thank you for your attention to
    that. You know, industrial emissions made up roughly 30 percent
    of the U.S. climate emissions, and to address the climate
    crisis we need to modernize our industrial manufacturing base,
    and work to reduce emissions across the cement, steel,
    aluminum, glass, paper, and ceramics industries.
        Last Congress, we provided about $6 billion for that work
    across multiple DOE program offices and functions; how do you
    plan to get this industrial decarbonization funding out the
    door quickly and effectively?
        Mr. Turk. Well, we have got the historic amount, the over
    $6 billion, and then we also have our regular appropriations
    request, so we are requesting $320 million more in our annual
    appropriations request, all complementary to that $6 billion as
    well.
        What we are doing is bringing folks across the Department.
    We have a variety of offices that have expertise that can help
    in the industrial decarbonization space. The Secretary has
    launched a Joint Strategy Team on industrial technologies. It
    literally brings 80 folks from a variety of different offices
    across the Department, so that we can have a coherent strategy,
    a proactive strategy on industrial technology.
        We have got subgroups for iron and steel, and subgroups for
    petrochemicals, to break this up into the manageable chunks it
    needs to be broken up.
        We have also had great conversations with our White House
    colleagues, and our interagency colleagues, to make sure that
    this is an all-of-government, unified effort going forward.
        And we have had terrific discussions with your colleagues,
    your staff on the committee, about having some modest funding
    to support these joint strategy teams, so that we can make sure
    that this continues, and there is a real center of gravity, and
    institutionalization going forward.
        Senator Murray. Well, thank you very much; and thank you
    for being here today.
        Senator Heinrich has kindly agreed to take over the gavel
    for the committee. And I appreciate that. And will give him a
    chance to settle in here, and turn it back over to him. So,
    thank you.

                            TRANSMISSION PERMITTING

        Senator Heinrich [presiding]. We had a recent hearing with
    Secretary Granholm, where I talked to her fairly extensively
    about things like ``reconductoring'', and other transmission,
    Grid Enhancing Technologies. Can you talk a little bit,
    Secretary Turk, about the funds that we appropriated through
    the Infrastructure Law, how those are being used to facilitate
    the transmission that continues to largely be a permitting and
    planning challenge, but is obviously one of the primary
    bottlenecks to getting dramatic amounts of additional clean
    generation onto the grid?
        Mr. Turk. Well, first of all Senator, thank you, for your
    focus on transmission. This is a big, big deal. And if we don't
    get the transmission right in our country we are not going to
    be successful in all of our efforts. There have been some
    estimates, some credible estimates, in fact, that of the all
    the climate benefits we get from the Inflation Reduction Act, a
    full 80 percent of those won't come to fruition unless we can
    do transmission at a higher rate going forward. We are doing
    about 1 percent per year in terms of enhancements on the
    transmission side of things.
        So, we do have some funding streams, but we created a whole
    new office, the Grid Deployment Office, to lean in, to use
    those funding streams to get leverage from those funding
    streams. But we are also very aware that a key issue here, just
    as you said, is permitting. And right now, we are not doing
    what we need to do in terms of permitting in the timelines
    associated with permitting for new transmission lines across
    our country.
        We are engaged right now in extensive conversations with
    the White House, with interagency colleagues, our Secretary has
    spoken about this before, to use an existing law, and a law
    from 2005, to actually streamline the transmission permitting
    to have time lines, and very aggressive time lines to really
    get our act together on the transmission permitting side.
        There is also reconductoring in a number of key
    technologies that are very complementary to building new
    transmission lines, as well, that we are very focused on.

         DECARBONIZING THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR AND ELECTRIC VEHICLES

        Senator Heinrich. Great. You spoke a little bit about the
    work being done to decarbonize the industrial sector, talk a
    little bit about the work that DOE is doing to decarbonize the
    transportation sector, particularly things like heavy trucking,
    trains, even aviation.
        Mr. Turk. So, transportation is the largest source of our
    emissions in the country, and we are very focused on this, have
    been for many years, but have some new tools and new resources
    in our tool belt. One of those is the funding for building out
    our charging infrastructure, and we have a joint office. It is
    a new experiment. A joint office with us and the Department of
    Transportation, that is working out incredibly well, and we are
    getting funding to States to get it out the door, to build
    those EV (electric vehicles) chargers across the country, to
    reduce that range anxiety, and to make sure consumers across
    the country, not just in urban areas, but across the country,
    can benefit from electric vehicles.
        We are also working on other parts, not just the passenger
    vehicle side, just as you said. Trucking, aviation, are
    incredibly important areas that we can lean in on. We have got
    a Super Trucks Program that is really leaning in on R&D
    (Research and Development), and trying to bring technical
    solutions and reduce those costs so that we can have low-
    carbon, no-carbon trucking solutions as well.
        Senator Heinrich. Senator Hagerty, would you like to ask a
    few questions?

