`[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]`