U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

50–512 PDF WASHINGTON : 2024

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 

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington, Chair 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 1

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

JON TESTER, Montana 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut 

JOE MANCHIN, III, West Virginia 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

GARY PETERS, Michigan 

KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona 2

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine, Vice Chair 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana 

CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi 

BILL HAGERTY, Tennessee 

KATIE BRITT, Alabama 

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 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona 3

JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana, Ranking 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi 

BILL HAGERTY, Tennessee 

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) 

1Died September 29, 2023. 

2 Appointed to Committee October 18, 2023. 

3 Appointed to Subcommittee November 2, 2023. 
(III) 

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 

(1) 

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, HydeSmith, 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 
2 

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. 
3 

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. 
4 

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 
5 

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 longterm fiscal outlook. 
6 

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 in- clude 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 Common-
7 

wealth 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 fis-
8 

cal 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. 
9 

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. 
10 

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. 
11 

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. 
12 

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-ageneration 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-theground 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. 
13 

Our 2024 budget includes $105.3 million for extraordinary main- tenance 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 
14 

1 U.S. Department of the Interior Economic Contributions Report—Fiscal Year 2019. 

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. 

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. 
15 

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 settle-
16 

ment 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 
17 

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 
18 

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. 
19 

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. 
20 

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 shortterm 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. 
21 

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. 
22 

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 an-
23 

other 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 
24 

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. 
25 

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 
26 

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 bene-
27 

ficially 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-in-
28 

tended 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. 
29 

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. 
30 

[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: 
31 

‘‘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 
32 

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. 

WRDA Chief’s Reports 

Authorized 

2022 ..................................................................................................................................................... 25 

2020 ..................................................................................................................................................... 46 

2018 ..................................................................................................................................................... 12 

2016 ..................................................................................................................................................... 30 

2014 ..................................................................................................................................................... 34 

2007 ..................................................................................................................................................... 46 

2000 ..................................................................................................................................................... 2(281) 

1999 ..................................................................................................................................................... 30 (152) 

1996 ..................................................................................................................................................... 31(133) 

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 se-
33 

curity. 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? 
34 

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. 
35 

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. 
36 

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.] 
(37) 

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. 
38 

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 regard-
39 

ing 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. 
40 

[The information follows:] 
41 
42 

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 
43 

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.’’ 
44 

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:] 
45 

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. 
46 

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. 
47 

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 
48 

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 
49 

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. 
50 

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 
51 

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. 
52 

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—— 
53 

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— 
54 

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? 
55 

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. 
56 

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 
57 

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. 
58 

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 
59 

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. 
60 

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 
61 

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 Con-
62 

gress, 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. 
63 

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. 
64 

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 stor-
65 

age 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. 
66 

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 
67 

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 
68 

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 
69 

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 
70 

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.’’ 
71 

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.] 

(73) 

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 .................. 3, 39 

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

by ........................................................................................................................... 30, 31 

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

of .............................................................................................................................. 1, 37 

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 

(75) 

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 
Page

76 

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 

Æ