                         NUCLEAR ENERGY IS CLEAN ENERGY

        Senator Hagerty. Thank you, Senator Heinrich.
        I would like to first direct my questions to the Deputy
    Secretary, to talk about small modular reactors. It is a topic
    that comes up very often as I talk to leaders around the world,
    and to business leaders as well. And I think you have had some
    discussion with Ranking Member Kennedy already today, but I
    would like to just establish a couple of basic points first.
        My first question: Does the Department consider nuclear
    energy clean, sustainable, and carbon-free energy? A yes/no
    answer would be fine.
        Mr. Turk. Absolutely. Nuclear energy is a top priority for
    us.
        Senator Hagerty. And as I said, my colleague, Ranking
    Member Kennedy, I think, has already confirmed with you that
    the Department would state that: ``Nuclear power is the most
    reliable energy source and it is not even close.'' That is a
    direct quote, and also to quote, ``Nearly two times more
    reliable is natural gas and coal units, and almost three times
    more reliable than wind and solar plants.'' That is from the
    Department's Office of Nuclear Energy website.
        So I would like to come back to you and ask, that given
    that nuclear energy is clean, carbon free, and more reliable
    than other energy sources; do you agree that the United States
    should be encouraging the production of more nuclear power?
        Mr. Turk. Absolutely. And we have got a lot of fundings,
    thanks to Congress, to extend the lifetime of our existing
    nuclear, which is incredibly important. It is about 20 percent
    of our overall electricity generation in our country, as you
    know, Senator. And then also focusing; just as you said, on
    SMRs; on the small modular reactors, the reactors of the
    future, top priority for us.
        Senator Hagerty. Well, the demand is clearly there, as I
    said, as I speak with leaders around the world. I was just in
    Latin America and talking with leaders there, who are trying to
    make transitions, and they see this as a great opportunity to
    partner with the United States of America, and also it is an
    area that would satisfy important demands while meeting certain
    climate objectives.
        My next question is that, given all of that, why aren't we
    building more nuclear power plants?
        Mr. Turk. So, this is where we have got the $6 billion in
    credits to try to extend the lifetime extension of the existing
    nuclear, and we are working as quick as we can on the Advanced
    Reactor Demonstration Program, at being the leader in small
    modular reactors.
        And it is not just Latin America. I was in Latin America as
    well where everybody is focused on SMRs and U.S. leadership in
    that space, but it is Eastern Europe, and it is a lot of other
    countries around the world. So, there is huge U.S. domestic
    opportunities, but there is also a lot of jobs in an export
    environment as well. So completely agree with you on that
    point.
        Senator Hagerty. I spent a great deal of time in my
    previous job working with Japan and their Energy Security and
    their strategy there. There is also a tremendous demand in
    developed economies like Japan, in particular. That is why I
    think it is very important to direct our scarce government
    resources toward technological innovation, increasing
    efficiency, and doing things of that nature.

                            ADVANCING NUCLEAR ENERGY

        And my next question is that, do you agree that is in our
    Nation's interest for the next generation of nuclear reactor
    technology, and also the related supply chains, and the
    technologies that are around it, to be developed and pioneered
    here in the United States?
        Mr. Turk. Absolutely.
        Senator Hagerty. My concern is that this administration
    seems to be more focused on pouring billions of taxpayer
    dollars into wind and solar, when we have a serious situation
    where China controls a lot of the natural resources, and a lot
    of the supplies there, as opposed to being a competitive
    advantage for America.
        Where in contrast, if we look at nuclear power, it is an
    area where the United States actually does possess a lead we
    can build a supply chain that doesn't pass through China, but
    it requires us to develop the next generation of this
    technology right here in the United States.
        In March the DOE released a series of reports that were
    focused on green energy technologies, including a report
    focused solely on advanced nuclear. That report stated, and I
    am going to quote, ``It is likely that the first design to
    reach a critical mass of orders may be a Gen III plus SMR.''
        I attended an event in March, in which the Tennessee Valley
    Authority, GE Hitachi, Ontario Power, and Synthos, announced
    that they are teaming up to advance the global deployment of
    grid-scale modular nuclear reactor. That first SMR in North
    America is going to be built in Canada, not in the United
    States.
        However, the next SMR, and the first in the United States,
    could be built at the Clinch River Site in Oak Ridge,
    Tennessee. You might be wondering why I am talking about this.
    That site in Oak Ridge, that site has an early site permit for
    SMR that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has already issued.
    So, wouldn't deployment in the United States of commercial
    grid-scale module reactors be a substantial step toward our
    leadership in this technology?
        Mr. Turk. Absolutely. And Oak Ridge in Tennessee, have had
    a real leadership for decades in this space.
        Senator Hagerty. Mm-hmm. So my question then: Does the
    Department support this project?
        Mr. Turk. So we have been very supportive of projects
    across the country, we are spending billions of dollars and
    really prioritizing this, and the quicker we can get this
    technology available in Tennessee, across our country, and
    across the world, the better the world will be.
        Senator Hagerty. Does the President's budget request have
    any funding for this particular project in it?
        Mr. Turk. So the President's budget request for this fiscal
    year took into account that we had some extraordinary funding,
    especially for the ARDP, the Advanced Reactor Demonstration
    Program, through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Legislation. So
    because there was a significant amount of funding there, we
    made thoughtful choices and thoughtful decisions to make sure
    that we had a balanced portfolio across all of our----
        Senator Hagerty. In fact, there is zero funding right now.
        Mr. Turk. And that----
        Senator Hagerty. And what I want to do is encourage you to
    accelerate this, because the market opportunity is before us.
    Thank you.
        Mr. Turk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Heinrich. Senator Murkowski.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And I appreciate the questions from my colleague. Know that
    I think that this is an area where we can and we should be
    leading. There is no reason why we should not. So, I am with
    you in supporting your urging to the Agency, to the Department
    to advance.

