[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT
APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2018
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
____________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT,
AND RELATED AGENCIES
MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho, Chairman
KEN CALVERT, California MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
CHARLES J. FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
KAY GRANGER, Texas PETER AGUILAR, California
JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio
DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
NOTE: Under committee rules, Mr. Frelinghuysen, as chairman of the
full committee, and Mrs. Lowey, as ranking minority member of the full
committee, are authorized to sit as members of all subcommittees.
Donna Shahbaz, Angie Giancarlo, Loraine Heckenberg,
Perry Yates, and Amy Murphy
Subcommittee Staff
___________
PART 5
Page
Testimony of Interested Members of Congress .................... 1
Testimony of Interested Individuals and Organizations .......... 121
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Civil Works)
and Bureau of Reclamation ...................................... 323
Department of Energy............................................ 409
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
_________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
_________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
28-306 WASHINGTON: 2018
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
----------
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey, Chairman
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky \1\ NITA M. LOWEY, New York
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
KAY GRANGER, Texas PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
KEN CALVERT, California LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
TOM COLE, Oklahoma SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida BARBARA LEE, California
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
TOM GRAVES, Georgia TIM RYAN, Ohio
KEVIN YODER, Kansas C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
CHARLES J. FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington DEREK KILMER, Washington
DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania
DAVID G. VALADAO, California GRACE MENG, New York
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland MARK POCAN, Wisconsin
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts
MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada PETE AGUILAR, California
CHRIS STEWART, Utah
DAVID YOUNG, Iowa
EVAN H. JENKINS, West Virginia
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
SCOTT TAYLOR, Virginia
----------
\1\}Chairman Emeritus
Nancy Fox, Clerk and Staff Director
(ii)
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
2018
----------
Wednesday, March 8, 2017.
MEMBERS' DAY
Mr. Simpson. The hearing will come to order, and today we
have a Members' hearing for Members of the Congress to come
testify before--sorry, I didn't put it on. Today we have a
Members hearing for Members to come and testify before Congress
about areas of importance in the Energy and Water Appropriation
bill, and we are happy to welcome all Members of Congress that
have comments to make and suggestions for us.
We are happy to welcome two Members today, Rick Nolan from
Minnesota, and Francis Rooney from Florida.
Rick, it is your time to give us our testimony. The floor
is yours.
----------
Wednesday, March 8, 2017.
WITNESS
HON. RICHARD M. NOLAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
MINNESOTA
Mr. Nolan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members of
the committee, and thank you for all the great work you have
done.
Mr. Simpson. Turn your mic on, please.
Mr. Nolan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, members
of the committee, for hearing from us, and thank you for all
the great work that this committee has done for this country.
Much appreciated.
I wanted to just briefly talk about the Poe Lock at the Soo
Narrows, and I am sure you are probably familiar with it, but I
do want to remind you that about a year-and-a-half, 2 years
ago, Homeland Security did a study, and they found that 13
percent of the Nation's gross national product goes through the
locks at the Soo Narrows, and that is how all the mining in
business and agriculture and industry from Lake Superior gets
into the Great Lakes and into the Saint Lawrence Seaway.
Thirteen percent of Nation's gross national product goes
through those locks.
And Homeland Security concluded, among other things, that
if those locks failed us for any reason, it would throw the
country into a great depression, put as many as 7 to 10 million
people out of work, and countless businesses out of business,
not just throughout the midwest, but as far west as California
and as far east as New York, and as far south as Florida and
Texas.
Why? Well, much of that product that goes through there is
ore from the mines in Minnesota, Wisconsin; and they, of
course, fuel the steel mills of the Great Lakes which, in turn,
fund the--or supply the automobile industry and all the
manufacturing and industries throughout the Great Lakes region.
It is a very, very powerful part of our country. In fact, the
study concluded that the economy of the Great Lakes, if it were
a nation by itself, would be the fourth most powerful economic
nation in the world.
So that is why we have military protection at the Soo Locks
to protect us against some kind of, you know, terrorist or
asymmetrical military attack. But the simple truth is, the
locks are becoming very, very obsolete, and badly in need of
repair. They are not large enough to accommodate the--today's
most modern Lakers, the ships that haul so much of the grain
and the iron ore, and they are badly and desperately in need of
replacement. The price tag is enormous. It is estimated to be
as much as $600 million to replace that Poe Lock, which is
falling apart, and to create a redundancy and a support of lock
to keep that commerce flowing throughout the country.
I want to applaud this committee for appropriating $1.35
million to do a cost-and-feasibility analysis so that we could
get on with repairing this critically important part of our
national security and our national economy, but bring to the
attention of the committee the profound need to begin the
process of funding this new lock, which is so critical to our
economy, so that we can protect ourselves, continue to protect
ourselves from a military attack, from natural disaster, or
something we are totally in control of which is protect
ourselves against negligence, and not stepping up to do the
kinds of replacements and repairs that are necessary.
So beyond that, Mr. Chairman, I won't take a whole lot of
your time. I want to thank you for the work that you have done
on invasive species as well. Up in my district in particular,
we have the Mississippi watershed, we have the St. Louis
watershed going into the Great Lakes, we have the Rainy Lake
watershed going up into the boundary waters. We are water rich,
and among other things, we need to protect that and protect
ourselves from the multitude of invasive species that threaten
the health of our fish and wildlife and waters.
So thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Be glad to take any
questions any of you might have, and thank you for the work
that you do here. It is very important to our country, our
economy, and I would hope that this could be part of President
Trump's $1 trillion infrastructure plan. It certainly needs to
be considered.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Congressman. Does any member have
any questions? Ms. Kaptur.
Ms. Kaptur. You know I can't let this moment go by.
Mr. Simpson. I knew that.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Representative Nolan. What an outstanding representative you
are, including for the Great Lakes, and I just wanted to ask
you: Obviously, I am a great supporter of the study that is--we
have funded, but I wondered if you have been privy, as a
representative from Duluth, of any engineering studies that may
have been done by the private sector that talk about the future
of the seaway as a modern seaway. It was built during the
Eisenhower era. It is over a half century old now.
In terms of the width of the locks, right now you mention
in your testimony, 13 Lakers heavily involved in the steel
industry hauling ore, but what would be the proper width? What
would be the proper dimension of the seaway from your region on
down all the way to Messina? Have you seen such an engineering
study to modernize the seaway?
Mr. Nolan. Well, I have seen some of them. I can tell you
right now, that the Lakers are operating at only about 80
percent of capacity just because there has not been enough
money put into the necessary dredging programs, and the locks
are not even capable of handling the larger Lakers or the next
generation of Lakers, and this is costing our country, oh, my
gosh, the estimates are, you know, up into the billions of
economic growth and income to the country.
So I should know this, but is this committee responsible
for the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund?
Mr. Simpson. Yes.
Mr. Nolan. Well, that is what I thought, and you know, I
think there is a balance in there of about $7 billion, and we
all applaud bipartisanship, and to be sure, we should. I must
say, there are cases where bipartisanship is not necessarily so
good, because I think both Democrats and Republicans have
raided that fund for other purposes.
So I would strongly urge the committee, when it comes to
that Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, to see to it that more of
those monies, which are paid for by the Lakers, that is a use
tax, to maintain and upgrade the Great Lakes seaway system,
which has just fallen terribly far behind, and I would strongly
urge you to use your authority here to make sure that more of
those Harbor Maintenance Trust Funds are dedicated to what they
were established for, which is maintaining the Great Lakes
seaway system. It is so vital to our economy and our well-being
and the creation of good-paying jobs in this country.
Ms. Kaptur. I thank you for making that linkage, and also
just to say, in closing, that if you have recommendations of
firms, of studies, of individuals on the engineering side that
could meet with our Great Lakes task force and provide
information to this committee, this subcommittee, I think I
would be very appreciative of that.
We have our regular big meeting in May coming up, but I
think we need have a vision of the seaway and where the locks
you referenced fit. But there is a bigger vision that, I think,
actually, this committee has not been apprised of and of
options, and other places in the country are much better
organized, speaking very frankly, in terms of a vision for how
to modernize their coastal ports or their regional assets, and
I think that we need stronger voices, and yours is one of
those. So I would just urge you to help us pull together that
information in a coherent manner, and I thank you very much for
your testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence and the
committee's indulgence.
Mr. Simpson. Any other members have any question?
Yeah, and I appreciate your point now. I think it is about
$9 billion that is in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. We
haven't used it for anything else. We can't use it within our
budget, which is kind of weird, because of budget rules and
what it would do to our overall budget and stuff, so we have
got to find a way around that.
The Transportation Committee tried to do that last year and
was kind of shot down on it, but we are working on it. That is
something we still need to do, because you shouldn't be
collecting a tax to address a need and just growing more and
more money in that if you are not addressing the need. That is
something this committee recognizes, and we need to get
Congress to recognize that also. So I appreciate your
testimony, and thank you for being here today.
Mr. Nolan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Rooney.
---------- --
Wednesday, March 8, 2017.
WITNESS
HON. FRANCIS ROONEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
FLORIDA
Mr. Rooney. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee for giving me the opportunity to speak today about
the Everglades as well as for all of the important things you
have done in the past for the Everglades for so many important
infrastructure projects in the country.
The Everglades and Lake Okeechobee watershed include 16
counties and 164 cities. It has a $2 trillion economic impact
on the State of Florida, and supports 55 percent, 1.3 trillion
of the real estate value in Florida. For every dollar invested
in the Everglades and Okeechobee watershed, $4 of economic
benefits are produced.
Due to a century of development, the greater Everglades'
ecosystem is now less than one-half of its original size. The
rest of it is Miami and Ft. Lauderdale now, and Lake Okeechobee
fills up six times faster than it can be drained, which results
in massive discharges into the adjacent rivers and marshes, and
sends untreated water down into them.
It also impacts the delicate balance of fresh and saline
water in the ecosystem. The Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan, or CERP, seeks to restore the balance to
these delicate ecosystems and reduce harmful discharges in the
Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie estuaries and send clean water
south into the marshes of the Everglades of Florida Bay.
CERP was created by the Congress in the State of Florida in
2000. It includes 68 projects that will combine to create
storage, treatment, and flow southward into the marshes of the
Everglades; storage and treatment of water entering into Lake
Okeechobee from the north, and you all have funded the
Kissimmee restoration, which is a big part of that; and
balancing of the flows to control salinity. CERP was set up to
share the cost 50/50 between the State and the Federal
Government, and as of December 2016, the State had expended
about $2.2 billion, and the Federal Government had contributed
about $1.26 billion, so it is a 63 to 37 percent split instead
of 50/50, and so we think that the Federal Government has some
catching up to do if we could get the money.
In fact, there are three projects that were authorized way
back in the 19--in the 2007 WRRDA bill, which are still
incomplete, the site 1 impoundment over by Palm Beach in the
Loxahatchee Wildlife Refuge, the Picayune Strand project in
Collier County, and the Indian River Lagoon, or C-44, along the
St. Lucie Canal. The cost to complete these three projects is
$3.3 billion, most of which is centered in the C-44 basin.
Additionally, there are four projects from the 2014 WRRDA
bill which have not been completed; the C-43 West Storage Basin
in LaBelle; the C-111 Spreader Canal on the east side of
Miami--west side of the Miami, and what this will do is keep
Miami pollution from seeping back into the Everglades from the
east; the Broward County water preserve area; and the Biscayne
Bay Coastal Wetlands project. You can see they are all around
the lake; it is not just centered in one area. Each of these
projects is essential to completing the whole mosaic of
restoring the watershed and the Everglades.
The cost to complete these projects is $1.7 billion, but
the State of Florida will pay $800 million of that to complete
C-43. It is worth noting how robust and vibrant is the
partnership between South Florida Water Management and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. It is a great example of two areas of
government working very well together. In the case of C-43,
there were no Federal appropriations, so the State decided to
go ahead and do the whole thing, and hopefully the Federal
Government can catch up on some of these other projects that
would offset that.
The 2016 WRRDA bill contained several new CERP
authorizations, one of which is the Central Everglades Planning
Project, which is six projects for $1.9 billion, which
constructs a whole series of projects to bring 210,000-acre
feet of Lake Okeechobee water down into the Everglades into
storage treatment basins, and then into the water conservation
areas and down into the national park.
The CERP includes several features, including backfilling
of some canals that impede the flow of the water, and removing
of some old levees and roads, and construction of a 15,000-acre
foot Flow Equalization Basin, just west of an existing one that
was recently built by the State of Florida. The one that was
built by the State of Florida was taking in water of 400 parts
per billion of dissolved pollutants, mostly phosphates, and
turning it out at 10 or 12. So these are very effective
devices, and so this is a great opportunity to expand that.
The second WRRDA authorization project is to finish the
Picayune Strand. That is a 55,000-acre of drained wetlands in
Collier County, which also has flood control aspects of
draining several neighborhoods to the north and it is last 133
million of that.
So and lastly, in addition to these projects, the Corps is
responsible for the repair and replacement of the Hoover Dike,
which was built in the 1930s to prevent some of the terrible
floods that happened then. And it wasn't constructed all that
well. Construction back then was done differently than
constructions done now, and the Corps has done the first 40
miles, and there is about two-thirds left to complete. That is
$800 million.
So basically, the Corps has supplied a high of $120 million
back in 2010, and we are down to a low of, like, $69 million
last year, so we are hoping that we can continue to demonstrate
how important these projects are, and that we try to keep them
moving forward to the extent that the committee can fit that
into your, I know, very difficult work schedule and great
demands for your money, but I appreciate your time today. Thank
you very much.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. I appreciate you, Congressman
Rooney. Questions?
Ms. Kaptur. No questions. I just thank Representative
Rooney for being such an articulate spokesman for the
Everglades and for your region. You really fight for her. Your
constituents are fortunate.
Ms. Rooney. Thank you, ma'am.
Mr. Calvert. Thanks for coming down. I am looking forward
to entertaining you there and check it out.
Mr. Simpson. This committee has a lot to do with it, too.
Obviously, from the Interior Subcommittee, so both the
committee--the Interior Committee have a lot to do with funding
the restoration of the Everglades and trying to get it back
into shape, and we will be down there as soon as you get rid of
those pythons.
Mr. Rooney. We might have to get you down sooner than that,
Mr. Simpson.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
Mr. Rooney. Thank you very much.
Mr. Joyce. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Joyce.
Mr. Joyce. I would like to point out that I had the
opportunity to go down and tour with the Everglades Foundation,
and they have the same algal water problem, algal blooms, that
we suffer in Lake Erie, and there are a lot of good projects
that are being done, and so any way we could help Congressman
Rooney along these lines would be, I am sure, deeply
appreciated by the people down there.
It is hard to fathom that they push out a half trillion
gallons of freshwater into the ocean every year because they
can't contain it in the Everglades, and as we all know, those
are nature's kidneys, so the more we can do to help them, the
better off the Everglades will be.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate you being
here today, Congressman Rooney.
Congressman Comer.
---------- --
--------
Wednesday, March 8, 2017.
WITNESS
HON. JAMES COMER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
KENTUCKY
Mr. Comer. Thank you. Chairman Simpson, Ranking Member
Kaptur, thank you for the opportunity to testify regarding the
fiscal year 2018 Energy and Water Development and Related
Agencies Appropriations bill. I testify to urge adequate
funding for two very important projects to the First District
of Kentucky, the Paducah Department of Energy cleanup site, and
the Kentucky Lock Addition Project.
First, I ask this committee to fully fund the Paducah
Department of Energy cleanup site. As you may know, in 1959,
the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant opened to support this
country's nuclear weapons program, and later transitioned to
produce nuclear fuel for commercial power plants. Because of
this work, significant amounts of contaminated soil and
groundwater remain at the site. Deactivation and cleanup work
began in July 2014, and while much progress has been made,
there is still much work yet to do.
Funding closer to the fiscal year 2014 level is imperative
to allow the Department of Energy to accelerate the C-400
building cleanout project, which is connected to hazards
associated with historic groundwater contamination.
Second, I ask this committee to adequately fund the Army
Corps of Engineers' construction account to continue the work
of upgrading our waterways infrastructure. The Kentucky Lock
Addition Project in my district is an example of a much-needed
project that would benefit from adequate funding for Corps
construction.
The Kentucky Lock Addition Project was authorized in the
Water Resources Development Act of 1996. This project includes
design and construction of a new 110-by-1200 lock to be located
landward of the existing 110-by-600 lock. Products originated--
originating from or designated to 20 States pass through
Kentucky Lock.
Since most of the tows are greater than 600 feet in length,
they must perform a very time-consuming double lockage to
transit through the existing 600-foot--600-foot long Kentucky
Lock. As a result, Kentucky Lock has some of the longest
average delay times of any lock in the inland waterway system,
with the average delay of over 8 hours.
Recently, the Inland Waterways User Board learned that the
total project cost would increase by $380 million to $1.2
billion due to the uncertainty of sufficient funding. Without
sufficient funding, the expected completion date of 2024 will
add at least 5 years.
Therefore, I respectfully request that the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers' construction account receive sufficient funding
to avoid delays to completion of projects like the Kentucky
Lock Addition and escalating project prices.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and if
anyone has any questions, I will be happy to answer them.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Simpson. Thank you for being here today and testifying
on these programs.
Are there any questions? Mr. Newhouse.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to say
that I appreciate Mr. Comer's bringing to our attention the
nuclear waste issues that you have in your district. I can
certainly relate to the challenges and the importance of
nuclear waste cleanup. We have a similar situation in my own
district, and I just wanted to thank you for pointing that out,
and also talking about the urgency of getting that kind of work
done.
Mr. Comer. Thank you.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Any further questions? Hearing none, thank you
for being here today. We appreciate it very much.
Mr. Comer. Thank you for your hard work.
Mr. Simpson. We are waiting for our next witnesses that--we
have some breaks in the schedule as people decided not to
testify, originally signed up and a few things like that, so we
are kind of waiting for the next ones to show up here, but let
me just take a moment to welcome the three new members that are
here to our subcommittee. Congressman Newhouse from Washington,
Congressman Joyce, and Congressman Aguilar, thank you for being
here today, and you will find this is an interesting committee
when we get into a lot of these different subjects and stuff
that a lot of people don't know a lot about, so----
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you.
Mr. Simpson. If nothing else, we will take a brief pause--
--
Mr. Calvert. Have a donut.
Mr. Simpson. Have a donut--for the others to show up.
[Recess.]
Mr. Simpson. Okay. The committee will be back in order. We
now welcome to--we are now happy to welcome Mr. Panetta from
California to testify before the committee. The floor is yours
for 5 minutes.
---------- --
--------
Wednesday, March 8, 2017.
WITNESS
HON. JIMMY PANETTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA
Mr. Panetta. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
that, Ranking Member Kaptur, other members of the committee.
Thank you very much for this opportunity. I appreciate it. It
is an honor to be here, as always.
As many of you know or may not know, my family, I represent
California's 20th Congressional District on the central coast.
My family has deep roots in that area. My grandfather, an
Italian immigrant, came to that area, my father was raised in
that area, I was raised in that area, and now it is where my
wife and I raise our two daughters. I am proud of that area not
only because it is my home, but because I feel it has the most
beautiful environment as well as the most bountiful
agriculture.
With both those traits, as you can imagine, we are
constantly trying to find a balance, environmentally,
economically, obviously politically, and with both those
qualities, though, we are also trying to find effective water
infrastructure, which is critical to that area. It ensures the
environmental protection and it--which facilitates the economic
activity of that area.
And so today, I want to bring to your attention an ongoing
Army Corps of Engineering project that does threaten the safety
of the residents of a certain area in my district and the
viability of the agricultural businesses of that same area. It
is the Pajaro River Project. That consists of a series of
levees built to protect the cities of Watsonville and Pajaro
from flooding. Originally, these towns were settled by a large
Croatian, Japanese, and Italian immigrant communities who came
there to work the land, and yes, like my grandfather, to live
the American dream.
Today, immigrants, mainly of Latino descent, continue to
come to this area, work in the fields, and yes, contribute to
our community. The Pajaro River Project was originally
constructed in 1949 to protect the people of those communities.
However, the Corps and the community have recognized that that
project's flood protection has been inadequate. Watsonville
only has a 25-year flood protection, and the town of Pajaro
only has a 7-year protection.
The levees have received a patchwork of repairs over the
years, but that does not address the necessary flood
protection, nor does it safeguard the citizens from harm, and
even the Corps has estimated that there is an 82 percent threat
of flood in the next decade.
One of the most glaring examples of this type of threat was
in 1995, where there was a large flood that dramatically
impacted the locals in that area. It resulted in over $95
million in damage to the surrounding communities, and hundreds
of people were displaced as a result of it.
One local who was personally impacted by that flood was a
rose grower named Eugene Tsugi, T-s-u-g-i. His business, 2G
Roses, was inundated with floodwaters. His home, as well as his
sister's home, were damaged by floodwater. In fact, the damages
that he sustained were well over $1 million. He used to joke
that his son, who was born 2 days after the flood, would go to
college before the levees in that area were repaired.
Well, unfortunately, due to a lack of action by the Army
Corps of Engineers, that prediction was true. His son today is
now an All American gymnast and a junior at the University of
Washington near Seattle.
In 2015, the Pajaro Project was incorporated into the Corps
3 years SMART planning timeline, with a deadline of March 2018
for the completion of a feasibility study, and environmental
impact statement. The Corps has failed to keep the project on
schedule. Though the locals have fronted 3.2 million to date to
keep the project moving, the project is still an estimated 18
months behind schedule. It is an ongoing threat to the
community. In the last 8 months, the community has spent 1.5
million on emergency damage response.
The local non-Federal sponsors would like to keep this
project moving, but they feel the Corps are not responsive, and
it continues to be a threat to the safety of its local
residents. Although last month, I met with Major General
Jackson from the Army Corps to discuss the delays associated
with this project, I found him to be very responsive. In fact,
he is going to be traveling to the district to witness the
project firsthand, and I hope that he sees the communities
affected by the flooding, and he gets to hear from individuals
who have suffered the damages from flooding, either to the
property, and especially the agricultural businesses.
So today, I ask the committee for continued funding for
these water projects. It is an investment in these projects
that are critical for the communities who rely on them for
safety and economic prosperity. When making these investments,
we should ensure that we are holding the Corps accountable to
their own timelines. I urge the inclusion of report language
requiring the Corps to provide an update on the current status
and timeline moving forward of all projects subject to the 3-
year SMART planning criteria within 90 days of the passage of
this act. This would allow for increased oversight for the
committee, while also increasing the accountability to local
non-Federal sponsors.
To ensure that the value of agriculture land is
appropriately calculated when conducting cost-benefit analysis,
more work is needed. Agricultural land in the Pajaro Valley is
some of the most valuable in the county. When flooding, these
farms often miss multiple growing seasons as they address
environmental and flood safety concerns.
I have heard from locals that they believe that their
agricultural land has been undervalued because the only value
of the physical crop damage was accounted for. I also urge the
inclusion of report language directing the Corps to incorporate
the full economic value of agricultural land when completing
its cost-benefit analysis.
This would make projects in rural communities more
competitive for adoption into the Corps work plan by more
accurately valuing the economic impact of agricultural
production.
I thank you for your time. I look forward to working with
you to advance the health, safety, and economic liability of
our rural communities depending on these investments and our
water infrastructure. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Congressman. I appreciate you being
here today and bringing us up to speed on what is happening in
your area per your request.
Are there any questions?
Mr. Aguilar. Congressman, what crops are at risk directly?
What is the kind of the primary--I know there is a lot, a lot
there, but can you give us a bit of flavor?
Mr. Panetta. Of course. Look, in that area, it is the salad
bowl of the world, as you know, Pete. It is an area that has,
you name it, we got it. Strawberries are the main crop in that
area, brussel sprouts, raspberries, artichokes, leafy greens,
spinach, you know, I can go on and on. There is over--that area
has over 100 crops. More crops on the central coast are grown
than any other single State. These are areas that basically
feed the Nation. It puts these types of crops onto the shelves
of our stores, and eventually onto the tables that our
families--so our families can eat it.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you
Mr. Simpson. You had me till you said brussel sprouts. Ken
and I argue about the value of brussel sprouts all the time. If
there are no other questions, thank you for being here today.
We appreciate it appearing before the committee.
Mr. Newhouse. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to say that Mr.
Calvert, I am sure, would lead a trip. This is a very terrible
place in the world to visit at any given point.
Mr. Simpson. I understand it is fairly ugly, too.
Mr. Aguilar. Yes, so it might deserve some more thought.
Mr. Newhouse. Mr. Chairman, just one short question.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Newhouse.
Mr. Newhouse. I appreciate that. Thank you. First of all, I
wanted to compliment your constituents' excellent choice of
looking north for quality education, but in light--and thank
you for your effort to preserve valuable farmland in the State
of California. In light of all the precipitation that we have
gotten in the West Coast this year, is that exacerbating the
problem as far as the flood concerns are right there in that
area?
Mr. Panetta. You know, the obvious answer is yes, there is
no doubt about that. But it is funny, during last year, you
know, I went to a meeting where hundreds of community members
showed up before the rains, and it has been an ongoing issue
with them. So it is not just the rains that have highlighted
this issue. This is something that if you live in that area, if
you work in that area, if you do agriculture in this area, you
know the risk that it can pose to that area.
And so, yes, it is obviously highlighted. They had to put
$1.5 million in damage repair because of the flooding that we
experienced, but this is going to keep on going and going if it
is not fixed any time soon.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. I will say this, Congressman Farr, your
predecessor, approached me even a couple of years ago about
this while it was not all these heavy rains and everything was
not the issue. It was that there was no water at the time, but
he still recognized the problem that we had there, so thank you
for carrying on on that.
Mr. Panetta. You bet. Thank you. Thank you to the
committee.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you for being here.
Mr. Panetta. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Mast, Congressman Mast, good to have you
here today.
Mr. Mast. Good to be here, sir.
Mr. Simpson. The floor is yours for 5 minutes to testify on
what you would like to see this committee do.
---------- --
--------
Wednesday, March 8, 2017.
WITNESS
HON. BRIAN J. MAST, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
FLORIDA
Mr. Mast. I appreciate it, sir. Chairman, Ranking Member
Kaptur, the rest of you members here, I appreciate you letting
me address you. I am here to advocate on behalf of robust
funding to for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, basically to
advance and expand their river and harbor maintenance, flood
and storm damage reduction, shore protection, and environmental
restoration missions.
In my Florida congressional district, which spans St.
Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties, the most pressing issue
that folks face really, there are harmful and unnatural massive
discharges, sometimes up to 7 million gallons of freshwater per
minute that are directed by the Corps of Engineers out of Lake
Okeechobee and into the heart of our coastal saltwater
community. These discharges, they are imposed by the Federal
Government, and they turn the St. Lucie River and our
Nation's--really the Nation's most species-diverse saltwater
estuary, the Indian River Lagoon, into an algae-infested toxic
waterway that surrounds hundreds of thousands of residents, and
the resulting algal blooms, they kill beloved wildlife, like
manatees and dolphins.
These toxins that are released by the algal blooms, they
hurt people through air and water, children can't go swimming
or play near the water, the elderly residents must stay, you
know, really inside of their homes if they live near the toxic
air. These blooms also destroy our economy, because you can't
sell a house that sits on top of toxic water. Nobody wants to
go on vacation near toxic water. Nobody wants to go boating or
fishing or anything like that in a giant stew of algae.
As a result, local and small businesses, our bars, our
shops, our restaurants, paddle board companies, outdoor
recreation stores, gas stations, fishing charters, they are all
suffering. After fouling our community, the discharged water is
simply lost out to sea. It is wasted, when it really could have
been put to important use had it not been discharged in the
first place.
Every time the Federal Government imposes these discharges,
it means that hundreds of millions of gallons of water are less
for drought reduction, hundreds of millions of gallons less for
Everglades in Florida Bay, hundreds of millions of gallons less
to replenish our Florida aquifers, the drinking water source
for 8 million south Floridians.
I can tell you these people in the Treasure Coastal of
Florida, they understand the critical need for flood protection
in the area and other communities surrounding ours, those south
of Lake Okeechobee that prompt these discharges. However, my
constituents back home, they just can't accept that despite a
scientifically sound and decades'-old action plan, the State of
Florida is fulfilling its financial responsibilities; the
Federal attention and resources don't seem to respond to our
water woes in the same way, regardless of how large the problem
grows at either end of the Everglades ecosystem.
The lack of responsiveness from Federal Government on
Everglades restoration, it stems from one of three different
places, different processes, all that feed into one another:
project administration, project authorization, and project
appropriations, and really delays in any one process. They
impose further delays on the other processes, and when you are
talking about more than 60 individual comprehensive Everglades
ecosystem restoration plan projects, it can really add up in
the end.
So administratively, the Army Corps of Engineers is
reluctant to marry their flood control mission with their Lake
Okeechobee and ecological restoration mission in the
Everglades, but coordinating these missions is the key to
ensuring that more water is directed towards Everglades
National Park, and away from coastal communities like my own.
As vice chair of the Water Resources and Environment
Subcommittee, you can count on it being my priority to pass
Water Resources Development Act that includes more CERP project
authorizations, and from an appropriations standpoint, I can
tell you there is more funding is needed to allow the Corps of
Engineers to quicken the pace of rehabilitation of Herbert
Hoover Dike around Lake Okeechobee. You know, just my ask to
you all, let's get this done. Let's get it off the books, and
let's get Florida's water system repaired.
More funding is needed to accelerate the construction of
these already authorized CERP projects, the Indian River
Lagoon-South, the Central Everglades Project, among others.
There is a number of CERP projects that are still awaiting
authorization in part, because funding and legal limitations on
the Corps of Engineers with respect to investigations and
studies.
I would respectfully ask that the subcommittee consider
increasing the appropriations for the Army Corps investigations
and to raise the cap on the number of study starts for
environmental restoration projects the Secretary of the Army
can green light in each fiscal year. One a year simply isn't
sufficient.
And, finally, I would like to welcome the Chairman, the
Ranking Member, every member of this subcommittee down to the
Treasure Coast to witness firsthand the devastating impacts
that we see around Lake Okeechobee discharges and the harmful
algal blooms.
I thank you all for your time and your important efforts to
craft an Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill that
reflects the concerns and the priorities of the American
people. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Other questions?
Mr. Mast. Yes, ma'am.
Mr. Simpson. Ms. Kaptur.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Mast,
thank you so much for being here this morning. I wanted to ask
you, you are in a really important position as vice chair of
WRRDA, of the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee and
Transportation and Infrastructure. Your statement in the
testimony, reluctant--``Army Corps is reluctant to marry their
flood control mission at Lake Okeechobee with their ecological
restoration mission in the Everglades,'' and you specifically
mention algal blooms, which is a gigantic problem in the lake
that I represent, Lake Erie in the north.
I am interested in that dysfunction. Why do you think that
happens? It is really important that you recognize that in your
testimony, reluctant to marry their flood control mission with
their ecological restoration mission? Is there something wrong
with the authorizing legislation?
Mr. Mast. Well, you know, when we look at the flood control
mission, they are taking water that naturally flows south
towards the Florida Bay, and instead, they are sending it out
the East Coast and the West Coast of Florida in a very
unnatural way, and that is in the aim of flood protection, but
at the same time, that water is, quite literally, needed in the
Florida Everglades. The Florida Everglades are dry, they are
drying up. They don't have the water that they need.
So at one point we are sending freshwater in directions
where it is not naturally meant to go. The coastal estuaries
are, by nature, saltwater, and we are releasing freshwater into
them. So by nature, it is harmful, before you even talk about
the added nutrients that are in the water, and that is water
that is actually needed for ecosystem restoration further
south, which is where we want to see it head to and where all
of these existing projects, should they be brought to
completion, they will work towards moving that water south.
And so unfortunately, when it is not prioritized in that
way, we end up causing damage to both ecosystems when sending
water in one direction would really help both ecosystems.
Ms. Kaptur. Were they badly designed in the beginning?
Mr. Mast. When you talk about ``badly designed in the
beginning,'' we are talking about going back, you know, 100-
plus years to when Lake Okeechobee was dammed up to begin with
because it did used to naturally flow down to the Florida Bay,
so we are talking about a very, very old problem.
But in that, yes. It is badly designed in that these
projects are not being allowed to come to completion. The point
that I make to people is this often, when you are talking about
the design of this. The Hoover Dam, not the Herbert Hoover
Dike, that was the Nation's biggest infrastructure project.
That was built in 5 years. This project is literally taking
decades. And when you consider how much smaller it is, that is
something that should trouble every one of us, especially when
you are talking about doing that kind of damage to both
ecosystems.
We have to prioritize, you know, these projects, get them
done, you know, in orders, you know, in the order that they
give, so that we can see one after another after another come
to completion, and end up not harming both ecosystems in the
end.
Ms. Kaptur. And could you describe the source of the algal
blooms?
Mr. Mast. Yes.
Ms. Kaptur. The nutrients?
Mr. Mast. Yes, ma'am. So during, primarily, the summer
months, when there is an excess of rain that fills up the
Florida watersheds, as we know, most water flows south, so when
you get water north of Lake Okeechobee coming in on the
Kissimmee River, which is also an issue. It was straightened by
the Corps of Engineers. It used to run like a snake, but it was
straightened out, so now the lake fills up something about six
times faster than what it was originally designed to fill up
at. That is what causes this need for releasing the water to
the east and the west, because it can't get that water out of
there quick enough. So you know, when we get those summer rains
and it fills up that much, and there is added heat and that
freshwater comes out into our coastal estuaries, that is how we
get those algal blooms combined with the additional nutrients
that are in this water to which I would make this point:
For the Florida Everglades largely inhabited by snakes,
turtles, alligators, and fowl, waterfowl, there are water
standards for 10 parts per billion of phosphorous that can go
down into the Florida Everglades. For the water that goes out
to the East Coast and the West Coast of Florida where there are
hundreds of thousands of residents, there are no water quality
standards. Now, that is a State issue, but that is something
that should be very troubling.
Ms. Kaptur. Does agriculture contribute to the nutrients
loading?
Mr. Mast. Without question. When you have agriculture in
and around, you know, any area that feeds into the watershed,
absolutely, anything that goes onto those agriculture products
are going to feed into that watershed.
Ms. Kaptur. Not knowing your area, is it animal
agriculture, or is it vegetables or fruits?
Mr. Mast. So there is a plethora of agriculture. As I said,
you have a watershed that feeds from, you know, hundreds of
miles north, from 100 miles north, you know near the Kissimmee
River, that feeds in, all the agriculture surrounding that
feeds into Lake Okeechobee, all of the agriculture fields,
there is an entire area surrounding Lake Okeechobee called the
Everglades Agricultural Area. It is all farming, and all of
those areas and what is put on those crops, absolutely, that
plays a role into what is going into Lake Okeechobee, and what
is spilling out into the coastal estuaries.
Ms. Kaptur. I thank the gentleman. I thank the chairman for
your indulgence because Congressman Joyce and I share a very
serious issue in Lake Erie, shallows to the Great Lakes that is
moving toward death right now as we sit here, and it drains the
largest watershed in the Great Lakes region, and all the
instrumentalities we have have not put us on pathway to really
solve that problem fast enough. And, so, I look at your area
and I am listening and I am saying, huh, there is some
similarities here in this 21st century.
We have to look at these watersheds, and we have to have a
different way of approaching them more quickly, and we don't
have that mechanism yet that some of our prior witnesses talked
about the State government having responsibility for certain
projects, working with the Federal Government, and the Federal
Government doesn't fund its share, but this is--this is a 21st
century problem, and we don't have the proper structure to move
quickly enough. So I appreciate your testimony, and I
appreciate the----
Mr. Mast. Can I give you one other point on that?
Ms. Kaptur [continuing].--Chair's indulgence. Yes.
Mr. Mast. Just on your point just now. You know, when you
look at ERDC, energy--rather, Engineering, Resource, and
Development where they basically do all the testing for
projects surrounding the Corps of Engineers, they don't have,
you know, the robust resources to go out there and pursue
research into ways to fix your algal blooms, my algal blooms,
those that go on down into Louisiana at the massive level that
we see them.
When we are talking about cleaning a fish tank, yeah, that
is something that we can do, but when we are talking about a
rate at 7 million gallons a minute, or whatever it is that you
may experience up there, or whatever it is that they experience
down, you know, along the Mississippi and other places, I think
this would be a great place as well to put research in, being
that it is affecting so many different areas.
Ms. Kaptur. Your statement, that is what I was interested
in, ``reluctant to marry their flood control mission with their
ecological restoration mission.'' That is a very insightful
contribution to thinking about this. In our area, we have the
problem that stretches over three States and another--a part of
another nation, and so we can't get our arms around it, and
yet, we know it is happening and we are not responding quickly
enough, so thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Thank you for being here today. We
appreciate it.
Mr. Joyce. Mr. Chairman.----
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Joyce.
Mr. Joyce. When you talk about Lake Okeechobee, the
diversion of the water east and west, is that because of the
potential failure of the dike?
Mr. Mast. That is exactly correct, sir. So you have--after
Hurricane Katrina, the Corps of Engineers went around and
assessed dikes around the country. The dike around Lake
Okeechobee was determined to be one of the worst dikes existing
around the country, and so that is where they determined--based
on there is a lower schedule, Lake Okeechobee regulation
schedule that determines the height at which you can keep the
lake. They decided they had to keep it a lower level, and that
is where they, you know, really, in a massive scale, started
distributing water out the East Coast and the West Coast of
Florida in a very unnatural way.
Like I said, freshwater, and we all know what a commodity
freshwater is in many parts of this country, going out, simply
lost into saltwater estuaries where it is very damaging.
Mr. Joyce. I am one to believe that is our version of oil,
freshwater, potable water supply, and the idea that you are
sending it out east and west. The other problem would be if it
is--if I heard you correctly, that this is a collection, if you
will, of agricultural discharge, so therefore, the lake must be
loaded with phosphates?
Mr. Mast. That is exactly correct, and that is where, you
know, I brought about the point as well where you talk about
there is a requirement for the level of phosphorous that goes
down to the Florida Everglades where there is, you know,
largely wildlife habitat, but there is not a requirement for a
standard that go out towards where people are boating, fishing,
skiing, playing, jumping in the water out of their backyards,
you know, where the bulk of the population is, and that is very
troubling to me.
Mr. Joyce. You also mentioned that there have been some
issues with this dike. If the dike should go, all that would be
then set loose into the Everglades and the damage would be
permanent?
Mr. Mast. Should the dike fail, there is also population
south of Lake Okeechobee, and that is where people recognize
the need for flood control. Nobody is advocating that we not
take into consideration the lives that are south of that dike
in Lake Okeechobee because if that were to fail, there would be
a massive loss of life, and nobody should overlook that, but
that is also where it would be very beneficial.
One of the things that is not being looked at right now is
that lower schedule, that Lake Okeechobee regulation schedule,
it is one of the most important things that could be looked at
because as every one of those 60-plus projects of Everglades
restoration in Lake Okeechobee, dike restoration come online,
the Corps of Engineers should be assessing can they take the
Lake Okeechobee level an inch or 6 inches or a foot higher,
because when you are talking about the hundreds of miles of
breadth of Lake Okeechobee, every inch, or every foot that you
can add to that lake is billions, and sometimes hundreds of
billions of gallons of water that you no longer have to release
into unnatural areas, and this is another place where the Corps
could really work, but we are not seeing a pathway for them to
adjust that with every instance of them making an improvement
to the area.
They are, instead, looking to wait for about 8 years down
the line and just do one adjustment then, and this is that
mechanism where you specifically talked about marrying flood
control and marrying ecosystem restoration. That is--that is,
in my opinion, one of the biggest things that can be done to
marry flood control and ecosystem restoration is every time you
get something online, look at that regulation schedule and say
we can take this many gallons offline going out the East and
the West Coast of Florida where it is causing damage.
Mr. Joyce. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mast. Yes, sir.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Mast. I appreciate you being
here today and informing the committee on the issues.
Mr. Mast. Thank you.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Gosar.
---------- --
--------
Wednesday, March 8, 2017.
WITNESS
HON. PAUL A. GOSAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
ARIZONA
Mr. Gosar. Chairman. Well, thank you very much, Chairman
Simpson and Ranking Member Kaptur, for the opportunity to
testify before the subcommittee. I am Congressman Paul Gosar,
and I represent Arizona's Fourth Congressional District. I am
also the chairman of the Congressional Western Caucus, the
chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, and vice chairman
of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Subcommittee on the Interior.
Critical programs and oversight activities addressed----
Mr. Simpson. Paul, could you turn on your mic?
Mr. Gosar. Critical programs and oversight activities
addressed by the Energy and Water Development and Related
Agencies bill fall under the purview as well. I would like to
take an opportunity to discuss several of these today.
Last fiscal year's subcommittee bill contained a rider
prohibiting any changes to Federal jurisdiction under the Clean
Water Act, effectively preventing funds from being spent to
implement Waters of the United States, or WOTUS, that rule put
forth in 2015 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the
Environmental Protection Agency. The WOTUS rule attempted to
assert Clean Water Act jurisdictions over nearly all areas with
even the slightest of connections to water resources, including
manmade conveyances.
Farmers, ranchers, job creators, and private property
owners would suffer under this overreaching water grab. WOTUS
contradicts numerous prior Supreme Court decisions and seeks to
expand agency control over 60 percent of our country's streams
and millions of acres of wetlands that were previously
nonjurisdictional.
WOTUS was slated to go into effect August 28 of 2015, and
fortunately, the Sixth Circuit issued a nationwide stay that
has temporarily blocked implementation of this new rule. Even
more promising, just last week, President Trump signed an
executive order requiring the EPA and the Corps to rescind and
revise any aspects of WOTUS inconsistent with Federal law. This
was great news, and I was honored to join the President in the
Oval Office for that signing.
While I have great confidence in President Trump and
Administrator Pruitt, the review required by the order will
take some time and there could be subsequent legal proceedings.
Accordingly, Congress must, once again, take a clear position
against WOTUS and retain the important provision prohibiting
the expansion of the Clean Water Act in this fiscal year's
bill.
Another important rider from last year's bill that must be
maintained defunds the Obama administration's social cost of
carbon models. These flawed metrics can be easily manipulated
in order to attempt to justify new job-killing regulations.
For instance, the Obama administration attempted to justify
the EPA's methane rule utilizing the social cost of carbon,
stating that the rule would supposedly yield climate benefits
of $690 million in 2025. Those speculative benefits, that can
be easily manipulated, supposedly outweigh the $530 million the
rule is expected to cost businesses and job creators in 2025
alone.
The House has passed at least 11 different amendments
rejecting the social cost of carbon in the last two Congresses
alone. We must block these flood models once again in this
year's bill.
Now, section 507 of the bill last year, last fiscal year,
contained a provision prohibiting the removal of any Federally
owned or operated dams in fiscal year 2017. I thank the
subcommittee for including this important provision, and, once
again, ask that it be retained.
In recent years, extremist environmental groups have
increased efforts to dismantle and remove Federal dams. These
efforts defy common sense, particularly at a time of major
water challenges across the west, and with an increasing need
for clean hydropower. Electricity generated from the Corps and
reclamation dams--operated dams, is utilized by millions of
Americans every day. Many of these dams are essential
components for flood control, strategic water storage, and live
sustaining irrigation for millions of acres of American
agriculture. Tens of millions of Americans rely on these dams
to supply their drinking water and support their livelihoods.
The vital water energy, economic, and ecological benefits
provided by the Federally owned and operated dams must be
protected. I, once again, ask the subcommittee to retain the
important provision prohibiting the removal of any Federally
owned and operated dams in fiscal year 2018.
Finally, I would like to ask that the subcommittee continue
to provide important resources for the Corps of Engineers'
construction and investigations budgets. These accounts ensure
the timely development of critical water and infrastructure
projects that provide benefits for communities throughout the
Nation. We must continue to provided adequate resources for the
important projects funded by these accounts.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify today. The Western
Caucus looks forward to coordinating closely with all of you in
the future, and thank you, Chairman Simpson. With that, I yield
back.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Gosar. Other questions?
Ms. Kaptur.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to
ask Representative Gosar, for your own district, I don't know
it, how many counties it covers and from where do you obtain
clean water?
Mr. Gosar. We obtain clean water within the State
jurisdiction, which is what I have been talking about is the
jurisdiction is subsurface water, which is the jurisdiction of
the State.
Ms. Kaptur. But I am saying for your district, in
particular, does it come----
Mr. Gosar. I am talking to you exactly what the majority of
my water is from subsurface water within the State of Arizona.
Ms. Kaptur. Wells?
Mr. Gosar. Absolutely, and the jurisdiction of the State.
Ms. Kaptur. Your district is heavily rural?
Mr. Gosar. Almost all of it.
Ms. Kaptur. Almost all of it. All right. So you don't--you
don't receive any of these Federal water projects that exist in
the west, your district doesn't benefit from any of that?
Mr. Gosar. We border between Arizona and California, so the
Colorado always has those infrastructure processes. I have also
initiated one in the southern part with Mexico on the lower
Santa Cruz that is federally mandated, absolutely.
Ms. Kaptur. All right. What percentage of the water that
your constituents drink actually then comes from subsurface
water, 80, 90 percent?
Mr. Gosar. Pretty much.
Ms. Kaptur. Wow. All right. Thank you very much.
Mr. Gosar. Thank you.
Mr. Simpson. Other questions? Hearing none, thank you, Mr.
Gosar. I appreciate your testimony and----
Mr. Gosar. Thank you very much.
Mr. Simpson [continuing]. Giving us your views on this
upcoming bill.
Congressman Crist, should I call you Governor? Congressman?
Mr. Crist. I can't hold a job. Charlie always works,
though.
Mr. Simpson. Welcome to the committee.
---------- --
--------
Wednesday, March 8, 2017.
WITNESS
HON. CHARLIE CRIST, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
FLORIDA
Mr. Crist. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much, Chairman
Simpson, Ranking Member Kaptur, and members of the
subcommittee. It is a great honor to appear before you today.
As you know, this is my first chance to testify before an
Appropriations subcommittee. For me, it is a special
opportunity because your former colleague and former chairman
of the full committee, and someone I hold in the highest
esteem, the late Congressman Bill Young, who served with you
for so many years, was my Congressman for decades.
During his time in Congress and on this committee, he did
many great things for our Nation, our State and my Pinellas
County. Many of those projects live on today, and I would like
to talk to you about a few of them this morning.
First is the Pinellas County Shore Protection Project. The
Army Corps of Engineers, the State of Florida, Pinellas County,
and our local communities, have been tremendous partners in
maintaining our 20 beautiful miles of beach coastline to
protect the people and property along it. Much of the support
of this project was generated by the committee, for which I am
grateful. I am here to ask for your continued support.
The funding you provide for the Army Corps is critical in
delivering the resources Pinellas County needs for our beaches.
Beach nourishment not only protects public and private
infrastructure, it is a great economic generator for our
region.
A second request I would make of the subcommittee related
to fiscal year 2017 is to help us finish a project Congressman
Young started back in 2002. The seven members of our Tampa Bay
area delegation are sending you a letter asking the committee
to help us break through a bureaucratic new start deadlock that
has stalled construction of the Port of Tampa's congressionally
authorized Big Bend Channel navigation project. This deepening
and widening project will improve the movement of goods through
the port of the I-4 corridor, essentially, Florida's fastest
growing part of the State.
It will set the standard for public-private partnership by
turning a mere 20 percent of Federal stake in the project into
a $55 million economic development initiative that will create
8,000 jobs for our region. My Tampa Bay colleagues and I are
not requesting any funding for this project. Instead, we seek
language for the fiscal year 2017 bill you are finalizing to
clarify it.
I want to briefly mention also the Everglades, and I want
to give credit to my freshman colleague and one of your new
colleagues from Naples, Florida, Representative Francis Rooney.
He is championing this effort. He is on the other side of the
aisle, and I am grateful for what he is doing. I am incredibly
grateful also for the consistent backing by this subcommittee
for America's Everglades, and respectfully ask that you
continue it. Thank you so much for your time. I appreciate it.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. I appreciate you being here,
Congressman Crist. Questions for Congressman Crist? Hearing
none, thanks for--thanks for being here today, and we will take
those views into consideration as we try to do our 2017 and
2018 budget.
Mr. Crist. Right. It will go well.
Mr. Simpson. It will be a challenge.
Mr. Crist. Yes, sir, of course. We will do it together.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Tipton.
----------
Wednesday, March 8, 2017.
WITNESS
HON. SCOTT R. TIPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
COLORADO
Mr. Tipton. Thank you, Chairman Simpson. I would like to
also thank Ranking Member Kaptur and members of the committee.
I welcome this opportunity to be able to appear before you and
thank you for your interest and priorities of your colleagues
as you make difficult decisions on infrastructure and program
and investment, particularly in the area of water resources.
The Third Congressional District of Colorado has partnered
with the Bureau of Reclamation for at least seven decades,
working together to develop hugely important and beneficial
multi-use projects in southern and western Colorado. These
projects have provided necessary water supply, which has
sustained our agricultural, industrial, and recreation
economies, and continue to help our small communities grow and
prosper.
I am distinctly aware that the mission of the Bureau of
Reclamation is changing, and that the construction of large
water supply projects with all Federal dollars is likely a
thing of the past, but the partnership the Bureau has with the
local water districts and providers remains critical in the
semi-arid West, where the development and conservation and
management of this finite resource is absolutely essential.
The need for this local Federal partnership could not be
clearer than the pursuit of the Arkansas Valley Conduit, the
last component of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project authorized in
1962. Since an amendment to that original authorization was
enacted in 2009, this committee has provided funding, which has
contributed to the completion of the required environmental
analysis and the ongoing feasibility work. The current schedule
would likely allow for construction to begin in 2019 or 2020.
The purpose of my testimony today is to strongly encourage
you to provide sufficient funds to move this project forward in
a timely, and, therefore, economical fashion and urge you to
recognize the interest and responsibility that the Federal
Government has in building this project. The water supply for
50,000 people living in the Lower Arkansas Valley is
contaminated with naturally occurring radionuclides.
Approximately 40 small water providers face the task of finding
new water supply or treating the supply they have.
The Arkansas Valley Conduit, as a regional rather than a
piecemeal solution, is a more functional and more fiscally
effective way to meet the challenges for safe drinking water.
Many of these small providers from the Colorado Department of
Public Health and Environment, for failing to meet the Federal
mandated Safe Water Drinking Act standards, should it prove
necessary, the State of Colorado has approved a $60 million
loan to move the project forward in a partnership with the
Bureau of Reclamation.
The local water providers are paying for administration,
planning, and environmental compliance through quarterly
assessments, working closely with the Southwestern Colorado
Water Conservancy District to move the project forward. I would
like it noted that under the provisions of the 2009
legislation, the revenues generated locally can repay the
entire cost over the project.
The Fryingpan-Arkansas Project generates revenue by storing
nonproject water for a price. Water providers enter into long-
term contracts with reclamation to store the water in the
Pueblo reservoir. That revenue stream for full repayment makes
this project and its financing unique. It should also be noted
that the Southeastern District, the State of Colorado, and the
Colorado Congressional Delegation are fully aware of the fiscal
constraints we face and of the changing mission of the Bureau.
To that end, we are working on meaningful cost-saving
measures, including use of existing facilities for treatment
and delivery wherever possible, and possibly design-build
processes. Both of these efforts will save money and deliver
clean drinking water faster to the communities who desperately
need it.
The people of the Lower Arkansas Valley deserve no less
than that. It is for their health that the Federal Government
creates water quality standards, and the Federal Government has
the responsibility to help these communities meet those
standards.
Thank you, again, for providing me the opportunity to
testify today, and I look forward to working with you to ensure
the dream of completing the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project as it
becomes a reality, and the Arkansas Valley Conduit is built.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Tipton. Thank you for your time.
Mr. Simpson. I appreciate you being here today. Are there
questions for Congressman Tipton? Ms. Kaptur.
Ms. Kaptur. I just wanted to ask the Congressman, thank you
so much for your testimony. What a name for a project, the
Fryingpan. I just wanted to ask you, these elements,
radioactive, either radium or uranium, are these new? Or is it
just that they have discovered this now?
Mr. Tipton. These are naturally occurring.
Ms. Kaptur. Uh-huh. Are there elevated levels of cancer in
that particular part of Colorado?
Mr. Tipton. You know, I am not sure if there are elevated
elements, but under the Clean Water Act, it was a
responsibility that the EPA put forward to be able to provide
safe, clean drinking water for the communities in the Lower
Arkansas Valley. This started back in 1962. John Kennedy
actually visited Pueblo, Colorado, for the initiation of this
project, so it is long term in coming, and I guess,
Representative Kaptur, it is really the responsibility of the
Federal Government through this mandate for clean drinking
water, which I think we all share and understand it is
important for our communities to be able to get this project
off of center, to be able to move this forward, and to be able
to get it completed.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. We learned--I learned a great deal
from other members, so I just thank you very much for
testifying today.
Mr. Tipton. Thank you.
Mr. Simpson. Any other questions? 1962 to today is only 55
years. That is kind of quick for government work, isn't it?
Mr. Tipton. I didn't speak for the government.
Mr. Simpson. I appreciate you being here today, and thank
you for your testimony.
Mr. Tipton. Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. We are going to take a short break while we
await the next individuals that are coming to testify, so we
will be in recess for just a couple of minutes.
[Recess.]
Mr. Simpson. The committee will be back in order. We have
with us Congressman Foster from Illinois. The floor is yours
for 5 minutes.
---------- --
--------
Wednesday, March 8, 2017.
WITNESS
HON. BILL FOSTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
ILLINOIS
Mr. Foster. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Simpson.
Mr. Simpson. Microphone on?
Mr. Foster. Thank you, Chairman Simpson, Ranking Member
Kaptur, for holding this Members' Day, and to all the members
of the subcommittee for allowing me to testify today. I am here
to, first of all, thank you for your past support for the
Department of Energy's Office of Science, and to urge you to
continue to prioritize and invest in science.
The United States has been at the forefront of innovation
and progress, largely due to its investment in scientific
research. It has helped raise the standard of living for
millions of Americans in our past and represents the best hope
for economic progress in our future. But this scientific
progress requires us to take a long view.
Discoveries are not made overnight, and the experiments
need sustained attention and resources for us to learn from
them. Scientific investments are not like building a road where
you can cancel it and restart it at the drop of a hat. The
scientific programs have to be built up over decades, but can
be destroyed in a single budget cycle by having their project
underfunded.
Similarly, our scientific infrastructure requires a long-
term sustained funding to ensure that opportunities are not
missed. You know, as the only Ph.D. scientist in the United
States Congress, I serve as a lightning rod for concerns from
science, from high-tech businesses that depend on that science,
from academics, and from ordinary citizens who care about the
future economic and scientific progress in our country.
And so I have heard from a number of my former colleagues
in science in the scientific community who are very worried
about what the incoming administration could mean for
scientific progress in this country. So I would urge this
subcommittee to seize the opportunity to put researchers, the
companies that depend on that research, and, you know, all--
everyone who cares about science in this country, to put them
at ease by providing funding levels that support the critical
work for the Department of Energy's Office of Science.
There are two specific projects that I want to highlight
here today. Both of these are projects that have to have
significant construction start money, you know, in the upcoming
cycle, or the teams that put them together and are prepared to
make them a reality will dissipate. You cannot--you cannot keep
projects on hold forever.
These two projects are Argonne National Labs Advanced
Photon Source Upgrade, and the Long-Baseline Neutrino Facility,
and the Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment, so-called LBNF/
DUNE, which represents a collaboration between Fermi National
Accelerator Laboratory in Illinois, and the Sanford Underground
Research Facility in South Dakota.
Starting with Argonne first. The experiments conducted at
Argonne National Lab's Advanced Photon Source, or APS, support
both discovery science fundamental research, and also market-
driven research. Its facilities are used by companies that have
products to develop.
Pharmaceutical research at the APS has yielded lifesaving
new drugs for HIV, for melanoma, and for renal cell carcinoma.
Industry chemists have used the APS to develop energy-saving
solar shingles, while combustion researchers have developed a
process that has led to cleaner diesel engines. And research
conducted at the APS led to a Nobel Prize in chemistry in 2012
for the work on what are called G-protein coupled receptors,
which are the mechanism at the heart of the addiction mechanism
inside people's brain, and so with the heroin epidemic
ravaging.
This allows scientists to look at these molecules in
action, the ones that are at the very heart signaling the
cells, the neurons that make the decisions that are affected by
opioids. So this is fundamental research. I am not promising
that they are going to cure the opioid epidemic this year, but
you know, it is only this sort of long-term research that
allows us to actually, dream of a cure for this, as well as
Nobel Prizes, which as a scientist, I have a certain fondness
for.
The APS needs to be upgraded to ensure that the American
scientists and companies continue to have access to the best
scientific equipment in the world. The competition in this area
is fierce with dozens, literally dozens of competing facilities
under construction, and in operation around the world. But the
APS upgrade will use next-generation technology to make the APS
hundreds of times brighter, which opens up a vast array of
scientific frontiers at the nanoscale that are completely
inaccessible at any machine anywhere in the world today.
So this upgrade will leverage the existing infrastructure
at the Advanced Photon Source valued at about $1.5 billion,
while applying a new technology to create a world--a world-
leading facility at substantially less cost than building a
facility from scratch. And with this upgrade, the APS will
become the ultimate 3-D microscope. Without it, the United
States will lose its global leadership in X-ray science to
Europe, Japan, and China.
Robust funding for the Department of Energy basic energy
science major items of equipment line will enable the APS
upgrade to continue and proceed on schedule, and more
importantly, on budget. A funding delay, I should say, on a
personal note, that my wife was one of the great
accomplishments of the Office of Science, was the completion of
the last photon source, light source on time and under budget.
My wife was the construction manager for that at Brookhaven
National Laboratory.
So, but funding delay will add millions of dollars to the
total cost of this project. Second critical opportunity where
this year's funding is particularly important is the LBNF/DUNE
project, which will be critical to maintaining U.S.'s
leadership in high energy physics and in fundamental science.
This facility, part of which is located a Fermi National
Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, Illinois, where I worked for
25 years, and the other part of which is located in the Sanford
Underground Research Facility in Lead, South Dakota, will be
the first major international world class facility to be
hosted--of its kind, to be hosted by the United States.
So getting foreign money flowing into the U.S., in addition
to U.S. money flowing to facilities in foreign countries is, to
my mind, you know, essential, to having a healthy international
scientific collaboration, you know, just a network of
scientific collaboration internationally.
Neutrinos, which will be studied there, are among the most
abundant particles in the universe and our understanding of
their nature may provide the key to answering some of the most
fundamental questions about the nature of our universe. LBNF/
DUNE would be the most powerful tool in the world to study
these particles, and would help solidify the Department of
Energy's high energy physics program as a world leader.
And so, I am hopeful that the project will receive the $55
million required in fiscal year 2017 to start construction for
this project. Again, facilities like this are always in a grow-
or-die situation. If you assemble the team and say we are going
to start construction and then say, well, maybe not this year,
people leave and they cannot be reassembled. Like I say, it is
not like just building a highway where you have millions of
competent contractors happy to bid on any new section of the
roadway.
So more than 770 scientists from 150 institutes and 26
countries stand ready to contribute scientifically and
economically to the LBNF/DUNE project, if we decide to make it
go ahead, and I urge the subcommittee to provide full support
and robust funding for the Department of Energy's high energy
physics account.
Investments in these projects, and in our broader
scientific infrastructure, is really the only way to ensure
that America remains an international leader in science. You
know, we are--in testimony to Congress more than a generation
ago, the guy who started--the guy who started Fermi lab was
asked, Well, what is all this basic fundamental scientific
research that you are doing? How does this contribute to
national defense, which is obviously the competition? And he
looked back at the committee and said, our research, our
fundamental research, has nothing to do with national defense,
except perhaps to make our country more worth defending.
And that is the heart of the reason that our country should
invest in fundamental research like that at Argonne Lab, like
that at Fermi lab. If you look back in history, the reason that
we respect what the--you know, what the Manichees did in, well,
hundreds of years ago in Italy. It is not because they won
their wars against their opponents. It is not because they
succeeded in economics and commerce. It is because after doing
all of that, they diverted a significant fraction of their GDP
to fundamental research by the likes of Leonardo da Vinci, and
that is why they will remain in the history textbooks forever.
And so we should have no lower goal for our country. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. I appreciate your testimony. Are
there questions for the Congressman?
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congressman
Foster, I want to thank you personally. You and I have worked
together on a number of initiatives. Also, for the benefit of
the entire subcommittee, the super computing initiative has
been so critically important to our country and will remain so.
We are in very dire competition with the Chinese. At one point
in time, we had the fastest super computers in the world. We
have now fallen to third, I believe, in that race, from
petaflops to Exascale. I know Argonne is very involved in that,
Oakridge as well, but I want to personally thank you for your
advocacy for the Office of Science. Oakridge is intimately
involved.
Mr. Foster. A key collaborator in all of these sort of
projects. And, you know, there have been a number of Members of
Congress who have taken a little time off because their
districts have been hit by tornadoes. Any of you who doubt the
power of super computers should look at the simulations of
tornadoes where you see detailed simulations of tornadoes
trying to understand what affects their formation and how to
predict and how they will develop.
And so this is just one of the many examples of where super
computers at places like Oakridge will really contribute to,
the lives of so many in ways that are not often in the front
pages of newspapers.
Mr. Fleischmann. Congressman, we thank you for your
advocacy and for your help on these key critical areas. Thank
you, sir.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Any other questions?
Ms. Kaptur. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to thank
Congressman Foster. It must be--just thinking about your life
and engagement with all of these very high-level research
initiatives and you are a Member of Congress, sometimes it must
feel like a fish out of water being in this body.
Mr. Foster. I do feel lonely from time to time.
Ms. Kaptur. But you are a very effective spokesman, and
someone who can put visions for new science in understandable
terms, and so your presence is truly appreciated, and you have
made that transition very nobly for your constituents but also
for the country. Thank you.
Mr. Simpson. A fish out of water would be an apt
description for all of us. Mr. Polis.
Thank you, Congressman Foster.
----------
Wednesday, March 8, 2017.
WITNESS
HON. JARED POLIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
COLORADO
Mr. Polis. Thank you, Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member
Kaptur. I am coming before a number of the subcommittees to
suggest some cuts in appropriations. I know that there are
going to be cuts in most of the lines, so I hope to be
constructive.
In the past, I have offered various amendments to cut
spending on the floor of the House, supported both across-the-
board cuts as well as particular line items cuts, and I have a
few ideas for you here today for your line item. The first
major spending line that I would like to recommend a cut for is
the Fossil Energy Research and Development line item. This is a
line item with an expiration. It is a dead end in the sense
that our fossil fuels will be depleted, not only in America and
around the world. Markets are already turning away from dirty
fuels, fuels like coal and oil, not just for economic reasons,
but also for the health and safety of our oceans, our air, and
our planet. And so, I would hope that the committee would,
rather than invest in the past, invest in the future.
The version of this bill that came to the House floor last
year actually appropriated $300 million more pork for the oil
and gas industry than even the President requested for the
fossil research account. I know you have to make some tough
decisions. I think this will be an excellent line item to cut,
rather than give more pork to the oil and gas industry. We can
cut that out and reduce our budget deficit by $645 million.
That was what the bill included last year. I would encourage
you to zero out that line item, or, at the very least, cut it
back significantly.
If you do cut the $645 million back significantly, while I
hope that the bulk of it goes to deficit reduction, another
account that I would--with part of those proceeds, I would
encourage you plus up would be the Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy Fund, which, actually, invests in the future,
the future of energy in our country. If we can increase it a
little bit, it will help fund national labs, like the National
Renewable Energies Laboratory. From 2009 to 2015, EERE's
building technology office finalized 40 new or updated
efficiency standards for more than 45 household and commercial
products, saving consumers money, so it actually saved
consumers billions of dollars, reduced carbon pollution, and
helped generate jobs in our country.
So I think if you want to use some of those funds that you
save from zeroing out the Fossil Energy Research and
Development Fund, that would be a good place to put some of
those, and, of course, I know you have to make cuts overall, so
I understand some of those cuts, if not all, would go to the
bottom line.
I also want to highlight EERE's work with private companies
to apply 3-D printing, an additive manufacturing to renewable
technologies, particularly making blades of wind turbines. With
additive manufacturing, we can reduce the cost of blades,
reduce the cost of wind energy, as well as highlight their work
on plug-in electric vehicles, particularly the Clean Cities
project, which Colorado has been part of, which developed a
comprehensive EV and EV supply equipment readiness and
implementation plan for our State.
Now, there is another account under fossil fuels that I
particularly think should be cut, and that is the one that
works on oil shale formations with less than 50,000 barrels per
day, and frankly, oil shale is one of the most dirty extraction
methods out there, and, in fact, the distillation process
releases pollutants into the air, including sulfur dioxide,
lead, nitrogen oxides. In addition, it uses enormous amounts of
water. The BLM reported that mining and distilling oil shale
requires 2.1 to 5.2 barrels of water for each barrel of oil
produced. Water is scarce across my home State of Colorado.
Driving up cost for consumers and farmers is not the answer and
not something that this committee should invest in making a
reality.
Finally, I have another cut. I would like to ask that you
address the accelerated timeline of the W80-4 nuclear warhead.
In 2015, I joined with my colleague, Mr. Quigley, to offer an
amendment that would save $165 million in taxpayer money by
placing development of the W80-4 nuclear warhead back to its
original acquisition schedule, simply rather than accelerating
it.
The existing air launched cruise missile and warhead isn't
being phased out until the 2030s. There is no risk of having a
gap, a capabilities gap. Yet, the 2015 budget sped up the
development for the warhead by 2 years to 2025. Fitting the
W80-4 nuclear warhead onto the next generation long-range
cruise missiles will free up $165 million to put towards
reducing the definite and cutting your line item. At a time
when the budgets are tight, that is very important.
We already have the nuclear scientists disagree on whether
our nuclear capability is enough to destroy life on the planet
five or seven times. Frankly, I would advocate even deeper cuts
in our nuclear capabilities. I would argue that a sufficient
deterrent should be blowing up the world once. If you really
want to blow up the world twice to be sure, you can do that,
but we certainly don't need to blow up the world five to seven
times. It is really redundant in terms of offering a
deterrence, so that would be another excellent line item to
look at cutting as your committee goes about its important work
to save taxpayer money. I am happy to yield for any questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Simpson. Are there any questions for Congressman Polis?
If not, thank you for your testimony. We appreciate your
insight into this bill and your recommendations.
Mr. Polis. Thank you.
Mr. Simpson. And we will look at those as we try and put
this bill together. Thank you.
Mr. Huizenga.
----------
Wednesday, March 8, 2017.
WITNESS
HON. BILL HUIZENGA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
MICHIGAN
Mr. Huizenga. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Simpson. Good to be here. Thank you.
Mr. Huizenga. It is very good to be here. We are all set.
Mr. Simpson. Yours for 5 minutes.
Mr. Huizenga. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I deeply
appreciate the opportunity to be here in front of you, and
Ranking Member Kaptur as well, and the rest of the members of
the committee. This is, I think, a very important issue and why
I come before you today.
I have been very grateful for our work together over the
last number of years in efforts to increase the Army Corps of
Engineers' harbor maintenance funding, and I think it is
important to note that the Consolidated Appropriations Act for
2016 allocated $1.263 billion for harbor maintenance, meeting
of the congressional target overwhelmingly supported from the
Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014, and I thank
you for that--that work on that.
And while I do believe that that is a very strong step in
the right direction, the funding level will represent only 69
percent of the harbor maintenance taxes actually collected, and
I believe that full use of the harbor maintenance trust fund is
urgently needed to support critical maritime economic activity,
especially as we are talking about increasing our
infrastructure needs here in the United States, or addressing
our infrastructure needs here in the United States. And through
that glide path that was established in WRRDA, Congress
committed to achieve full use of the Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund through incremental increases over a 10-year period.
It is in this spirit that I urge the House Appropriations
Committee to stay on a path to full utilization of the Trust
Fund and to allocate 1.333 billion for harbor maintenance in
fiscal year 2018. That figure would represent 74 percent of the
estimated harbor maintenance taxes collected this past year in
2017.
And during my first year in Congress, our ports and
navigation channels were maintained at just 47 percent of the
revenue collected through the HMFT, and having a 74 percent
target, obviously, would show just how far that we have come.
And by following the authorized glide path, we stopped adding
to the maintenance dredging backlog. We had had a growing
backlog of harbors that needed to be maintained; however, much
more work does need to be done, and I should point that--point
out that oftentimes, the Great Lakes doesn't think of--isn't
thought of as coastal, or as shipping, or important, but it is
a multibillion dollar blue economy that those of us in the
Great Lakes region experience every day, and we know the vital
importance of having those ports for the economic vitality not
only of our States or our region, but frankly, our country and
our standing throughout the world.
And it was with great pleasure that I had a chance to work
with Janice Hahn, previously from Los Angeles on this issue,
and it was sort of strange bedfellows that had come together on
that, but we made a good team because we were able to make that
argument for the entire country.
Well, tomorrow, the American Society for Civil Engineers
will issue their infrastructure report card, and their last
report card gave our water freight movement infrastructure a D
for navigation channels, and a B for our ports, and tomorrow's
grade, we anticipate, will frankly show very few improvements.
The inefficiencies resulting from poorly maintained harbors
drive up the cost of U.S. exports and imports, which threaten
U.S. economic growth, and we can't sell more Made-in-America
products, frankly, if we can't have them leave our harbors.
And while many transportation infrastructure programs are
struggling to identify beneficiary paid revenue streams to meet
those needs, maritime commerce has been paying enough to meet
the operations and maintenance of all Federally-authorized
harbors for decades. In fact, this funding is especially vital
for 140 Federally maintained commercial and recreational ports
and harbors in the Great Lakes, many of which are facing a
crisis. In fact, 92 of those harbors have not been Federally
maintained in years because of a lack of funding directed in
that area.
At the same time, the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund has a
balance of nearly $10 billion, and I believe that instead of
increasing the balance of the Trust Fund or spending the money
elsewhere, I urge you to dedicate our Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund tax revenue for its intended purpose, and enough of that
has been collected, as I had said, that we would be able to
deal with those harbors throughout the country, ranging from
the Pacific Northwest to the Gulf Coast to the Port of Long
Beach to Muskegon, Michigan, which is in my district.
So Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member Kaptur, and the rest
of the members, I really do appreciate this opportunity to be
in front of you today and to make our case. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Simpson. Thank you for you testimony, Bill, and thank
you for your past work on the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. We
have had many discussions on this and how we can address it.
And as you know, I am a supporter of trying to be able to use
the full breadth of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, and
somehow relieve it from the budget caps and the weird budgeting
rules we sometimes create for ourselves, because if you are
only using 74 percent of it and you still have a need out there
that means you took 26 percent in the bank----
Mr. Huizenga. Yeah.
Mr. Simpson [continuing]. And not using it to address the
need that you are taxing for us, so it just doesn't make sense.
But we still have a ways to go into convincing some of our
colleagues that we need to take it off budget, but still
subject to appropriation. So I appreciate your work on that.
Mr. Huizenga. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that,
and I look forward to working with you and the ranking member
on this issue continually, so thank you.
Mr. Simpson. Further questions?
Ms. Kaptur. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to thank
Congressman Huizenga for testifying today and being a very
strong advocate for proper investment in our ports and
waterways, and particularly because the waterborne commerce and
transport is the most cost effective means of moving both cargo
and people. I guess I have often wondered why we haven't paid
more attention to that. We seem to figure out, well, at least
partly, how to do roads and bridges, but when it comes to
waterborne with our four coasts, we often neglect the Great
Lakes, in particular, so I just thank you very much for coming
and testifying today, and I know that our chairman is very open
to working on both sides of the aisle, and hopefully we will
make a difference this year on the Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund. Thank you.
Mr. Huizenga. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you for appearing here today.
Congressman Diaz Barragan. Is that right? Did I pronounce that
correctly?
---------- --
--------
Wednesday, March 8, 2017.
WITNESS
HON. NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. Barragan. Yes.
Mr. Simpson. Okay. The floor is yours.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you, Chairman Simpson, Ranking Member
Kaptur, and members of the Energy and Water Subcommittee. I
want to thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak to
you this morning. I am going to echo some of my colleague that
we just heard from.
I represent California's 44th Congressional District. It is
the seat that used to be held by Janice Hahn. It includes areas
like San Pedro, Compton, and Watts, and it, most notably, has
the Port of Los Angeles in the district. It is North America's
largest seaport by container volume and cargo value, and I am
proud to have that in my district.
I am proud to represent the thousands of workers that are
directly and indirectly associated with the Port of Los
Angeles. It is the largest economic engine in the region, and
it touches every single congressional district in this country.
The San Pedro Bay Ports Complex, which includes both the Port
of L.A. and Long Beach, accounts for one-quarter of the
Nation's cargo and supports over 3 million jobs nationwide. As
we mentioned, the goods that pass through the San Pedro Bay
Port Complex touch nearly every facet of this country.
In 2016, the Port of L.A. had its best year in its 110-year
history. As our economy grows--continues to grow, so do the
size of vessels and freight volumes. When you couple these
factors with growing international competition and the fact
that the American Society of Civil Engineers gave our ports a C
in their report card, it is apparent that more must be done to
improve our infrastructure for ports and harbors.
My message today is simple: I urge this esteemed
subcommittee to fund the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'
navigation program at $2.9 billion for fiscal year 2018 and
2017. Specifically, I urge you to fund the donor ports at $50
million, and to hit the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund
expenditure targets for both fiscal years 2018 and 2017, so
that we can remain on the path to utilize 100 percent of the
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund revenues by fiscal year 2025 and
thereafter.
In June of 2014, the bipartisan Water Resources Reform and
Development Act, also known as WRRDA, was enacted into law. You
know, one of the most thoughtful provisions of this law was
section 2106, which expand the use of the Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund for donor ports, for ports such as Los Angeles. As
you know, in the case of donor ports, Harbor Maintenance Funds
do not return to the States and harbors where the taxes are
collected.
For example, in California, California receives only 15
percent back of what the shippers at our harbors pay into the
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. The San Pedro Bay Ports Complex
is among the largest collectors of Harbor Maintenance tax funds
with an average of $200 million each year, but we receive only
1 percent back.
Section 2106 of WRRDA addresses some of these tax fairness
and donor equity issues. The section also authorized
appropriations of $50 million for each of the fiscal year's
2015 through 2018. Donor ports are authorized to use these
discretionary funds for expanded uses, including berths and
dredging of contaminated sediments, environmental remediation,
or payments to importers or shippers transporting cargo through
that port.
The section 2101 of WRRDA see targets expenditures from the
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund increasing each year so that
fiscal year 2025 and each thereafter, 100 percent of the taxes
collected will go towards the intended purpose and operation of
maintenance activities.
A full utilization of the Harbor Maintenance tax will only
occur, however, if the level of appropriations for the Civil
Works Program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is at the
fiscal year is increased.
In fiscal year 2016, Congress appropriated $25 million in
donor ports, of which slightly over $3 million were allocated
to the Port of Los Angeles for critical berth maintenance
dredging. For fiscal year 2017, the Senate bill contained $50
million for donor ports, while the House bill only contained
$10 million.
I urge the subcommittee to help our Nation stay
internationally competitive by funding donor ports at $50
million for both fiscal years 2018 and 2017, and to hit the
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund expenditure targets. I thank you,
again, for the opportunity to speak before you today.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Simpson. Thank you for your testimony. Are there
questions? Ken.
Mr. Calvert. Yeah, I appreciate your coming in and
testifying. I knew your predecessor quite well. We had those
discussions often about the Harbor Maintenance account, and
also about maybe expanding the definition of the Harbor
Maintenance account to go beyond the port facility because part
of the problem with a part of--on the part of the Port of L.A./
Long Beach, is getting the freight out and down the Alameda
corridor, which we never really completed east of Los Angeles
and down to the--and down and out of the L.A. Basin and through
the Inland Empire, where we can move that freight out because
right now, we just have an overload of freight that is backed
up along the main rail corridors, and a lot of that is grade
separations and the rest that need to be improved.
So maybe in the future, Mr. Chairman, we can work together
on what the Congresswoman brought up, and also about the
improvements on those rail lines. Mr. Aguilar has the same
problem in his district, so it is an issue that we need to
address.
Mr. Simpson. I appreciate that and would be happy to work
with you on it. Thank you for you testimony.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you.
Mr. Simpson. You bet. Congressman Crawford.
----------
Wednesday, March 8, 2017.
WITNESS
HON. ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Mr. Crawford. Yes, sir. Chairman Simpson, Ranking Member
Kaptur, and members of the Energy and Water Subcommittee, thank
you for allowing me to appear before you today to provide
testimony on the importance of Army Corps of Engineer project
funding to the First District of Arkansas.
As you know, the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project,
or MR&T, is the largest flood control project in the world.
MR&T plays an integral role in protecting the Lower Mississippi
Valley from devastating floods and enables continuous
navigation along the Mississippi River and its tributaries.
Since its inception in 1928, taxpayers have received a $46
return for every dollar invested in this project, while
preventing $612 billion in flood damages and protecting 4
million residents of the Lower Mississippi River Valley. MR&T
also promotes navigation along the river and its tributaries,
and helps support a vibrant and agriculture economy. Over 500
million tons of cargo move on the Mississippi River system each
year, saving billions of dollars in domestic transportation
costs, and giving U.S. businesses a competitive advantage in
the global marketplace.
I appreciate the continued support this subcommittee
provides for MR&T, and I understand that our current fiscal
environment forces us to carefully evaluate where each dollar
goes. For MR&T to meet its current challenges, an increase in
funding over the current CR funding level of $290 million is
needed for the program to reach its full capability to protect
lives, property, and to support commerce.
To achieve its objectives, MR&T requires funding of
approximately $500 million. While I recognize the challenging
environment of fiscal restraint, I believe that Congress must
prioritize the projects that provide taxpayers the best return
on their investment. There are few government-funded programs
that can boast a 46-to-1 return.
MR&T also supports critical water supply projects needed to
alleviate the alarming rate of aquifer depletion in the mid-
south region. Examples include the Grand Prairie and Bayou Meto
surface water projects that are currently under construction in
my district. These projects are critical infrastructure
investments designed to address the depletion of the Alluvial
and Sparta aquifers. The loss of these aquifers would not only
result in a severe disruption in the agriculture economy of the
Delta region, but municipal and other industrial water uses
would also be severely impacted.