    THE INCLUSION OF ALASKA AND HAWAII IN DOE'S 2023 NATIONAL TRANSMISSION
                        NEEDS STUDY AND GEOVISION REPORT

        I want to talk, not about nuclear but something that I
    think doesn't get enough attention, and that is the potential
    for geothermal. We have got great resources, certainly in my
    State, but we have them in other parts of the country as well.
        Over the past couple months the Department issued two
    critical studies, one related to geothermal, and one was the
    National Transmission Needs Study for 2023. I think both of
    these studies are very important, very timely, but two very
    glaring omissions. They were national studies, but they somehow
    or other forgot two States. I just don't understand it.
    Actually, I find it inexcusable and astonishing that Hawaii and
    Alaska would not be included, particularly, in a study for
    geothermal.
        When you are thinking about geothermal heat and volcanoes,
    what do you think of? You think of Hawaii, you think of Alaska.
    And so, it was remarkable. We saw one briefing provided to
    Congress, the slide simply showed the resources in the Lower
    48, and there was a question mark over Alaska, and over Hawaii.
        And in the GeoVision report, the Department cites a couple
    reasons for the exclusion, and they said: That the modeling was
    used, primarily--the modeling that was used was primarily
    designed for the contiguous United States.
        Okay. I can kind of get that, but the fact of the matter
    is, it is Hawaii and Alaska are never going to be part of the
    contiguous United States, and so if we are going to just
    completely keep them out of any future assessments, I think we
    would agree that that is not right, that is not reasonable.
        So, I would ask you to commit to conducting a study of the
    geothermal resources that we have in Alaska and in Hawaii.
        Mr. Turk. Well, let me say this, Senator. And I am not sure
    this is done that often in D.C. hearings, but we need to do
    better.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
        Mr. Turk. And I am heading to Alaska in a few weeks as, you
    know, and looking forward to having whatever meetings you find
    helpful.
        Senator Murkowski. Right.
        Mr. Turk. To make sure that I am aware. Our Secretary has
    been up there as well visiting with you. And making sure that
    all of us, throughout the Department, not just our Arctic
    Energy Office, and Erin Whitney, who is our new leader of that
    office, but all of us at the Department are doing what we
    should.
        On the Transmission Needs Study, we have relied on existing
    modeling for that need study, it is an interim, and now we are
    putting the final together, and Alaska will be part of that
    Final Need Study.
        Senator Murkowski. Yes.
        Mr. Turk. And we are working on that to make sure. We need
    to, frankly, work with you, and work with others, to make sure
    we have the modeling, we have the analysis. Either that we do,
    or that others do, so that we can make good resource decisions
    off on that front. But we are making improvements on the
    Transmission Needs Study.
        Senator Murkowski. Okay.
        Mr. Turk. And then on the map issue, I spent a significant
    time, yesterday and today, with colleagues at our Department,
    we need to do better on that front.

      ALASKA'S NEED FOR TRANSMISSION UPGRADES AND FUNDING UNDER THE GRID
                       RESILIENCE AND INNOVATION PROGRAM

        Senator Murkowski. I really appreciate you recognizing that
    Alaska is not going to be at a disadvantage when it comes to
    Federal funding, because we are not part of that Transmission
    Needs Study. So, I thank you for that commitment. I also thank
    you for committing that you can do better.
        And I appreciate the fact that you are coming to the State
    of Alaska. As you know, Secretary Granholm has had an
    opportunity to be up North, see one small geothermal community,
    if you will, we are certainly happy to include you in that site
    visit. But there is a lot more, certainly, that we can look to.
        The Grid Resilience issue, and Transmission Needs Study,
    the Matanuska Electric Association, and our Alaska Energy
    Authority, are working together on applications for funding for
    the Grid Resilience and the Innovation Program, the GRIP
    Program, you are going to be getting a letter pretty soon from
    me, and the other members of the delegation, in support of
    these applications.
        But if Alaska was included in the Transmission Needs Study,
    you would absolutely see that it is in desperate need of
    transmission upgrades, probably more so than any other region
    in the country. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill funds
    represents an incredible opportunity for us in Alaska to
    stabilize an aging grid by bringing it to modern standards,
    enhancing resiliency in the face of unprecedented natural
    disasters, climate change, rugged geographic terrain, these
    improvements are really, I can't underscore enough, how
    critical they are to preparing our State for a fuel diverse
    clean energy future, as well as integrating new sources of
    energy along this.
        And so, as you are planning your trip, if we can make sure
    that this is on your itinerary, we will work with you in
    advance. I am looking forward to the opportunity to discuss
    more of these, as well as what we are doing with small hydro,
    the Arctic Energy Office that you have noted, and then the
    opportunities for potential, resources related to our critical
    minerals.
        So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I thank the committee.
        Senator Heinrich. Senator Coons.
        Senator Coons. Thank you, Chairman Heinrich.
        Great to see you again Mr. Deputy Secretary, Under
    Secretary; Under Secretary Hruby, thank you for your work to
    advance nonproliferation, and support for our safety, and your
    efforts to reduce the nuclear risks posed by Russia and
    Ukraine.