The U.S. Army Corps predicts the Alluvial aquifer will be
commercially useless in the near future, and as a result, 66
percent of the Bayou Meto project area will no longer have
access to irrigation, while 77 percent of the Grand Prairie
project will no longer be able to irrigate.
Unless we deal with this problem now, there will be water
crisis in the future that will strike a severe blow to the
economy and quality of life in the already distressed Arkansas
Delta region. I imagine many of the members of the subcommittee
face groundwater problems in the districts they represent, but
it is important to note that unlike many Western States, the
State of Arkansas does not have access to targeted Federal
groundwater protection programs such as those operated by the
Bureau of Reclamation.
Quite simply, there are no viable alternatives available to
my constituents. While we have not yet seen a detailed fiscal
year 2018 presidential budget, I am requesting this committee
work with me and my staff to find ways to provide water
infrastructure projects and adequate funding stream, including
potentially revising the report language that authorized
expenditures for ongoing work under the MR&T budget.
Last year, the water supply projects in my strict barely
received enough funding to satisfy existing contractual
obligations and staffing needs. Hardly any progress was made on
project construction, and we currently find ourselves in a
protracted holding pattern with no end in sight. The longer the
construction process is drawn out, the more costly these
projects become to the taxpayer. The current rate of progress
is unsustainable.
I understand that the Appropriations Committee has limited
resources available, and I certainly applaud the work you are
doing to support critical water infrastructure projects. I am
very grateful for the subcommittee's continued support for the
Army Corps' vital work in the Lower Mississippi River Valley.
Please do not hesitate to contact me or my staff as you work
through the fiscal year 2018 appropriations process, and I
thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Simpson. Thank you for being here today. Questions?
Ms. Kaptur. I do have a question, Mr. Chairman, of
Representative Crawford, and that is I am from the State of
Ohio, and the entire Great Lakes system is threatened by
something called the Asian carp.
Mr. Crawford. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Kaptur. How do you look upon that issue in your part of
our country?
Mr. Crawford. Well, it is actually a very challenging
issue, and unfortunately, the introduction of the Asian carp
came about as a result of Fish and Wildlife and a management
decision they made down in my neck of the woods and without the
knowledge of what could happen, and now we see them invading
the Great Lakes. They are a very prolific reproductive species.
We are looking at potential commercial uses to harvest the
Asian carp and find some--find a market in China. There is
actually a market for that fish, and there are other markets
available, but it is going to continue to be a challenging
problem for us, not only in the Lower Mississippi, but as you
have seen, it has migrated north into your area.
Ms. Kaptur. We have to deal with it in your part of the
country in order to prevent it spreading north.
Mr. Crawford. Absolutely.
Ms. Kaptur. And I know there are different actions being
undertaken, but it is completely frightening to our maritime--
--
Mr. Crawford. It absolutely is.
Ms. Kaptur [continuing]. And recreational activities up in
the Great Lakes.
Mr. Crawford. Well, they are dangerous, quite frankly. They
pose a physical threat. I mean, they can jump into the boat, if
that is not bad enough, and they do that routinely. But there
have been documented cases of severe harm and, even death, by
hitting individuals on boats because they are big and they are
pretty aggressive feeders.
Ms. Kaptur. I would hope Representative Crawford and our
chairman, who has always been open to our concerns, as we look
at this entire Mississippi River corridor, that we assure the
various departments and agencies that the State and Federal
levels are doing a better job because that is really coming
north.
Mr. Crawford. I am glad you brought that up because it
certainly is a challenge for us, and in my geography, and it is
not stopping there.
Ms. Kaptur. We almost need an Asian carp task force that--
along the entire length of the Mississippi.
Mr. Crawford. That is not a bad idea, and I would be
willing to serve on that if such a task force were stood up.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. You have experienced them first. All
right. Thank you so very much. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Crawford, for being
here today, and we will certainly look forward to working with
you and your staff when we start putting this thing together.
Thank you.
Mr. Green, welcome.
---------- --
--------
Wednesday, March 8, 2017.
WITNESS
HON. GENE GREEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and ranking member and
members of the committee. I want----
Mr. Simpson. Could you turn your microphone on?
Mr. Green. Because over my years in Congress, we have
worked together on a lot of issues. I represent a very urban
district in Houston, but it includes about half of the Port of
Houston, and I appreciate your consideration over the last 25
years or so.
Our district is home to the Port of Houston. I share that
with Congressman Brian Babin, and the Port of Houston is one
of--the number one export terminal in the country. Our port is
the major economic engine for eastern Harris County in Texas,
responsible for over 56,000 direct jobs, and over $5 billion in
State and local tax revenue from business related to the port.
In order for the Port of Houston and other port facilities
in the United States to grow and support economic activity
throughout the country, it is critical for Congress to
significantly increase funding for the maintenance and dredging
operations for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for fiscal year
2018. Increasing funding to the Corps--Army Corps civil works
operations and maintenance account is the only way to ensure
that the Port of Houston is dredged to the authorized depth of
45 foot, and will be able to accommodate the post-Panamax
vessels that are larger and are becoming the international norm
for maritime container shipping. The same is true to ports
along the Gulf Coast, the Atlantic seaboard, who rely on the
Army Corps, dredging to keep our terminals open for business.
The other issue in our district and neighboring communities
in Harris County surrounding are severely impacted by flooding
in recent years. In the past 2 years, the greater Houston
region has suffered from two catastrophic flood events on
Memorial Day of 2015, and as we call it Tax Day of last year,
2016, that killed 17 local residents and caused billions of
dollars in damages.
In fact, many people in Houston directly affected by the
2016 Tax Day flood have only recently recovered from the
previous year's flood. In response to the growing frequency of
catastrophic flooding in the Houston, Harris County, my
colleagues, Congressman Al Green, Congressman John Culberson,
and I, along with 100 other Members of Congress, introduced
legislation last year to authorize $311 million in emergency
appropriations for flood control projects. That $311 million,
or the projects that have been approved by the Corps, but we
haven't been able to fund, and again, we share 10 Members of
Congress around the Houston area, and flooding doesn't matter.
It gets all of us because we are the coastal plain, and I have
bayous and rivers that go through my area, and we are fortunate
to have them, although they do silt up our port, too. That is
why we have to dredge.
The legislation was not enacted, and--but it showed the
support, and I would urge the subcommittee to significantly
increase the Corps of Engineers' Flood Control and Coastal
Emergencies Account. A robust increase in Corps--Army Corps
flood projects would greatly benefit communities in Houston and
along the Gulf Coast who live in constant fear when the next
flood will strike and save billions of dollars in property
protected from flood damage.
And again, I want to thank you for the opportunity to
testify, and, again, thank you for the relationship our--I have
had with this subcommittee for many years. I would be glad to
answer any questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Congressman. I appreciate you being
here today, and I know you have got a tough area down there
with all the floods that has going on lately, and we look
forward to working with you and the other Members from that
area to try and address those concerns.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Kaptur. I just----
Mr. Simpson. Questions?
Ms. Kaptur [continuing]. Want to echo the chairman's words
there. Frankly, Houston has just been battered, your coastline
over and over. I really congratulate your community, your
citizenry for their stalwartness in face of all of that, and I
know we will try to do everything we can to help.
Mr. Green. Thank you.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you for being here today.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Carter.
----------
Wednesday, March 8, 2017.
WITNESS
HON. EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF GEORGIA
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it is an honor to
be with you, and I thank all the committee members. I
appreciate this opportunity to share my priorities and concerns
for the First Congressional District of Georgia. It is an honor
to represent a district that is so geographically diverse and
rich in water resources. I look forward to working with you,
Mr. Chairman, and the Energy and Water Subcommittee, to address
a number of different challenges we are currently facing.
I would like to start by saying thank you. Thank you for
your continued commitment to working with us to complete SHEP,
the Savannah Harbor Expansion Project. As you know, it is the
most exhaustively studied, deep-draft project in the Nation and
represents a significant economic opportunity not just for
coastal Georgia and the surrounding areas, but for the region
as a whole. Under the Corps of Engineers' original cost
estimate, the Federal Government's share would need to be
roughly $100 million annually to keep the project on track and
on budget.
It is these major deep-draft navigational projects that
will be the stimulus for growing our economy. For this reason,
I am respectfully supporting a funding request that would
ensure robust funding for the construction of deep-draft
navigation projects across the country.
We are also fortunate to have one of the busiest roll-on/
roll-off ports in the Nation. The Port of Brunswick has also
seen tremendous growth with the majority of their increase
being roll-on/roll-off in bulk cargo. While this is great news,
it is not without difficulties. For years, we have worked with
Corps of Engineers and the Georgia Ports Authority to deepen
the river to authorize maintenance depth, but the Federal
funding has been below needed levels.
In addition, compounding shoaling and natural disasters
have created additional challenges for the operators of these
ships. As a result, I am supporting the need for better funding
for maintenance projects across the Nation. With needed
attention towards our Nation's operations and maintenance
needs, we can keep our water-based infrastructure projects on
track.
While I have touched on these two major ports, the issue of
harbor maintenance is a concern that both this subcommittee and
authorizers have addressed before with the Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund. As we seek to grow our economy, we need to have
ports that can sustain adequate depths as we transition to the
larger vessels making calls.
I know, Mr. Chairman, that you remain committed to finding
a solution to this problem, and I look forward to working with
you to remedy this situation. In addition to the previously
mentioned projects, the Tybee Island Shore Protection Project
is vital to protecting and sustaining the measures needed to
keep the residents of Tybee Island safe from further severe
weather events.
The recent damage caused by Hurricane Matthew was mitigated
thanks to the dune protections that were in place. Phase 2 of
the Savannah Channel Impact Study is important to assessing
erosion along the shoreline, and to determine the steps
necessary to reduce the impacts of future severe weather
events.
I support sufficient funding under Additional Funding,
Shore Protection Investigations, to ensure that Tybee Island,
like many other communities, has the protection it needs to
survive another disaster.
Mr. Chairman, I am extremely appreciative of the hard work
that you and your colleagues on the subcommittee do in crafting
the Energy and Waters Appropriations bill as we discuss
infrastructure development and ways to stimulate our economy,
and we need to look no further than the water-based
infrastructure stimulating global trade. I deeply appreciate
your attention to these matters, and thank you for the
opportunity to provide this input.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I thank all of you for your work, you
and your committee members for your work. These deep-draft
navigational ports are extremely important, as you know, and I
am not exaggerating when I say that SHEP, the Savannah Harbor
Expansion Project, is the most, without question, the most
investigated project that we have ever had. It is the most
exhaustively studied deep water project that we have had. We
have been doing this now for going on 20 years, and still
haven't completed that project.
This is funding that we desperately need, not for the First
District of Georgia, not only for the State of Georgia but for
the whole southeast United States. This is an impact that we
can have on the whole southeastern portion of the United
States. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all of the
committee members.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Simpson. Thank you for being here today, Mr. Carter. We
appreciate it very much. Other questions?
Ms. Kaptur. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask
Congressman Carter--thank you for your excellent testimony.
Mr. Carter. Sure.
Ms. Kaptur. Could you just explain to us who don't come
from your part of the country, how the changing nature of the
ecosystem, the weather and everything has impacted your area?
You talked about shoaling up, you talked about silting up, what
is going on? In a bigger sense rather than just the port, the
deep water port, what is happening in the region?
Mr. Carter. Well, keep in mind where we are. If you know
the geography of the United States, Savannah is somewhat
inland. Remember that the--Florida comes up and then it kind of
shifts east and goes--and the eastern shoreline goes up, so
Savannah is accessible to more areas within the southeast, just
because of our location on the coast.
We are more inland than the outer ports are, and that
causes some problems, in and of itself, when you talk about
some of the geographical problems that we have and some of the
changes that we have, and particularly in the weather. It is
both advantageous, and, at the same time, it can be a hindrance
to us. It is advantageous because it makes us closer to a lot
of the geographical areas and a lot of cities along the eastern
seaboard, along the eastern United States. We don't have to
travel as far to get there, but at the same time, it does cause
a lot of silting and a lot of filling in of our ports, and we
have to have a lot more maintenance.
Ms. Kaptur. Is there more wave action, or what is
happening?
Mr. Carter. There is. Our tide shift in this particular
area is more than just about anywhere else in the United
States. We have alternating tides. We have tide shifts of 7, 8
feet at times, and that is just unheard of in other areas in
the country.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. If there are no other questions,
thank you, Mr. Carter. We appreciate it. We look forward to
working with you on your----
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you
especially, and your help on this and all the committee
members.
Mr. Simpson. You bet. Mr. Johnson, thank you for being here
today.
---------- --
--------
Wednesday, March 8, 2017.
WITNESS
HON. MIKE JOHNSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
LOUISIANA
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Chairman Simpson, and Ranking
Member Kaptur, and my colleagues and distinguished members of
the subcommittee. I want to thank you for this opportunity to
testify in front of the Energy and Water Development
Subcommittee on the importance of developing and maintaining
Louisiana and the Nation's water infrastructure needs.
Today, I ask the committee to help fund dredging needs that
will provide much-needed resources related to flooding and
navigation benefit, and not forget the tremendous benefit that
shallow draft waterways and ports have in bringing jobs back to
the United States.
The role our inland waterway systems play is an integral
part of our Nation's maritime system, and it is critically
important to our prosperity as a country. In my district,
Louisiana's Fourth District, some our biggest challenges and
yet some of our greatest opportunities revolve around port
infrastructure and further development of the navigation of our
rivers.
We have four shallow draft port authorities which service
485 miles of navigable waterways and shallow draft river miles.
As many of you are aware, the Red River in northwest Louisiana
experienced an historic flood, even in June of 2015, which
affected 21 of our parishes. This flood, along with a series of
other recent flooding events, have significantly damaged our
navigation structures, and they are currently threatening the
maintenance of the channel and the safety of our residents.
An immediate issue that was identified was how far off the
actual river's flood stage crest was from the projected crest,
which is based on a 1990 flood of record. The flood crest in
2015 was significantly higher than the flood crest in 1990,
with less volume of water measured at the Shreveport gauge,
which is our primary gauge there. The higher flood stage caused
significant damage to homes and agricultural land and
businesses, our oil and gas industry, and our public
infrastructures.
In order to determine the reasons for these discrepancies,
a sedimentation survey and hydraulic model from the Army Corps
of Engineers is necessary. The $1.5 million study is authorized
under the existing J. Bennett Johnson Waterway Project,
Construction's General Account. Unfortunately, only $250,000
was allocated in fiscal year 2016. Robust funding is
desperately needed to help projects such as this come to
fruition.
If this survey and the model are not completed and
analyzed, the 350,000 acres, and approximately 58,000 residents
of the area, will continue to suffer from future flood events.
It is imminent.
A second major issue concerns the protection of our major
infrastructure. River levels have come within feet of entering
many structures in Bossier City on the other side of the river
from Shreveport. Due to the damaged river profile, it is highly
likely that levees need to be raised and flood walls
constructed to protect existing infrastructure.
FEMA has stated that the Federal methods used to regulate
development of the special flood hazard areas would have to be
reevaluated due to ongoing discrepancies, which were on full
display during the 2015 flood event. However, in true-to-form
fashion, FEMA cannot provide a final base flood elevation, or
BFE, or a flood insurance rate map, FIRM, it can't do those
updates without the Corps' sedimentation study and the
hydraulic model.
Funding the sedimentation survey would allow FEMA to do
their job, and, thus, further protect the people of Louisiana
by completing updates to the BFE and the FIRM. In addition to
these studies, the Red River has several other immediate items
which were in need of Federal action and funding. I ask the
committee to continue to work with me on the ongoing needs
related to dredging so that river navigation for a 24/7
industry can be maintained.
These funding priorities will not only help protect
constituents, but it will improve business development for
opportunities not only for Louisiana, but also Texas and
Arkansas. Navigation funds through the Corps are truly needed
to ensure and maintain a 9-by-200 foot channel. Without this,
businesses will not only take elsewhere to invest, those that
already have invested in north Louisiana will probably leave.
The planned goal is to get a 12-foot river depth to ensure
adequate competition with nearby rivers, such as the
Mississippi and Arkansas Rivers. A request for an investigation
to change the authorized depth from a 9-foot to a 12-foot
channel has been initiated. Repair for damaged buoys, locks,
and levees along the Red River are also needed.
The construction features of the J. Bennett Johnston
Waterway Project are only 93 percent complete. The Alexandria
Front Dike Reinforcement Construction project and the J.H.
Overton Lock & Dam 2 Lower Approach project are examples of two
that can compete for funding with the construction general
account resources for these projects, and those will help to
aid in completion of the J. Bennett Johnston Waterway.
A final example of where navigation funds are needed is the
Ouchita-Black Rivers Navigation project. Previously, the fiscal
year 2017 budget request for the navigation project was 8.5
million, and additional maintenance account funds will allow
this project to compete for the additional funds necessary to
keep the waterway open for commercial navigation in the next
year.
I am out of time. I just want to strongly urge this
subcommittee to invest in our ports and waterways so that our
local communities can continue to build vibrant economies, and
I stand ready to work with each of you and the administration
in developing meaningful solutions to better maintain and
enhance our Nations's vast water infrastructure system. And I
am grateful for your time and your diligence on all these
important needs.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. I appreciate you being
here today.
Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Simpson. Other questions?
Ms. Kaptur. Mr. Chairman, I gather we don't have another
witness right away, so I am just going to take 30 seconds to--
--
Mr. Simpson. Okay.
Ms. Kaptur [continuing]. Thank Congressman Johnson very
much but to ask you if you have any theories about why the
flood crest in 2015 was significantly higher than the flood
crest in 1990. What is happening in your part of North America?
Mr. Johnson. It is an excellent question, and the subject
of much conjecture in our district. The prevailing theory seems
to be that sedimentation has settled on the bed of the river,
and that the Army Corps did not take that into account when
they set that flood level, and so it is a substantial rise.
We have lots of sedimentation on the Red River, and it has
just built up over time, and so it was just something no one
factored in apparently, as crazy as that sounds, and it was a
gross underestimation. The--combine this flood with the flood
that we had in south Louisiana several months later, we had the
fourth most costly flood crises in American history in our
State, and we are struggling to recover so----
Ms. Kaptur. Are you getting more rainfall?
Mr. Johnson. Let's hope not catastrophic levels.
Ms. Kaptur. I guess what I am saying, are you getting more
rainfall in shorter periods of time or larger volumes of
rainfall? Is that contributing to the problem or not?
Mr. Johnson. I don't know that that has been assessed to be
the problem. I know there was an historic rainfall event in
States just to our north, and, of course, it flowed down to us.
And so it wasn't even really the rainfall levels in northwest
Louisiana that caught us; it was rainfall in Missouri and
Oklahoma and other areas, and it just came to us.
We are doing our best to prepare for future events, and we
are deeply concerned, pun not intended, that we could have a
catastrophic event if these things happen again, so----
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Thank you for being here today. We
appreciate your testimony, and we look forward to working with
you and your staff.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you so much.
Mr. Simpson. You bet. We are going to be in recess for just
a few minutes. We have three more people that are here to
testify, and they should be here shortly. We should be done in
the next 25 minutes or so when they get here, so we will take a
brief recess until they come.
[Recess.]
Mr. Simpson. The committee will be back in order. Thank
you, Mr. Wilson, for being here. We look forward to your
testimony today. The floor is yours.
---------- --
--------
Wednesday, March 8, 2017.
WITNESS
HON. JOE WILSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH
CAROLINA
Mr. Wilson. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and with Ranking
Member Kaptur, what an honor to be here with both of you. This
is kind of a show of bright faces here. Thank you. And then,
excuse me, Congressman Fleischmann, too. I was not anticipating
such extraordinary people, so thank you very much. I appreciate
the opportunity to meet with you today.
First, I would like to thank Chairman Mike Simpson for his
leadership as chairman of the House Appropriation Subcommittee
on Energy and Water. I am grateful to represent South
Carolina's Second Congressional District, a diverse and
thriving community that is home to vital national security
environmental cleanup missions.
Today, I will specifically address the necessity of fully
resourcing the very positive and proven missions at the
Savannah River site and the Aiken-Barnwell community that I
represent adjacent to Augusta, Georgia. The Savannah River site
is home to the mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility, MOX
facility, a valuable part of our nonproliferation and nuclear
security. The MOX facility is currently 70 percent completed,
and when completed, will be the Nation's only facility that can
convert weapons grade plutonium into green fuel. The--and bring
the United States back in compliance with our international
nonproliferation agreements.
I am confident that after examining MOX with clear unbiased
data, it will be apparent that completing MOX is in the best
interest of our national security. The Savannah River National
Laboratory conducts cutting edge research supporting our
Nation's ability to produce tritium, to monitor and detect
capabilities for nuclear nonproliferation, and to conduct
nuclear forensics. It researches and provides improved
technologies for safely storing and transporting high-level
radioactive waste.
Additionally, the laboratory continues to make advancements
in electrical grid security, studying electromagnetic pulses,
EMPs. The Savannah River site is home to other critical
Department of Energy nuclear security and environmental cleanup
missions as it safely processes Cold War era nuclear materials
into stable materials that can be stored for later disposal.
Last year, the site completed construction of the salt
waste processing facility, greatly enhancing the speed and
efficiency of the remediation of high-level waste. Other
critical facilities include H-Canyon, the Nation's only
production scale nuclear chemical separations plant, and both K
and L areas where--which safely store nuclear materials.
Now, all the missions at the Savannah River site are vital
to bolstering our national security capability and safe
environmental stewardship.
Since 1952, the Savannah River site has played a critical
role in processing and disposing of high-level defense waste.
However, the Savannah River site was never intended to be a
long-term option for high-level waste. It lacks the ability to
serve as a permanent repository. The only viable permanent
repository is Yucca Mountain, which is environmentally secure.
I strongly urge the Appropriations Committee to allocate
funding specifically for the completion of Yucca Mountain
license application. Abandoning Yucca Mountain in favor of a
nonexistent alternative would leave the communities across the
United States, including the South Carolina-Georgia Central
Savannah River region to bear the burden of storing nuclear
waste the Federal Government has promised to remove.
Additionally, American ratepayers have put enormous
resources to completing the nuclear storage facility at Yucca
Mountain, including $1.5 billion from the ratepayers of South
Carolina. I believe that the completion of the license
application will highlight the technical merits and alleviate
any environmental concerns for its neighbors.
I appreciate the difficult decisions the committee must
make as we begin the appropriations process for fiscal year
2018. Thank you for your time. I urge you to continue
supporting the vital missions at the Savannah River site and at
Yucca Mountain. Thank you and would be happy to answer any
questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Congressman Wilson.
Mr. Fleischmann.
Mr. Fleischmann. Yes. Congressman Wilson, I want to thank
you for your advocacy today, and also, to let everyone here
know, the EM mission nationally is so critically important. I
know Savannah River has a project, Idaho has a project,
Oakridge has literally decades worth of work, Hanford. We can
literally look all across the country, and I would like to
urge, as you have done, participation in our bipartisan nuclear
cleanup caucus. It is one of the fastest growing caucuses in
Congress. Ben Ray Lujan is my cochairman. We work very well
together to advocate, and when a particular site has either had
a deficiency or has a need, we have been able to address that
in a very effective way.
So thank you for your advocacy. Savannah River is a
critically important site as is Oakridge, and I appreciate your
testimony here today, sir.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much. And indeed, it is so
positive to me to see the working relationships between the
various sites across the Nation. It is really inspiring to see
how positive it is and look forward to working with Congressman
Lujan, too. I have worked with him on a number of issues, and
this can be bipartisan and positive for the national security
of the people of the United States.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Wilson.
Ms. Kaptur.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. I just wanted also to thank
Congressman Wilson for testifying today and bringing forward
the importance of waste--nuclear waste disposal. I am hoping
that in any new infrastructure bill that is proposed that the
cleanup issues will be also considered for inclusion and both
for the types of waste that you specify in your testimony as
well as spent ordinance, which is a big problem in many places
in the country and other ingredients that have been a part of
our defense and nuclear complex.
I think this could be a job creator. It is work that we
have had backlogged on our accounts for years and years and
years, and I think you could be an important voice in that. So
along with the rest of us. So I just thank you very much for
testifying this morning. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the
time.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Thanks for your
testimony, and we look forward to working with you on this
year's budget.
Mr. Wilson. Again, what leadership here. I am just honored
to be in your presence. Thank you very much.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Again we will be in brief recess
until our next witness comes.
[Recess.]
Mr. Simpson. The committee will be back in order. We are
happy to have the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee with us today. I
look forward to your testimony. The floor is yours.
---------- --
--------
Wednesday, March 8, 2017.
WITNESS
HON. SHEILA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
TEXAS
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much to Mr. Simpson and Ms.
Kaptur. Thank you to this committee for its work that I think
strikes an enormously bipartisan and nonpartisan cord, because
all of us are concerned about major elements of clean water,
clean air, and certainly energy for this Nation. So I wish to
highlight the energy, water, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
programs, which warrant the committee's continued attention and
support. I will speak quickly about some initial ones so that I
can focus on something that I think you have seen me on the
floor confronting, and that is the flooding in Houston, Harris
County, and, certainly, flooding that we have seen over the
last couple years around the country.
First of all, I support the $1.26 billion for Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund. Particularly, Houston Port is a manmade
port. We face these issues of continuing to have to maintain
the port so that it is viable for the major vessels that come
in. As you well know, through the opening of the Panama Canal
in its full force, the Houston Port will become busier than
ever, and the dredging that is necessary is crucial. We
continue to debate the question of how much money we send to
the United States and how much money we receive, but I support
the $1.26 billion for the importance, if you will, the
importance of helping not only the Houston Port, but around the
Nation. I support the $230 million for the Weatherization
Assistance Program. WAP helps low income seniors, and I support
that greatly as it relates to their energy efficiency. I
support $2 million for the U.S.-Israel Energy Cooperation
Program, robust funding for the DOE's Wind Energy Program in
the State of Texas. We have taken wings, if I might say that.
The wind program is unbelievable to both the chairman and
the ranking member. It is particularly outside of our urban
centers. It is in our rural communities. Our farmers are
welcoming the windmills and asking, how many more can be placed
on my land while I continue to do my--the commitment to the
agriculture business that I have? So I am really supportive of
expanding this program as a continuing substitute, or
complement, to energy needs in the United States.
I support $2.9 billion for energy efficiency; $5.672
billion for DOE Office of Science, in particular, working with
the NIH and the President BRAIN Initiative, we will develop the
next generation tools and technology to support research into
the brain. I support $84 million for the National Network for
Manufacturing; support $70 million for the State Energy
Program.
And now to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This is a
lifeline in Harris County. We have the Harris County Flood
Control District. We just had a report assessing that some of
the work that we have done may have helped, or may be helping a
neighborhood that has suffered flooding almost two years
straight, with loss of life. And that is really striking in an
urban area. This is a residential area where people were lost
by their vehicles, either flooding into the bayou, which is
what we have, or they themselves flooding into the bayou.
One particularly sad incident was firefighters who rescued
two seniors and another individual. These seniors had just from
come the graduation of their granddaughter, and because the
storms were so bad, the family said, why don't you head home,
not wait till the program is over, and they, unfortunately, got
flooded out, I think even as they were getting out of their
car. They were rescued by firefighters, but the boat toppled
over, and they--both of them lost their lives.
So this is in the urban area of Houston. And so the Army
Corps of Engineers does vital work. The appropriations funds
studies to determine the need, engineering feasibility, and
economic and environmental return to the Nation of potential
solutions to water and related land-resource problems, pre-
construction engineering and design, and related data
collection, interagency coordination research are very, very
important. The Army Corps of Engineers plays a critical role,
and it certainly is important to us.
I was pleased that the fiscal year 2017 energy and water
spending bill provided that the Secretary of the Army may
initiate up to six new studies, and that five of those studies
should be in areas where the majority of benefits are derived.
I am optimistic that these provisions will be retained in
fiscal year 2018, and that one of these new studies selected
will be the Houston Regional Watershed Assessment Flood Risk
and Management Feasibility Study that I have advocated for.
Such a study is certainly needed to give the frequency and
severity of historic level flood events in recent years in and
around the historic Houston metropolitan area. I have asked for
this for $3 million. We have never had a study of whether--how
the bayous work together, and whether our improvements really
work, and so this would be a great necessity.
Let me quickly try to conclude by noting on April 15, 2016,
an estimated 240 billion gallons of water fell in the Houston
area over a 12-hour period, which resulted in several areas
exceeding the 100- to 500-year flood area. The May 2015 Houston
flood destroyed 3,015 homes, left eight persons dead. The
economic damage caused by the 2015 Houston flood is estimated
at $3 billion. The damage from 2016 is estimated at above $2
billion. Not a hurricane; just rain. And our city is filled
with bayous.
So, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, minimizing the risk of
flood damage to the Houston and Harris County metropolitan
area, the Nation's fourth largest, is a matter of national
significance, because the region is one of the Nation's major
technology, energy, and financial report--export, and medical
centers.
So I support $2.8 billion for operation and maintenance; $6
billion for coastal ocean data system; but, particularly,
advocate for the study that I hope we can receive and so that
we can assess the effectiveness of the tax dollars that we have
received, the tax dollars that we hope to receive, and the
effectiveness of making sure that we could be even a model for
how you address the question of urban flooding in a location
that is 50 feet below sea level, even though we are a few miles
in from the Gulf.
So I thank you all very much for the work that you do and
ask your consideration. Thank you so very much.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Representative Jackson Lee. We
appreciate you being here today. And Marcy, do you have
anything?
Ms. Kaptur. I just want to thank Congresswoman Jackson Lee
for her excellent work and her indefatigability--Is that a
word? Did I say it properly there? --on many fronts. And I have
to say, all of the members of this committee, or the
subcommittee, are very concerned about Houston and what has
happened to you, the stalwartness it has taken for your people
to come through the flooding, and wondering, you know, what the
proper solutions are for--the proper engineering solutions are
for an area like yours. We have also heard from witnesses from
Georgia, Louisiana, and Florida, all along the southern part of
the United States, the silting up of ports, the severity of
storms, and now you are here as one of our final witnesses
today. So it does make us wonder how to prepare our country for
the future in this century, and so your information is very
valuable to us.
And I only have one question. In addition to that general
concern about what is happening to our general weather patterns
and environmental security along the southern part of our
country, the entire question of your deep water port at Houston
and how what is happening in the Panama Canal is impacting you?
Could you expound on that just a little bit for it record,
please?
Ms. Jackson Lee. I would be delighted. And I would say it
is a positive impact, and that is because of the new potential
direction of the ships getting through much faster. Our port,
which is now very close to the Panama's new route, so the
Panama Canal's new routes that allow these ships to come
through coming from the west and the east. We are seeing an
increased use and higher tonnage coming into the Houston Port,
which is a very large port, we are 10th in the world, but we
are a manmade port, and we have to have dredging on a regular
basis. And in order to maintain the viability of those ships
and the income that comes in there, and also to be a
contributor to the Nation's economy, because we do, we need to
have the kind of maintenance that is intense and we need
funding for that intense maintenance.
So what I was saying is that it is a positive impact, but
we are not a natural port, and that means we have to work at
maintaining the port. And the port leaves the larger waters and
comes into us up a 50-mile run that we have drudged to create
the port, which is really right almost inside Houston, Texas,
so inside city limits; our port comes into the city limits of
Houston, and surrounding neighborhoods are there as well.
So we have had a number of other issues that we have dealt
with with the port being there, but the surrounding residential
neighborhood has accepted the port, the port has tried to be a
good neighbor, but all those concerns face us as a manmade
port.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. We appreciate your testimony and
look forward to working with you as we put this budget
together.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank you, Chairman. Might I have a
special appreciation to Ranking Member Kaptur, who took note
the $3 million study in the last debate on the floor and her
staff was very helpful to our office, and we are most grateful
to you and for your leadership here, and to the chairman, for
both of you working so well together. Thank you.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I yield back.
Mr. Simpson. And, again, we will be in recess for a couple
minutes as we are waiting for our last individual to come and
testify.
[Recess.]
Mr. Simpson. The committee is back in order, and will
receive testimony from Congresswoman Watson Coleman. The floor
is yours.
----------
Wednesday, March 8, 2017.
WITNESS
HON. BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE
OF NEW JERSEY
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you so much, Chairman. And thank
you, Ranking Member Kaptur. I want to thank you for this
opportunity to testify today on the agencies and programs under
the jurisdiction of the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Subcommittee.
The Army Corps' Civil Works Program covers a wide range of
water resources activities that are essential to the public
health and safety. I appreciate the important work this
subcommittee has done in ensuring adequate funding for the Army
Corps programs in previous years, which has benefited many of
our communities and constituents. In past years, groups like
the Greenbrook Flood Commission have used targeted Federal
investments under the Civil Works Program to improve quality of
life by expanding on water resource development activities like
recreation and flood risk management. The Civil Works Program
has also allowed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to strengthen
its relationship with our communities through its projects that
have enhanced quality of life for thousands of people.
The Greenbrook Flood Commission, which supports 13
different municipalities in my district, has already provided
rejuvenation and relief to residents by completion of
components of the Greenbrook sub-basin project through flood
control programs. This project encompasses an area that has
been ravaged by extreme flooding, which has caused extensive
property damage, and even the loss of life.
Over the course of nearly 40 years, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers project manager for this project has worked to
ameliorate the extreme flooding conditions through the
construction of extensive levees, flood walls, and pump
stations. In fiscal year 2016, the Army Corps Civil Works
Program received approximately $6 billion in funding. Providing
the Corps with the sufficient funding for fiscal year 2017 and
2018, it is critical to keeping projects like this moving
forward, especially knowing that certain projects like this one
have previously languished due to a lack of funding.
Projects like this one also help build a stronger and safer
America by constructing durable and sustainable infrastructure
that prioritizes the protection of life and property. They also
help modernize our communities and reduce the risk of damage
from natural resources, while promoting job creation and
environmental stewardship.
So, again, I want to thank the chairman and the ranking
member for this opportunity to testify, and hope that Congress
will continue to support the robust funding for such critical
programs. And with that, I yield back.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. We appreciate your testimony today.
Questions, Ms. Kaptur?
Ms. Kaptur. No, Mr. Chairman, but I do want to thank
Congresswoman Watson Coleman for testifying today and for your
support of the Corps. As we move forward here this year, we are
expecting something on infrastructure from the administration,
completion of many of these projects, augmentation around the
country of work already underway could be a part of that
measure, so I just wanted to put that on the table as we accept
your excellent testimony.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you very much.
And, Mr. Chairman and Madam Ranking Member, I just--I want
to apologize for being a bit late. I was testifying downstairs.
It is just one of those days.
Mr. Simpson. It is one of those days. We appreciate it. You
weren't late, actually.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Oh, good. Thank you.
Mr. Simpson. But we appreciate you coming. We appreciate
all the members that came to testify today. Their comments will
be included in the record.
And I would also remind members that might be listening
that our member request day is closed on April--database closes
on April 6, so have the individual member requests in to the
subcommittee so they can start working on them.
But thank you very much, Bonnie----
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you.
Mr. Simpson [continuing]. For coming here today and
testifying before us. And we look forward to working with you
and your staff as we put this bill together.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Appreciate it very much.
Mr. Simpson. The hearing is adjourned.
TESTIMONY OF INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS
---------- --
--------
Wednesday, May 3, 2017.
CITY OF TYBEE ISLAND
WITNESS
JASON BUELTERMAN, MAYOR, CITY OF TYBEE ISLAND
Mr. Simpson. The hearing will come to order. Thank you,
all of you, for being here today. This is the first time this
Committee, I think, at least in my memory, and I have been on
it for a long time, has had public witnesses. And I think it is
a good idea and we have--also, because we have had the time
this year, because we have not been able to have any other
witnesses because we have not got a budget yet and probably
will not until the end of this month, so we thought it was a
good time to have the public witness hearing and hear what all
of you thought is important in this bill and things we ought to
be considering as we draft this bill.
I would like to welcome everyone to the Energy and Water
public witness hearing. This morning members of the public will
testify on issues that are important to them under the
jurisdiction of this subcommittee.
Each witness will have 5 minutes to present their
testimony. Remember that your full testimony, the written
statement, will appear in the hearing record. Members of the
subcommittee may ask questions of the witnesses, but we would
have a better chance of staying on schedule if we all work to
keep this moving. We have to be done at 12:30 and we have 27
witnesses it looks like, so I am going to keep to the 5-minute
rule.
So, would Ms. Kaptur have an opening statement?
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am just so happy we
can all be together this morning. I want to thank you for your
leadership and for this public witness day. I welcome these
days in particular, of the testimony that will come before us,
and they are both valuable and I would say quite motivating for
those of us on this subcommittee. I look forward to hearing
from all of the interested parties today on what you believe
important to be in our bill. And with that, I will close my
remarks.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for arranging this important
opportunity for all of us to work together on behalf of the
Nation's best interest.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Our first panel is Mayor Jason--
pronounce your last name for me.
Mr. Buelterman. Buelterman.
Mr. Simpson. Buelterman, kind of throws my tongue in the
middle, Buelterman, okay. Mayor and Derek Brockbank, welcome to
the committee and the time is yours. Mayor, first.
Mr. Buelterman. Thank you very much. Good morning. I want
to start by thanking Subcommittee Chairman----
Mr. Simpson. Is the microphone on?
Mr. Buelterman. I want to start by thanking you all for
the opportunity to present before you today. My appearance
before you is to underscore the need for increased
appropriations to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
investigations account, specifically additional funding for
shore protection investigations that the committee has provided
in the past.
I want to use an example for my own city of Tybee Island,
Georgia, to demonstrate what I believe is a pressing need for
these funds across many coastal regions of the country. For
those who may not be aware, Tybee is a barrier island located
about 18 miles east of Savannah, Georgia.
It is the eastern most point in the State of Georgia and is
known for being a popular recreational destination for the
region, as well as a vacation spot among tourists from outside
the Savannah metropolitan area and is also home to about 3,000
full-time residents.
The sandy shoreline of Tybee is of significant value. While
it is important to the city and region as a recreational venue,
its primary purpose, the beach that is and the dunes, is to
provide protection against damages caused by storms and coastal
flooding.
Recently my community suffered significant damage due to
Hurricane Matthew. The total damage to Tybee amounted to at
least $3.4 million. Those damages would have been far greater
had our Federal Shore Protection Project not been in place.
The Tybee Island Shore Protection Project was authorized by
Section 201 of the Flood Control Act of 1965. It provides
periodic renourishments estimated to be every 7 years until the
end of the 50-year project life, which expires in 2024.
The City of Tybee is working to extend the project's
authorization and bolster its dune system. The Savannah
district office of the Corps, at the request of our city, made
a funding request for the President's fiscal year 2018 budget
to fund what is called Phase II of the Savannah Channel Impact
Study.
Phase I of this study determined that approximately 73
percent of the erosion of Tybee shelf and shoreline is caused
by impacts from the manmade federally authorized Savannah
harbor shipping channel.
Under law, the Federal Government is responsible for
mitigating damages caused by its own navigation projects.
Phase II of this study, which is one of the reasons I am
here, will determine what measures will be recommended to
address the erosion. The study will be all encompassing,
including assessing adding dunes to the existing Federal Shore
Protection Project and assessing the severe erosion that has
occurred along the shoreline of the northern end of our island.
This portion of our island, although it is adjacent to the
shipping channel, is not part of the current Federal Shore
Protection Project and has been severely impacted by shipping
traffic using the Savannah channel and will face even greater
erosional impacts due to the channel's ongoing deepening.
I urge the House Committee on Appropriations to provide
sufficient funding to enable the funding of the Phase II study.
I also want to highlight another issue that I respectfully
ask the subcommittee to keep in mind as you determine future
funding needs for shore protection projects.
One of the major lessons of Hurricane Matthew and
Superstorm Sandy was a massive amount of money that did not
need to be spent in Federal post-disaster and flood insurance
costs due to the existence of manmade dunes.
I have given all a one-page--two pictures here on one sheet
of paper. These two photos you have before you illustrate my
point. The top photo of is of a beach town right up the coast
from the second photo at the bottom of a town called Harvey
Cedars, New Jersey.
Both aerial shots were taken right after Superstorm Sandy.
The town in the top photo, and I am not going to identify which
one that is, did not have manmade dunes. The bottom photo is of
a town that wisely did have manmade dunes.
These dunes were built as part of a newer Federal Shore
Protection Project by the Army Corps of Engineers. It is
estimated that about $1.3 billion in Sandy-related damages were
saved by the existence of Federal Shore Protection Projects in
New York and New Jersey alone.
Dunes are not part, however, of many older Federal Shore
Protection Projects, such as the one on Tybee. Because of the
time of the creation of projects, dunes were not considered in
the 1970s to be a big deal and to be essential for protection
for coastal communities.
I urge the subcommittee to consider adding additional
shoreline protection funding with the appropriate report
language, noting that a portion of the additional money is to
be used to expedite adding a dune element to older projects
using the existing cost-sharing percentages for those projects.
If the Corps is required to produce a straight forward
report on those projects designed prior to 1986 where dunes
were not included in the project design, you will see that
Tybee Island is not alone.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you
today.
So the slow erosion of our beach is caused by the fact that
sand that would otherwise drift to our beach naturally, gets
stuck in the manmade shipping channel. Whereas the immediate
impact from Hurricane Matthew had a very significant one-time
event.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Brockbank.
----------
Wednesday, May 3, 2017.
AMERICAN SHORE AND BEACH PRESERVATION ASSOCIATION
WITNESS
DEREK BROCKBANK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN SHORE AND BEACH
PRESERVATION ASSOCIATION
Mr. Brockbank. Thank you. Thank you for having me. My name
is Derek Brockbank. I am the executive director of the American
Shore and Beach Preservation Association. Founded in 1926,
ASBPA is dedicated to preserving, protecting, and enhancing our
coast by emerging science and public policy.
We represent the Nation's coastal practitioners--the
industry, the local government officials, and academics who
build, restore, and maintain our Nation's coastline. The City
of Tybee Island has been a member for many years now.
I am here today also to speak for natural coastal
infrastructure, why beaches, high vegetative dunes, and vibrant
wetlands protect communities from coastal flooding and storms,
saving lives, protecting property, and reducing disruptions to
the local economy.
Simply put, natural coastal infrastructure is a wise fiscal
investment, saving the Federal Government money by reducing
post-disaster recovery costs.
As you heard from the mayor, the Army Corps of Engineers
has estimated that investment in shore protection saved $1.3
billion of damage in New York and New Jersey and $1.9 billion
in damage total during Hurricane Sandy.
Coastal protection is also a jobs bonanza. In addition to
construction jobs, restoring and maintaining coastal
infrastructure supports lifeguards, fishermen, hotel workers,
waiters, and the plumbers and technicians who work in coastal
towns.
So what needs to be funded? To protect our coastal
communities and support coastal economies, the United States
needs to, A, construct coastal protection and restoration
projects; B, manage sediment as a resource, not a waste
product; and, C, collect data and do coastal research to ensure
that coastal projects will protect the people and assets they
were designed to protect.
To meet long-term funding needs, Congress should invest $5
billion over 10 years in beaches, dunes, and wetlands as part
of a national infrastructure package. But to maintain existing
capacity, we respectfully request that the fiscal year 2018
Energy and Water Appropriation includes the following:
One, provide at least $75 million to the Army Corps for
shore protection. Shore protection or coastal flood risk
management are the funds the Corps uses to construct and
renourish beach and dune systems that protect vulnerable
coastal communities.
While the administration's budget has consistently left
shore protection unfunded, Congress has reliably added funding
to this critical Corps mission. After steady declines in shore
protection appropriations, we were pleased to see a slight
increase to 50 million in the fiscal year 2017 omnibus.
However, with our Nation's coastal communities increasingly
vulnerable to severe coastal storms and the inevitability of
the next major hurricane, we ask that you return shore
protection funding levels to at least that of fiscal year 2014.
The current Army Corps capacity for shore protection is
$165 million annually, which was requested in a Dear Colleague
letter led by Representative Wasserman Schultz as well as
Congresswoman Frankel and fully supported by ASBPA.
Our request of at least $75 million is less than half what
the Army Corps could accomplish and should be the minimum
appropriated.
Two, provide $5 million for implementation of the
beneficial use of dredge material pilot program that was
authorized in the WIND Act and provides $6 million increase to
regional sediment management to develop sediment management
strategies for the South Atlantic Coastal Study also authorized
in the WIND Act.
The WIND Act was a major bipartisan success last December
and authorized a number of good coastal programs that require
the Corps to manage sand and sediment, which are the building
blocks of coastal protection projects as a resource, not a
waste product.
The Beneficial Use of Dredge Material Pilot Program
authorizes 10 projects around the country to innovatively use
sediment dredged from navigation channels for coastal
protection and/or environmental restoration.
ASBPA has heard that Corps districts have submitted more
than a hundred projects for this new program. Clearly the
interest is there. What the program lacks is funding. We
request $5 million for the full implementation of Beneficial
Use of Dredge Material Pilot Program.
This South Atlantic Coastal Study covers one of the most
vulnerable regions in the world for hurricanes from North
Carolina, to Mississippi, and the Caribbean Islands. The full
cost of the study is estimated to be 10 to $14 million, but an
initial Federal investment of $6 million to the Corps' Regional
Sediment Management Program would allow parts of this study
that were previously authorized to begin in earnest and cut the
cost of the study in half.
Finally, we request that you maintain funding for coastal
data collection, including coastal ocean data systems, national
coastal mapping programs, and Coastal Field Data Collection
Program. Without good coastal data, Federal projects and even
local projects cannot be properly designed.
Given the Federal jurisdiction over the ocean and coast,
this data acquisition must be via Federal agencies. So we ask
you to at least maintain current funding levels for these key
programs.
ASBPA is grateful to your subcommittee and Congress for
funding the Coastal Flood Risk Management Mission of the Corps.
Of course these programs are but a few small pieces of a much
larger investment needed to prepare our coastal communities for
increasingly intense coastal storms and hazards.
Improved coastal resilience will take coordination across
multiple Federal, State, and Local authorities. It will also
take a large-scale dedicated funding investment in coastal
infrastructure. However, a good first step in protecting
coastal communities is ensuring all shore protection, regional
sediment management, and coastal data acquisition are
appropriately funded. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
Ms. Kaptur.
Ms. Kaptur. Yes. I want to thank Mr. Brockbank for your
excellent testimony. I really agree with you on beneficial
reuse, but I have a question.
On page 5 of your testimony, you mentioned the Atlantic,
the Gulf, and the Pacific coasts. Why did you not include the
Great Lakes in the Coastal Data Information Program request?
Mr. Brockbank. Pure error and I apologize.
Ms. Kaptur. I just wondered. That is really important.
Mr. Brockbank. You are absolutely right and I apologize
for that.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. We
look forward to working with you.
Mr. Pete Rahn, the Maryland Department of Transportation.
---------- --
--------
Wednesday, May 3, 2017.
MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
WITNESS
HON. PETE RAHN, SECRETARY, MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Rahn. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member,
members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me--sorry.
Thank you for inviting me to discuss the importance of the U.S.
Army Corps Engineers Civil Works funding to the Helen Delich
Bentley Port of Baltimore, an economic engine not just for
Maryland and the region, but for our Nation.
Ports are the key links to U.S. access, to the global
transportation network, and Federal navigation channels provide
access to these facilities.
I thank the Committee for continuing to invest in maritime
infrastructure and commerce, especially with respect to
essential dredging projects that keep our shipping channels,
our maritime highways safe and open for business.
This is a high priority for the Hogan administration, which
is why the Maryland Department of Transportation requests that
Congress ensure adequate funding in the fiscal year 2018
budget, including $75 million for the Poplar Island and its
expansion, $800,000 to initiate design for the Mid-Chesapeake
Bay Island Project, $30.4 million in operations and maintenance
funds for dredging the Baltimore harbor and channel's 50-foot
project, and $12 million to maintain a depth of 35 feet in the
C&D Canal and approach channels.
The Port of Baltimore generates about 13,000 direct jobs
and about 128,000 jobs linked to port activities. It is
noteworthy that the average income for a port direct job is 16
percent higher than the average Maryland salary.
The Port of Baltimore was just recognized for the third
consecutive year as the most efficient U.S. container port. We
handle more cars in roll on, roll off, heavy farm, and
construction machinery than any other U.S. port.
The Port of Baltimore ranks first among all national ports
in handling many commodities that are essential to our economy,
such as aluminum, sugar, gypsum, cars, trucks, and equipment.
We are ranked second in the Nation for exporting coal.
Out of 190 major U.S. ports, Baltimore ranks 9th in the
value of foreign cargo and 14th in foreign cargo tonnage. Our
public-private partnership agreement with Ports America
Chesapeake and the availability of a 50-foot deep container
berth has positioned the Port of Baltimore to attract cargo
growth associated with last year's Panama Canal expansion.
Our tonnage increased 9.3 percent in the first 8 months
since the Canal opened. The port's coal business has also
increased significantly over the same period, as these ships
need deep water, too.
It is critical that the Port of Baltimore deliver
sufficient long-term dredge material placement capacity to
support maintenance of a 50-foot deep channel in terms of both
depth and width to capitalize on that anticipated growth and
maintain our existing business.
If the Port of Baltimore is the economic heart of Maryland,
our shipping channels are the arteries. With more than 130
miles of dredged channels, we work with the Corps of Engineers
to keep our channel system open.
Maintaining the shipping channels is critical to the
continued success of the port. Approximately 4.3 million cubic
yards of sediment must be removed annually to maintain Federal
channels and anchorages at their authorized depths and widths.
Keeping the main Chesapeake Bay channels open for shipping
relies on placement of dredge material at Poplar Island and its
expansion as well as construction of the Mid-Chesapeake Bay
Island Project. The Paul S. Sarbanes Ecosystem Restoration
Project at Poplar Island will provide an additional 28 million
cubic yards of dredge material placement.
The Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island Project is critical, because
it will provide 40-plus years of capacity. Federal funding is
essential to enable Mid-Bay Project at the time it is needed
and to avoid deauthorization in calendar year 2021.
Federal funding for Corps dredging has been constrained
over the last several years, and continued constraints will
negatively impact the port. We believe that $25 million per
year is needed to fully dredge the channels to Baltimore.
The C&D Canal is also an essential part of the port's
shipping channel system providing the shortest route to open
water for vessels traveling between Baltimore and points north.
Maryland remains fully committed to working with our
Federal partners to deliver safe, efficient, and cost-effective
maritime commerce infrastructure in Maryland.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I would be
happy to answer any questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Rahn. I appreciate you being
here today and this is not the first time, or the last time, I
suspect I will hear about port--harbor maintenance and
dredging.
Mr. Rahn. I would suspect not, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
Mr. Rahn. All right. Thank you.
Ms. Kaptur. Mr. Chairman? Might I just say that the fact
that you have named your port in memory of our dear
Congresswoman Helen Delich Bentley gets my attention. She was
one of my closest friends during my congressional service and I
congratulate you for that. So my eyes are wide open on your
request.
I wanted to ask you, what do you do with your dredge
material?
Mr. Rahn. If I may first comment on your first comment
about Helen and having the port named after her, she was
actually alive for the last 12 years that it has been named
after her. So she was able to actually know the honor that had
been bestowed upon her for her huge activity in developing the
Port of Baltimore. She was an amazing woman with an amazing
vocabulary.
The question where we put it, so we have two sites, or
three, for the Feds, for Federal placement? Three.
So we have three sites for Federal placement, but for the
Corps, and then we have two additional sites that we use for
the harbor dredging that we do as a State to keep the harbor
open.
Ms. Kaptur. Do you use it or do you just store?
Mr. Rahn. Right now we are storing it, but we are looking
for ways to reuse it. In fact, our State Highway Administration
is changing their regulations to allow the placement of the
dredge material into highway projects.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Mr. Frazier.
----------
Wednesday, May 3, 2017.
SOUTHEASTERN FEDERAL POWER CUSTOMERS, INC.
WITNESS
MICHAEL FRAZIER, SECRETARY, SOUTHEASTERN FEDERAL POWER CUSTOMERS, INC.
Mr. Frazier. Thank you, Chairman Simpson, Ranking Member
Kaptur, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Michael
Frazier and I am appearing today on behalf of the Southeastern
Federal Power Customers in support of funding for Southeastern
Power Administration, also known as SEPA, and the hydropower
program administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the
Southeast.
The Southeastern Federal Power Customers is a not-for-
profit corporation that was formed over 25 years ago to support
the interest of electric taxpayers that received the benefit of
the Federal Power Program in the Southeast.
The members of the Southeastern Federal Power Customers are
customer-owned municipal utilities and rural electric co-op
that purchased the Federal resources provided by the Army Corps
hydropower projects and use that hydropower with other
generation to keep electric rates as low as possible.
As you are aware, the power generated by the Army Corps
hydropower projects in the Southeast is marketed by a separate
agency under the umbrella of the Department of Energy. That
agency, Southeastern Power Administration, SEPA, markets,
sells, and arranges transmission for the power that the Army
Corps projects provide.
Our request to the subcommittee today is straightforward.
The Southeastern Federal Power Customers are asking the
subcommittee to authorize the use of receipts of at least $6
million to allow SEPA to continue to meet its statutory mission
of providing the power in the southeast to consumer-owned
utilities at the lowest possible rate consistent with sound
business principals.
This request to the subcommittee can be easily met, because
of the authorization for SEPA to use its receipts is considered
neutral from a scoring proposition. In other words, funding
this organization does not cost the subcommittee in terms of
allocated dollars.
Funding SEPA makes sense from a number of other
perspectives as well. Authorizing SEPA to use receipts for
program direction leverages revenues for the U.S. Treasury.
Over the past four years SEPA has returned over $1 billion to
the U.S. Treasury.
Over the same period of time, it has been authorized to use
roughly 28 million for program direction. It is a program that
works for the Federal taxpayers. The program also includes
other components such as the authorization to use receipts to
wield the power and firm up power supply contracts.
The subcommittee approves funding for these activities
through the authorization to use receipts for purchase power
and wielding activities.
Like program direction, this funding authorization is also
neutral from a scoring prospective, because the receipts or
payments for these activities are received in the same year in
which the expenditures are made.
The payments for these activities are typically passed
through charges on a customer's bill, which means that the
expenditures are reimbursed rather than absorbed by SEPA.
Let me emphasize an important point about the Federal power
program that SEPA administers. The cost of the Federal power
program are recouped and paid for by the ultimate
beneficiaries. There are too few Federal programs that can make
that point.
For those of us that endeavor to keep the electric rates as
low as possible for our taxpayers, our rate payers, we truly
appreciate the support that this subcommittee has traditionally
given to SEPA.
We are also grateful for the support that this subcommittee
has provided to the Army Corps hydropower program in the
Southeast. As I mentioned earlier, the power market by SEPA
comes from the Army Corps projects.
The Army Corps' costs associated with hydropower are
recovered in the rates charged by SEPA. However, Congress must
still appropriate the funding for the Army Corps' operations
and maintenance programs in the first instance to keep the
power plants running.
Although these expenditures are not treated the same as
SEPA's direct program authorizations for scoring purposes, the
subcommittee should be aware that the appropriations for the
Army Corps hydropower program come back to the U.S. Treasury
and the receipts paid for by the hydropower customers in the
southeast.
Every dollar put into the hydropower projects is returned
to U.S. Treasury over time. In fact, I would encourage the
members of the subcommittee to consider that funding the Army
Corps hydropower program facilitates the payments to the
Treasury, because the hydropower--if the hydropower equipment
is not maintained, SEPA cannot sell the power which generates
the revenues that I mentioned earlier.
In conclusion, we ask that the subcommittee support SEPA's
direct program, be it no less than $6 million, no less than $80
million for purchase power and wielding activities, and no less
than $75 million for the Army Corps hydropower programs to be
used in the Southeast.
Thank you for listening and I will be happy to answer any
questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. We look forward to working with
you and the other PMAs in trying to get some power that
actually works. Thank you for your testimony today.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Frazier. Could I just ask over
how many States does your authority exist, just Georgia?
Mr. Frazier. The Southeastern Federal Power Customers,
we--all the States that the SEPA covers, so North Carolina,
South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama. There is probably a couple
more.
Ms. Kaptur. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
Mr. Bean, welcome to the committee. It is good to see you
again. Time is yours.
----------
Wednesday, May 3, 2017.
PUYALLUP TRIBE OF WASHINGTON STATE
WITNESS
DAVID BEAN, COUNCILMAN, PUYALLUP TRIBE OF WASHINGTON STATE
Mr. Bean. [Speaking native language.] Good day, honorable
relatives and friends. My name is David Bean. I am from the
Puyallup Tribal Indians. I am here today on behalf of my
chairman, Mr. Bill Sterud.
We appreciate the opportunity to testify regarding the
fiscal year 2018 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Waterworks
Resources Construction Budget. We especially want to thank Mr.
Chairman Simpson for your continuing support of Indian Country,
both in your capacity here on this committee as well as your
former capacity as chair of the Interior Appropriations
Committee.
We are continuously taught by our late uncle, Billy Frank,
to tell your story. I am here today to tell you our story about
our treaty right and the resource. We are also taught by his
father, Billy Frank, Sr., that all natural things, our brothers
and sisters, we have a responsibility to take care of them. If
they take care of the fish, the fish will take care of us.
In particular we ask the subcommittee's support for the
Army Corps' work to replace the Buckley Diversion Dam and
Buckley fish trap on the White River in Washington State. This
work is necessary, so the United States can honor our treaty
rights and meet its obligations under the Endangered Species
Act.
The estimated cost of this work right now is 50- to $100
million. In addition to funding, we request report language to
direct the Army Corps not to consider this project a new start
construction project.
This is necessary, because right now even if the Corps
received the funding, there is a current directive by OMB not
to engage in any new start projects.
This seems ridiculous to us, since the planning and design
for this project has been ongoing for more than a decade. To
put this into perspective, Mr. Chairman, we started this
process with your former colleague, Congressman Norm Dicks.
In addition to the existing facility, 77 years old, far
exceeding its intended service life and replacement structures
would be more accurately referenced as updates.
Since time immemorial, my Tribe has fished for salmon in
the White River and the Puyallup River. My family has fished on
these rivers for generations. We continue to do so this very
day as treaties guarantee our right to fish from these rivers.
My Tribe relies on salmon for subsistence, ceremonial and
cultural purposes, as well as an economic resource. Now, three
species of salmon are listed under the Endangered Species Act.
They include the spring chinook, bull trout, and steelhead.
Putting our treaty right in jeopardy, if there are no fish,
simply there are no rights to exercise. Together the Buckley
fish trap and Buckley Diversion Dam compose one facility
located on the White River, which empties into the Puyallup
River farther downstream.
Since the dam completely obstructs the salmon's migration
to their spawning grounds, the Corps installed the fish trap in
a hold facility to serve as a pathway for the fish to prevent
their extinction. Now the fish trap is 77 years old. It is
completely outdated.
It was never designed to accommodate the runs of pink and
coho salmon, which quickly overwhelmed its limited handling
capacity. The limited fish handling capacity often creates
delays where fish are backed up for a mile or more at the
facility. This causes stress, delay, injury, and ultimately
spawning mortality for all the fish, including those on the
endangered species list.
It is long past time to replace the facility and several
studies and biological opinions agree. Pursuant to the most
recent National Marine Fisheries Service biological opinion,
the Corps is required to replace the Buckley Diversion Dam and
fish trap by 2020. If funding is not provided to continue the
planning and construction of this project, this simply will not
happen.
Because of the state of this facility, fishing season on
both Puyallup and White Rivers was almost entirely closed to
both Tribal and sports fishing last year. Thus, the impact of
the Corps' failure to do its job, honor its trust
responsibility to try to end Endangered Species Act, not only
directly impacts Tribes' guaranteed treaty right, but the
sports fishing industry in Washington State as well.
Fishing is a multimillion-dollar industry in the region and
the health of these runs is critical, not only to the Tribes,
but to the economy of the Northwest. One thing we are taught by
elders that what affects one of us, affects all of us.
We respectfully request that Congress include funding in
the fiscal year 2018 Army Corps of Engineer civil works budget
for the Buckley Diversion Dam and fish trap by 2020 sufficient
to ensure that construction of this facility is complete by
2020. This is necessary to ensure the Puyallup Tribes treaty
rights are protected.
With that, I want to close by saying thank you. We are
appraisingly thankful to you for this opportunity to talk with
you here today.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, David. It is always good to see
you again and hear your testimony.
Any questions?
Ms. Kaptur. I have no questions, but thank you very much
for being here today.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. We look forward to working with
you on this.
Joseph Pavel.
----------
Wednesday, May 3, 2017.
SKOKOMISH TRIBE OF THE WASHINGTON STATE
WITNESS
JOSEPH PAVEL, TRIBAL NATURAL RESOURCE DIRECTOR, SKOKOMISH TRIBE OF THE
WASHINGTON STATE
Mr. Pavel. Good morning, good afternoon. I am Joseph
Pavel, natural resources director for the Skokomish Indian
Tribe. Thank you, Chairman Simpson, Ranking Member Kaptur, for
this opportunity to testify on behalf of Army Corps of
Engineers' appropriation in the amount of $13,168,000.
This is the result of the development of an Ecosystem
Restoration Project, one of three that was approved and
authorized by Congress, and the recent Watershed Improvements
Infrastructure Nations Act--Improvements for the Nation Act,
that is as much as I am going to read.
I would like to stress that this particular project
addresses issues in the Skokomish River, the most frequently
flooded river in Washington State, if not the Nation. You may
have observed, or noticed, this is the river famous for the
salmon swimming across the road. You have seen it. It is true
and it is real and it is often.
So we signed on with the Army Corps in 2006, a cooperative
financing arrangement with our partner, Mason County, and let
me stress, this is a cooperation between Tribal government and
local government of Mason County of Washington State, so I
believe I could speak on their behalf in support of the project
as well.
Then in 2012, we kind of got the first results of that that
it would not be practical as a flood control project, but we
could continue to develop the feasibility as an ecosystem
restoration project.
As I mentioned, we started in 2006. These Army Corps
general investigation studies have a reputation to tend to run
long and over cost, so this particular general investigation is
the first one that was completed under a new edict of 3 by 3 by
3: $3 million, 3 years, 3-inch binder. So this is the poster
child of the new and improved and efficient Army Corps of
Engineers.
As far as I am aware, this is the farthest any of these
ecosystem restoration projects has gotten. We are just looking
to get this funding. The local school sponsors are responsible
for a matching cost share. We have developed the resources to
meet that obligation. Timing is of the essence, though. We have
built momentum. We need to keep this moving. We need to get
this project done.
I would like to also mention that the Tribe, the county,
and others have made significant investments in the watershed
most notably. The city of Tacoma is a hydro project. We did an
FERC relicensing of those. It is quite well known.
But we were able to secure significant contributions from
the city of Tacoma. This watershed has been worked really hard.
We hold that the United States, the Federal Government,
sanctioned the actions of the city of Tacoma and they have some
responsibilities to step up and assist with the remediation and
the restoration of this watershed, as well as that hydro
project.
The upper watershed has logged 90 percent clear-cut dense
roads, very heavily impacted environmental from Federal
Department of Agriculture lands. So there is some
accountability there.
Great wealth has been obstructed from this watershed and
has supported the industry of the city of Tacoma, their tax
base, supported the industry, the forced products industry, and
that has generated a great tax base. So it is time to return
some of that wealth, put some of that wealth back to work on
behalf of the resources that the Skokomish Indian Tribe depends
on, essential to our recovery of Chinook, summer trim salmon,
bull trout, steelhead.
The Skokomish River is a significant contributor to Puget
Sound recovery. We will not ever have a recovery of our
endangered species at Puget Sound until we can address these
recovery efforts in the Skokomish River. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Joseph.
You going to ask him?
Ms. Kaptur. As I listened to the testimony this morning,
including Mr. Pavel, I just have to say how important I believe
an infrastructure bill is to this country. I will be one of the
chief advocates for the backed-up projects for the Corps across
this country. It could be one of the greatest job creators we
could have. Let us hope we can move the country toward that
point. Thank you.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Jackson Brossy?
----------
Wednesday, May 3, 2017.
NAVAJO NATION WASHINGTON OFFICE
WITNESS
JACKSON BROSSY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NAVAJO NATION WASHINGTON OFFICE
Mr. Brossy. Hello. My name is Jackson Brossy and I am the
executive director of the Navajo Nation Washington Office.
Thank you for this time to be here. I think it is important
that we are here. Energy and water are two of the biggest
issues facing the Navajo Nation today, so thank you.
I want to address four different areas that impact the
Navajo Nation, and this committee can help us grow our economic
infrastructure. First, we see an area for the Bureau of
Reclamation to help us out to support funding for an economic
transition in light of the closing Navajo Generating Station.
Second, we see an opportunity for the Bureau of Reclamation to
support us in existing and building out new water
infrastructure. Third, we see an opportunity for the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers' water programs to assist in further
expanding our water infrastructure. And finally, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers can help us with abandoned mine remediation.
So I will start with the Navajo Generating Station.
The generating station is a public-private partnership of
coal-powered electrical generation on the Navajo Nation. And
Congress was involved in creating this public-private
partnership. And the reason we are here before you is the
United States Government is an owner in this public-private
partnership through the Bureau of Reclamation.
However, less than a year ago, these non-Navajo owners
decided that they wanted to divest and shut down this plant. So
closure of this plant would be devastating. A recent Arizona
State study estimated that closure would--the impact could be
$18 billion over a span of 30 years. So any investment in this
project has the potential to save billions of dollars in an
area where there is an untenable 40 percent unemployment rate.
So we seek a number of different proactive areas, including
building out a railroad that will give us access to outside
markets. We seek assistance with training for potential job
losses in the thousands. And Congress is uniquely positioned to
help us in this issue.
I would like to transition into water infrastructure,
another problem we have. There are about 15,000 homes in the
Navajo Nation or about 30 percent in the Navajo Nation live
without access to running water. That situation is absolutely
untenable in 2017. And the Navajo Nation has been and continues
to do everything we can to address this.
We look at several different funding sources, including our
own, and we put our money where our mouth is. And recently,
this Congress passed--well, two Congresses ago passed the
Navajo-Gallup Water Settlement. We ask for continued funding of
the Navajo-Gallup Water Settlement in fiscal year 2018, and we
also ask that the expired Rural Water Act of 2016 be
reauthorized, so that we can work with the Bureau of
Reclamation on different projects, including a 990,000
agreement we have with the Bureau of Reclamation to connect
with other existing water sources, so that we can get access to
water for these folks on the Navajo Nation that do not have
access to running water.
The Navajo Nation also requests funding for the Bureau of
Reclamation Native American Affairs Office. The Navajo Tribe,
as well as other Tribes, take advantage of this office, and
they help plan and coordinate and assist in a variety of
projects.
Transitioning to the U.S. Army Corps, Section 205 of the
Flood Control Act of 1986 authorizes the Corps to assist local
communities in reducing flood risk through their Small Flood
Risk Management Program. We support reauthorization and funding
for that program.
The Navajo Nation also requests funding for Section 520 of
the Water Resource Development Act for the Navajo Nation flood
plain mapping. There are currently unspent Navajo Nation funds
tied to this authority, so are our own funds, that the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers cannot spend without additional
appropriations. The Navajo Nation requests that $500,000 be
appropriated into this authority to match Navajo Nation funds
that we are already planning on investing.
And finally, transitioning to mining, there are a number of
abandoned mines in the Navajo Nation that were created during
the Cold War. Some of these mines were not properly
decommissioned and some of them are still open today. This has
created a tremendous health crisis on the Navajo Nation and we
ask that the abandoned mines reclamation program be fully
funded so that we can build out a database.
Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Simpson. Are these mostly uranium mines?
Mr. Brossy. There are more than--there are about 500
uranium mines in the Navajo Nation and about half of them have
not been remediated. And the United States was the sole
customer of these, and so, obviously, the Federal Government
has the responsibility to clean this up.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
Mr. Brossy. Yeah.
Ms. Kaptur. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman
for testifying and just ask, could you repeat the number of
homes on the Navajo Reservation that lack access? What
percentage of the individual----
Mr. Brossy. Fifteen thousand homes, about 30 percent of
the homes in the Navajo Nation.
Ms. Kaptur. A third?
Mr. Brossy. Yep.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you.
Mr. Brossy. It is an untenable problem, and we are putting
our money where our mouth is, but we asked for additional help
from every single source possible.
Mr. Simpson. Yeah, we saw that firsthand when we were out
there.
Mr. Brossy. Yeah.
Mr. Simpson. What was it, the year before last, I guess?
Mr. Brossy. Yeah, you rode on our dirt roads and----
Mr. Simpson. Yes, I did.
Mr. Brossy [continuing]. Last year.
Mr. Simpson. Yes.
Mr. Azure. How are the mines secured currently? How are
the abandoned mines secured currently?
Mr. Brossy. Many of them are not secured. Some of the
larger ones are covered. I am not, obviously, an engineer in
the space, but there are mines that our Navajo Nation president
saw last year that were wide open. They had doors that had been
broken and people and kids and animals could go in there.
Mr. Azure. Thank you.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Jackson. Mr. Floyd Azure.
---------- --
--------
Wednesday, May 3, 2017.
ASSINIBOINE AND SIOUX TRIBES OF THE FORT PECK RESERVATION
WITNESS
FLOYD AZURE, CHAIRMAN, ASSINIBOINE AND SIOUX TRIBES OF THE FORT PECK
RESERVATION
Mr. Azure. Thank you. Thank you for allowing me to be
here. Good afternoon, Chairman Simpson, Ranking Member Kaptur,
and the members of the subcommittee. My name is Floyd Azure. I
am twice-elected chairman of the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes
of the Fort Peck Reservation, located in northeast Montana.
Please continue to do the good work you have done in the past
years to finance the completion of the Fort Peck Reservation
Rural Water System. The project is a joint Tribal/non-Indian
rural water project, which Congress authorized in 2000 with
enactment of Public Law 106-382. The legislature authorized the
construction of a rural water system to ensure a safe and
adequate supply of municipal, rural, and industrial water for
some 10,000 residents of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, and
the citizens of Roosevelt County, Sheridan County, Daniels
County, and Valley County, which border our reservation. At
full build-out, the project is estimated to serve 30,000
Montanans.
For fiscal year 2018, we seek approximately $27 million,
with $14.7 million of those dollars for the Tribal portion of
the water system, and $12.2 million for the Dry Prairie part.
We hope that you will act favorably on our request, even though
we do not have a congressman. Our congressman, Mr. Ryan Zinke,
you will have his back and we will look out for his Montana
constituents while he serves the entire country as Secretary of
Interior.
Mr. Simpson. That is somebody more important.
Mr. Azure. To fund our request for fiscal year 2018, I ask
the subcommittee to support an appropriations of $50 million
for additional funding for ongoing rural water projects, a
modest $3 million increase above the level this subcommittee
recommended fiscal year 2017. This fund would supplement the
specific funding for the Fort Peck Dry Prairie Rural Water
system that is included in the President's annual budgets. This
project grew out of necessity. Harmful levels of sulfates,
irons, and brine contaminated our groundwater. We needed an
alternate water source. We operate the water intake located in
the Missouri River pumping station, a 3,000 square foot water
treatment plant, and hundreds of miles of pipeline. Our two
systems are interconnected and pump through our treatment
plant. We are making our Tribal water rights available to
Indian and non-Indian communities as our contribution to this
effort. If our fiscal year 2017 construction funding is close
to the $16 million we received for the project in fiscal year
2016, we will be two-thirds complete with the $300 million
project, with 16 years of Federal appropriations totaling just
over $2 million.
We learned last month that our project is now ranked second
by the ABOR among the Tribal rural projects. I ask that you do
not abandon your work to complete the construction. We have
completed two of the three main trunks of the rural water
system connecting the Dry Prairie on the west and the east of
our reservation, and continue to lay hundreds of miles of water
lines to serve our new communities.
As appropriators, you know that any delay in completing a
project such as this only increases the cost to American
taxpayers. It makes no sense to cut Federal spending for
authorized rural water projects when the president, States, and
union Tribes are all calling for infrastructure projects to be
completed to help create American jobs and promote economic
development, especially in rural communities. Safe and reliable
water is essential to our communities' health and economy.
In conclusion, I urge this subcommittee to reject the
administration's request to cut fiscal year 2018 appropriations
for Bureau of Reclamation rural water projects and other
nondefense agency appropriations critical to rural America.
Federal appropriations are required to finance the completion
of this important rural infrastructure project. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, and if any of the committee
members that--the last two people to testify, if you have not
been out on some of the Reservations and seen the needs in
terms of water and so forth, it is amazing what is going on. I
have been very involved in trying to get the Cheyenne River
Sioux Eagle Butte Water System completed out there that have a
dire need, but it is throughout Indian country that we need to
make sure that we maintain--it is amazing, in today's age, that
people do not have access to fresh water, which is just
incredible. So it is not only us, it is the Interior Committee
also that has been working on it and stuff, so appreciate it.
Thank you.
Ms. Kaptur. Mr. Chairman, I just say for all of the Tribal
representatives who are here today, I would urge you to work
together and invite the President of the United States to your
Reservations and to make sure that the infrastructure bill that
they are considering over there--and it is a new
administration, so they got a lot of issues--but that they see
you, and, you know, you might get him to come.
Mr. Azure. Thank you.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Floyd. Dr. Elmer Guy.
Mr. Guy. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Elmer
Guy, president of Navajo Technical University.
Mr. Simpson. Is your microphone on?
---------- --
--------
Wednesday, May 3, 2017.
NAVAJO TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY
WITNESS
DR. ELMER GUY, PRESIDENT, NAVAJO TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY
Mr. Guy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Elmer Guy,
president of Navajo Technical University in Crownpoint, New
Mexico, on the Navajo Nation. I ask that my full statement be
included in the record of this hearing, Mr. Chairman. On behalf
of the Nation's 37 Tribally and Federally chartered colleges
and universities, that collectively are the American Indian
Higher Education Consortium, or AIHEC, thank you for this
opportunity to address your subcommittee.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for your past support of
Tribal colleges. I would also like to thank the subcommittee
for your longstanding support for the MSI partnership program
operated by the Department of Energy's National Nuclear
Security Administration. I am here today with a modest request
for a small program with enormous potential. I respectfully
request $5 million in the fiscal year 2018 Energy and Water
Development Appropriations bill to continue and expand the new
Tribal college initiative, which is part of the Department of
Energy's NNSA/MSI partnership program. Tribal colleges first
joined the MSI partnership consortia program about 2 years ago.
Already, it has made a significant impact in our small
institutions and the rural communities we serve.
Tribal colleges are place-based institutions located in 16
States. We focus on Tribal Indian Nation-building through
programs that sustain our Tribal cultures, languages, lands,
and people. We are working to grow the country's Native
workforce, and even more important, to create jobs in Indian
Country to help address the deep-seated poverty that plagues
our communities. Through AIHEC, Tribal colleges are
implementing a long-term systemic plan to transition Native
communities from local economies that perpetuate cycles of
dependency and poverty into dynamic, innovation-driven
economies, creating jobs and business opportunities.
A key part of our plan is to work with new and emerging
manufacturing technologies and methods to build jobs that
Native Americans need and thereby to expand opportunity and
leadership for all Americans. With seed funding from NNSA, we
launched an advanced manufacturing program involving a pilot
cohort of five Tribal colleges. This program will prepare a
well-trained Native workforce in advanced manufacturing and
create economic opportunities through the design and
manufacture of products that are responsive to industry needs
in these targeted technology areas.
For example, the Center of Digital Technology at my
institution, Navajo Technical University, has established a
rapid growing advanced manufacturing program. Funded in part by
the NNSA program and the National Science Foundation, NTU has
developed a state-of-the-art facility, including 3D printers,
computer numerical control machines, validation
instrumentation, including metrology, that allows students to
acquire knowledge and skills in design engineering,
manufacturing processes, and performance analysis.
Through this program, NTU is poised to become a leader,
both in advanced manufacturing and the promotion of innovation
and competitiveness through our own Center for Inspection
Standards and Calibration. In fact, the Navajo Nation is
contemplating investing in our college program, is helping
recruit industry partners for research, development, and
manufacturing projects involving faculty and students. Los
Alamos National Laboratory is working with us to strengthen our
metrology program simply because they lack metrologists.
This is one example of how Tribal colleges are creating
models for small, under-resourced, and rural institutions to
successfully participate in an advanced technology-supported
economic growth area, while providing students, both male and
female, with hands-on training that leads to careers.
Mr. Chairman, to ensure that the vital NNSA/TCU advanced
manufacturing network initiative can continue, and more
important, to help us accelerate the transformative power of
relevant, job-producing higher education, we request your
support for $5 million for the Tribal college initiative within
the NNSA/MSI partnership program. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Thank you for being here today. We
look forward to working with you on this.
Maria Korsnick from the Nuclear Energy Institute?
----------
Wednesday, May 3, 2017.
NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE
WITNESS
MARIA KORSNICK, CEO AND PRESIDENT, NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE
Ms. Korsnick. All right, thank you very much. I am very
pleased to be here today and share with you the nuclear energy
industry's view on the fiscal year 2018 budget. My comments
today are going to cover four main areas. First, the NRC's
outdated and costly regulatory regime needs to be updated.
Second, accident-tolerant fuel and advanced reactors require
urgent review and action. Third, that the Federal R&D efforts
that promote new technologies and innovation are essential. And
fourth, the licensing of the proposed Yucca Mountain repository
must proceed according to the law and in parallel with the
pursuit of consolidated interim storage. I will summarize those
four key points.
First, with the NRC, while our reactor fleet relies on a
focused, efficient, and technically expert NRC, we believe that
the agency's regulatory regime needs to evolve. Thanks to your
oversight on this subcommittee, you have created additional
attention and focus on the NRC's processing of licensing
actions, its readiness to review second license renewal
applications, digital instrumentation and controls, the backfit
rule, and advanced nuclear fuels. We appreciate that, however,
the NRC's work here is not yet done. Congressionally directed,
independent assessments emphasize the need for NRC to continue
improving the efficiency and transparency of its regulatory
processes and operations, consistent with its own good
principles of good regulation. As NRC rebalances its
priorities, consistent with leaner budgets, we would ask them
to integrate preparation for accident-tolerant fuel and reactor
applications as part of its funding program. The NRC's own
Project Aim 2020 report recommends shifting resources away from
disciplines that are less in demand towards these activities to
maintain the efficiency of the current fleet regulation.