                 FOUNDATION FOR ENERGY SECURITY AND INNOVATION

        Deputy Secretary Turk, thank you. Both to you and, I guess,
    to all the DOE employees who are working so hard to implement
    the CHIPS and Science Act, the Inflation Reduction Act, the
    Infrastructure Law, there is so much to work on.
        A key piece, I think, of the CHIPS and Science bill for
    your Department, was legislation I introduced, along with
    Senators Graham and Lujan, to create the Foundation for Energy
    Security and Innovation.
        Borrowing off of what several other Federal agencies have a
    public-private partnership to create a foundation that would
    channel private investment to accelerate commercialization. The
    DOE budget request includes $31 million to launch this new
    foundation.
        I would be interested in: How you expect the FESI
    (Foundation for Energy Security and Innovation) to serve as a
    force multiplier, or to expand the Department's activities? And
    how critical is this initial pump-priming funding to what will
    be a largely self-sustaining foundation?
        Mr. Turk. Well, thank you, first Senator, for your
    leadership on this issue, and Senator Graham, and several
    others, who are instrumental in giving us the ability to have
    this foundation. FESI, is the acronym that we affectionately
    call it, internally, and we are looking to set this up as
    quickly as we possibly can.
        As you know, earlier this year we sent out a request for
    information to make sure we are learning lessons from other
    Departments who have foundations. We are working right now to
    get the Board up and running, and we will do that this year.
        And so, this initial tranche of funding is incredibly
    helpful to leverage funding that we can get from others, as a
    complement to all that we are doing.
        And let me say a big thank you to your leadership, for the
    historic legislation that was passed in last Congress. It is
    both an enormous task, and responsibility on our shoulders, but
    it is an honor to be part of a Department implementing this
    historic opportunity for all our fellow Americans.

                  SUPPORTING CLEAN HYDROGEN AND HYDROGEN HUBS

        Senator Coons. And thank you for your strong focus on clean
    hydrogen. I was grateful for the chance to host the Secretary
    in Delaware, and a number of others, at the Air Liquide
    Innovation Campus. There are a number of world-class hydrogen
    technology, innovators in Newark, Delaware.
        I am excited that Delaware is joining the Southeastern PA,
    and Southern New Jersey on the Mid-Atlantic Clean Hydrogen Hub.
    I think our region is a strongly competitive choice that is
    centrally located in one of the most densely populated and
    developed corridors in our country, that has world-class
    industry, a skilled union workforce, existing hydrogen
    transport, as well as general infrastructure, and an innovation
    ecosystem that is, I think, unparalleled.
        How is the Department thinking about organized Labor's role
    in shaping the hydrogen economy, and in the priority process
    for the Hydrogen Hubs Program?
        Mr. Turk. So it is a huge part of how we are thinking of
    hydrogen and the hydrogen hubs, in particular, but a lot of the
    other infrastructure funding, the historic funding that we have
    gotten. So on the hydrogen hubs, and others of our funding
    opportunities, we actually require something called a Community
    Benefits Plan.
        Senator Coons. Right.
        Mr. Turk. So, if you want to get money from the Federal
    Government, if you want to be entrusted with taxpayer dollars,
    we think that you should work in your community with labor,
    with other community leaders, and taking into account
    environmental justice concerns, and issues as well.
        And make sure that there is a plan there, not only for your
    company to make money, that is great in this clean energy
    economy, but to do it the right way, to have those quality
    jobs, to work with unions, going forward. So that is a full 20
    percent of the criteria for anyone to get funding through these
    grant opportunities.
        Senator Coons. And there is, I think, an opportunity for us
    to keep moving forward in terms of our legislative work around
    hydrogen.
        Senator Cornyn and I have four bills in this Congress to
    try and complement and fill gaps in our investments. The
    Hydrogen Infrastructure Initiative would support early adopters
    and help scale the deployment of hydrogen in maritime, in heavy
    industry, in heavy duty truck applications, as well as building
    out transport and storage infrastructure. I am grateful for his
    partnership and his recognition. This is a real opportunity for
    regions all over the country.

      INCREASING DOMESTIC DEMAND FOR HYDROGEN AND REGIONAL PARTNERING ON
                                  CLEAN FUELS

        How could additional demand side measures complement your
    existing work on hydrogen at the Department? And how can
    Congress support President Biden's efforts to coordinate with
    other regional partners like Canada, on clean fuels including
    hydrogen?
        Mr. Turk. So, this is an absolutely critical moment for
    hydrogen, an Uber-critical moment. If we do things the right
    way with the funding and authority that you all have given us,
    but it is not enough. And thank you for all your continued
    work. There are some gaps in areas that we need to keep focus
    on.
        I think you are absolutely right to focus on the demand
    side, and to make sure that we have got the demand part of it,
    as we are ramping up supplies, and we have got the tax credits
    and the hydrogen hubs providing that clean hydrogen supply. So
    we have had extensive conversations with the White House and
    interagency: What can we do as a Federal Government to provide
    some of that demand? And we are looking at the funding and
    authorities that we have of how we can use some of that to
    encourage that much more on the demand side piece.
        And certainly, working with Canada, working with other
    international partners on this is a win-win for all of us, and
    we are really leaning in on that as well.
        And thank you for all your efforts on the international
    side as well, not just on hydrogen, but across the board.
        Senator Coons. Thank you. I look forward to continuing to
    work with you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Heinrich. Senator Hoeven.
        Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thanks to both of our witnesses for being here today.
        And Governor, if you deferred, thank you for that as well.
    I appreciate it.
        Senator Shaheen. I will always defer to the Governor.
        Senator Hoeven. Fellow Governor, I appreciate you very
    much. Thank you. And I am not surprised. That working with you
    is always good.