Second, by 2030, the United States could experience
electricity shortages if a significant number of reactors are
retired, as currently projected. To avoid this outcome, the
industry is preparing a path to enable the renewal of the
operating licenses of nuclear plants a second time, and that
would be for an additional 20 years. Two plants have already
announced plans to do so. While DOE's work in this area has
been critical, additional work is still necessary through the
Light Water Reactor Sustainability Project. That R&D can reduce
the operating cost of the existing fleet. This includes work in
advanced instrumentation and controls and the accident-tolerant
fuel program. Increasing funding for the accident-tolerant fuel
program will actually allow the R&D to be accelerated ahead of
its current schedule.
Congress should also continue funding for the Energy
Innovation Hub for Modeling and Simulation. That project
sponsors CASL, which is the Consortium for Advanced Simulation
of Light Water Reactors. That initiative is successfully
developing tools that help us optimize our fuel performance,
support approval of new designs, and also support plant life
extension.
Turning now to small modular reactors, the SMR licensing
and technical support program we think has been a success. The
new scale design, a certification application, has recently
been docketed by the NRC, and TVA's early site permit
application was docketed last year. The SMR/LTS program should
be expanded to support first-of-a-kind engineering, and
continued investment by the Federal government as a cost-
sharing partner is necessary to ensure that these first SMRs
are deployed in the mid-2020 timeframe.
Developing this technology is going to help U.S. companies
capture an international market as well for smaller and more
versatile carbon-free energy sources. So here at home, SMRs
will complement the large, passively safe reactors that you
know we are building in Georgia and in South Carolina. And
given the benefits for domestic job creation, expansion of
income and export income and clean electricity, we think
Federal support for the SMR technology is a sound investment in
our Nation's future.
Third, the ability of the nuclear industry to continue to
innovate depends on the Federal Government supporting
demonstration projects and encouraging advanced research. NEI
supports the programs managed by DOE's Office of Nuclear
Energy, and they seek to accelerate the commercial use of new
nonlight water reactor technologies. The Gateway For
Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear, or the GAIN program, has
expanded access to the U.S. national labs. The small business
voucher program implemented last year was, in fact, very
successful, and a second round of awards was announced earlier
this year. We think this program should be expanded.
The advanced reactor industry has formed three technology
working groups now. There is molten salt reactors, fast
reactors, and high-temperature gas reactors, and this focuses
the R&D needs, also interfaces with this GAIN program to inform
the DOE Research and Development. Continued and increased
funding for DOE advanced reactor program is essential to foster
the ongoing and timely development and commercialization of
advanced reactors, and also, in the continuation of funding for
the industry cost-sharing awards that support the development
of two advanced reactor concepts. Although the United States
has a world-leading national lab program, it, in fact, lacks a
fast neutron test reactor facility. Building an American
facility would enable companies to accelerate the
commercialization and eliminate our need to rely on a Russian
research reactor, as we do today. We support the establishment
of an independent U.S. facility in no less than 10 years.
Lastly, with respect to used nuclear fuel management, NEI
supports funding for DOE and NRC to complete the licensing of
the Yucca Mountain repository in parallel with the development
of consolidated storage. We encourage Congress to restructure
the funding and spending mechanisms of the Nuclear Waste Fund
to provide for dependable access to the Nuclear Waste Fund
while maintaining congressional oversight. Such action is
essential to ensuring that the Federal Government can meet its
statutory and contractual commitments.
Thank you, Chairman Simpson, Ranking Member Kaptur, and the
members of the subcommittee. I am happy to take any questions
you may have.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Ms. Korsnick, good to see you.
Melissa, great to see you again. For the benefit of everybody
on this subcommittee I just want to thank you all for the
outstanding work that NEI does.
On a personal level, your support for the Nuclear Cleanup
Caucus and all that we do in sites from Oakridge to a little
place called Idaho, and across a great United States, thank
you. Beautiful little place. Yeah, that is right. I have been
once.
If I may, I have two quick questions. Castle, you touched
on Castle which is very important to us. Can you please, again,
tell us how Castle has helped the current fleet in terms of
nuclear power and how we can improve the economics of nuclear
power using Castle?
Ms. Korsnick. I can give you a couple of examples. Watts
Bar 2 is a plant that recently started up, and I know they used
the Castle simulation program as part of that plant startup, as
an example.
I mentioned a recent SMR, small modular reactor, program
NuScale is a company that is involved with SMRs, and I know
they are using the Castle program as they are providing input,
as they are finalizing their design and getting regulatory
approval. And so the Castle program is being used in that.
And we are looking at using the Castle program, as well, in
support of the life extension as well as accident-tolerant
fuels, and they are two very key programs for the current
fleet.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you. And one further question. Does
NEI support the Department of Energy reestablishing a domestic
uranium enrichment capacity for national security purposes in
the near term and why?
Ms. Korsnick. Yes, I would say from an NEI perspective we
do think that it is important that the United States has the
ability to enrich uranium.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much and we appreciate your
testimony this morning, Ms. Korsnick. I wanted to ask you a
difficult question you did not completely reference in your
testimony. You probably have been here this morning, you heard
about the Southeast Power Marking Authority and some of the
other energy umbrellas that exist across the United States.
In the region of the country that I represent nuclear
energy is undergoing particular market pressure right now
because of, I do not know whether one would call it an anomaly
in the marketplace, but because of the movement of natural gas
into our energy production, and the severe impact that has had
on the nuclear industry. For the plants I represent and in the
general Great Lakes region we have no such umbrellas across our
region.
Do you have any recommendations or thoughts you could
provide now or to the record how we can deal with these
companies? It is my understanding 25 percent to a third are
heavily impacted currently. That could allow them to continue
to function, but they may not be able to meet that test in the
individual States in which they exist because energy pricing is
really global in nature and we face the threat of a loss of
many of our nuclear power plants in the commercial sector. Do
you have any comments on that or could you providing
information to the record on a range of solutions that you
might suggest as head of your institute?
Ms. Korsnick. Certainly. I will provide a few comments
here, but I will add more to the record, if that is okay. I
would characterize the challenge that is facing the fleet today
is, in fact, the low price of natural gas or the glut, if you
will, of natural gas has put significant pressure on the
operating fleet.
I know that we have been working with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission. And they have just, in fact, had a
technical conference this week, and one of those items is to
look at the value that nuclear brings to the marketplace, and
the fact that all of that value is not being realized, in fact,
in the market. So it is a significant challenge. You are right.
We have closed six plants in the last few years, seven
additional plants have announced, and there are more that are
threatened.
So I do think that this is a significant challenge. I would
step back. I would say right now the solutions are playing out
in individual States, so there was success in New York. There
was success in Illinois, but there will be other individual
State conversations. But I do think it is very important for us
as a Nation to step back and look at what we have in nuclear
power and appreciate the importance that nuclear power brings.
There are 60 reactors being built around the world today,
two-thirds of those are Chinese and Russian design. The United
States needs to be in that conversation. We do not get in that
conversation by letting our fleet at home atrophy. We need to
take this very seriously. We should look at it as a national
security issue, and that is something that we are working very
much to create that conversation. I am happy to add more for
the record.
Ms. Kaptur. All right. Thank you very much. And, Mr.
Chairman, this is such a significant issue in the Great Lakes
because when our nuclear power plants were built we actually
function in the commercial marketplace. We have nothing like
the Tennessee Valley Authority or the Bureau of Reclamation or
the Southeast Power Market Authority. It simply does not exist.
And these companies are really enduring hardship. I really,
personally, I think we need a bridge financing package. The
industry has not really asked for that. Right now they are sort
of hostage at the State level, but this is an issue for this
subcommittee, and also for the authorizing committee, I think.
And I just do not, I am sorry to say, I just do not think our
States are up for the task of meeting a national challenge. So
I just wanted to put that on the record and we would welcome
any additional comments you wish to make.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
---------- --
--------
Wednesday, May 3, 2017.
E4THEFUTURE
WITNESS
STEPHEN COWELL, PRESIDENT, E4THEFUTURE
Mr. Cowell. Hi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify today. And I will be testifying, we have
submitted testimony on behalf of myself, EForTheFuture, but
also Home Performance Coalition. My partner, Brian Castelli,
will be also talking about it.
So my goal is really to talk through about how energy
efficiency, and specifically the work that is being done by DEO
in the very critical role of working collaboratively with
States is absolutely critical. Just a little bit about
EForTheFuture. We used to be called Conservation Services Group
and we ran the residential energy efficiency in 23 States,
including Tennessee, Ohio, New York, New Jersey, California,
Oregon, Washington, Massachusetts, and a few other States.
But we were able to assist, our nonprofit was able to
assist over 3.5 million American U.S. households reduce their
energy consumption over the last 20 years. That was our work.
We recently sold our business work to a Texas company,
Clear Result, and they are going to continue doing that. We are
going to continue focusing on research, education, and
innovation to really drive our energy economy for the future
which is what we have to do. And so one of the things, really
the specific points--and I would like to thank the House,
specifically. Your continuing resolution continues the work
that I am going to talk about, and so thank you very much,
which I think you are going to vote on today, later today. I
think it was a leadership effort, so thank you very much.
Specifically, the Building Technology's Office at DOE does
tremendous work around helping all of us in the energy
efficient world, which energy efficiency is the least
expensive. It is the most reliable and it is the most
beneficial. Brian will be talking about the jobs impact
analysis that we did in terms of how many jobs and its impact.
But the Building Technology Office, part of EERE, is really
critical to helping provide the background and the
underpinnings for all the efforts in each State. The State
energy programs provides the support to the State energy
offices because this country, we have delegated managing and
running our energy economy to the States. It is a critical
partnership between State and Federal. If we do not have a
strong energy economy we will not keep going as a country, so
we really need to put all the pieces together.
So we really strongly support that and the weatherization
systems program, helping low-income people try to avoid energy
poverty, and that is really critical as well. There has been
great work over the years of the weatherization assistance.
As a matter of fact, CSE EForTheFuture started as a result
of learning from the weatherization program in 1979. So a long
history of tremendous innovation and others will be talking
about the weatherization assistance program and its critical
nature.
We did put together a letter, which we have submitted, with
almost 2,500 names, including names and businesses from every
State, all of your States in terms of Ohio, Tennessee.
Tennessee we had 135 different businesses submit a letter
asking for support, continued support for those programs that I
mentioned because they really are critical for a lot of
reasons.
So that letter was put together really with reaching out to
all the people that we work with and talking about the value
and the benefit that they bring. And one of those benefits, we
did another report on the issue of the health impacts,
predominantly low-income. And what we identified, we worked
with DOE as well as several others, that, in fact, residential
energy efficiency reduces healthcare costs, particularly
Medicare, right? And it reduces asthma. It reduces a variety of
health impacts, so it really produces benefits that we really
had not even calculated before, and that ought to be, you know,
recognized in the discussion, in the deliberation.
Really, in closing, it is really critical to recognize that
volatility of our energy prices is an absolute critical concern
for our economy. In several cases, one of the things I did, I
helped draft and put together the Stimulus Bill in 2008. I was
asked to assist with that, and one of the research projects
that we did was looking at the relationship between energy
prices and home mortgage failure. They were directly related to
each other.
Between 2003 and 2008, the average American family lost 15
percent of their disposable income. And any homeowner who was
on the edge was pushed over the edge. I presented this
information to all the Senate staff, Energy staff and there was
a gasp, like, oh, we did not realize that. The banks may have
put the gasoline, but the match was energy costs. Right? So
volatile energy costs have a tremendous negative impact on our
economy, and energy efficiency is the way that we can stabilize
those.
So thank you very much. Appreciate the work that everyone
is doing. We need to continue things like weatherization
assistance, the State energy program collaboration really is a
collaboration between State and Federal. You guys cannot walk
away. You have got to work with each of the States in helping
craft the energy policy.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
Mr. Cowell. So thank you very much.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you for being here. Thank you for
mentioning all of those important States, but you left out the
State. So other than that I am, you know, I am not going to
say.
Mr. Cowell. I know. I know. We did not work in Oklahoma. I
am very sorry.
Mr. Simpson. It is like the Ohio University, right?
Mr. Cowell. All the rest of you.
Mr. Simpson. Any questions?
Ms. Kaptur. I welcome your testimony so much. You have
found very receptive ears on this panel, but especially with
this member. And I am hoping that an organization like your own
will consider as part of the infrastructure bill to work with
other colleagues and institutes and organizations on the
outside to have a housing component to the infrastructure bill
that may or may not be coming forward in this administration,
this new administration.
I represent hundreds, if not thousands, of constituents who
cannot afford to put a new roof on their homes. Many of them
are seniors. What is happening in a State like Ohio, because of
the difficulty with our nuclear power plants in the northern
part of Ohio, which gets very cold, by the way, energy bills,
if the State gets its way are going to go up more for people
who are elderly, too.
They cannot afford windows. They cannot afford insulation.
They cannot afford weatherization. They get sicker, just what
you say. And I just think we need a massive roofing program
across this country, roofing, windows, insulation as a part of
an infrastructure bill. And it ought to affect millions of
people, not thousands because it is desperately needed. It
could be a job training program as well.
So I thank you for your testimony. I am so glad you came
today and thank you for the programs that you support at the
Department of Energy.
Mr. Cowell. Well, thank you.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cowell. From a product's point of view, we have looked
at, and I actually worked with Home Depot together and they did
an analysis of where the products that go into energy
efficiency improvement in homes and over 75 percent must be
made in America because they cannot be made anywhere else,
insulation is too light. Heating and cooling equipment is too
heavy to transport. Glass, windows are too fragile. Right? I
mean, these are products that are made in America and every job
has to be an American. You cannot take a house and move it
overseas and fix it and bring it back. That is a little
difficult to do.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
Mr. Cowell. Thank you.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you for being here today. Brian?
---------- --
--------
Wednesday, May 3, 2017.
HOME PERFORMANCE COALITION
WITNESS
BRIAN T. CASTELLI, PRESIDENT AND CEO, HOME PERFORMANCE COALITION
Mr. Castelli. Thank you, Chairman Simpson, and thank you
for the invitation here, Ranking Member Kaptur. My name is
Brian Castelli. I am with the Home Performance Coalition and we
are a nonprofit organization that advances the residential
energy efficiency market through research, education, and
policy analysis. We also hold the premier national and regional
conferences on home performance, both the policy arena, as well
as the best practices for installing energy efficiency majors
in the home.
We work with all stakeholders in the industry, from the
installers themselves to the manufacturers of the products. I
am here to talk today about support for three of the Department
of Energy's programs. One in the residential energy efficiency
program and the other two in the weatherization and
intergovernmental affairs office.
Specifically, we would like to see the subcommittee support
$200.5 million for building technology offices which develops
the critical technologies, tools, and solutions to increase
energy efficiency in homes and buildings. We would also like to
see $23 million of that number focused on the residential
building integration. Integrating all the different parts of
the efficiency office that deals with homes.
This has been a missing piece in the portfolio of programs
that DOE has had, and we think this is now the time to get that
program up and running. We would also like to support a $50
appropriation for the State energy program. It supports the
State and local efforts to develop and implement cost effective
energy efficiency projects and leverage private sector
innovations.
Now, as a former director of the State energy office for
Pennsylvania, and also as the Washington D.C. liaison for the
California Energy Commission I would like to tell you, these
are some of the most important infrastructure we have in the
States are the State energy offices. They are where the rubber
meets the road. They work with the companies, the corporations,
and the individuals in those States to make sure that energy
efficiency plays a major role in the energy programs of that
State.
It is where innovation happens. That is where we really
have a lot of the innovation, both on the policy side as well
as the technology side. Many years ago when I was with the
Pennsylvania Energy Office we teamed with both the Texas Energy
Office as well as State Energy Conservation Office, as well as
companies in Ohio, Columbia Gas of Ohio to do a community
project in low-income weatherization where we did the first,
the seminal work, in plug load monitoring both for electricity
and natural gas. And that now has become an industry in and of
itself, so I am very strong on supporting.
However, I notice that a good friend of mine, Doug Taylor
is in here today. He is here now and he is going to speak later
and he will tell you a lot about the State energy offices.
The third program that I want to talk about is the
weatherization assistance program. We would like to have you
support a $225 million appropriation for that program. Steve
talked a lot about the weatherization program. It helps low-
income, rural families, seniors, and individuals with
disabilities to make lasting energy efficiency improvements in
their homes.
Oakridge National Lab has provided a lot of good data on
this program, and it has shown that every dollar that is
invested by the Federal government $2 to $4 returns in
benefits, both to society, as well as the home owners. This is
a critical program. It helps the most vulnerable, and I know
that everyone in this room does not want to make the vulnerable
more vulnerable or the poor poor.
This is a program that helps these people. By lowering
their energy costs they are able to use that money, which may
have gone to a utility, but they can use it for food. They can
use it for health. They can use it for a lot of things. So we
are very strong on this program. They return a significant ROI
and they deserve the support of the United States on this.
Jobs, Steve said I would mention jobs, this is a report
that the E4 Foundation funded and supported. Done by an
outside, objective consultant group that does these surveys.
And it is one of the most effective ways to save consumers
and businesses money on their utility bills. There are two
recent reports out. One came from E4, followed two weeks late
by a report from DEO. Very similar results. The E4 report shows
that over 1.9 million Americans are employed in the energy
efficiency industry. It is kind of a stealth program, energy
efficiency. Nobody knows about it. Do not understand how many
jobs that there are there.
The most recent report from DOE which was done with data
from a year later showed 2.2 million full and part time jobs in
energy efficiency. They are well-paying, diverse, and they are
found in every State in the country. Again, these jobs are in
the residential sector, 40 percent of them, and they involved
the insulation of energy efficiency products.
The contractors are the boots on the ground. They are the
people who install these products in the homes, who do the
installation, the windows, the roofs. And let me tell you,
those jobs cannot be exported. They are indigenous jobs, not
only to your State, to your country, to your local community.
And the most interesting thing about this is there are over
165,000 U.S. companies that are small businesses, fewer than
ten employees in this part of the energy efficiency sector.
Just for some information here, you might be interested to
know in the State of Washington there are over 38,000 energy
efficiency jobs. In Ohio over 78,000 energy efficiency jobs.
You probably, even though you know your State better than
anybody, you probably do not realize how many jobs there are.
In Idaho, nearly 3,000 jobs and these are important jobs.
They are critical to the efficiency industry. They are critical
to your State's economy, and we believe in them. And this is a
good program.
So we believe that energy efficiency is vital to the
economic growth. The industry supports millions of these well-
paying jobs, and we urge the subcommittee to preserve at least
level funding for the DOE programs I mentioned earlier, and
outlined in the written testimony we provided earlier.
I want to thank you, again, for the opportunity to provide
this testimony. Thank you.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. And I will just announce for the
committee's sake that we are so far 25 minutes behind schedule,
and not quite half way through yet, so everybody speak quickly.
Mr. Castelli. I am happy to answer quick questions.
Mr. Simpson. Ken.
---------- --
--------
Wednesday, May 3, 2017.
SOUTH CENTRAL COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP
WITNESS
KEN J. ROBINETTE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SOUTH CENTRAL COMMUNITY ACTION
PARTNERSHIP
Mr. Robinette. Good morning, Chairman Simpson, ranking
member Kaptur and committee members. I am the CEO of the South
Central Community Action Partnership in Twin Falls, Idaho. I am
pleased to submit testimony today to support the Department of
Energy's Weatherization Assistance Program referred to as WAP.
I would also like to thank the two presenters that just came
before us that talked about WAP to set me up for this
presentation. So thank you.
With the Department of Energy's Weatherization Assistance
Program I would respectfully urge this committee to fund the
Weatherization Assistance Program in fiscal year 2018 at a
level of 230. That is a little bit above what they had
recommended but we are deeply concerned about the
administration's proposal to eliminate WAP and I believe that
this funding level is essential in continuing and improving the
outstanding results of the program. The WAP celebrated its 40th
anniversary in 2016. Today I want to highlight the impact that
the WAP has nationwide as well as demonstrate what the program
makes a difference in my State of Idaho.
The WAP is a proven, cost effective and successful model of
a Federal, State and local partnership. WAP services are
delivered by more than 900 organizations, many of which are
community action agencies like mine. WAP operates in every
corner of the Nation making a difference in both urban and
rural communities in all 50 States and the District of
Columbia, U.S. Territories, and Native American Tribes. Since
its inception in 1976 over 7.4 million homes have been
weatherized by WAP. That is 7.4 million families with extra
money in their pocket and living in a safer, healthier more
comfortable home. It is widely known that the families with low
income pays a larger portion of their income towards home
energy costs and their higher income counterparts about 16
percent of income versus just three percent according to
Oakridge National Laboratory. Weatherization helps alleviate
this high energy burden through cost effective, energy
efficiency improvements such as insulation, air sealing, HVAC
systems, lighting and appliances.
According to DOE, in cold weather States like Idaho WAP can
reduce heating costs by as much as 30 percent and families in
weatherized homes save at least $283 each year on their energy
costs. This income can be used to pay for goods like food,
medicine and education.
According to a commonest at the Home Energy Affordable Gap
Project, Idaho households with incomes below 50 percent of the
Federal poverty level pay a staggering 21 percent of their
annual income simply for their home energy bills. Idaho has six
WAP providers that serve all 44 counties and weatherize
approximately 975 homes annually for families and individuals
that are economically disadvantaged. Of those homes weatherized
each year more than 2,400 individuals many of which are
elderly, disabled and young children now live in a more energy
efficient and safer home. Many of our families submit letters
of thanks for assistance they received.
I would like to share one of those letters from a family
who owns a home in small farming community of Hazelton, Idaho.
This family where dad and mom are both working with one small
child who is disabled writes we are so grateful and could not
thank you all enough of everything. I was so amazed how
professional all the guys were. Our home used one third of the
electricity and a lot less coal. The proof is in out reduction
of our power bill. Also my son has only had one minor cold.
Last year he had several because the cold drafts and
fluctuation of temperature.
In addition to providing substantial emergency savings for
hard working American families, the WAP also makes homes
healthier and safer. For every dollar invested in
weatherization, $2.78 cents were generated in health and safety
benefits. Weatherization measures generally improve
ventilation, mitigate mold, and improve indoor air quality. As
a result, residents of weatherized homes experience fewer
asthma and allergy symptoms as well as fewer hospitalizations.
Children in weatherized homes missed fewer days of school and
their parents missed fewer days of work.
In the Oakridge National Laboratory study of WAP residents
reported paying an average of $514 less out-of-pocket medical
expenses after weatherization. Not only does WAP make a
necessary, needed improvement to our national aging housing
stock, but it also helps American workers and American
businesses. The WAP directly supports more than 8,500 jobs and
indirectly supports thousands more in related business. The WAP
has provided training and workforce development to thousands of
low-income and middle-income workers allowing them to secure
stable employment across the entire State or across the entire
supply chain from WAP crews, material suppliers, tech
companies, and more.
Idaho is also a great example of another key success of WAP
with a strong record of leveraging and additional funds to
supplement the Federal dollars. The main method of leveraging
is through partnerships with utility companies. Many of which
depend upon the WAP delivery network to carry out low-income
residential efficiency incentives. In 2015, increasing--excuse
me, let me back that up. At least 21 States were able to
leverage additional funds from utilities in 2015, increasing
the impact of the WAP in those States. This leveraging activity
is only possible with the critical base money from DOE as well
as DOE's reputation and high quality standards. In Idaho, we
have had a longstanding partnership with three of our largest
utility companies. Over the past 5 years, they have contributed
more than $11.8 million that were invested in approximately
2,200 households throughout the State.
In closing, I would like to extend my gratitude to all of
you for your hard work and continued support of WAP over the
years. I again respectfully urge the subcommittee to find or
fund the WAP at $230 million for fiscal year 2018, the funding
level necessary we believe to sustain a national program to
serve low-income families in all local communities. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Ken. Ray.
---------- -
Wednesday, May 3, 2017.
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR STATE COMMUNITY SERVICES PROGRAMS
WITNESS
RAY JUDY, ENERGY SERVICES DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR STATE
COMMUNITY SERVICES PROGRAMS
Mr. Judy. All right, thank you. My name is Ray Judy and I
am the energy services director for the National Association
for State Community Services Programs and I appreciate the
opportunity to come and speak to you today mainly regarding the
Weatherization Assistance Program, which is near and dear to my
heart. So I am pleased to submit testimony in support of the
Weatherization Assistance Program and State Energy Program.
As some of the numbers that you have already heard we are
seeking an fiscal year 2018 appropriations level of $230
million for the Weatherization Assistance Program and $70
million for the State Energy Program. NASCAP is a member
organization representing the weatherization grantees and the
directors in all 50 States, D.C., and five U.S. territories on
all the issues related to WAP.
The State office is represented by organization. We would
like to thank this community for its support of the WAP and SEP
through the years. Additionally, we would like to share our
appreciation for the increase in WAP funding contained within
the omnibus for the fiscal year 2017 funding. I have been
working in the weatherization program for over 29 years with
the first 28 years of that being spent in Indiana's
weatherization program and have witnessed throughout that time
firsthand the impact that the WAP has on the most vulnerable
households in this country.
Weatherization provides a foundation for residential clean
energy investments that sustain jobs and save families money
through improved energy efficiency. In its 40-year history the
WAP has weatherized over 7.4 million homes, helping hard-
working American families, particularly those that are elderly,
disabled, and families with children.
The need for weatherization services is significant. DOE
estimates that 20 to 30 million families are eligible for WAP
each year. This represents an incredible opportunity for energy
savings that cannot be obtained without the WAP.
Weatherization managers like insulation, air ceiling, high-
efficiency HVAC systems are investments that pay off for the
life of the home reducing energy waste and saving families
money month after month and year after year. With lower energy
bills these families can increase their usable income and buy
essentials like food, clothing, medicine, and health care.
In addition to delivering savings to families, the WAP
plays a significant role in supporting jobs in workforce
development and we will repeat the number again that WAP
supports at least 8,500 jobs in weatherization and thousands
more across the supply chain and material suppliers, vendors,
and manufacturers. It is also important to highlight that the
work performed under WAP meets extremely high quality standards
set forth by DOE. In recent years, DOE has developed and
implemented standard work specifications that ensure all homes
receive the highest quality weatherization services.
As of 2016, there are over 1,600 building performance
institute-certified quality control inspectors. This workforce
of QCIs ensures that 100 percent of the units weatherized with
DOE funds are inspected for quality. And in addition that
number, the WAP grantees inspect 5 percent of those units in
sharing another layer of review during their time in
monitoring.
Another critical benefit of the WAP is its positive impact
on the health and safety of families. You have heard this
again, but it really bears the repeating these numbers and this
information. It makes sense that in a home that is cold and
drafty or full of mold and excess moisture there is an
increased risk of recurring illnesses.
What we have learned over the years is that the nonenergy
benefits of weatherization results in a healthier living
environment. This was confirmed by the Oakridge National
Laboratory evaluation which found that residents of weatherized
homes experience fewer asthma, allergy, and cold symptoms.
Weatherization mitigates factors that can trigger an asthma
attack resulting in fewer emergency room visits and
hospitalizations. WAP measures can also prevent other life-
threatening events such as carbon monoxide poisoning and fires
from unsafe heating sources.
After weatherization families have homes that are safer and
more livable, resulting in fewer missed days of work and
school. These outcomes pay off. Again, every weatherization
dollar spent returns $2.78 in health and safety benefits.
These economic benefits are even more significant when
viewed in light of our Nation's staggering healthcare costs.
According to the Green and Healthy Homes Initiative, $82.4
billion in healthcare costs are lost each year due to
inefficient and unhealthy housing. That is 3 percent of the
total U.S. healthcare costs. The CDC estimates that asthma
alone costs the United States $56 billion per year.
Despite the wide range of benefits and proven cost
effectiveness of the Weatherization Assistance Program and the
State Energy Program, the administration's fiscal year 2018
budget blueprint zeroed out both programs, citing a need, ``to
reduce Federal intervention in State-level energy policy and
implementation''. However, WAP and SEP are models of success;
successful Federal, State, and local partnership, not Federal
intervention. Elimination of these programs will result in loss
of jobs as well as decreased investment in local businesses,
which will harm the financial stability, health, and safety of
families across the Nation.
NASCAP respectfully urges the subcommittee to fund the WAP
and not less than $230 million for fiscal year 2018 and the
funding level necessary to sustain the national program. NASCAP
also supports the appropriation of 70 million in fiscal year
2018 for the State Energy Program. And NASCAP also looks
forward to working with committee members in the future to
ensure that these programs continue to deliver cost-effective
results that support our economy and make a difference in the
lives of the most vulnerable in our communities.
And to end, we just really appreciate the opportunity to be
here today and to speak to the benefits of this program.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Kaptur. Mr. Chairman, I want to take just 5 seconds to
ask the prior witness, Mr. Robinette, and yourself if you could
submit from that Oakridge study to each of the members up here
by their State from the inception of the program how many units
have been weatherized and then the State-by-State achievements
over that period of time and what remains to be done. I think
that that would be very--to take the one example you provided
for Idaho and to extend that to other States, that might be
very--we have a lot of new members on this subcommittee. Thank
you.
Mr. Robinette. Absolutely, be glad to.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Ray. Daniel.
----------
Wednesday, May 3, 2017.
NORTHERN MANHATTAN IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION
WITNESS
DANIEL RIEBER, WEATHERIZATION DIRECTOR, NORTHERN MANHATTAN IMPROVEMENT
CORPORATION
Mr. Rieber. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. My name is
Daniel Reiber and I am the weatherization director at the
Northern Manhattan Improvement Corporation in New York City, or
NMIC as we say. I am here today before this committee to submit
testimony in support of the Department of Energy's
Weatherization Assistance Program, or WAP. I respectfully
request that the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) be
kept whole and funded nationally at $230 million for fiscal
year 2018.
At NMIC we integrate numerous crises innovation services
under one roof. With their crises resolved our clients move
seamlessly to capacity building services through our holistic
programs designed to support individuals and families as they
develop the tools to transition from crises to self-
sufficiency. Our weatherization program is a critical piece of
our mission to serve as a catalyst for positive change in the
lives of people in our community on their paths to a secure and
prosperous future.
The WAP is the largest energy efficiency retrofit program
in the Nation. The local community action agencies and
community-based organizations that implement the program are
skilled, highly trained, and held to higher standards that are
often required in the commercial marketplace for equivalent
work. For 40 years the WAP has led the charge for energy
efficiency and used building science to properly evaluate,
diagnose, and retrofit houses and buildings so they may become
more energy efficient and safe. The WAP workforce sustains
almost 9,000 jobs nationwide. Additionally, thousands of jobs
are sustained through related industries and the hiring of
small business contractors.
NMIC utilizes subcontractors throughout the program year to
provide windows, boilers, insulation, and ventilation upgrades.
This workforce can consist of up to 100 works from 8 different
small business contractors. Over the past several years we have
seen the availability of affordable apartments become very
scarce in Manhattan. Accordion to the National Low-Income
Housing Coalition in the State of New York there are just 35
affordable units available for every 100 low-income renters.
As low-income tenants struggle to live in our great city,
the weatherization program is more important today in helping
to preserve affordable housing for low-income families,
especially children, seniors, and individuals with
disabilities. Most of the buildings we have served in the last
grant period were extremely inefficient and in desperate need
of energy conservation measures, causing residents to pay
significantly more than necessary towards energy costs.
Additionally, the need for these services is staggering. Our
organization alone has 800 units in over 20 buildings on our
waiting list.
NMIC works with building owners who are committed to
preserving affordable housing while still running a profitable
business. Many properties were neglected over time and are in
great need of assistance. Such things as boilers, pipe and roof
installation, roof repairs, and windows. WAP helps keep low-
income people in affordable, safe, energy-efficient, and
healthy homes.
Furthermore, weatherization dollars are key to helping low-
income, tenant-owned buildings survive. These HDFC, or Housing
Development Fund Corporations as they are known, typically have
poor cash flow and high energy burden. By assisting these
buildings, the WAP helps preserve the essence of affordable
housing in low-income neighborhoods and, at the same time,
improves the quality of life in our various communities. The
DOE weatherization program is critical because it provides the
critical base with which to leverage and combine other funding.
We utilize a mix of program, owner, utility, and State energy
office, NYSERDA in this case, dollars to weatherize buildings,
make them sustainable, safe places to live.
One thing is certain, should the Federal funds for WAP be
significantly reduced or zeroed out, the impact would be
devastating to our community. Building owners will seek out
repairs and pass that cost on to tenants. This upward pressure
on rent will force people out of their homes, thus creating a
vicious cycle of displacement and uprooting of families and the
elderly. The stress of losing your home through no fault of
your own is the kind no one should have to endure.
Furthermore, the nonprofits in support of housing agencies
that rely on WAP for their clients will most likely defer
maintenance until they are able to make repairs, endangering
the health and safety of their residents.
I will just highlight in my testimony our two case studies
which show energy-saving reductions in two buildings of 42
percent and 47 percent, respectively. In both cases the low-
income residents were direct beneficiaries of an affordable,
safer, more comfortable home with no fear of a rent increase.
Founded in 1979, the staff of two with the goal of assisting
immigrants in northern Manhattan who were at risk of being
evicted, Northern Manhattan Improvement Corporation has grown
to be one of New York City's most trusted, innovative, and
effective poverty fighting organizations. Our programs include
legal services, social services, education and career services,
weatherization, and community organizing. The loss of the
weatherization program would impact our ability to achieve our
mission as we would no longer be able to provide the
comprehensive services that makes a difference in the lives of
the most vulnerable in our community.
In closing, I urge the subcommittee to fund the WAP at no
less than 230 million for fiscal year 2018, the funding level
necessary to sustain a national program. This is a program that
has proved its worth and effectiveness over 40 years. The WAP
plays a critical role in providing and preserving affordable
housing in our community and helps hard-working families across
the entire country. I thank you and also want to thank you for
adding 13 million to the FYI 17 Omnibus Bill. We appreciate
that very much.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. David.
----------
Wednesday, May 3, 2017
ASSOCIATION FOR ENERGY AFFORDABILITY, INC.
WITNESS
DAVID HEPINSTALL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ASSOCIATION FOR ENERGY
AFFORDABILITY, INC.
Mr. Hepinstall. Good morning. As the executive director of
the Association for Energy Affordability, AEA, I represent and
serve a network of not-for-profit community-based organizations
that provide weatherization services to low-income households
throughout downstate New York. AEA is a national weatherization
training center and a WAP-funded technical services provider as
well as a direct services subgrantee in New York City.
In the last 10 years AEA itself has weatherized 9,000
housing units and completed investment grade energy audits of
2,400 buildings with over 112,000 units in New York, while also
every year having trained hundreds of program staff,
contractors, and building operators in New York and nationally.
I am here today to urge you to fund the Department of Energy's
Weatherization Assistance Program at least 230 million and
DOE's State Energy Program for 50 million for fiscal year 2018.
Funding at this level is needed to retain the expertise in
infrastructure that enables weatherization to deliver its
essential services to low-income households throughout the
United States and supports State energy programs that work
collaboratively with weatherization.
Weatherization employs energy auditors, retrofit
installers, quality control inspectors, and project managers
with deep expertise in whole building energy efficiency. In New
York State alone 736 persons are fully or partly employed
directly by weatherization and yet even more work is performed
by local heating, plumbing, electrical, and ceiling contractors
hired and overseen by weatherization. These local agency and
contractor jobs affect the local economy. They cannot be
outsourced.
WAP also supports accredited training programs conducted by
training centers like AEA to prepare workers for BPI
certifications and help program staff and contractors deliver
deep energy savings. Weatherization in New York also leverages
substantial private resources from building owners and
utilities to complete its energy efficiency upgrades helping to
preserve affordable housing and make a lasting impact on low-
income communities. Cost-effective, whole house weatherization
saves money and energy and improves occupant health, safety,
and comfort for years to come.
Weatherization enables low-income families to meet more of
their basic needs despite limited incomes simply by reducing
energy waste in their homes. Yet the very program that makes
all of this possible, that has spawned valuable technology
improvements along the way, that is celebrating 40 years of
bipartisan support today, finds itself on the chopping block.
Passing the current CR is a start, but having at least 230
million in the 2018 budget is the key. If the weatherization
program were to be defunded or there were major cuts in fiscal
year 2018 funding, both program staff and contractors would
experience job loss, many moving on to other types of work.
This would be a huge loss to their communities and not easily
reversed if the infrastructure of WAP were dismantled.
In New York City, only 16 percent of low-income households
own their own homes compared to 42 percent nationally. Most are
renters living in older, multifamily buildings. Preserving the
affordability of their housing requires more than a few low-
cost measures in their units. Energy-efficient heating, hot
water, and ventilation systems are needed to control building
and operating costs.
Seventy-one percent of low-income households in New York
City are severely rent burdened, meaning they pay over 50
percent of their income for rent and utilities. This places
them at a high risk of becoming homeless. WAP policies and best
practices in New York contribute to economic and social
stability of low-income families and neighborhoods by reducing
the energy and maintenance costs that may otherwise lead to
rent increases and displace many families from their homes.
The positive effects of WAP in New York City multifamily
buildings begin even before retrofits begin because owners must
ensure code violations and other hazardous conditions
identified in the building audit before weatherization work can
even begin. Weatherization helps by simulating owners to invest
in low-income communities that have suffered from
disinvestment. Weatherization measures contribute to the health
and safety of building residents, improving indoor quality and
removing conditions that trigger asthma symptoms.
DOE rules permit energy efficiency upgrades to central
systems in multifamily buildings when the required percentage
of households in the building is income eligible. This allows
local weatherization subgrades in New York City to take a whole
building approach to energy efficiency that helps to maintain
housing affordability.
Multifamily weatherization in New York protects low-income
residents in housing affordability by requiring building owner
investment of at least 25 percent of the cost of the building-
wide energy upgrades, prohibiting owners from increasing rents
based on capital improvements, co-funded by weatherization, and
preventing displacement of low-income tenants by requiring any
apartment vacated by a low-income resident to be rented to
another low-income household for at least 5 years after
weatherization upgrades have been completed.
Those are things that have been developed in New York
specifically coming from below, from subgrantees, and it is
possible because of DOE regulations as well.
So I really want to thank you for the opportunity to
testify today and say I have been in this for 27 years and gone
to a lot of buildings in New York City, and I remain to this
day deeply moved by the positive impacts on so many households.
We have pictures of before and after. We have movies, frankly,
of that as well, and the impact on households and buildings and
whole neighborhoods would be far-reaching, adverse, unintended
consequences if this essential program were to end or be
crippled by deep funding cuts. Please do not let this happen.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, David, for being here today. We
appreciate it very much. Dr. Maria Spiropulu
----------
Wednesday, May 3, 2017
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
WITNESS
DR. MARIA SPIROPULU, PROFESSOR OF PHYSICS, CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF
TECHNOLOGY
Ms. Spiropulu. It is Greek. Chairman Simpson, Ranking
Member Kaptur, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, I
want to thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am
here to discuss the importance of the United States in
leadership in high-energy physics funded by the Department of
Energy of the Office of Science, and why sustained government
investment is needed to continue making world-changing
discoveries.
The major reasons why we need to sustain our excellence in
particle physics are, for one, the basic research to understand
and explain the universe. Secondly, our international
leadership, our workforce development, and our technology
breakthroughs. These accomplishments have only been possible
through the support of your committee.
In fact, you are the sole sponsor of this curiosity-driven
research. So, I want to thank you for providing just recently
$825 million for HEP for fiscal year 2017, and I ask you to
consider providing the $868 million for fiscal year 2018, to
advance our ongoing critical research and infrastructure
projects.
I have been a particle physicist for 24 years, and I am now
a professor at Cal-Tech. Back then, we were building for
discovery, and discovery we did, and Building For Discovery is
the title and the name of the report that laid out a 10-year
strategic vision for the U.S. particle physics by what is
called the Particle Physics Project Prioritization Panel, P5
for short, which you have heard from before.
It took the high-energy physics community a good 2 years to
come up with this P5 plan, and sacrifices were made. We are now
in the midway of its execution, and I am very glad to report
that all projects are on time and budget.
The highest priority in the P5 report is continuing our
collaboration with CERN, the leading European laboratory, and
meeting our commitments to the Large Hadron Collider, and the
associated more than 2,000 American researchers, physicists,
technicians, students. This will happen by funding the
upgrades, the upgrade detectors.
Now, mind you, with the LHC we found a unique particle that
is necessary to complete our particle physics model of the
universe, the blueprint of the universe.
The highest medium-term P5 priority is the Long-Baseline
Neutrino Facility, or LBNF. Fermilab will host LBNF and lead
the world's accelerator-based Neutrino Research Program,
studying the least understood, the most puzzling, and the
highest abundant matter particles in the universe than
neutrinos. LBNF will be the largest U.S.-based international
science facility and the largest research program Neutrino has
ever undertaken worldwide.
As part of the detector, which is called the Deep
Underground Neutrino Experiment, DUNE, Fermilab will shoot
neutrinos 800 miles from Illinois all the way to South Dakota
at the Sanford Underground Research Facility where we are
building four massive detectors that are a mile underground.
LBNF and DUNE will be for neutrinos what the LHC is for the
Higgs, namely the mothership of deep exploration and discovery.
And, very importantly, this international project continues
to gain financial contributions from many other nations. In
fact, following a cooperative agreement signed 2 years ago
here, CERN, our closest collaborator, for the first time
decided to invest outside Europe and invest on LBNF in South
Dakota--Fermilab in South Dakota. And as of yesterday,
additional protocols and agreements were signed at CERN, and
CERN engineers and technicians started working at Fermilab
starting already yesterday.
Now, my testimony comes at a very crucial time for the U.S.
Particle Physics Program. LBNF and DUNE received approval to
start construction, and with the Omnibus Bill we can now
provide sufficient funding for construction. Cessation in
funding will lead to increased costs and delays and curtailing
of the current momentum. Sustained funding will signal, in
fact, to our partners across the wall, that the United States
is absolutely determined and prepared to lead in science and
make the case for the future, that science leadership,
discovery, and innovation are essential aspects of our Nation's
technological and economical growth.
And I will take my last minute to talk a little bit about
technology and workforce development after mentioning that the
U.S., the United States, in this area, in the frontier of the
cosmic--what we call in this area--we are already leaders, and
we are doing dark matter and dark energy exploration and we
will continue with sustained funding doing so. Dark matter is
important, because it is the gravitational scaffolding of the
universe. Without dark matter, galaxies and stars would fly
away. We must understand what it is.
Going to the technology, fundamental research is crucially
dependent on advanced technology. We are adapting right now
what technology has developed for quantum computers essential
for these dark matter searches, pushing farther the advancement
of these technologies, important applications of particle
physics-spun areas of manufacturing, computation, medicine, and
national security.
Particle physics detectors improve homeland security using
advanced technology and providing new techniques for monitoring
the core of nuclear reactors. And when the motivation to
generate new technology lies within deeper scientific
questions, it is then that we make unprecedented leaps in
technology and in the domain sciences.
Finally, particle physics--you probably know it from the
many times we come in front of you--we are the source of the
biggest, absolute biggest data, and absolute biggest and more
complex data architectures. This, as a consequence, that our
particle physics students and the young researchers today are
expertly versed in all these artificial intelligence methods
and tools for science, for basic science.
I would like to highlight one example of a recent graduate
of mine, Alex Mott. He received his Ph.D. in 2015 from Cal-
Tech, and he was handpicked by the Tesla model Autopilot team,
and he developed from Version 0 to Version 9 now the Autopilot
for Tesla Motors. This is happening with our students. This is
just one example. This is happening with our students all over.
So, in closing, I want to just remind everybody that
particle physics is the physics of understanding and explaining
the universe end to end and in its core, and it is curiosity-
driven and basic science, but we are preparing technology
advancements and technology breakthroughs in workforce
development that it is unprecedented.
And I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify and
for your continued support to this science.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Doctor. There are a lot of
questions that I would like to ask you, but I am just not smart
enough. It is pretty deep stuff. But thank you for being here--
--
Ms. Spiropulu. Thank you.
Mr. Simpson [continuing]. And testifying on the importance
of the program.
Ms. Spiropulu. Thank you.
Mr. Simpson. Morry Markowitz.
----------
Wednesday, May 3, 2017.
FUEL CELL AND HYDROGEN ENERGY ASSOCIATION
WITNESS
MORRY MARKOWITZ, PRESIDENT, FUEL CELL AND HYDROGEN ENERGY ASSOCIATION
Mr. Markowitz. I want to thank the Chair and the Ranking
Member for giving me this opportunity to discuss our industry's
priorities for fiscal year 2018 funding for the Department of
Energy. My name is Morry Markowitz. I am president of the Fuel
Cell and Hydrogen Energy Association.
I previously submitted written testimony to the committee,
but I would like to have this opportunity to have a
conversation with you.
The member companies that make up the Fuel Cell and
Hydrogen Energy Association range in size from some of the
best-known household brands in the world to small businesses
and startups. We also count national laboratories and other
nonprofits within our family. Looking around at the
subcommittee, I could see we are well represented here.
The industry currently employs approximately 10,000 direct
workers in the United States through manufacturing,
maintenance, engineering, and supply chain support, and
thousands more in indirect jobs.
We often refer to the fuel cell technology as the all-the-
above technology, meaning it applies to stationary and
distributed power generation, backup power for
telecommunications, material handling, and transportation,
including passenger vehicles, buses, and soon trains and heavy
vehicles. We utilize all the above fuels because we can drive
hydrogen from 100 percent domestic resources, including natural
gas, bio and landfill gas, to renewables such as solar and
wind.
Our industry, with the help of the Department of Energy,
has made incredible strides in developing this transformational
clean energy technology. Passenger cars are now being sold and
leased in California. Stationary power is being used by some of
the leading utilities and companies from around the world. Fuel
cell forklifts are taking the place of old battery types in the
largest distribution centers in North America. However, even
with all this progress, there is still a great deal left to
accomplish in making this technology more competitive in the
marketplace. And that is why I am here to speak to you today.
For fiscal year 2018, our organization is asking that the
committee positively consider our request for $101 million in
funding for hydrogen and fuel cell activities managed by the
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and $50
million for solid oxide fuel research and development managed
by the Office of Fossil Energy.
We know that this is an era of tight budgets. That is why
our request for fiscal year 2018 EERE budget is identical to
the appropriated level of this year, and our Office of Fossil
Energy Funding request is identical to what we requested for
2017. The members of FCHEA truly appreciate the consistent
level of bipartisan support given to these programs by this
committee, Congress, and past administrations.
If we were to be asked how money for EER would be best put
to work at the Department of Energy, I would provide you with
the following response. It is the industry's opinion that the
bulk of appropriated monies should focus on three main areas:
hydrogen research and development, market transformation, and
stationary and storage applications.
For hydrogen research and development, we ask for funds to
further enhance hydrogen metering devices, for retail fueling
stations, improve hydrogen compressors, and reduce the costs of
storage and transport.
In addition, the department should identify competitive
opportunities to help develop robust, affordable hydrogen
infrastructure components. This would encourage entrance to the
markets, drive down costs, and speed transition. As a package,
all these proposed ideas will help in the development of a
reliable and cost-effective infrastructure. The department
should also continue modest proof of concept demonstrations.
These activities have proven successful for material handling
equipment at warehouses and show significant progress for air
and sea ports.
Market transformation funding enables fuel cell and vehicle
companies to overcome cost-prohibitive steps, that has the best
chance to perform well against environmentally problematic
incumbent technology. Within the stationary generation
application sector, we are encouraged by the committee's
recognition of the role that fuel cells and hydrogen can play
in energy storage. Excess power can be utilized to generate
hydrogen for future electricity generation, transportation
fuel, and for use in the natural gas pipeline.
Finally, with regard to EERE, we continue to call for the
committee to encourage the Secretary of Energy to work with the
Secretary of Transportation on coordinating efforts to deploy
hydrogen fueling infrastructure, particularly as part of a
major investment in U.S. infrastructure.
Concerning the Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Program managed by the
Office of Fossil Energy, our request for $50 million would
continue essential R&D in support of the development of large-
scale, highly-efficient ultra clean stationary power generation
fuel cell systems. This program is the only one of its kind
globally, providing the U.S. with a unique competitive
advantage over foreign competitors. Solid oxide fuel cells
utilize domestic fuels that include classified coal, natural
gas, bio gas, hydrogen, and biodiesel.
Completion of this work will result in ultra-efficient
stationary power systems for the distributed as well as central
power applications. Success continues in reaching performance
milestones for durability and cost. This essential R&D must
continue in order to reach the requirements for successful
introducing of solid oxide fuel cell technology.
Modern-day fuel cells are the result of American ingenuity,
which played a key role in our quest in landing a man on the
moon. We believe that this transformational, clean technology
will play a role in addressing many of our energy and
transportation challenges. If we make the right decisions
today, we will ensure that future high-quality jobs will be
created here while at the same time improving our economy and
environment, bolstering our national security, and making us
energy independent. We look forward to working with you and the
committee staff as the process continues.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Morry.
Mr. Markowitz. Thank you.
Mr. Simpson. And we look forward to working with you. Ms.
Callahan.
----------
Wednesday, May 3, 2017.
ALLIANCE TO SAVE ENERGY
WITNESS
KATERI CALLAHAN, PRESIDENT, ALLIANCE TO SAVE ENERGY
Ms. Callahan. Hi. Thank you very much. I really appreciate
the opportunity to testify before you today, Mr. Chairman and
Ranking Member Kaptur. And I want to lay out and highlight the
critical and cost-effective, energy-effective energy efficiency
programs being carried out at the Office of Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy.
I want to start, like so many others have, in saying thank
you to you and the other members of the committee for your
longstanding support of Federal energy efficiency programs. We
were really encouraged by the Omnibus Bill, which includes
robust funding for these programs. And to say thank you, I am
going to try to buy you back a minute or two of the time that
you are running over today.
My name is Kateri Callahan, and I serve as the president of
the Alliance to Save Energy. We are a bipartisan, nonprofit
organization with the mission of advancing national policies
that make our economy more energy productive, and that results
in creation of jobs, reduction of energy costs for consumers
and businesses, increased global competitiveness, and, of
course, reduction in the harmful emissions associated with
energy production.
The Alliance enjoys the leadership of 13 members of
Congress who serve in an honorary capacity on our Board of
Directors. We also enjoy the support of over 120 companies and
institutions that help us in our advocacy, education,
communications, and market transformation work. We are
celebrating our 40th anniversary this year, and over those past
four decades, we witnessed a remarkable decoupling in the
growth in energy demand in this country from the growth in our
economy.
Today, we are twice as energy productive as we were in the
late 1970s. What does that mean? That means we are getting two
times--twice--as much GDP for each unit of energy that we
consume, so we are much more energy productive. And what did
that do? In the creation of this real evolution or transition
in our energy use, we have created an enormous and a domestic-
based energy efficiency industry.
You have heard a lot of the other witnesses today talk
about the 2.2 million jobs that have been created. I brought
along a visual to just kind of emphasize and highlight this for
you. You can see that it is 2.2 of the 3 million clean energy
jobs. But the bigger story is, it is a third of the jobs in the
overall energy sector in the U.S. You can also see that the
majority of these jobs are in the construction and the
manufacturing sectors, so these are largely nonexportable and
good-paying jobs.
One thing that others have not pointed out is that it is a
rapidly growing industry. We realized 6 percent growth between
2015 and 2016 in this industry, and we are expecting another 9
percent growth just this year. And these jobs can be found all
across the United States. It is detailed in my testimony. But,
for example, in your district, Mr. Simpson, there are over 900
energy efficiency jobs. And, Ms. Kaptur, in your district in
Ohio, there are 4,200 energy efficiency jobs.
Ms. Kaptur. And I think that is a low number.
Ms. Callahan. And I would agree with you, but we always
err on the side of being cautious and conservative. In total
for the committee, there are 46,000 jobs that are represented
just in the districts of the committee members. It is
impossible to understate the role of Federal policies and
investment, from building energy codes, to appliance and
equipment and efficiency standards, to public and private
partnerships in this remarkable evolution, to an economy that
is doing much more with less in terms of energy consumption.
For this reason, we are requesting funding at levels at
least equivalent to those you included in the Omnibus, and in a
few instances have suggested slight increases to keep programs.
As detailed in my testimony, the energy efficiency programs at
DOE are paying out huge returns to consumers and businesses on
the modest taxpayer investments. There are just three quick
examples that I want to call to your attention.
First is the State Energy Program, or SEP, that is
currently funded at $50 million. We join with the others in
requesting a $20 million increase to this program, which is
delivering direct energy savings of $7 for every $1 of Federal
support. The second is the Weatherization Assistance Program.
And you have heard chapter and verse on that. We join with the
others in requesting a modest increase of $5 million to the
$230 million level for a program that has a cost-benefit ratio
of 4 to 1.
One thing that has not been talked a lot about today, that
I have heard, is the Building Technology Office. That is where
we house the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, which
is saving consumers, through the standards that we put in
place, $500 a year on their energy bill, and also houses the
Building Energy Codes Program. New homes that are built to
codes certified by DOE through that program can expect a net
savings in as little as 1 to 2 years.
Again, these are just examples of the programs that are
detailed. All of them have that kind of cost-effective,
impactful benefit to our economy, so we urge you to continue to
provide robust funding in support of these programs. We believe
the return on investment to our economy and also to our energy
security and our environment is simply too large to pass up.
Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. I appreciate your being here
today.
Ms. Callahan. Thank you.
Mr. Simpson. Dub Taylor.
----------
Wednesday, May 3, 2017.
TEXAS STATE ENERGY CONSERVATION OFFICE
WITNESS
WILLIAM ``DUB'' TAYLOR, DIRECTOR, TEXAS STATE ENERGY CONSERVATION
OFFICE
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, sir. My name is William ``Dub''
Taylor and I serve as the State Energy Office director from
Texas. It is an honor to appear before the subcommittee today
on behalf of the National Association of State Energy
Officials, or NASEO. NASEO represents the governor-designated
energy officials from every State in U.S. territory.
It is a forum for us to share good ideas on all of the
above energy solutions and to cooperate regionally and
nationally. I want to thank Chairman Simpson, Ranking Member
Kaptur, and the subcommittee for your support of $50 million
for the State Energy Program, or SEP, and $225 million for the
Weatherization Assistance Program, and the fiscal year 2017
House bill last spring and as part of this week's budget deal.
First and foremost, I am here today asking the subcommittee
for support of $70 million for SEP in fiscal year 2018. In
addition to seeking $50 million in base SEP formula funds, we
think that additional targeted funding to enhance Federal
energy cooperation in energy emergency preparedness and
response, including physical and cybersecurity of the energy
infrastructure, should be provided.
Energy emergency preparedness is a necessity and is a
highly interdependent Federal, State, private function,
covering electricity, natural gas, petroleum, and other fuels.
In the most recent year in which we have data, nearly 50
percent of the cyber attacks in the United States were on
energy infrastructure, with significant activity in the
petroleum sector, much of that in my own State.
Second, we strongly disagree with the administration's
proposals to eliminate SEP and Weatherization on the basis that
it may interfere with State policymaking. I can tell you, the
States know SEP as the only daily administered program which
embodies cooperative Federalism and affords governors control
of allocating funds within very broad guidelines, as intended
by the Congress, all without unnecessary Federal Government
interference in State policies.
In fact, governor support for SEP and Weatherization is
extraordinary. This year, the National Governors Association
called out SEP and Weatherization as top funding priorities in
the energy area, urging the Trump administration to ``continue
and expand the Weatherization Assistance Program and State
Energy Program.''
Moreover, the Southern States Energy Board, led by
Governors Hutchinson of Arkansas and Adkins of Kentucky, the
Governors' Wind & Solar Energy Coalition led by Governors
Raimondo of Rhode Island and Brownback of Kansas, and the
Western Interstate Energy Board, led by the energy directors,
my counterparts, Governors Herbert of Utah and Sandoval of
Nevada, all call for continued and expanding funding of SEP.
SEP is a strong Federal-State partnership program and it
requires matching State funds. According to two Oak Ridge
National Laboratory studies, one just referred to by Ms.
Callahan, SEP provides taxpayers with exceptional value. Oak
Ridge found that each dollar of SEP funds used by States
leverages $10.71 of State and private funds and realizes $7.22
in energy cost savings for citizens and businesses.
In Texas, like most States, we are focused on the role of
energy and economic development. Diverse energy resources and
low energy prices provide Texas with an advantage, and we want
to keep it that way. As an example, in Texas we leverage
$293,000 in SEP funds to support clean energy technology
startup companies, which have attracted $7 million in
investments, created 86 jobs, and resulted in $7.9 million in
economic impact.
We have allocated SEP funding to the Texas Industries of
the Future Program, which has had great success in supporting
chemical manufacturers and refiners, to decrease the energy and
water intensity of their Texas operations. And we utilized SEP
funds to support local building energy code adoption and
compliance by training homebuilders, contractors, and code
officials across the State. Each of these successes and others
are possible using the flexible SEP formula funds, which give
our States and other States the ability to allocate funding to
meet our top energy priorities and opportunities.
In Texas, SEP funds are also used to conduct energy and
water assessments for public sector, taxpayer-supported
facilities across the State. Projects identified can then be
implemented under the State-funded LoneSTAR Revolving Loan
Program, which offers low-cost financing to K-12 schools, local
governments, and State agencies. This program has awarded
almost 300 loans totaling $375 million for projects that have
saved borrowers $523 million in utility costs, an average of
18.5 savings annually.
Finally, we would prefer that all SEP funds come to the
States through the base formula account rather than the small
competitive program or technical assistance which DOE has opted
to undertake at its discretion over the past several years. We
look forward to working with the subcommittee, with the
Congress, and the new administration in advancing our energy
policies and the good work of the States and private sector.
Thank you and I am happy to take any questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Simpson. I appreciate you being here today. We look
forward to working with you. Robert.
----------
Wednesday, May 3, 2017.
HANNON ARMSTRONG
WITNESS
ROBERT JOHNSON, VICE PRESIDENT, HANNON ARMSTRONG
Mr. Johnson. Good afternoon, and thank you for having me
here. In the interest of time, I will try to be brief.
We are a leading venture in the sustainable infrastructure
and energy business and we are urging your support in funding
of the Federal Energy Management Program, specifically FEMP. It
is an important program that oversees and facilitates the
implementation of energy savings performance contracts, or
ESPCs as they are known, as well as utility energy services
contracts, UESCs as they are known; these activities all of
which are currently contemplated in the 2018 Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Bill.
To give you a little background on who Hannon Armstrong is,
we are a 36-year-old company, New York Stock Exchange listed,
and ticker symbol HSAI. We invest in energy infrastructure to
the extent that it is energy efficiency wind and solar
projects. To give you an idea, we have approximately 23,000
acres of land that we own underneath wind and solar projects,
some of which is here with some of the members of this
committee, Mr. Fortenberry as well as Mr. Calvert. In each of
those cases, we own approximately 7 megawatts of power that is
being generated in a distributed manner in each of their
locations. I, unfortunately, cannot say the same right now for
the two jurisdictions that we have in attendance today, but I
am sure that we will over time.
Ms. Katpur. Excuse me, sir, you have to deal with the
birders in Ohio. Yeah, yeah.
Mr. Johnson. I apologize. Specifically, I want to talk a
little bit about ESPCs and UESCs. These critical contracts,
they enable the Federal agencies to procure energy services and
projects without relying solely on appropriated funds and they
come at no added cost to the government. ESPCs and UESCs are
tools that help agencies and installations replace, operate,
and maintain aging energy using equipment. They reduce energy
and intensity, as Kateri had mentioned before, saving taxpayer
dollars, creating jobs, and in many cases improving the mission
readiness of the Federal agencies. These innovative contracts
require that each of the ESCOs that underpin the contracts
perform annual assurance of the financial savings that are
realized through these contracts.
ESPCs and UESCs also have resulted in thousands of jobs
created. So we have talked about jobs today in a variety of
contexts. In this context, it is in the Federal ESPC and UESC
world where the Federal Performance Contracting Coalition, FPC,
in particular, has estimated that approximately for every $10
million of investment made in ESPCs and UESCs there are 95
high-paying jobs available here in the U.S. These jobs work in
three areas. One is manufacturing, so manufacturing the
equipment that is put in; two is the installers through
subcontractors and the like; and three are the ESCOs, or the
Energy Services Companies, that do the work as a prime
contractor to the government.
FEMP in particular is authorized to track agency progress
on particularly section 432 of the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007. In this capacity, they facilitate report
findings of implemented projects and report annual building
benchmarking metrics. In addition, FEMP is authorized by
statute to appropriate procedures and methods for use by
Federal agencies with these ESPCs, in particular on 42 U.S.C.
8287.
In addition, FEMP's most important effort is the
coordinated and defined program management of ESPCs for the
Federal agencies. FEMP staff helps agencies use ESPCs in
several ways, advising the agencies on scoping and procurement
activities, helping agencies select third party energy services
companies, which I mentioned before, finalizing contract terms
and project approval, and monitoring the project implementation
and performance of these contracts over the long period of
time, which can be up to 25 years in many cases.
FEMP is the program manager for this critical ESPC
contracting tool used by Federal agencies to implement ESPCs.
That is the Department of Energy ESPC, what is called an
indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity, IDIQ, contract. This
was recently, the third version of this was recently announced
last week by the Department of Energy where there are 21 new
contractors now awarded that contract under the DOE ESPC IDIQ.
This new contract is an essential tool for Federal agencies and
installations on the military side to continue achieving
greater savings for the taxpayers and obviously promote the
additional job creation that we have just mentioned.
In closing, we strongly urge that the $28 million in
funding for FEMP that has been proposed in the 2018 budget be
approved so FEMP can continue its vital work, in particular on
the ESPCs front with Federal agencies. We thank you for
providing this opportunity and look forward to any questions
and comments you may have.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Robert, we appreciate you being
here today and we will take into consideration your testimony
when we put together our budget.
Mr. Johnson. And I will report back on any projects we
have in your jurisdiction.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Bill.
----------
Wednesday, May 3, 2017.
MID-WEST ELECTRIC CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION
WITNESS
WILLIAM K. DRUMMOND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MID-WEST ELECTRIC CONSUMERS
ASSOCIATION
Mr. Drummond. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Kaptur. My name is Bill Drummond. I am the executive director
of Mid-West Electric Consumers Association. Mid-West represents
about 300 not-for-profit utilities that purchase power from the
Federal hydroelectric facilities on the Missouri River and its
tributaries under the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program. The
projects are operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and
the Bureau of Reclamation and the power is sold by Western Area
Power Administration or WAPA. This cost-based, renewable, non-
carbon emitting power is an essential component of my members'
power supply.
Mid-West member utilities purchase almost 3,000 megawatts
of installed capacity and the associated energy under long-term
contracts, some of which extend beyond 2050. In exchange for
these long-term commitments to purchase WAPA power, Mid-West
members pay rates that recover the capital costs of the Federal
investment plus interest in the hydropower generation and
transmission facilities. Hydropower's share of the joint costs
including the dams and the spillways and other project purposes
costs that are assigned by Congress to hydropower
beneficiaries.
WAPA's rates also recover the annual operation and
maintenance costs of the hydropower facilities. WAPA's and the
other three power marketing administrations cost-based rates
are not subsidized by the United States Treasury or the
taxpayer. Section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 requires
that the power marketing administrations' market Federal power
at cost-based rates. Prior administrations have recommended
raising the power marketing administration rates to market-
based rather than the present cost-based system. Congress has
consistently reaffirmed the use of cost-based rates for the
power marketing administrations.
There have also been proposals to privatize the PMAs by
selling them to the highest bidder. Mid-West urges you to
reject any proposed sale of the power marketing administrations
or the imposition of market-based rates. These ill-advised
proposals would have a devastating impact on the fragile rural
economy of the Upper Great Plains.
Second, the members of Mid-West want to thank the
subcommittee for the proposal to reduce WAPA's net zero
appropriation, also known as offsetting discretionary spending
in the Omnibus Spending Bill for fiscal year 2017. That
proposal is a reduction of $37 million from the fiscal year
2016 levels. We support a continuation of that reduction into
2018 and beyond to address a double budgeting issue with the
Parker-Davis Intertie Projects. So unlike a lot of other folks,
we are actually here requesting a reduction and appreciate the
subcommittee's support for that.
Mr. Simpson. We will mark that down.
Mr. Drummond. Finally, Mid-West has a good working
relationship with WAPA and its sister Federal agencies, the
Corps, and the Bureau of Reclamation regarding the flow of
current and rejected financial information. While Mid-West
members still have healthy disagreements with some of WAPA's
and the Corps' and Reclamation's spending proposals, we have
been able to work together to obtain the data we need to be
able to provide informed comments. We respect the efforts of
the employees and the leadership of these agencies in managing
these Federal assets under complicated circumstances.
So in conclusion, Mid-West members strongly support the
Western Area Power Administration and will oppose any efforts
to sell it or the other power marketing administrations or to
change to market-based rates. We support a $35 million
reduction in WAPA's net zero appropriation request for fiscal
year 2017 and appreciate the subcommittee's support of the
fiscal year 2017 Omnibus Spending Proposal that calls for a $37
million reduction. And finally, we appreciate the working
relationship that we have with WAPA, the Corps and the Bureau
of Reclamation.
So thank you for the opportunity to testify this afternoon
and I look forward to any questions you may have.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
Ms. Kaptur. Mr. Chairman, I do have a question of this
witness. For the record, thank you so much for testifying. I am
trying to still secure in my own mind the different rates that
consumers, businesses, industries pay across the country for
kilowatt hour, for usage, depending on the type of energy
system that they are subject to. I am wondering sir, if you
could provide the per kilowatt cost on average to your
residential consumers, your industrial consumers, and then if
there are specials in the rural areas, I would like to know
what those are, and I want to compare those to my region of the
county, which has a very different energy umbrella than your
own.
Mr. Drummond. Certainly.
Ms. Kaptur. That would be very valuable to me.
Mr. Drummond. No, I would be happy to provide that. I do
not have it with me right today. I can tell you that for most
of my members, the cost of power that they get from their--not
only the Western Area Power Administration, but also their
other power suppliers amounts on average to about half of their
total cost of doing business. The rest of the cost of doing
business includes distribution systems, the back office that is
necessary to provide bills, the power management systems, et
cetera. So that is roughly how the wholesale supply versus the
other costs of doing business work out. But I can get you our
average cost of supplying that power. I would be happy to do
that.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you so much.
Mr. Drummond. Yes, ma'am.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Jorge.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wednesday, May 3, 2017.
GRAND CANYON STATE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION
WITNESS
JORGE S. CANACA, DIRECTOR OF FEDERAL RELATIONS AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS,
GRAND CANYON STATE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION
Mr. Canaca. Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member and
subcommittee members, thank you for holding this hearing and
providing the opportunity for public testimony. My name is
Jorge Canaca. I am the director of Federal relations and
regulatory affairs for the Grand Canyon State Electric
Cooperative Association. We are a regional service organization
representing the interests of electric cooperative utilities
and their customers and submit the following testimony which
will focus on the Western Area Power Administration's budget
practices, the need for budget transparency and the need for
customer involvement.
We respectfully request the subcommittee provide adequate
funding for Western to meet its primary statutory obligations
to market, sell, and transmit preference power. However, due to
potential agency-wide customer impact and the inappropriate
nature of double budgeting practices, we recommend that
Western's net zero request be reduced in the fiscal year 2018
budget by 35 million and by equivalent amounts in future fiscal
years until Western corrects the situation through budget
formulation.
We further ask the subcommittee to cap the use of net zero
authority to ensure that it is not duplicative of funding the
Desert Southwest Region Office already receives through
prepayment authority. The Grand Canyon Electric Cooperative
Association is a member organization consisting of six electric
distribution and generation transmission cooperatives who
collectively service approximately 500,000 rural residents
across Arizona. Our member cooperatives are customer-owned,
not-for-profit utilities and on average one-third of our
members live at or below the Federal poverty level.
Now, for 75 years, electric cooperatives have been proud to
keep the lights on by providing safe, reliable, and affordable
electricity and America's 838 not-for-profit electric
distribution cooperatives provide service to 42 million people
in 47 States, and collectively, their service territories cover
75 percent of the U.S. land mass.
Now, under the Reclamation Project Act and Flood Control
Act, as Bill mentioned earlier, Western is required to market
preference power at the lowest possible rates to customers
consistent with sound business practices. Electric cooperatives
were some of the first purchasers of Federal hydropower
delivered to homes, farms, ranches, and rural businesses.
Currently, Western relies on congressional appropriations
and funds generated directly by customer-owned utilities that
are power contractors to maintain its capital program mission.
From a budget scoring perspective, Western is considered budget
neutral and not a draw on the Treasury. This is only possible
because preference power customers reimburse the cost of
Western's capital investment through rates and are thus
ultimately responsible for repayment of the Federal investment.
Now, to that end, we support continued funding for Western to
meet its statutory mission. We believe Western is a valued
partner. But recently, however, we have witnessed Western's
financial practices come under scrutiny.
A 2015 GAO report identified concerns with management and
size of unobligated balances held by Western and recommended
that Western implement a strategy and take action to reduce
these balances. Now, while we applaud Western for addressing a
self-created financial mismanagement issue, and returning
hundreds of millions of dollars to the Treasury, the electric
cooperative customers believe the accrual of unobligated
balances was a direct result of net zero budget authority
granted to Western in 2010. So that is the double budgeting
issue.
Now, therefore, we also ask the subcommittee to rescind $70
million in unobligated balances accrued through the use of
prepayment authority and the net zero appropriations. According
to its own estimates, Western returned 328 million to the
Treasury Reclamation Fund in fiscal year 2016 and a total of
894 in the previous 5 years. Yet, during that same period, our
electric rates increased by 32 percent. These increases in both
power rates and unobligated balances occurred during a period
when the government was operating under continuing resolutions.
And in conclusion, I would just like to add that Western
has pursued expanded budget authority while systematic funding
problems surfaced. With respect to some of Western's major
projects, customers did not have timely, meaningful
participation in Western's 10-year planning and Federal budget
development. And most importantly, much of Western's financial
processes and decision-making schedules are not transparent to
the customer. By working together, Congress, Western, and
preference power customers can address the multiple goals and
challenges of Federal hydropower resource and maximize the
benefit of the system for all.
Now, let me conclude my testimony by thanking the members
of the subcommittee for their support and special thanks to
Arizona Congressman Paul Gosar for his continued leadership in
the House on this important issue to Arizona's electric rate
payers.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Simpson. All right, thank you for being here today and
for your testimony, and as you can tell, I have a habit of
hammering people's names, and I apologize for that.
Mr. Canaca. It is perfectly fine, sir.
Ms. Kaptur. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I would like to also
ask this witness if you could provide for the record, follow-up
on page 4 of your testimony, you say your rate payers paid
electric rates for cooperative customers increased by an
average of 6.5 percent each year. Could you provide an updated
summary for our committee of the per kilowatt cost of energy
for your customers in the residential and industrial and rural
consumer arenas? Can you do that?
Mr. Canaca. Absolutely. I would be happy to.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Robert Lynch.
----------
Wednesday, May 3, 2017.
IRRIGATION AND ELECTRICAL DISTRICTS' ASSOCIATION OF AZ
WITNESS
ROBERT S. LYNCH, COUNSEL TO THE IRRIGATION AND ELECTRICAL DISTRICTS'
ASSOCIATION OF AZ, ROBERT S. LYNCH & ASSOCIATES
Mr. Lynch. I am Bob Lynch and I am an attorney in Phoenix,
Arizona. Let me first talk to you about the net zero concept.
When it was originally authorized, it was authorized for Pick-
Sloan, Bill Drummond's group that he represents is the majority
of their customers. And we went along with it, but it was not
supposed to apply in the Colorado River Basin. We did not need
it, we did not want it. And just our way of explaining it to
you is, well, I have an 8-year-old granddaughter. She is smart,
she is good looking, she is talented. But if I took her
shopping, would I give her my credit card? No.
Well, in our view, the way this worked out in the Desert
Southwest Region, WAPA has a net zero credit card, except we do
not get to see the shopping list. All we see is what they
bought when they hand us the bill. And we are trying to work to
change that. We established a preference customer committee
with the co-ops and the MUNIs to try to have a dialogue with
Western, WAPA, to see if we can straighten this out. But for
now, we are out of luck. What we found out just recently,
within the last couple of weeks, is that last spring, the
Desert Southwest Office started converting all of their
advanced funding that we had been paying for, including O&M, to
net zero. And so they were taking, you know, our existing rate
and paying and we were paying, and we were paying in, and
paying the O&M and they were converting it to this net zero
appropriation, which accounts for part of the double budgeting
issue that you have heard about.
We think we can fix it, but it is going to require their
cooperation. And if we do not get the cooperation, I would
respectfully request the opportunity to come back here and tell
you all about it and tell you what I think ought to happen to
them because it is happening to us now and it needs fixing.
On the transparency issue, WAPA is very transparent about
what they have done to us. They are just not very transparent
about what they are going to do to us next. And we have got to
try to fix that, also. And if we do not get it fixed, we will
be back again asking for your help. And one of the things that
has come up in all of this is consolidation. WAPA has
consolidated a lot of functions in their headquarters. In 2010,
they had 260 FTEs; starting in fiscal year 2018, they will have
390. Not all those folks live in Denver. Some of them are in
Sacramento and Loveland and Phoenix and every other place while
the problem is they do not talk to us. If you are somebody in
Sacramento doing something for the whole agency, why do you
care what people in Phoenix think? And to the best of our
knowledge, they are not being asked to talk to us. So to us,
consolidation has turned out to be the enemy of cooperation.
And we do not know exactly how to fix that, to tell you the
truth.
A couple of things happened on Monday that sort of changed
my testimony. Number one, in the explanatory statement for the
Consolidated Appropriation Bill, on page 41, there is a comment
about termination provisions in contracts and you are telling
Western, give us a report in 60 days. Well, I lived it,
starting in the 70's, just in case you would like to hear the
rest of the story, I would be happy to supply it to you.
The other thing is that there is a $34 million
authorization for 2017 to reduce unobligated balances, but it
says ``may.'' Now, in the Clinton administration, a colleague
of mine who was solicitor of the Department of the Interior
wrote to Bruce Babbitt and said, if it is in the bill, you have
got to obey it; if it is in the committee report, you do not.
So I do not know what ``may'' means or what you think ``may''
means in that explanatory statement, but I would caution you to
keep an eye on this because if they do not reduce it, then that
35 million we are all asking for could be 69 or 70 and we would
be happy to have it. And to the best of my knowledge, it would
not bother Western at all in terms of their budget.
So thank you for the opportunity to be here today and talk
to you about these important subjects, because they do affect
the pocketbooks of an awful lot of folk.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. I appreciate your testimony. And
``may'' means they may or they may not. And ``shall'' means
they shall. And the history is, that if it is in bill language,
they do have to follow it. In report language, it is strongly
suggested that they follow it because next year they are going
to have to be answerable for it. So that is kind of where it
ranks in everything. But we thank you for being here and for
your testimony. Thank you, sir.
Nicki.
----------
Wednesday, May 3, 2017.
SOUTHWESTERN POWER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION
WITNESS
NICKI FULLER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SOUTHWESTERN POWER RESOURCES
ASSOCIATION
Ms. Fuller. Thank you, sir. And I believe I am the last
person to talk about the PMAs, so you will only have to hear
about this one more time.
Mr. Simpson. Okay.
Ms. Fuller. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee.
My name is Nicki Fuller and I am the executive director of the
Southwestern Power Resources Association.
I come before you today as a bit of a unicorn. I am a
grateful constituent, a happy customer, and we have a Federal
program that works and pay its own way, without any cost to the
taxpayer.
In addition, I am proud of the hard work we have done in my
region to protect the Federal infrastructure, to ensure we have
a program that is successful and sustainable.
SPRA is a non-for-profit organization of rural electric
cooperatives and public power systems in Arkansas, Kansas,
Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas, that are customers of
the Southwestern Power Administration, which is part of the
Department of Energy. Southwestern markets hydroelectric power
generated at 24 multipurpose dams in the region. SPRA members
serve over 8.2 million end users in this region.
Unlike most Federal programs, the PMAs like Southwestern
pay their own way.
Every Federal dollar spent on Federal hydropower program is
repaid through the rates charged to the customers. This
includes all costs of generating and marketing the
hydroelectric energy and capacity incurred by both the Corps
and the PMA, plus interest on capital costs.
Southwestern receives a diminishing amount of
appropriations every year in Congress in the amount of about
$11 million, or 7 percent of their total operating budget.
These appropriations plus all other expenses for
Southwestern and for the Corps' cost for hydropower and a
percentage of joint use expenses are included in the rates the
customers pay. The taxpayers do not subsidize or pay for any
activity of any PMA, including Southwestern.
As you will likely note from the testimony of other PMA
customer groups across the country today, each PMA is very
different. Cooperation between Southwestern and its customers
is a primary mission of SPRA. Quarterly, Southwestern updates
my board on all issues of importance and asks for input. This
transparency is the key to our long and successful relationship
as business partners. The established practice of frequent
communication has allowed these issues to be addressed in a
manner which is fair to all parties.
Today, I will discuss two issues which are very important
to SPRA and its members. They are, one, the need for increased
financial flexibility of Southwestern and, two, customer
funding of Federal infrastructure.
One, the system of Southwestern is very dependent upon rain
and does not have the capacity to withstand a long-term
drought. Regardless of the water conditions, Southwestern has a
contractual obligation to my members to deliver the power it
guarantees. For this reason, during a drought Southwestern must
purchase power and these costs are passed through the power
rates to the customers. SPRA has asked Southwestern if there is
a way to pay for these purchases incrementally in advance to
reduce rate spikes.
To achieve this incremental collection, Southwestern would
need an account in the U.S. Treasury with the authority to hold
funds across fiscal years with the ability to access it when
needed. Unfortunately, this financial flexibility that is
commonsense business practice has not been able to pass the
legislative hurdles necessary for use. Financial flexibility
tools such as the one mentioned above are key to the continued
success of Southwestern. As energy and capacity markets become
more evolved, Southwestern must have the ability to act
consistent with sound business principles as it is statutorily
obligated to do.
Mr. Simpson. May I ask you, is there legislation to do
what you are suggesting here that has been introduced in
Congress?
Ms. Fuller. There was last session and it scored. We are
not sure why it scored. It is just a savings account in the
Treasury. So it was not able to pass because of that reason.
Mr. Simpson. Okay.