                   REGIONAL CARBON SEQUESTRATION PARTNERSHIPS

        Secretary Turk, you are very familiar with Energy &
    Environmental Research Center, you are also very familiar with
    the four regional partnerships, they pretty much cover the
    country. As a matter of fact, their Chairman is--his university
    is involved, one just like University of North Dakota is with
    EERC (Energy & Environmental Research Center). We put--myself
    and others, put legislation in the 2023 Appropriations Bill
    that provides, quote, ``Not less than $20 million for the
    Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships.'' This is not new.
    This has been going on for a long time, and we can't put CO2
    down hole without these partnerships doing what they do, and
    what they have been doing for a long time.
        Will you commit to ensuring the fiscal year 2023 funding
    supports the missions of the RCSP's (Regional Carbon
    Sequestration Partnerships)--and I have talked to Secretary
    Granholm about this as well, I am sure you are aware of that--
    will you commit to ensuring the fiscal year 2023 funding
    supports the mission of the RCSP's regional partnerships, as
    intended by Congress? And I know what the intent was, because I
    helped write the legislation. I am not guessing on this one.
        Mr. Turk. Well, first of all Senator, thank you for your
    personal leadership, and North Dakota's leadership including on
    CCUS. As you know, I worked for a fellow--a previous Senator
    from North Dakota and I----
        Senator Hoeven. I think you and I see eye-to-eye on it, but
    my question is whether you can get it done?
        Mr. Turk. So on this particular program, the Regional
    Carbon Sequestration Partnerships, I know there are some
    differences of opinion of folks on this side of the room, and
    we want to make sure that we are responsive, not only to you,
    but to other viewpoints on this, and going forward. We would
    like nothing more than clarity of what that guidance is for us
    going forward on this incredibly important piece.
        I am familiar. And I know our Secretary had a chance to
    visit with the folks at the Plains CO2 Reduction Partnership. I
    know for many, many years the incredibly impressive work that
    has been done by UND (University of North Dakota), and others,
    throughout the State on these issues. And so, I think there is
    a lot there to build on.
        Senator Hoeven. Yes, you----
        Mr. Turk. But we need clarity, we just want clarity from
    you all.
        Senator Hoeven. Yes. You recognize and agree that it is
    important work, correct?
        Mr. Turk. It is incredibly important work.
        Senator Hoeven. Okay. Then will you work with, as far as we
    work now on the 2024 appropriation, to make sure that we get
    this done?
        Mr. Turk. Happy to work with you on that.
        Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Secretary. And I do appreciate
    your efforts on this issue, very much. Thank you.

     NNSA'S NUCLEAR MODERNIZATION PROGRAM AND INFRASTRUCTURE MODERNIZATION

        Administrator Hruby, the W-84 warheads, and the plutonium
    pits--and I think again, our Chairman's--Los Alamos, and some
    of his labs, I think are working on these as well. But we
    need--there is a lot of synchronization here, as you know, with
    the modernization and the refurbishments that goes into the B-
    52, into the LRSO (Long-Range Stand-Off), the GBSD (Ground
    Based Strategic Deterrent), and all those things in terms of
    all the delivery systems to modernize our nuclear forces, have
    to coincide with the development that is being done on the W-84
    warhead, the warheads that go on the LRSO, the replacement to
    the ALCM (air-launched cruise missile), and same with the pit
    production.
        All this, and this not only affects, obviously, our bomber
    fleet, our ICBM (intercontinental ballistic missile) fleet, our
    submarines, our whole nuclear arsenal. This is the upgrade to
    our nuclear arsenals. This is, you know, the insides. Are you
    going to keep all of those on schedule? And I want you to go
    through both the warheads, and the plutonium pits. You know,
    the--I think, particularly, you have got some supply chain
    issues. Is it on the W-4--wait, I lose track of which ones--of
    the W-84, right, but then you have also got the others that go
    for the--the Sentinel, and then the SLBM (Submarine-Launched
    Ballistic Missile).
        So just kind of make--are we going to keep all this on
    schedule, very important? And of course, costs increase if we
    get off schedule too?
        Ms. Hruby. Right. Well, let me address your question in two
    parts. So, the first part is about the Weapon Modernization
    Program, and that program is on schedule and synced up with the
    Department of Defense, including the W80-4 for the LRSO. Just
    attended a briefing for the Department of Defense, we are
    entirely synced up there. That does not require new pits.
        So that leads me to the second part of the answer, which is
    how we are doing on infrastructure modernization, and on that
    front we have experienced schedule delays and cost overruns
    that we are working hard to catch up. But it is a very, very
    difficult time--it is a very difficult thing to do, to
    establish new nuclear production capabilities that we just
    simply stopped in this country. As well as it is a particularly
    difficult time to do large construction.
        But we are doing all sorts of things, working to increase
    the number of skilled crafts, working with unions, and trade
    shops, and technical schools, breaking the projects into
    smaller more manageable pieces, delaying some projects to get
    the ones done that are started. We have lots of--and having
    some success, and increasing the number of people on site, and
    increasing the pace of those activities, but that we have
    suffered some schedule and cost problems there.
        Senator Hoeven. We have worked very hard to fully fund the
    enterprise, and we need you to take all the steps to keep it on
    schedule.
        Ms. Hruby. Yes, sir.
        Senator Hoeven. Thank you, again, to both of you,
    appreciate it.
        Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Senator Murray [presiding]. Thank you. Senator Shaheen.
        Senator Shaheen. Thank you both for being here, and for
    your testimony.