Ms. Kaptur. Introduce the legislation, please?
Ms. Fuller. Sure. It was in the Senate and it was Cassidy
and McCaskill from Missouri and Louisiana.
Ms. Kaptur. Okay.
Ms. Fuller. Thank you.
The financial flexibility not only makes good business
sense, it is highly desired by us, the customers, to pay the
rates.
My second point, customer-funding. With all the discussion
of public-private partnerships, or P3, I want to inform the
subcommittee about a long successful P3 program in our region.
Beginning in the 1990s, Federal power customers began noticing
increased outages of Corps hydropower plants which was causing
the PMAs to have to purchase expensive replacement power.
Even though there was an increase in outages due to
maintenance issues, SPRA saw significantly decreased
appropriations for maintenance of this infrastructure. With
this in mind, SPRA in partnership with the Corps in
Southwestern, put together the trust MOA.
Under this agreement, the customers meet with the Corps and
Southwestern to determine the funding needs for the following
fiscal year. This cooperative process allows the customers, the
ones that pay the expenses, to have input on how their money is
spent and it allows the Corps to have a predictable revenue
stream to sustain this Federal infrastructure.
We have committed to the Corps that we will fund through
the trust MOA about $2.4 billion for hydropower infrastructure
over the next 30 years to complete rehabilitation of all 24
Corps hydropower plants marketed by Southwestern. Through this
process, we are able to keep local control and oversight,
sustain Federal infrastructure, and ensure the longevity and
future of the Federal hydropower program.
In conclusion, I come to you today in the rare and enviable
position of a constituent and customer that is happy. Unlike
other Federal programs, this program costs the taxpayers
absolutely nothing, yet benefits millions of citizens while
investing in Federal infrastructure assets. These dams provide
so many benefits to my region, including navigation, flood
control, water supply, environmental programs, and recreation.
Without the Federal hydropower customers paying the bills, more
of these costs of these joint activities would be borne on the
taxpayer.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. Thank you for
allowing me to come here today to discuss this important issue.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Nicki. We appreciate it.
Ms. Fuller. Thank you.
Ms. Kaptur. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to ask----
Ms. Fuller. Sure.
Ms. Kaptur [continuing]. Ms. Fuller, if she could also
submit for the record the per kilowatt hour cost to your
consumers, residential/industrial.
Ms. Fuller. Absolutely, I would be happy to.
Ms. Kaptur. For the record.
Ms. Fuller. Yes.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you.
Ms. Fuller. Thank you very much.
Mr. Simpson. Sheri.
----------
Wednesday, May 3, 2017.
OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
WITNESS
SHERI COLLINS, DEPUTY SECRETARY OF THE OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY &
INNOVATION, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Ms. Collins. Good afternoon. Chairman Simpson, thank you,
members of this committee, for allowing me to speak before you
today and to offer my comments on the important role of the
Appalachian Regional Commission plays in supporting the 420
counties across our 13 States. The ARC works tirelessly
alongside our local development districts, nonprofit
organizations and the States to bring our respective ARC
regions into socioeconomic parity with the rest of this great
country.
In my capacity, I have the distinct pleasure of serving as
Governor Tom Wolf's State alternate to the Appalachian Regional
Commission. For the first time since 1991, Pennsylvania's
governor is serving as the State's co-chair for the ARC
program, and we could not be more excited and proud to have our
governor represent the ARC regions. Governor Wolf sends his
regards to you, Chairman Simpson, and to members of the
committee, and appreciates your interest in this program.
I have been a Commonwealth employee for 30 years; the last
12 at the Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic
Development. As deputy secretary for the Office of Technology
and Innovation, my primary focus has always been on supporting
Pennsylvania's innovators and entrepreneurs and the programs
that support them, including the world-renowned Ben Franklin
Technology Partners.
In 2015, I was given the opportunity to serve as the
governor's State-alternate to the ARC program. It was not until
I started to traverse the Commonwealth, visiting completed
projects and conducting site visits on those projects to be
submitted for approval that I fully understood and appreciated
the ARC program and the impact that this Federal funding has on
the citizens of Appalachia.
Oftentimes, I think that those of us who sit near to or
under the Capitol dome oftentimes fail to appreciate the world
around us. We get so focused on what is right in front of us,
that we lose sight of areas like Appalachia and we fail to
recognize that not everyone in this great Nation has the same
opportunities afforded to them as maybe you or I do.
I do myself not hail from Appalachia, but I have become a
huge supporter of the ARC program. And have seen up close and
very personal the impact this funding has had on our businesses
and our citizens alike.
On a recent visit to the Scranton School for the Deaf and
Hard of Hearing Children, I was able to see firsthand the
impact ARC funds are having on our most valuable assets, our
children. This specialized school, located in Scranton,
Pennsylvania, is a nonprofit, tuition-free school that serves
children from birth to eighth grade. The school's mission is to
prepare each deaf and hard-of-hearing student for all aspects
of life throughout continuum of high quality individualized
educational and extracurricular programs and is an active
partner in resource for the community. The school is committed
to ensuring that each and every student is capable of achieving
his or her maximum potential.
ARC funds in the amount of $25,000, along with a $25,000
match from the Margaret Briggs Foundation, were used to
purchase smart panels, specialized lighting, computers, a
drone, and editing software that allows deaf and hard-of-
hearing children to improve their skills using technology,
expressive communication skills using American sign language,
sign-supported English, and spoken English. This technology
also allows the students to virtually interact with the student
body at the Western Pennsylvania School for the Deaf as well as
a small subset of deaf and hard-of-hearing students from other
countries, including Sri Lanka and Ireland. This type of
virtual connectivity allows the students to learn in a fun and
interactive way and to see that there are children all around
the globe who are deaf and hard-of-hearing just like them.
Another example of how ARC funds has impacted the residents
of Appalachia is located in Sullivan County, Pennsylvania. The
Sullivan County Dental Clinic provides services to low-income
patients. A 2010 assessment found that 33 percent of local
adults had claimed that they had never had their teeth cleaned
while regional pediatric oral surgeon characterized the area as
the epicenter of tooth decay in Pennsylvania.
Chairman Simpson, as a second-generation dentist, you
surely can appreciate the importance of good oral hygiene and
the need for accessible and affordable dental care. An ARC
grant in the amount of $150,000 coupled with the mandatory
matching funds will support the expansion and renovation of the
Sullivan County Dental Clinic. This designated health
professional shortage area will be renovated to allow low-
income patients access to critical dental services in a private
and spacious environment as to the current overly crowded and
open one that they have now. The modifications to the dental
clinic will help to lower the barriers to dental care,
improving health conditions for patients and the community.
And lastly, I would like to share with you a project out of
Congressman Fleischmann's State, Tennessee. In 2014, in
partnership with my State counterpart office, the Tennessee
Department of Economic and Community Development, ARC invested
$300,000 to the Appalachian Service Project in Johnson City,
Tennessee to help build homes for low-income homeowners living
in some of the State's most economically distressed areas. This
project included veterans and their families. In the first 2
years of the project, 16 homes were completed, several of which
were specifically for veterans. In many cases, these homes
replaced substandard, unsafe, and inefficient housing units.
In addition to financing the builds, ARC dollars helped
local partners provide additional supportive services, such as
financial counseling, reduced cost childcare and job training.
As President Walter Crouch of the ASP said, when we talk about
the veterans housing issue, a lot of people think we are
talking about vets who may be living under bridges and that
sort of thing, but what they do not realize is many vets and
their families live in substandard housing or mobile units that
need a lot of repair. Without support from the ARC, I think it
goes without saying that these projects would not have come to
fruition.
As I close, I would ask every member of the subcommittee to
take a long hard look at the work of the ARC and its supporting
partners, such as our Local Development Districts. The work
that the ARC has done since 1965 has transformed communities
into vibrant epicenters, pardon me, and has enriched the lives
of our brothers and sisters in ways that you may not imagine.
Between October 2015 and January 2017, the ARC has invested
$175.5 million in a total of 662 projects. The ARC funds have
been matched by more than $257.4 million and will attract an
additional $443.3 million in leveraged private investments in
Appalachia, creating 23,670 jobs and educating over 49,000
students and workers in the region. While the 13 States that
embody Appalachia have made great progress, there is still
plenty of work to do to advance the region. Your continued
financial support of this program is critical and necessary for
the citizens and businesses of Appalachia. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Sandy.
----------
Wednesday, May 3, 2017.
OFFICE OF KENTUCKY GOVERNOR MATT BEVIN
WITNESS
SANDY DUNAHOO, COMMISSIONER FOR THE DEPARTMENT FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT,
OFFICE OF KENTUCKY GOVERNOR MATT BEVIN
Ms. Dunahoo. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of
the committee. It is a pleasure to be here today. I am
commissioner for the Department for Local Government in the
Governor's Office in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. I
respectfully come before your committee today with over 30
years of government public service and private consulting in
the Appalachian region. I have been involved in hundreds of
millions of dollars of projects created and developed for the
sole purpose of improving the standard and substandard living
conditions of the people of Appalachia. Today, I am here to
share with you a personal story on a personal level regarding
the work of the Appalachian Regional Commission and the impact
that it has had.
My father was born in Owsley County, Kentucky, at the turn
of the century and he was one of 12 brothers and sisters. They
lived in a four-room house. They sustained their family by farm
products. They worked in the fields, they raised pigs, they
grew crops, and the family lived by selling these products to
friends and neighbors. There were no opportunities for them to
earn a wage because there were very few jobs available.
Educational opportunities were very difficult. No one in his
family attained an education higher than the eighth grade. So
eventually, they left Kentucky; they left their home. They went
to places like Connersville, Indiana; Dighton, Ohio;
Indianapolis; different communities north to seek jobs, seek
employment. So eventually, 10 of his siblings left Kentucky. As
they left to seek their fortune, they never forgot home and
they always had a yearning to come back. But again, it was so
difficult; there were no opportunities and they just could not
do that. But they prospered and they did well, and they were
hardworking and they were commonsense people, and they attained
amazingly high levels of wealth just through their hard work,
commitment, and dedication. Fine folks.
Today, I manage the family property, the same property
where my father was born and his siblings grew up. And it is a
different world today for me and for my young son, and the
reason for that is the Appalachian Regional Commission. There
are opportunities available to us today that my family would
have never dreamed about years ago. We have access to county-
wide broadband internet; we have clean water, running water in
our home, city water; we have access to city sewer--it is a few
miles away, but it is possible to get it there; and the
children in the community now have opportunities that were
never available to them before. Some have become lawyers,
doctors, pharmacists; they move on to levels of higher
education; they have computers in the school, all because of
the Appalachian Regional Commission.
While this sounds wonderful--and it is; it is an incredible
transformation from where we were when my father lived in
Kentucky--we are far from being finished with this work. The
work of the Appalachian Regional Commission still remains. At
the beginning of the ARC, we had 214 distressed counties in the
commission. Today, we have 84. Thirty-eight of the 84 are still
in Kentucky. We are in the heart of Appalachia and we have the
most distressed counties in the region.
So what we are doing in our State is taking an aggressive
effort to try to rectify this situation. We are doing
everything we can to steward and marshal our resources wisely
so that we can look toward funding the needs that we have
within our State. We are looking at the mirror and we are
taking a hard look at ourselves, and we are determining what is
our future path going to be, and how are we going to get there,
and how are going to raise our counties up from the distressed
status, and we are making progress.
We are cutting red tape, we are reducing the burden on
small businesses, we are incentivizing economic development,
and we are having--beginning to realize growth in the very same
areas that have been struck by poverty for years. We are,
again, asking the tough questions, making the tough decisions.
Sometimes they are not so popular, but we are on the right path
and we are beginning to realize results in an area that has
been chronically distressed for years.
Many people misunderstand the people of Appalachia, the
strength, the resiliency, the ability to sustain, the ability
to live with little, but they also misunderstand the value in
people such as these. We have an incredible work ethic. Our
people truly are only asking for an opportunity to succeed. So
my story to you today is, while we have made great strides with
the Appalachian Regional Commission since the early 1960s, the
work is far from done, but we are working toward a path that
someday we hope we can move the rest of these 84 counties to
sustainability as we have the counties that have been able to
attain before.
We would like to thank each of you for your support of the
ARC in the past and we would like to thank publicly Congressman
Rogers for his support of the ARC, particularly since most of
these counties are in his region. And most of all, I would like
to thank you for listening to our story in Kentucky today and
hope that we can trust you to help us move forward. Thank you.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Sandy, and before if you guys
would stick around for just a minute, I want to get in the
testimony of Amy from the Delta Regional Commission and then we
can ask some questions so go ahead Amy.
---------- --
--------
Wednesday, May 3, 2017.
ARKANSAS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMISSION
WITNESS
AMY FECHER, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT OF OPERATIONS, ARKANSAS ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT COMISSION
Ms. Fecher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and ranking member. My
name is Amy Fecher and I represent the State of Arkansas and
Governor Asa Hutchinson as his Designee to the Delta Regional
Authority Board of Governors. I am here today to provide my
testimony emphasizing the importance of the Delta Regional
Authority and the continued need for investments that it
provides in the Delta region.
The Delta Regional Authority is an independent federal
agency created in Congress in 2000 that serves 252 parishes and
counties in an eight state region. DRA operates as a federal
state partnership and works with the governors to improve
economic outcomes and enhance the quality of life for the
regions 10 million residents. DRA makes strategic investments
into basic public infrastructure, transportation
infrastructure, work force training and education and business
development with an emphasis on the entrepreneurship to advance
economic and community development in the region. The lower
Mississippi River region though rich in natural and human
resources lags behind the rest of the U.S. in economic growth
and prosperity.
In FY 2016, 234 of the 252 counties and parishes within the
region were deemed economically distressed. 21 percent of the
region lives in poverty and only 20 percent of the Delta's
population has a bachelor's degree or higher putting our
regions workers at a disadvantage completely with the rest of
the nation. I believe DRA can serve as a valuable tool to carry
out the goals of President Trump and Congress to strengthen our
nation's infrastructure and economy.
DRA receives the majority of its appropriations from this
subcommittee. Since FY 2002 DRA has invested approximately $163
million into basic public infrastructure and transportation
improvements, workforce training and education as well as
business development projects. These investments have helped
leverage 3.5 billion in other public and private funds.
As an independent agency operating as a federal state
partnership, DRA works closely with each of the eight governors
and their designees to invest in economic and community
development projects supporting the needs of their respective
states. DRA aligns investments with each state's economic
development goals and per Congressional mandate DRA must invest
50 percent of its appropriation into basic public
infrastructure and transportation infrastructure as well as 75
percent of our allotment in economically distressed areas. The
infrastructure projects include water and sewer improvements,
road infrastructure and small inland port maintenance and
expansion.
One example in my home state in Helena, Arkansas where DRA
wrong with public and private partners repaired a damaged,
closed rail line servicing the Helena Harbor. As of this week
this port is open again and servicing 40 cars per day. This
investment immediately saved jobs and has since seen expansion
from the private sector. One CEO made the statement the rail
was the critical factor in us locating in Helena, Arkansas.
Much of DRA's foot print is comprised primarily of small,
rural communities. Often Delta stakeholders voice their
concerns regarding the difficulty of navigating federal
resources from DRA's larger counterparts and do not have the
capacity to develop and fund projects on their own. DRA
addressees these concerns by investing in and supporting our
most rural communities. From 2010 through 2016 59 percent of
DRA's funds were invested into communities with a population of
10,000 or less.
One of the benefits of DRA is its ability to move quickly
to assist the needs of the Delta communities and the private
industry. With a rolling application timeline DRA has helped
Arkansas as well as other Delta states successfully close deals
that create jobs and grow our states economies. DRA's
flexibility to help us ensure necessary public safety in the
aftermath and recovery of natural disasters. Recently DRA made
an emergency investment last month in Higginson, Arkansas. A
small rural community of 600 people was hit by a tornado and
suffered major damage to their sewer plant. DRA provided
$23,000 to assist with the restoration for these facilities.
Lastly I would like to emphasize the importance of the Delta
Leadership Institute. This unique program which I had the honor
to graduate from in 2013 is training the types of community
leaders that are running our region's communities often as a
part-time job with very few resources. DLI is growing the
knowledge, skill set and dynamic network of leaders that our
communities and region need to compete in the U.S. as well as
globally.
I can personally attest that going through this program has
helped me in my role at the Arkansas Economic Development
Commission. I hope the information I have provided today speaks
to the overwhelming value of the DRA investments throughout the
Delta region. DRA's primary goal is to help bring economic
prosperity to one of the most distressed areas in the country
and it is a successful model of public-private partnerships.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony and
I urge you to continue funding DRA so that it can continue to
make strategic investments in infrastructure, businesses, and
families in the Delta region. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Simpson. Thank you for being here. If you guys would
like to jump up to the table again, if you could because I am
sure we will have a question. And go ahead and stay there. Pull
up another chair because I do want to talk about these for just
a second, if you could.
And I do not want you to take this as a criticism or
anything else. I know what you do is important work. In this
bill, I guess in the Omnibus that we are going to be voting on
in just a few minutes, or at least the rule for it, there is
also the Denali Regional Commission, $15 million; $25 million
for the Delta Regional Commission; 152 million for the
Appalachian Regional Commission or Association, whatever it is.
And I understand both the need and why we are doing this or
why it has been started. And I know why--you do not have to be
a brain surgeon to figure out why they have been going on.
Hobson tried to get rid of these for a number of years when I
was first on this committee when he was the chairman of the
committee.
All of the circumstances you just described exist
throughout this country. You go to Great Lakes and the loss of
the manufacturing jobs up there. Go to Detroit and look at the
unemployment. Look at the problems that exist there. You go to
the Intermountain West, those problems exist there.
And I am not suggesting that we eliminate these things.
What I am suggesting is that somehow there needs to be some
equity across this country. There is no Intermountain Regional
Commission. There is no Great Lakes Regional Commission. There
is no Heartland of America Regional Commission. And all of the
problems that you describe do exist throughout the country.
When you talk about a dental clinic, I can take you to the
need for dentistry throughout Idaho. Have you ever been on an
Indian Reservation? Ethnic population with the highest rate of
cavities around and no access, in many cases, to dentists.
These things exist everywhere. Why should we fund these and
nothing else?
Anybody care to----
Ms. Dunahoo. I would love to answer and I know time is of
the essence, so we could certainly provide a written statement
with further information. But I can give you a little bit of
information and let you know that I have been in my position
for a year and a half now. And coming new into my position I
asked many of those same questions even though I had utilized
the program for years, particularly in Kentucky when we look at
the dollar amount of the investment that has gone into the
Appalachian region and why have we not seen more benefit than
we have?
And then the next question became are we truly lower than
the rest of the Nation? So I began looking at income levels,
per capita income. And we are indeed below the rest of the
Nation in our 38 stressed counties that I mentioned earlier.
We have had a downturn in the economy, but in our office we
also manage Coal Severance and the Coal Program. And I can tell
you in the year that coal was the greatest in severance dollars
received by the Commonwealth of Kentucky, we received $313
million in severance dollars, that our counties were still the
poorest in the Nation. So that is a systematic problem. And the
loss of one industry, while it was traumatic, very traumatic to
our people, we cannot even hope to be as good as we were in the
good old days because we were still the poorest in the Nation.
So when we have a situation such as that and then we
immediately begin to wean the program, the effects are
devastating. So what we need is to have some time to work
through, as I said in my statement, to look in the mirror,
figure out what we can do, find ways to move forward to develop
our region. We have had great success in the last year and a
half. We still obviously have a way to go and that is what we
need to be able to do.
Mr. Simpson. Well, and I appreciate that. I mean, as I
said, I am not trying to criticize anything. I am also
cognizant of the fact that I have been around for a while and I
have seen how government programs work. And when you talk about
ending the need for a program, that is a fantasy. That never
ends. It goes on and it will go on and you will find new needs
for it. It is just human nature. It is what we do. It is what I
do in Idaho, you know.
But I find it kind of fascinating how we kind of select
areas and decide that we are going to--and it is because of the
congressmen at the time or the senators at the time that
establish this. I mean, I have got to tell you, in all honesty,
the reason that Chairman Hobson used to try to get rid of them
because he wanted to get rid of the Denali Commission and
Senator Stevens was chairman of the full Appropriations in the
Senate and he just wanted to kind of stick him in the side.
He did not want to get rid of it, but that was--but, you
know, I came across last year within the Department of Energy
where at energy sites across the country they can charge what
are called PILT payments, payment in lieu of taxes, for the
energy sites. And it is voluntary between the local energy
department and that site. And in some areas, communities are
making pretty good money on PILT payments and in others they
are not even being paid. And I told them this year we are
either going to do it uniformly or we are not going to do it at
all because it needs to be fairer.
And that is kind of what I am looking at here. How do you
address those same needs that you have and the rest of the
country, and maybe it is through something like this. Maybe it
is through something like this nationally, I do not know. But
it is a discussion that we all ought to have because I will
tell you that these programs are in danger, I think. In
reducing times, budgets being reduced in the future, I can see
the pressure to unfund these programs, essentially take the
savings out of that. And so we better have a justification for
them. And you better be able to make that justification to
Marcy's constituents and to my constituents and the rest of
this Congress.
That is really all I----
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our chairman is
someone that one can work with on every issue, but I hear what
he is saying. And I want to thank you, also, for your
compelling testimony.
And as women, I would say, also, you are dealing with some
of the most intractable issues in terms of economic change. I
was very impressed, Ms. Collins, with some numbers you provided
for the region. Appalachia, I mean, just think about this,
since 2000 has lost, counting manufacturing jobs and coal jobs,
over 655,000 jobs. Six hundred and fifty-five thousand jobs.
That is a neutron bomb over a region.
And I will tell you, we have a struggle here, and the
chairman puts his finger on it, you know, for regional equity
and so forth with community adjustment when these massive job
losses occur. I complained about--I am from northern Ohio, but
we have Appalachia in southern Ohio, and just to walk through
some of those communities and to see what they are enduring,
most people in this Capitol will never get there.
I just saw the movie ``Hacksaw Ridge'', and I think Desmond
Doss, he came from Lynchburg, Virginia. And though that is not
directly in, you know, the states in which you live, I thought
that is the spirit you were talking about. America really does
not understand that sometimes.
And so we do not have a flexible system to target. We do
not have any program really that deals with this kind of
economic transformation. I saw where a solar company is going
to be investing now in I do not know if it is Kentucky or West
Virginia, I read, for coal adjustment and moving from a coal
community to a major solar investment. I thought, yeah, okay.
But we saw them up in auto and steel country. As I sit here
and listen to you, one of my communities is undergoing hundreds
and hundreds and hundreds of job terminations because of dumped
Korean steel and Chinese steel, and we cannot stop it. And it
is not that the workers there did not try their mightiest, but
we cannot get the government of the United States to respond
fast enough to what is occurring there. You know, there will be
a 2- or 3-year trade proceeding and it will eventually find
that, yes, in fact, these people were hurt. But by then, they
are devastated, their communities are devastated, and we do not
have quickly flexible response mechanisms for economic
readjustment in many of these places.
So I guess I would say, Mr. Chairman, in answer to your
plea, maybe they are representing some of the first ways
America tried to deal with economic adjustment, but we do not
have a very good solution.
Mr. Simpson. Well, as I said, Marcy, and I agree with your
comments, it is a tough--and we are voting right now, by the
way.
Ms. Kaptur. Are we? Oh.
Mr. Simpson. But it is a difficult issue because I will
tell you that the lost coal mining jobs in Appalachia region is
no different than the lost timber jobs in Idaho, and they have
gone down to where, in my district, we do not have any sawmills
left. Hell, I am from Idaho, you know. In the other district
there is not very many sawmills left and there used to be
sawmills throughout the towns. That was their economic
development was a sawmill. So the same thing happens in places
and we have got to find a better way to do it than competing
against one another.
But let me tell you, I do appreciate what you do. It is
necessary and we will continue to work with you, but we need to
have a broader discussion on how to deal with this.
So thank you all for being here and thank you for
testifying today.
Ms. Dunahoo. Thank you.
Mr. Simpson. You bet.
Ms. Dunahoo. Thank you both.
Mr. Simpson. The hearing is closed.
Wednesday, May 24, 2017.
UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (CIVIL WORKS) AND BUREAU OF
RECLAMATION
WITNESSES
DOUG LAMONT, SENIOR OFFICIAL PERFORMING THE DUTIES OF THE ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (CIVIL WORKS)
LIEUTENANT GENERAL TODD SEMONITE, COMMANDING GENERAL AND CHIEF OF
ENGINEERS
SCOTT J. CAMERON, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR WATER AND SCIENCE,
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
ALAN MIKKELSEN, ACTING COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
Mr. Simpson. Good morning. This is our first hearing since
the release of the fiscal year 2018 budget request. Although we
just received the President's budget yesterday, we begin our
oversight hearings today.
As we do every year, we will work to understand what is
contained within this proposal, and ensure that the fiscal year
2018 Energy and Water Appropriation Bill provides responsible
funding for the programs under our jurisdiction. We are here
today to look at the fiscal year 2018 budget request for the
Civil Works Program for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and
the Bureau of Reclamation.
I would like to welcome our witnesses, Doug Lamont, senior
official performing the duties of the Assistant Secretary of
the Army for Civil Works; Lieutenant General Todd Semonite, the
Commanding General and Chief of Engineers; Scott Cameron, the
Acting Assistant Secretary for Water and Science of the
Department of Interior; and Alan Mikkelsen, the Acting
Commissioner for the Bureau of Reclamation.
The Bureau of Reclamation and Corps' Civil Works Programs
include a wide variety of water resources and power activities
essential to the public safety, economic, and environmental
goals of our Nation. This committee works hard each year to
build an appropriations bill that provides strong support for
these programs, and that strikes a good balance across mission
areas.
The omnibus included $1.3 billion for the Bureau of
Reclamation and provided more than $6 billion to the Corps.
Funding within the Corps met the new Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund's targets established under WRDA, and made full use of the
estimated annual revenue of the Inland Waterway Trust Fund.
Congress clearly recognizes the importance of both of these
programs.
While I was disappointed to see that the budget request has
proposed to cut the Corps' funding, the good news is that this
is the better Corps number than we saw during the last several
years of the Obama administration. I am hopeful that this is an
indication that this administration recognizes the importance
of this infrastructure work.
I look forward to hearing from each of you on this budget
request and learning more about the priorities included in this
proposal, and how you plan to address the various challenges
facing your agencies. Again, I would like to welcome our
witnesses to the subcommittee. I would ask all of you to please
ensure that the hearing record, questions for the record, and
any supporting information requested by the subcommittee are
delivered in final form to us no later than 4 weeks from the
time you receive them.
Members who have additional questions for the record will
have until the close of business Friday to provide them to the
subcommittee office.
With that, I'll turn to Mr. Aguilar for an opening
statement, if he has one.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the
witnesses for appearing today. Unfortunately, Ms. Kaptur had
another obligation. I am happy to be here, looking forward to
the exchange that we are going to have on these important,
vital programs, and we will do our best to use the process of
questions for the record as well for those members who are not
attending. Thank you so much.
Mr. Simpson. And let me just say that this is--you are
going to see members coming in and out today because there are
several hearings going on in various committees. In fact, I
have got to step out to ask the Secretary of Education a couple
of questions when that hearing starts over there for a few
minutes. So, you will see members coming and going to a variety
of hearings.
Mr. Lamont, I understand you are first.
Mr. Lamont. Good morning, sir. My name is Douglas Lamont. I
am the senior official performing the duties of the Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. I must say that this has
been an extraordinary year and I want to apologize to the Chair
and to the committee for last-minute details on release of the
President's budget and also on the work plan.
We will work with the committee. We will work with Chairman
Simpson here to ensure that General Semonite and I provide you
the information that you require.
I want to thank you for the opportunity to present the
President's budget for Fiscal Year 2018. The Fiscal Year 18's
Civil Works budget reflects the Administration's priority
through targeted investments that will reduce the risk of flood
impacts to communities, facilitate waterborne transportation,
restore aquatic ecosystems, and support American jobs.
The budget emphasizes maintaining the water resources
infrastructure that the Corps owns and manages, and on finding
innovative ways to rehab it and hand it over to others, or
retire it. Here are some funding highlights.
The 2018 Civil Works budget provides $5.002 billion in
gross discretionary appropriations for the Army Civil Works
Program, focusing on investments that will yield high economic
and environmental returns in order to address significant risk
to public safety. The budget focuses on funding our three major
mission areas and allocates 42 percent to commercial
navigation, 20 percent to flood and storm damage reduction
projects, and 7 percent to aquatic ecosystem restoration.
Other sound investments include allocating $247 million to
hydropower, $118 million to clean up sites contaminated during
the early years of the Nation's nuclear weapons program, and
$200 million for the Corps' regulatory activities.
The budget does not propose any new starts, choosing to
focus instead on advancing ongoing work and maintaining our
existing infrastructure. It funds 26 feasibility studies to
completion, and funds one construction project to completion.
The budget funds inland waterway capital investments of $175
million for the ongoing work at Olmsted Locks and Dam of which
$26 million will be derived from the Inland Waterways Trust
Fund.
The budget also includes $299 million, including $34
million for the dam safety remaining item, for the overall dam
safety program.
This funding will enable the Corps to evaluate and
implement effective risk reduction strategies and measures at
dams where needed. The budget prioritizes funding to operate
and maintain water resources infrastructure by providing $3.1
billion in the Operations and Maintenance account, and $142
million for operation and maintenance in the Mississippi River
and Tributaries account.
Funding for maintaining commercial navigation, flood and
storm damage reduction, and hydropower projects are informed by
assessments of a risk-based nature on project condition and
consequences of failure. The budget includes $765 million for
operation maintenance of inland navigation projects and $654
million for operation maintenance of flood risk management
projects, excluding remaining items.
These funding levels will enable a continued reduction of
unscheduled lock closure due to preventable mechanical
breakdowns and reduce risk at flood risk management projects.
The budget provides $965 million from the Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund to maintain coastal channels and related work, which
is the highest amount ever budgeted.
The budget supports a Corps program that has a diverse set
of tools and approaches to working with local communities,
whether that means funding projects with our cost-sharing
partners or providing planning assistance and technical
assistance to help our communities make better informed
decisions. Other funding Corps efforts include mitigation of
impacts to fish on the Columbia River Basin, and priority work
in the Upper Mississippi River and Missouri Rivers.
I look forward to working with the committee to advance the
Corps' Army Civil Works Program. Thank you, sir.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Lieutenant General.
General Semonite. Chairman Simpson, Ranking Member Kaptur,
and distinguished members of the subcommittee, I am Lieutenant
General Todd Semonite, Commanding General of the Corps of
Engineers and 54th Chief of Engineers. I am honored to be here
today accompanied by Mr. Lamont to provide testimony on the
President's fiscal year 2018 budget for the Civil Works Program
for the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
I have been in command of the Corps for just over a year,
and I continue to be amazed by the breadth and complexity of
the Civil Works Program, as well as the expertise and
dedication of the professionals that work in our organization.
While this is my first time appearing before this subcommittee,
I have had the opportunity to work with a number of you
individually, and I look forward to continuing to build our
relationship during my tenure as Chief of Engineers.
It is my belief that the credibility of the Corps is
measured by our ability to deliver results that are on time, on
budget, and of exceptional quality. To do this and to maintain
our status as a world-class organization now and into the
future we are focusing on three fundamentals we call strengthen
our foundation, deliver the program, and achieve our vision.
I want to give you some highlights of my fundamentals.
First, as with any structure, our foundation must be our
strength, the bedrock upon which our present rests and our
future is built. For the Corps, this means having the
discipline to accomplish routine tasks to a high standard. It
means demonstrating that we are reliable and competent
partners, assisting in shared efforts to be responsible
stewards of the Nation's water resources.
We are committed to transform our processes, invest in the
technical competency of our most valued asset, and that is our
people, and to be collaborative and transparent. Our strength
is validated by earning trust in all we do, by demonstrating
technical expertise, competence, and professionalism across our
organization.
We earn our credibility, our reputation, and our value by
delivering the program, our second big fundamental. This is our
lifeblood. This is our passion. This is our mission and this is
our number one priority. In all that we do we strive to ensure
that cost, timelines, and expected quality are understood
upfront and successfully accomplished in the end.
And finally, in order to achieve our vision, we endeavor to
anticipate the conditions, challenges, and opportunities in an
uncertain future by taking prudent, logical, and decisive steps
today to prepare. We do this by implementing strategic
transformation within the Corps, continually pursuing four
goals outlined within our campaign plan, and an aim point of
2025.
Our first campaign goal is to continue to work across the
globe with a presence in more than 100 countries supporting
national security and the combatant commanders in civil works,
military missions, and water resource research and development
expertise.
We are proud to serve this great Nation and our fellow
citizens, and we are proud of the work the Corps does to be
able to support America's foreign policy.
Our second major goal is to continue to work at making the
Corps more efficient and effective while delivering integrated
water resource solutions for national missions and to address
infrastructure challenges. This involves modernizing the
project planning process, enhancing budget development for a
more holistic outcome, and making better risk-informed
investment decisions, as well as improving delivery
methodology.
Our third major goal is to continue to be proactive in
reducing disaster risk and responding to disasters under the
national response and recovery support framework, as well as
within our authorities for flood risk management. I am very
proud of our team for the work we do with FEMA and our fellow
partners, as well as with State and local agencies in this
area.
And our fourth and final goal is preparing for tomorrow,
which focuses on our people and ensuring we have a pipeline of
the best engineering and technical expertise, as well as a
strong workforce development and talent management program. We
continue to tailor development programs to employ aspirations,
to retain talent, and insulate culture that embraces a career
of service.
In closing, I would offer that our excellence demands
commitment of every Corps employee. As Chief of Engineers I am
striving to develop what General Shinseki, former Army Chief of
Staff, called irreversible momentum towards being a world-class
organization.
World class means that the Corps must continue to be able
to engineer solutions for the Nation's toughest challenge. That
is our vision. You have my commitment that the teammates of the
Corps have a passion to achieve that vision. Thank you for
allowing me the time to be able to address the committee today.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Mr. Cameron.
Mr. Cameron. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
subcommittee. I am pleased to discuss with you today the
President's budget request, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the
Central Utah Project Completion Act. My name is Scott Cameron.
I'm the Acting Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Water
and Science.
Secretary Zinke appreciates the subcommittee's ongoing
support of our programs. The overall Department of the
Interior's 2018 budget request is $11.7 billion, which
emphasizes Interior's crucial role in promoting economic growth
across America while also protecting the Nation's natural
resources and cultural heritage, furthering the America First
national energy goals, providing scientific information for
responsibly managing our resources and energy development, and
honoring our trust responsibility to Native American Tribes.
The Department's diverse mission affects the lives of all
Americans. For example, in 2016, Interior's programs were
associated with an estimated $250 billion in economic output,
and supported 1.6 million jobs and activities that included
outdoor recreation and tourism, energy development, grazing,
and timber harvesting.
The Bureau of Reclamation's activities, including
recreation, contribute over $48.1 billion in economic activity
and support over 388,000 jobs each year. The Department,
primarily through the Bureau of Reclamation, works with States,
Tribes, local governments, and nongovernmental organizations to
pursue a sustainable water supply for the West by providing
Federal leadership and assistance on the efficient use of
water.
The 2018 budget continues these efforts to address the
challenges of water availability. Interior's $1.1 billion
budget request for Reclamation invests in our water and power
infrastructure, facilitating the delivery of water to 31
million people in the West.
In addition, our programs focus on the protection and
restoration of aquatic and riparian environments influenced by
our facilities and operations. It is critical that Reclamation
continues to invest in ecosystem restoration if we are to
continue to supply water and power reliably.
This budget also continues to strengthen our Tribal Nations
by implementing Indian water rights settlements. We are
proposing that Reclamation invest $151 million in Fiscal Year
2018 toward fulfillment of this Indian trust responsibility.
These activities include projects and actions to implement
Indian water rights settlements, provide technical assistance
to Tribes, and for ecosystem restoration.
Interior's budget furthers our commitment to developing
domestic energy resources in order to make America stronger and
boost the Nation's economy. Hydropower is a renewable and
reliable resource providing clean energy to the Western United
States. It is the Nation's largest renewable energy resource,
and the Bureau of Reclamation is the second largest producer of
hydropower in the United States, second only to my colleagues
to my right.
We support the President's effort to create a leaner, more
efficient government, and the Bureau of Reclamation will be
actively involved in bringing forward the most promising ideas
to improve government effectiveness and efficiency, and to spur
economic growth.
For example, Reclamation is developing a legislative
proposal to facilitate the transfer of title of certain
Reclamation projects and facilities when such transfers are
beneficial to all parties. While Reclamation has engaged in
efforts related to title transfer in the past on a case-by-case
basis, this broader initiative will go further to facilitate
greater local control of water infrastructure to allow local
water managers to make their own decisions to improve water
management at the local level while allowing Reclamation to
focus management efforts on larger projects with a greater
Federal nexus.
As part of this effort, Reclamation will engage with water
users to identify projects and facilities that may be good
candidates for such a transfer.
Finally, Interior's budget request includes the Central
Utah Project Completion Act Office, which falls under the
direct jurisdiction of the Assistant Secretary for Water and
Science at the direction of Congress a number of years ago. The
2018 budget for this office is $9 million.
Of this amount, $4.8 million will be available for planning
and construction activities administered by the Central Utah
Water Conservancy District, continuing our partnership and the
ongoing construction of the Utah Lake System's facilities.
In addition, about $900,000 will be transferred to the Utah
Reclamation, Mitigation, and Conservation account for use by
the Utah Reclamation, Mitigation, and Conservation Commission.
The 2018 budget also includes Interior's required program
oversight activities and Endangered Species Recovery Program
implementation through the Department's CUPCA Office.
The Central Utah Project provides 62,000 acre feet of water
for irrigation of over 30,000 acres, and 100,000 acre feet for
municipal and industrial purposes. This water will help address
the water demands of the growing population in the Wasatch
Front, one of the fastest growing areas in the Nation.
Thank you, again, for the opportunity to explain the
President's budget request of the Bureau of Reclamation. I
would be pleased to answer any questions the subcommittee might
have at the appropriate time.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Mikkelsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ranking members,
and members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to discuss
with you the President's budget for the Bureau of Reclamation.
I am Acting Commissioner Alan Mikkelsen. Reclamation's Fiscal
Year 2018 budget allocates funds to projects and programs based
on objective, performance-based criteria. This allows us to
most effectively administer Reclamation's responsibilities for
our water and power infrastructure in the West. By doing so,
the Bureau has become a leader in efforts to improve Western
water management, confront growing imbalances in water supply
and demand, and address past environmental harms.
Our budget continues to emphasize the following principles.
First, shared responsibility through collaborative partnerships
with non-federal partners. Second, merit-based funding through
the awarding of grants and contracts based on published
criteria. The selection of awards is guided by high-quality,
evidence-based research and performance measures. And third,
the importance of increased storage capacity. The Bureau
recognizes the important goal of increasing and improving
storage where it is both feasible and where there is
significant stakeholder support.
Let me take a moment to provide you with an understanding
of some of the exciting projects that we have under way. In our
Great Plains Region, home to Representatives Fortenberry and
Granger, we continue collaborating with our stakeholders to
manage, develop, and protect water resources throughout the
region, including the development of several rural water
systems. Reclamation is also coordinating with numerous local
entities to improve drought resiliency.