      USING BIL AND IRA FUNDING TO PROVIDE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO LOCAL
                                  COMMUNITIES

        Secretary Turk, I am going to begin with you. In New
    Hampshire we have a very effective energy nonprofit that has
    Energy Circuit Riders, that have been individual, only a
    couple, but they have been going around helping communities
    look at how they can be more efficient with their energy use,
    as well as looking at alternative sources of energy.
        We are putting a lot of money into States like New
    Hampshire, through the Inflation Reduction Act, and the
    Bipartisan Infrastructure package. So can you talk about how
    this budget is going to support technical assistance and
    outreach so that communities know what is available? And how
    can we help them take advantage of what is in those pieces of
    legislation?
        Mr. Turk. Well, thanks to you, Senator, and leadership from
    others, we do have these historic tools in our tool belt, on
    efficiency, and rebates, and all across the board; it is
    incredibly exciting to have that. But it does no good if
    communities----
        Senator Shaheen. Right.
        Mr. Turk [continuing]. If households, if families aren't
    aware of them, and we don't make it easy to take full advantage
    of this. So, I think you are absolutely right to focus on the
    technical assistance piece, and making sure that everything we
    are doing. From designing the funding opportunities in the
    first place, to designing the web interface for rebates and
    making sure that that is easily accessible. And a part of our
    new Under Secretary for Infrastructure is an incredibly
    important office. It has not gotten as much attention as I
    think deserves, it is called the State and Community Energy
    Program Office.
        And the theory of the case there is to make sure that we
    have the human resources that can interface with communities,
    that can have those engagements, those discussions, in a very
    proactive, but also in a very respectful way, because each
    community is different in terms of what the opportunities and
    the challenges are on that front.
        And what we want to do is help design particular programs,
    you can take advantage of this and this, maybe this isn't quite
    a good fit over here for you. And then make sure that all the
    deadlines they are aware of, make sure the application process
    is an easy application process, make sure consumers in those
    regions, in those communities have that opportunity.
        That is going to take an awful lot of effort and
    leadership, not only from us, but funding including for the
    State and Community Energy Program Office in fiscal year 2024,
    and for years after that as well.
        Senator Shaheen. Well, I hope you will think about Members
    of Congress as potential outreach opportunities to help our
    communities take advantage of what is available. We have been
    trying to do that, and the closer we can work with you all the
    better.

       WORKING WITH OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES ON BIL AND IRA FUNDED PROGRAMS

        And that brings up another aspect of this, and that is: Can
    you talk about how you are working with other Federal agencies
    who are also engaged in promoting the programs in those two
    pieces of legislation: Treasury, EPA, other agencies that have
    overlapping jurisdictions? But in order for this to work,
    everybody has to work together.
        Mr. Turk. Everybody has to work together, and having been
    in the Government, in the Executive Branch, it is challenging,
    but the prize is huge if we are able to actually get our acts
    together on this front.
        So, a few concrete examples of this; one, is the Federal
    Government uses an awful lot of energy, and all of our
    facilities across the country. There is a program called FEMP
    (Federal Energy Management Program), and there is--some
    additional historic levels of funding that you all have
    provided last Congress for a program called EFEKT (). This is
    hundreds of millions of dollars to try to help improve the
    efficiency of those Federal facilities across the country.
        And so, we are trying to lean in on that, and make sure the
    Federal facilities, whether they are our facilities, or other
    facilities, can take advantage of that funding going forward.
    We have a couple hundred of our DOE staff working with IRS and
    Treasury, helping to design those tax incentives that are so
    important, to make sure that it takes into account the energy
    expertise that we have to get the biggest bang for taxpayer
    buck from those pieces as well.
        You mentioned EPA, EPA is setting up a number of incredibly
    important programs, and we are trying to work hand-in-hand with
    them to make sure that they get the biggest bang for buck from
    their efforts going forward as well.
        So this is something we are going to--to your point--on
    using you as outreach, leveragers, you know, your communities
    better than we do. And so, we will absolutely do that with you,
    and with other Senators, and look forward to that kind of
    engagement.
        Senator Shaheen. Well, thank you. And I am glad you
    mentioned FEMP, because one of my other questions was going to
    be about what we are doing to help Federal entities with energy
    savings. We have the Cold Regions Research and Engineering Lab
    in Hanover, New Hampshire, which is a very important lab for
    the Federal Government. I know that they would like additional
    opportunities to save energy. And as well as the White Mountain
    National Forest where they have a very inefficient building
    that is too small, they welcome over 60,000 visitors a year, we
    need to help them build a new building that is compliant with
    our climate goals. So thank you very much. Thank you, both.
        Secretary Hruby, I had a chance to see you at the Armed
    Services, so you answered my questions then. Thank you.
        Senator Murray. Thank you. Senator Hagerty.

            MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS CONTRACTS FOR Y-12 AND PANTEX

        Senator Hagerty. Thank you. Administrator Hruby, I would
    like to come back to you. It is good to see you again. I wanted
    to go over a couple of topics that we talked about last year
    when you were before the committee. The management and the
    operation contract for the Y-12 National Security Complex, and
    the delays, that I know frustrate you, and the cost overruns
    that are associated with the construction of the UPF, the
    Uranium Processing Facility there in Tennessee.
        My first question on the management and the operations of
    Y-12 can you give me an update on the time line for the new
    competition that is underway there?
        Ms. Hruby. I can. We extended the contract at Y-12 through
    September 2025. There are some options to extend beyond that.
    But that is our target, 2025. As I think you know, we are doing
    the competition for Pantex first, and then we will follow it
    with the competition for Y-12.
        Senator Hagerty. Y-12.
        Ms. Hruby. The Pantex draft RFP is on the street, in fact
    comments are due back next week, so we are moving along with
    that schedule. We are trying to get more input, do some new
    things in that contract which I think will help us with
    stability, for both of those sites, going forward.
        Senator Hagerty. On your decision to split Pantex and Y-12,
    can you give me a little more color in terms of the thought
    process there.
        Ms. Hruby. Yes.
        Senator Hagerty. How do you think that will work?
        Ms. Hruby. Absolutely. Yes. So the decision to split the
    contracts was because both of these sites--well, first, as you
    know, they used to be separate.
        Senator Hagerty. Mm-hmm.
        Ms. Hruby. We combined them back when it looked like our--
    we envisioned a complex that was smaller, more consolidated,
    and therefore combined these two contracts. What we have found
    is that the geopolitical environment is such that we are no
    longer consolidating. In fact, we are adding responsibilities
    at both of these sites that are pretty substantial. And they
    are quite different from one another in terms of the work that
    they do. So, we felt that concentrated leadership both from the
    Federal side and the contractor side, was really important at
    both sides; and that for all the growth, both in terms of
    construction projects and program growth, we really needed the
    sites to have dedicated leadership again.

                COMPLETION OF Y-12'S URANIUM PROCESSING FACILITY

        Senator Hagerty. Let me move on to another topic we have
    discussed, that is on the UPF again. Congress has already
    appropriated over $5.5 billion for the project, originally it
    was supposed to be delivered by 2025, and it was not to exceed
    $6.5 billion. Can you give me an update on where we are with
    the schedule, and the funding for that?
        Ms. Hruby. Yes. Unfortunately, on UPF, it looks like we are
    3 to 4 years behind. We are trying really hard to meet the 3,
    it sounds terrible, but to not be further than 3 years behind.
    There is some good science about this that we have been able to
    increase the workforce, we have completed pretty much all of
    our equipment buys now, on UPF, and we are in the phase of
    construction that is more predictable and reliable, assuming
    that we can get the workforce there, and that is looking good,
    but----
        Senator Hagerty. Well, with the time line expansion, I know
    that means an expansion of cost too, so I appreciate your
    continued diligence on this, to try to manage it.

           PRODUCTION OF TRANSFORMERS AND ELECTRICAL STEEL COMPONENTS

        I want to turn back to you, Deputy Secretary, for just a
    moment, on an issue that Secretary Granholm raised with the
    Senate Energy Committee last month. She said that an additional
    $1- to $2 billion investment injection is needed to boost
    domestic manufacturing rhythm structure, yet the President's
    budget only requests $75 million for the Office of
    Manufacturing and Energy Supply Chains, that can be used to
    accelerate the production of domestic energy technologies,
    including, I am going to quote, ``Critical power grid
    infrastructure, like transformers.''
        This is an area I have got a deep concern in. We have got a
    real choke point in transformer capacity in the United States.
    So, my question is, why does the budget only request $75
    million, if the Secretary is indicating we need a lot more
    funding for this?
        Mr. Turk. Well, thank you, Senator for raising this issue.
    This is a real challenge right now on transformers, and I have
    had several conversations, I am sure you have with utility
    executives----
        Senator Hagerty. Yes.
        Mr. Turk [continuing]. And others in this business about
    just how critical the challenge is right now. We have got
    something called our Electricity Sector Coordinating Council,
    made up of CEOs across the industry. We created a Tiger Team to
    explore this issue, and try to make sure that we have got good
    analysis, both on the challenge side, and then what we need to
    do, going forward.
        I know there is some funding, as you have said, in the
    fiscal year 2024 budget request, I will say I don't think that
    is enough. I think we need more. And there have been very good
    conversations with Members of Congress, including for last
    year's Supplemental, last year's Omnibus that, unfortunately,
    did not come to fruition for a significant amount of additional
    funding.
        So happy to have further conversations and appreciate
    your----
        Senator Hagerty. I would appreciate if you would follow up
    with my staff on this. It is a national security issue.
        Mr. Turk. Absolutely.
        Senator Hagerty. And it is not just the transformers, it is
    the electrical steel components that go into it as well. But
    these are real choke points that--as you know.
        Mr. Turk. I completely agree.
        Senator Hagerty. A critical national security issue. Thank
    you for updating us on that when you get your team together
    with ours. Thank you.
        Mr. Turk. Right.
        Senator Murray. Thank you. That will end our hearing today.
    And I want to thank the witnesses and my colleagues for
    participating in today's hearing. I look forward to working
    together on this year's appropriations bills, to make sure that
    we provide the Department of Energy and National Security
    Administration the resources that you need.
        I will keep the hearing record open for 1 week. Committee
    members who would like to submit written questions for the
    record should do so by 5 p.m., Wednesday, May 17.
        We appreciate both of you for being here, and for the
    Agencies responding to those questions in a reasonable amount
    of time.

                             CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS

        With that, we stand adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:20 a.m., Wednesday, May 3, the hearings
    were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
    subject to the call of the Chair.]

           LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Collins, Senator Susan M., U.S. Senator From Maine, Questions
      Submitted by...................................................    35
    Connor, Hon. Michael L., Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil
      Works), Department of Defense--Civil...........................     1
        Prepared Statement of........................................     5
        Questions Submitted to.......................................    30
        Summary Statement of.........................................     4
    Coons, Senator Christopher A., U.S. Senator From Delaware,
      Questions Submitted by.........................................    30

    Hagerty, Senator Bill, U.S. Senator From Tennessee, Questions
      Submitted by...................................................    33
    Hoeven, Senator John, U.S. Senator From North Dakota, Questions
      Submitted by...................................................    32
    Hruby, Hon. Jill, Under Secretary for Nuclear Security,
      Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration..    37

    Kennedy, Senator John, U.S. Senator From Louisiana, Statement of

    Murkowski, Senator Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska, Questions
      Submitted by

    Murray, Senator Patty, U.S. Senator from Washington, Opening
      Statement of

    Spellmon, Lieutenant General Scott A., Chief of Engineers and
      Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of
      Defense--Civil.................................................     7
        Prepared Statement of........................................     9
        Questions Submitted to.......................................    30

    Touton, Hon. Camille Calimlim, Commissioner, Bureau of
      Reclamation, Department of the Interior........................    12
        Prepared Statement of........................................    13
    Turk, Hon. David, Deputy Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
      Department of Energy...........................................    37
        Prepared Statement of........................................    45
        Summary Statement of.........................................    42

                                 SUBJECT INDEX

                                  ----------

                          DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

                             Department of the Army

                           Corps of Engineers--Civil

                                                                       Page

    Construction.....................................................    10
    Emergency Management.............................................    11
    Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program..................    11
    Investigations...................................................     9
    Operation and Maintenance (O&M)..................................    10
    Regulatory Program...............................................    11
    Research and Development.........................................    10
    Summary of Fiscal Year 2024 Budget...............................     9
                                   __________

                              DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                            Office of the Secretary

    Accelerating Industrial Decarbonization..........................    46
    Administration and Oversight.....................................    49
    Advancing Energy Innovation......................................    46
    Advancing Nuclear Energy.........................................    60
    Alaska's Need for Transmission Upgrades and Funding under the
      Grid Resilience and Innovation Program.........................    62
    Budget Topline...................................................    45
    Completion of Y-12's Uranium Processing Facility.................    70
    Cost of the U.S. Pursuing Carbon Neutrality, The.................    52
    Creating Jobs Building Clean Energy Infrastructure...............    46
    Decarbonizing the Transportation Sector and Electric Vehicles....    58
    Foundation for Energy Security and Innovation....................    63
    Getting Plutonium Pit Production Back on Track...................    54
    Guarantee Program and Indian Energy Programs.....................    56
    Hanford Clean-up Mission.........................................    51
    Impacts of:
        Increased Global Temperatures................................    54
        Repealing the Inflation Reduction Act........................    54
    Implementation of Funding for Tribal Load........................    56
    Inclusion of Alaska and Hawaii in DOE's 2023 National
      Transmission Needs Study and GeoVision Report, The.............    61
    Increasing Domestic Demand for Hydrogen and Regional Partnering
      on Clean Fuels.................................................    65
    Industrial Decarbonization Funding...............................    57
    Inflation Reduction Act and Infrastructure.......................    56
    Investment and Jobs Act Implementation...........................    56
    Making Historic Investments in Cutting-Edge Research at National
      Laboratories and Universities..................................    45
    Management and Operations Contracts for Y-12 and Pantex..........    69
    National Lab Staffing............................................    55
    NNSA's Nuclear Modernization Program and Infrastructure
      Modernization..................................................    66
    Nuclear Energy is Clean Energy...................................    59
    Powering the Nuclear Navy........................................    49
    Production of Transformers and Electrical Steel Components.......    70
    Proposed DOE Funding Cuts to Fiscal Year 2022 Levels.............    50
    Reduces Health and Environmental Hazards for At-Risk Communities.    47
    Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships.......................    65
    Restoring American Leadership in Arms Control and
      Nonproliferation...............................................    48
    Strengthening:
        Domestic and International Clean Energy Supply Chains........    47
        the Cybersecurity and Resilience of the Energy Sector........    47
        the Nation's Nuclear Security Enterprise.....................    47
    Supporting:
        Clean Hydrogen and Hydrogen Hubs.............................    64
        Other Defense Activities.....................................    49
    Transmission Permitting..........................................    58
    Using BIL and IRA Funding to Provide Technical Assistance to
      Local Communities..............................................    67
    Working with Other Federal Agencies on BIL and IRA Funded
      Programs.......................................................    68
                                   __________

                           DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                             Bureau of Reclamation

    Additional Committee Questions...................................    29

                                      [all]