In the Upper Colorado Region, we request funding for two
Indian water rights settlement projects: the Navajo-Gallup
Water Supply Project and the Aamodt Litigation Settlement.
These settlements provide permanent water supplies by building
and improving water systems for sustainable municipal,
industrial, and domestic water supplies in these communities.
Of course the Upper Colorado is the home of Glen Canyon Dam and
beautiful Lake Powell.
The Lower Colorado Region encompasses the Lower Colorado
River Basin and is home to the Hoover Dam and includes the
districts of Representatives Calvert, Roybal-Allard, and Mr.
Aguilar. Given the ongoing drought in the Southwest, the
priority focus here is the annual delivery of 7\1/2\ million
acre feet of water to California, Arizona, and Nevada, with
another 1.5 million acre feet to Mexico.
Nearly 80 percent of this region's budget is either paid
for directly by our partners or through the sale of hydropower
generation. In addition to struggling with the worst drought in
more than 100 years, the region is also looking at additional
ways to assist California with their implementation of other
important water irrigation and conservation initiatives.
The Mid-Pacific Region has suffered from its own unique set
of drought-related problems. Recent precipitation has
alleviated some of the emergency water supply issues, but one
good year, I want to emphasize, will not solve all problems
related to a multiyear drought. Additionally, recent heavy
rains have caused flooding concerns and have highlighted the
importance of maintaining Reclamation's infrastructure and
continuing feasibility studies for additional storage. The
region works with a diverse group of stakeholders to implement
water management solutions with a goal of balancing human and
environmental needs for water.
Finally there is the Pacific Northwest Region, home to
Grand Coulee Dam, one of the largest hydropower facilities in
the world. In addition to yourself, Mr. Chairman, this region
is represented by Representatives Herrera Beutler and Mr.
Newhouse. Our focus here for the coming year will be on the
Boise River Feasibility Study. That research is designed to
increase storage opportunities at the Anderson Ranch, Arrow
Rock, and Lucky Peak Dams. It will guide us as we continue
construction of the Cle Elum fish passage as part of the larger
Yakima integrated plan. We will continue with the design and
implementation activities at the Lewiston Orchards Water
Exchange.
And finally, we will implement multiple biological opinion
actions as part of the Columbia and Snake River salmon recovery
programs operating under the Federal Columbia River power
system.
2018 promises to be another exciting year for Reclamation.
I again thank the committee and am prepared to answer any
questions you may have about the Bureau's Fiscal Year 2018
budget request. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Simpson. Thank you all for your testimony and, again,
thank you for being here today. Just to get a bit of
housekeeping out of the way, first, Mr. Lamont, can you tell
the committee when we can expect to receive the fiscal year
2018 budget justification materials, including the J sheets?
Mr. Lamont. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We are working diligently to
get those to you as soon as possible. I regret that we are in a
position that we have not been able to get them to you. We are
working diligently with the Corps and with my staff and
obviously with the Administration to get these cleared and get
them to you as soon as possible. You have my commitment to do
that.
Mr. Simpson. Any idea what length of time we are looking
at?
Mr. Lamont. We are hoping, if you will allow us, to provide
you the first batch next week.
Mr. Simpson. Okay, thank you. For both the Corps and the
Bureau, the Trump administration as well as the former Obama
administration has promoted alternative financing as a tool for
infrastructure development. This committee has been supportive
of exploring this option but has also made it clear that
Federal policies should be fair and equitable. We should not
operate a system whereby a wealthy non-Federal sponsor receives
a disproportionate share of Federal assistance.
For all four of you, do you agree that we should avoid
policies that allow non-Federal sponsors to buy their way to
the front of the Federal funding line and how have your
agencies been taking these equity concerns into consideration
as you explore alternative financing options? Go ahead.
Mr. Lamont. Mr. Chairman, I will take that first. Clearly,
with constrained Federal resources we are looking at every
opportunity to partner in a cost-shared environment not only
with our studies but obviously with our construction program.
There is no preferential treatment to the project sponsors that
may have resources that others may not have. We want to make
sure that we are looking clearly at the need for the project
and that we can defend it in addition to economics, but also
from a public safety and health standpoint.
General Semonite. Mr. Chairman, I will just add that the
fiscal year 2017 appropriations bill specifically says that we
need policy in this area. We are a big advocate of P3s; we
think there is a lot of merit here. On the other hand, we would
like to be able to make sure that we understand what those
rules are and how do we do this in the right way to avoid
exactly what you are asking. So right now we are working with
Mr. Lamont's office, to continue to be able to figure out how
can we put some policy in effect. That language was very
specific. Other than Fargo Moorhead, we are basically on a hold
right now until that policy is done and we would like to work
throughout the Administration and with your staff to continue
to figure out what should that policy look like.
Mr. Simpson. Appreciate that.
Mr. Cameron. Mr. Chairman, fundamentally, it is the
technical and economic viability of a project they need to
control, so we look at those aspects certainly first and
foremost. We are also, much like the Corps, promoting public-
private partnerships (P3). In fact, on May 9 in Denver, we held
a daylong session with an overflow crowd of I think more than
200 individuals from a wide variety of sectors, who are
interested in having conversations with us about public-private
partnerships and, you know, we look forward to leveraging
everyone's dollars to move forward on good projects for the
country.
Mr. Mikkelsen. And as part of the P3 conference that we
held in Denver, in conversations with people on sidebars, we
also came to the understanding and realization that we have
some folks out there, like you are talking about, that have
access to private financing. And we would like to actually
promote those opportunities for those particular people as much
as possible so it actually frees money up for those people who
may not have those same income streams or those opportunities
for financing.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. And I agree with you, General. We
need to develop a policy in this area because otherwise, while
I am very supportive of P3s and attracting private funding to
some of these opportunities and for infrastructure projects and
stuff like that, if the people that have those resources
available move to the front of the line, it would be
devastating I think across the country and a bad policy. So we
need to sit down and figure out how we are going to do this and
how we are going to include that, those opportunities.
For the Corps, over the past several years the committee
has worked to increase funding for the Corps to supplement
inadequate budget requests. Congressional intent has been for
the agency to use these funds for additional work in the year
provided on a broad array of projects, not to forward fund
fiscal--figure fiscal year needs of a limited number of
projects. Do you expect to make any allocations of the fiscal
year 2017 funds that will not be obligated by the end of this
year?
Mr. Lamont. Mr. Chairman, we have been putting together the
work plan. We are looking at what we could obligate and what we
could do for the remainder of the fiscal year. There is the
possibility there could be funds that could slip into the next
fiscal year, but that was not our intent, to focus on
prefunding, if you will, for '18.
Mr. Simpson. But you were going to try to use those funds
in this fiscal year to the extent you can?
Mr. Lamont. Yes, sir.
Mr. Simpson. Okay. As you are all well aware, invasive
species can cause significant economic and environmental
damage. In the Western United States, the spread of quagga and
zebra mussels are of particular concern. Can you please discuss
the ongoing efforts at each agency to address the concerns and
prevent the spread of these invasive species?
Mr. Cameron. I will start off from the Interior
Department's perspective. Secretary Zinke is very personally
aware, given his own experience in Montana, of the risk of
invasive species, both aquatic such as zebra and quagga mussels
while also forest insect pests and in rangelands weeds as well.
We, early in the Administration, heard from Governor Otter
in Idaho expressing his great concern about the Columbia River
Basin potentially being infected by zebra and quagga mussels.
We have been working very closely with the Western Governors
Association and those Pacific Northwest governors' offices to
cooperate with the Corps, with our sister Federal agencies, and
with the State governments in an effort to keep zebra and
quagga mussels out of the Columbia River Basin.
Regional estimates are that it would represent about a
half-a-billion-dollar annual hit to the Pacific Northwest
economy, on par with the damage that they have done in the
Great Lakes where zebra and quagga mussels fully infest the
region. The Secretary is one of the three co-chairs of the
National Invasive Species Council along with the Secretary of
Agriculture and the Secretary of Commerce.
We actually plan on having the first meeting in a decade of
the National Invasive Species Council in conjunction with the
Western Governors Association meeting in Whitefish, Montana, on
June 28, to talk about regional efforts in collaboration. More
specifically, the Bureau of Reclamation's budget includes a
four-and-a-half-million-dollar increase to try to protect the
Columbia River Basin, realizing that some of the best ways to
do that are to keep the mussels from moving north out of Lake
Mead or Lake Powell or Lake Havasu, for instance.
So the Department's budget as a whole exceeds $100 million
for invasive species. We recognize that it is a significant
ecological issue. More than 40 percent of our endangered
species are endangered because some invasive has done something
to them, for instance.
So I appreciate the question, Mr. Simpson, and look forward
to working with you and all members of the subcommittee to
address this significant national problem.
General Semonite. Chairman Simpson, really the accolades
here go to the Department of Interior and the States for the
great work we have done. We are just in support and this is
mainly a program for watercraft inspection. Last year we had
$3.75 million in it. This year there is $5 million to be able
to make sure that we have water inspection stations in the
States of Idaho, Montana, Washington, Wyoming, and Oregon.
Those stations are up and running. The first one turned on in
February. They came on from March to May, and this is the
ability to be able to get down and check the boats and be able
to make sure that we are doing every single thing preventative
we can so we do not have a problem down the road. We do not see
any problems. We are very, very strong supporters of that
program.
Mr. Simpson. We do have, those are inspection stations, but
we do have the wash stations installed and so forth at Lake
Mead and----
General Semonite. Yes, sir.
Mr. Simpson. Okay. Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General, you talked
in your testimony about modernization and I wanted to shift a
little bit to some local permitting. Any modification, as you
know, to facilities constructed by the Corps requires a 408
permit. The county I live in, San Bernardino County, currently
has thirty 408 permits submitted to the Corps. The vast
majority of these are related to projects from cities and
developers such as storm drain connections, bridge widening,
utility lines. That has taken serval months for these permits.
What type of thought can the Corps give to streamlining the
process and making it a little bit more simpler for something
like a storm drain connection that was planned in the design of
the facility?
General Semonite. Representative Aguilar, great question.
We are committed to try to figure out how we can continue to
push delegations down to be able to streamline this more. The
challenge you have if you push everything down to the lowest
level, there is some chance that you might have people making
different decisions and we could be accused of not necessarily
being consistent. If you retain everything at the highest
level, then obviously everything is going to take an awful long
time. So where is the sweet spot of how much you delegate down?
Right now we have five major issues we look at in 408s. We
have already delegated three of those back down to either
Division Commanders or District Commanders, and our staff is
committed to continue to figure out where else can we continue
to delegate. We also have a special focus now on how long does
it take to do some of those 408s. Some, as you might imagine,
might have national precedent, so those are the ones we have to
keep at Headquarters, but you have my commitment to continue to
look across the board on how we can empower, delegate, and set
up our subordinates to be able to work this faster, not just in
408s, but the entire regulatory program. Our regulations and
our permitting are taking too long and we have got to figure
out how to continue to be able to support the taxpayers of
getting those decisions earlier.
Mr. Aguilar. When it comes to 404 permits for you or Mr.
Lamont, has the Corps looked at exempting maintenance work on
constructed facilities that are maintained by local agencies
needing 404s as identified as necessary during Corps inspection
process?
General Semonite. Sir, I do not know the exact answer to
that, but I would love to get with you and figure out exactly
where that applies and then come back and have my team lay out
the 404 process. The 404s are other ones we are looking at
continuing to try to expedite, but I am not sure exactly the
cause of your question and I want to make sure I get you a good
answer.
Mr. Aguilar. We can put some more detail and submit it to
you as well.
General Semonite. Sounds great, sir.
Mr. Aguilar. For everyone. Many of the Western States have
experienced extreme swings in precipitation recently from
severe droughts in the past few years to above average rainfall
and snowpack. How does this extreme shift in precipitation
affect Corps and Reclamation projects and how have your
agencies responded to these circumstances and the funding
implications based on that weather?
Mr. Cameron. I will take the first shot at that. So there
is great deal of regional variability. As you know, Mr.
Aguilar, California got a lot of rain this winter.
Unfortunately, most of that rain went into the Pacific Ocean.
So one of the things that we are talking with the State of
California very aggressively about is exploring opportunities
for new storage, so that if we are lucky enough in future years
to have a wet, rainy winter, we can store more of that water so
that it is available for California cities and California's
farmers during the summer.
In the Colorado Basin, we had a good snowy winter in the
northern part of the basin. However, we still have drought
conditions in the Colorado and we are working very closely with
all the Colorado Basin States on a drought contingency plan,
realizing that we cannot assume that next winter will be as
snowy in the Rockies as this winter. And it is really important
for all the States and the Federal Government to coordinate and
move ahead aggressively, domestically and with Mexico, on the
drought contingency plan.
General Semonite. And, sir, let me follow up on Mr.
Cameron's answer. Really three things we are looking at:
extreme rainfall, sea level rise, and prolonged droughts. What
that is really causing, is for us to be able to go back and
look at what are the historic trends. What are we doing to look
at our predictive models that are out there and how do we
utilize policy tools to be able to make sure that we can
continue to be informed to put operational solutions in?
We have the ability to be able to do short- or long-term
deviations as to how to operate these big systems. We have what
is called a Water Control Manual for basically any big river
system. We have, you know, very, very deliberate processes for
how much water do you let in and out. But exactly what Mr.
Cameron said, we must be adaptive to a degree to figure out how
can we optimize the ability to be able to take care of water
that we do have and continue to be flexible. And if we are so
locked into a bureaucracy that says do not change because it is
too hard to do that, we must continue to be able to make sure
we are responsive based on the needs of the climate conditions.
Mr. Aguilar. And, Mr. Chairman, if I could, one year of or
a good winter of rain and snow does not necessarily alleviate
all of our concerns following some of the worst drought that we
have seen in about 160 years. As of mid-May, Lake Mead was 136
feet below full pool and is just under 40 percent full and over
the last 10 years its averaged 1,100 feet elevation and it is
20 feet below that right now. That is only 5 feet above our
trigger point where we have to start taking actions on our
drought contingency plan.
Lake Powell is also suffering. It rests at just under 3,600
feet which is 108 feet below full pool. So we are not, we are
definitely not, out of the drought cycle or situation,
particularly in the Colorado River.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, sir. Wish to thank each and
every one of the panelists today for your testimony. And
General Semonite, I thank you so much for your vocal support
for critical projects like the Chickamauga Lock, which is in
district, and for visiting with me personally and for your
commitment. As a matter of fact, I believe you have actually
visited the Chick Lock, so I thank you for stepping up in a
very short period of time of this prioritization.
If I may, sir, Chickamauga Lock is a very important
project. It is an integral component of the inland waterways
system and it would keep 150,000 trucks off of our roads, keep
the cost of shipping of goods low for the many businesses that
rely on it, and it is, of course, a very environmentally sound
and safe inland waterway transport system that it would
support. While I am excited about the ongoing work, I think we
have received funds I believe over the past 3 years and I have
actually witnessed the progress at new Chick Lock, I am
concerned that the fiscal '18 budget does not include full
funding for the inland waterway trust fund and the funding
would be limited to the Olmsted project in Ohio. That means the
Chick Lock is not currently slated to receive the critical
funding needed to build on the current momentum. Please explain
if you will, sir, the reasoning behind the amount allocated for
these projects, sir.
Mr. Lamont. Mr. Fleischmann, I will be happy to take that
question.
Mr. Fleischmann. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lamont. I had the opportunity back in late February to
actually visit Chickamauga Lock myself. And I understand, as a
professional engineer, the situation there, basically a concern
with the aging in infrastructure; I think that typifies it
around the Nation.
To be frank with you, sir, in formulating the President's
budget, what we were looking at is the high-performing broad
projects, which basically comes down to the benefit-cost ratio
being 2.5-to-1 or greater at a 7 percent discount rate. And
that has been the criterion within this Administration and
prior Administrations.
And I would say that it is not only the economics, but I
alluded to this earlier with Chairman Simpson, we would need to
look at, with each individual case, the condition of the
infrastructure and whether there is imminent danger or failure,
for example.
So, that is the one message I want to deliver, is that it
is not based purely on economics, but we would also look, I am
talking globally of our infrastructure in the Corps of
Engineers, if there is any imminent failure, we want to make
sure that we are funded to do the proper rehab.
Mr. Fleischmann. Yes, sir. And I am sure you are aware the
existing lock is an older, antiquated New Deal structure, and
it has had some failures. Actually the Corps has done a very
good job in maintaining that. It is like a sick patient. So, I
look forward to working with the Corps towards getting a new
Chick Lock completed hopefully by 2022 or 2023, and we look
forward to working together with you.
Mr. Lamont. Yes, sir. I witnessed the deflections with the
miter gate and I saw the post-tensioning 10 feet apart, and
that is pretty significant. I agree with you.
Mr. Fleischmann. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. One follow-up
question. I believe one of the reasons it is important that we
return to regular order is to provide certainty for critical
infrastructure projects, such as the Chickamauga Lock. My
question, and either one of the gentlemen can answer this, will
the Corps be able to release the funds in time for fiscal '17,
so that projects like Chick will be able to provide funds
before the contract runs out?
Mr. Lamont. Yes, sir.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you. I appreciate that. At this time
I would like to recognize, Mr. Joyce, the gentleman from Ohio,
5 minutes.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lamont and General
Semonite, thank you for being here. I have a few questions
pertaining to the dredging issue in Northeast Ohio. By way of
background, the maintenance of the Cleveland Harbor, which
includes the Cuyahoga River shipping channel, is vital to
Ohio's and Cleveland's economy and many thousands of good-
paying jobs. As is the case at other ports on the Great Lakes,
dredged sediment in Cleveland has been placed upland for
reasons of sediment quality.
That has been the practice for decades. More recent
developments include the enactment of the State of Ohio law,
which prohibits the placement of dredge material in Lake Erie,
effective in 2020. The State's findings that the dredged
sediment does not meet State water quality standards and would
harm the fishing industry by raising PCB levels in fish, the
judgment opinion and order of the U.S. District Court judge in
favor of the State's position with respect to fiscal year 2015
dredging, successful efforts by the port to maintain confined
disposal facility capacity, and the enactment of Section 1189
in WRDA 2016, pertaining to the Federal standard.
Given all of this, I feel strongly that the Army Corps
should work with principal stakeholders to craft a long-term
solution for upland placement and sediment reuse whenever
possible.
First of all, the fiscal year 2017 funding level for the
Cleveland Harbor is 5.85 million. I see the recently released
Civil Works budget calls for 6.2 million for operation and
maintenance of the Cleveland Harbor. Is that sufficient funding
to dredge the Cleveland shipping channel and complete the
upland placement of the dredged material this year?
General Semonite. Sir, first of all, I agree with you, we
definitely need a long-term solution. We cannot continue to be
able to work this way and let the courts make these decisions.
We must be able to bring all the people together to figure out
what is in the best interest of both the State and the Federal
standard.
As you know, there is a decision out there. The Corps has
not finalized a decision as to what we are going to do with
respect to the judge's decision in May. We are still working
with the Department of Justice as to what exactly our position
is going to be. Once we determine that, then we will have to
figure out what the bill is that will be incurred, and then how
are we going to be able to care of that bill?
Right now in the '17 budget and the '18 budget we have not
budgeted money for the judge's decision. We will have to go
back in and figure out what happens based on how the Department
of Justice and the Corps' litigation continues to play out.
I have been on the ground, I have a General Officer now
down there working every couple weeks with the district, to get
with the port to be able to make sure we can figure out what is
in the best interest of the Federal Government and the State
government in order to meet those requirements and to be able
to continue to be able to work this out.
The challenge we could have is that if, in fact, we have a
higher standard, that is going to cost more money. Right now
the normal way we dispose of dredged material in the Cleveland
Harbor costs $9 a cubic foot. If we were to go to an upland
placement across the board, the cost is $21. So it is more than
twice the amount. We are trying to make sure that we are doing
what the Federal regulations require, and so, therefore, do not
impose additional costs back on the taxpayers. We are committed
to continue to work with you and your team, so to be able to
find a consensus here.
Mr. Joyce. I appreciate that, but the court order was
fairly clear, was it not?
General Semonite. Sir, and again, this is where we have to
figure out what we are going to do with respect to the court
order. We have not made that decision yet.
Mr. Joyce. Again, the court order was fairly clear. Was it
not, General?
General Semonite. It was with specific respect to Cleveland
Harbor for the fiscal 2015 dredging year.
Mr. Joyce. Okay.
General Semonite. It only was a very, very targeted
decision.
Mr. Joyce. I appreciate that, because it was a limited
issue at that time that the court had to consider.
Second, I recall that when dredging finally got started
last December, only a portion was completed before the weather
and equipment brought a halt to the dredging, which finally
resumed earlier this spring. What is the timeline for
completing the dredging of the Cleveland shipping channel this
year?
General Semonite. Congressman, I can get back to you with
specific details, but my staff has told me that we will meet
the December dredging timelines, and we should be able to make
the standard that we have communicated to the port that we will
continue to come through and have that dredging done by
December.
Mr. Joyce. Finally, the most recent surveying by the Corps
reveals that significantly more sediment will need to be
dredged from the river than was anticipated last year. How does
the Corps plan to manage the increased load in terms of
funding, the actual mechanical dredging process, as well as the
CDF storage site?
General Semonite. As far as additional funding, if it is
the same standard, we will be able to accommodate that in our
budget. The challenge will occur if, in fact, there is a higher
standard where everything will have to be placed upland. And so
I really want to come and work with you to be able to tell you
exactly what our numbers are. I have no interest in holding
anything back. We will lay this out to you so you know exactly
where we are.
And a lot of it goes back to the standard that we are
applying, which is an EPA and Corps of Engineers Federal
standard as to where things should be placed. And that is what
we utilize.
Mr. Joyce. Well, I appreciate that. And somewhere in the
city right now is the CEO of ArcelorMittal, and they cannot be
held hostage because they cannot get the ships down to the----
General Semonite. Sir, that is never the intent. We are
certainly not going to hold that up.
Mr. Joyce. I appreciate that, and I am not saying you are,
but, while there is a feud between governmental agencies, they
still have, people working and steel to be produced, which is
very important activity for the United States.
General Semonite. Congressman, the dredging will happen.
The question is, where does that dredge material go? That is
the only issue. So the people that are using that channel are
certainly not going to be held hostage. We will commit to
ensure that we are dredging on our timelines, unless there is
some natural reason why we cannot dredge.
Mr. Joyce. Great.
General Semonite. We owe that to you, and the shipping
industry has to have some predictability. It is certainly not
our intention to cause any kind of confusion that would not
allow that predictability.
Mr. Joyce. I am not saying you are trying to cause any
confusion, I am just trying to clear this up, because
governmental agencies should not be the cause of any of these
problems.
General Semonite. Yes, sir.
Mr. Joyce. We need to have everybody work in concert. That
is why we have the GLRI, which under Chairman Calvert's
authority does so well at making all of the agencies work
together.
I see I am out of time, Mr. Chairman. I apologize.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. I
recognize Ms. Herrera Beutler for 5 minutes.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All right,
this is more specifically for you, General, with regard to
biological opinion. Recent district court decisions have
significant implications for the Columbia River Federal Power
System, affecting my district and actually Mr. Newhouse's and
others here.
Could you, please, discuss briefly the status of the court
ordered buy-up for the Columbia River Federal Power System, and
what are the funding implications of this court order?
I also have a follow up about NEPA and additional spill to
get in here. If you would like I could give them now, and you
could hit it all at once.
General Semonite. No, if you want to give me your second
question first, then I will answer the other one.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. The District court order directed a
comprehensive environmental review of the operations related to
the system. The court and reclamation, along with BPA, are co-
leads on this environmental impact statement process. Can you
please describe the current status of the effort, the expected
schedule for major milestones, as well as funding requirements
for each agency?
General Semonite. We just closed the comment period. All
three agencies are working very, very well together. We
received over 400,000 comments, so what we are continuing to
work through that judge's order to be able to make sure that we
are transparent and we are taking all those pieces back in.
I do not have the exact date here, and I will find it in a
minute. I think we are right on schedule; it was going to be
the end of June of '17, to be able to continue to get a
preliminary investigation, and then I think it is December 17
for the final investigation. I will double check and make sure
I get you exactly the update of that status.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. And let us see, spill, additional
spill. The court recently ruled on a motion for injunctive
relief ordering the agencies to work with the plaintiffs to
develop a plan to implement increased spill in 2018. Can you
please provide an update on activities to date? Are there
concerns, and what is being done and what can be done to
alleviate this issue? And do you know what funding will be
necessary to implement these efforts?
General Semonite. And Congresswoman, I am not aware of that
one, so I am going to have to get back with you on exactly the
details of that specific issue.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Well, I mean, it is pretty--the
injunctive relief motion was somewhat recent, but it is pretty
critical for talking about spring 2018. So, yes, I would love
to have an update on that.
I mean, we spill a lot as a region. Ratepayers pay a lot to
protect those wild runs, but we also expect to rely on that
power, and protecting that access and that resource is very
important to the folks and me, in the region. I still have a
couple minutes, so I am going to move on.
Earlier this year, and this is for you, General--you are
really important to our way of life as you have noticed; we pay
a lot of attention to you all--the District Court ordered to
develop a process and a schedule for sharing information on
planned capital projects at the four Lower Snake River Dams, in
case plaintiffs wanted to file to stop these projects while the
NEPA review of operations of the power system is ongoing.
Mr. Lamont, this could go for either of you. Has the Corps
developed this process, and has the court approved it? If so,
please briefly describe what would be required of the Corps.
Mr. Lamont. Congresswoman, as General Semonite has
indicated, I do not want to misspeak on this one. What we would
like to do is work with your staff and understand the concern a
little better, and we will get back to your staff immediately.
General Semonite. We are definitely very aware of the
decisions. The Lower Four Snake Dams: we are tracking exactly
what we need to do to be able to lay out what the future
conditions of those dams could be. But as to the spill and some
of the other issues, I would much rather come and give you
exactly where we are on this and lay this out to you and your
staff in great detail.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. I would appreciate that, in part
because we have seen this movie before with regard to requiring
basically more of an effort to look at the dams and whether
they should be there. And getting this right and being on top
of this, each of these questions, these are all going to be
used. So, I want to make sure that you are following this very
closely, and I would expect a detailed update on this.
And I am out of time. So, with that, I thank you, Mr.
Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back. At
this time I would like to recognize Chairman Calvert for 5
minutes.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There was an incident
in 1993 and caused about $22 million in damage to Old Town
Temecula in my district. Today, those damages would be much
greater. We are in construction with the Corps on a project
which will provide 100-year flood protection with the cities of
Murrieta and Temecula.
Please understand that these populations have quadrupled
since the project feasibility study where significant numbers
of homeowners, businesses, infrastructure which remain
vulnerable to flooding, and we need to address this as soon as
possible. To continue construction and keep this project on
schedule we need $2 million in fiscal year 2017 continuing
construction funds to complete the second reach of phase 2
project, and to complete the LRR.
Mr. Lamont, General, can you comment to me what you will
include in this fiscal year 2017 funding in your work plan? And
we will send the reprogramming request forward as quickly as
possible to keep the Murrieta Creek Project on schedule.
General Semonite. Congressman, we are very aware of this
project and the importance of this. We have spent over $20.4
million on this, and agree that the last $2 million are very
important. Right now it is our recommendation that that is
funded in the fiscal year 2017 work plan to be able to take
care of that $2 million.
And there is also that $400,000 to be able to continue to
be able to reevaluate the benefit-cost ratio. Obviously Reach 4
is the one that is hard to do here, so that is where we are
going to study to see if maybe the economics could make it
happen. I have to be honest with you, though, that is probably
a stretch on the benefit-cost ratio.
Mr. Calvert. I have been working on this since I have been
in Congress, 25 years, and I would like to get it done in my
lifetime. This is an important project to the region. I think
once the LRR is complete, it will prove up that this is a
viable project and the cost-benefit ratio is there. Thank you
for your answer, and I appreciate you working with me to get at
least this reach complete.
I also have a Reclamation issue. As you are aware
Reclamation has reinitiated consultation with CVP and SWP,
smelt and salmon biologic opinions, for operations for those
projects. As you know, the recently enacted WIN act requires
that Reclamation ensure that any project contractor that
desires will be included in the reconsult as described in
section 4004.
Have any of the contractors made such a request and
Reclamation provide assurance that any requesting contractor
will be included as an applicant?
Mr. Cameron. Mr. Calvert, we have had conversations with a
number of the contractors. We are aware of the provision that
you just described. We are, in fact, planning a meeting in the
next week or two with interested contractors, to hear from them
exactly how they would like to participate in these processes
going forward.
We definitely plan to engage with them much more heavily,
and much more substantively than they have had an opportunity
in the past under the previous legal environment.
Mr. Calvert. Now, we have been waiting in California for a
long time to increase our water supply and build more storage,
which was referenced just a while ago. Can you update me on the
status of the storage feasibility studies, since we started
those 20-some years ago, and when will we be finally done with
them?
Mr. Cameron. As you know, Mr. Calvert, there are several in
queue. The feasibility report on raising Shasta was actually
delivered to Congress. We are actively exploring cost share
partners for the Shasta Project that would cost roughly $1.3
billion, so we would not plan on taking it all out on Mr.
Simpson's budget. So we are looking for some cost-sharing
partners there.
Probably one of the most promising opportunities is the
Sites Reservoir, which is north of the delta, as you know. For
both the Sites and also the Temperance Flat opportunity on the
San Joaquin, there are active consortia of water users in
California who are pursuing potential funding through the State
water bond that was recently passed. And we are working very
closely with those project proponents. Our goal is to make sure
they have the information they need when they need it so they
can apply for and hopefully secure State water bond funding for
those two projects.
We are also looking at the Los Vaqueros expansion project.
That one is on a somewhat slower track and we are also
exploring some changes in the San Luis Reservoir, a number of
issues there, both water quality and potential water storage
enhancement. It looks like from the State's perspective, Sites
and Temperance Flat would appear to be the highest priorities,
so we are trying to be responsive to the priorities as defined
by the water users in California.
Mr. Calvert. Right. Thank you. Just one quick question.
This is on Oroville Dam and the issue of safety of dams in
general. In February, as you know, Oroville Dam almost
crumbled, which would have been a disaster certainly in
Northern California. And we are lucky that the dam did not give
way.
In light of this can you and the Corps and the Bureau talk
very quickly about dam safety programs? What assurances can you
offer that facilities that are owned and operated by both
Reclamation and the Corps are safe? I mean, obviously, nobody
saw this on Oroville Dam a year ago. And this, this could have
been a complete disaster. General?
General Semonite. Sir, I will give you an update. I did
testify in the Senate a couple of months ago on dam safety and
I got very, very up to speed on our dams. We have 715 dams. I
feel very confident that we will be able to continue to address
the ones that are the highest risk. We rank our dams one
through five. We have a very few that are in the worst category
and we are fully funding those to continue to get those dams
repaired. We have a few more, maybe 10 or 12, that are actually
DSAC Level 2 dams. We continue to be able to rank those high up
in our budget.
Right now, I think that the main thing is as you talked
about safety. It really goes back to the risk out there, and
how do we continue to manage that risk, be able to make sure we
are either putting more engineering solutions there, or to be
able to advise people where that risk is. And a lot of that
goes with how do you operate that dam and how much water do you
hold?
We are committed. We have over 1,500 people that are dam
certified safety experts. While Oroville is not a Corps of
Engineers dam, we are deeply involved in order to advise and
also to learn what could we take from Oroville to make sure we
are looking at our dams to be able to take the lessons learned.
We are working on a dam in Mosul, Iraq, right now, to try to
continue to figure out how to fix dams.
Mr. Mikkelsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Very briefly,
Reclamation has probably one of the most state-of-the-art
facilities for safety of dams work in the world. The Dam Safety
Program continues to be one of our highest priorities. We
inspect all of our dams, we conduct safety evaluation of
existing dams, and then our safety of dams (SOD) program makes
sure that those priorities are implemented on a regular basis.
We have got about I think, without looking, we have got about
$90 million in the budget this year for our Safety of Dams
program. And the very first question I asked when I arrived in
town was does Reclamation have any Orovilles? And I was assured
that we absolutely do not.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At this time, I
would like to recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr.
Serrano, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry I was
late. I was at another hearing, which is the story of our
lives.
Gentlemen, I wanted to remind you and thank you on behalf
of my constituents for the great work you have done on the
Bronx River. I usually do not use these hearings to talk about
my district, but rather in general about our country and how it
affects my district. But it is really incredible, 15, 20 years
ago, when you started helping us clean that river up, we found
things in there that I cannot mention in public, many illegal
things and even a Jeep. And now a beaver has returned and a
second beaver returned. I do not know why, but they named the
beaver Jose. And so you can figure out for yourself.
But I understand that the war continues and it has just
become an area that you did not believe you could have inside a
city. I mean, with running ways and places on the side, it is
just wonderful. Anything new in the budget that speaks to the
Bronx River and what the timeline is?
General Semonite. I do not have any new information, but we
will certainly come and lay this out for you. I am not prepared
to talk about the Bronx River today.
Mr. Serrano. Okay.
General Semonite. I am not aware of any other budget
updates.
Mr. Serrano. I saw something, but I did not want to tell
you I saw it.
Mr. Mikkelsen. Sir, I echo General Semonite's situation
here. I am not aware of that either, but I will work with the
Chief of Engineers to make sure we are working with your staff.
Mr. Serrano. Okay.
General Semonite. I will tell you, though, sir, when I was
a Division Commander at Fort Hamilton back in '06 to '09, we
found the first beaver and you and I were here about 7 or 8
years ago, talking about that beaver. So it goes back to the
potential. There are a lot of opportunities to be able to
continue to make these river systems better across the board,
not just for water quality, but for recreation and for economic
development.
Mr. Serrano. Absolutely, and to our colleagues, the whole
story of the beaver, which one of our colleagues knows about,
is that a beaver--New York City was a beaver pelt colony in its
beginnings, and a beaver had not returned to New York in 200
years until these folks and the community and the folks cleaned
up the river. And so it became a major story, National
Geographic, the whole thing.
And so they now find a second beaver, right. So they tell
me to name the beaver. Now, I do not want to be a wise guy and
name the beaver, so I tell them, no, why don't you name the
beaver to the Bronx Zoo? They put it on the Internet. You know
what they named the beaver? Justin Beaver. Yeah. And I lost all
my publicity very quickly.
General Semonite. Congressman Serrano, there is money in
the budget for maintenance. It is not an awful lot, but I will
have my staff come lay out to your staff exactly what, not only
this year, but long term, how we see the Bronx River, and we
will give you a full update.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you so much. I do not know if you are
familiar with the Cano Martin Pena in Puerto Rico, my other
congressional district. And I wanted to congratulate you and
the local folks, ENLACE, for the strong efforts in dredging the
Cano, which is just a big issue, a monumental issue on the
island. When do you expect this project to be completed and
what are you asking for to complete it, if you are?
Mr. Lamont. Mr. Congressman, preconstruction engineering
and design has been initiated and it is continuing. There are
no funds in the President's budget for any preconstruction
engineering and design right now nationwide. What we are doing
is focusing on completing our 16 feasibility studies where
there have been funds appropriated over the last 2 fiscal
years, and we are focusing also on the continuing construction
and completions of our projects. I will work with you sir, on
looking at Cano Martin Pena as far as any additional needs, and
the potential for any reprogramming that might be needed to
move this project along. I understand your concerns and the
situation down there.
Mr. Serrano. If I heard you correctly, you said there is no
new money for these kinds of projects in the President's
budget, but you have an opportunity to complete the ones you
started already? Is that what you are alluding to?
Mr. Lamont. The emphasis is on the prior appropriations
that have been made in trying to complete or continue PED
nationwide on the projects that would hopefully compete for new
start construction consideration in the next budget cycle.
Mr. Serrano. All right, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, sir. At this time, I would like
to recognize the ranking member of this subcommittee, Ms.
Kaptur.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
apologize for being late for this distinguished panel. I had to
testify this morning at the Department of Commerce on a very
daunting situation that faces our steel industry and it affects
thousands of workers in my State, so I had to be there.
I read your testimony, gentlemen. Thank you so much for
your service to our country and the great work you do. Each of
us can point to successes in our own particular States and
regions that you and the Corps have been a part of, so we value
your work.
I also hope you will be a major player as the President
proposes a new infrastructure bill, whatever that is. And I do
not agree with Mr. Mulvaney's decision to cut your budget by $1
billion-plus and I am hoping that some of that can be changed
as a result of our action and work on the infrastructure bill.
It is one of the greatest job creators we could have in this
country.
I wanted to, also, General Semonite, you talked just
briefly referencing a dam in Mosul. I wanted to ask you, would
it be a lot of work or could you provide me some information
about how the Corps links to other countries around the world
in civil works projects. Just a brief summary, for example, I
am particularly interested in places that are tender, such as
Ukraine, and whether or not there have been any Civil Works
agreements, either working with other parts of the military
like our State partnership programs. Do you ever link to Guard
Civil Works units that are doing work in those places? I do not
really understand that set of relationships and I would really
like to. Is that a hard thing to produce?
General Semonite. Not at all, ma'am. We do this all the
time. We are in 110 countries. We work for obviously the
ambassadors out there, for Department of State. We work for our
combatant commanders, the four-star generals that are actually
out there that are warfighters. They give us security
cooperation requirements, then we go back out. The Civil Works
team may go and do a climate change seminar in China. Right
now, we are working in Vietnam to be able to help Vietnam to
work in the Mekong Delta, because we know how to do it from
Mississippi River.
There is money that is actually given to us in the budget,
called ``234'' money, a very small amount, but it allows us to
be able to take some of the things we have learned in this
country with Civil Works and to be able to use that in the
interest of diplomatic relations with other countries. We will
lay this out. We do this every month on a regular, normal
rhythm for the rest of our combatant commanders. We are very
proud of what we do in other areas.
Ms. Kaptur. I am very, very interested in this,
particularly as concerns Ukraine, Lebanon, and Jordan. And so
you may not be doing anything there, but if you are, I would
like to know what it is and enhance my own understanding. So I
thank you very much for mentioning that this morning. I want to
associate myself with the questioning and the concerns of
Congressman Joyce. Both of us share the Lake Erie coastline in
one way or another and the issues of dredging. We have talked
about this in many of our private meetings with you. But I
really hope that we as a country can come to a place where we
look at the beneficial reuse of sediments, whether they are
those dredged through your good works or coming at us through
various municipal treatment plants, be it water or sewage. The
world is starved for organics. We in the Lake Erie region have
the largest dredging budget singly because of the topography
and the fact God gave me the largest watershed in the entire
Great Lakes. So we have challenges.
But I keep looking at this and thinking of a private
company like Scott's, for example, on steroids to deal with the
volumes that we are talking about. And with modern technology,
isn't that possible for us to find a market solution to these
vast amounts of material?
So this is the 21st century. Over at EPA, they have this
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, RCRA, they
have the authority to try to work on beneficial reuse. Those
titles have not been exercised, zero, in several decades. So I
am just one of the members out there looking at this amazing
resource between Erie, Pennsylvania, as you may know, and
Kalamazoo, Michigan, in that big smile. It is the largest
landscape industry in the United States of America and they
need material all the time. And I am just thinking there has
got to be a market solution here that benefits many players.
And I appreciate what you have been doing with Cleveland Harbor
and trying to crawl our way to some other way of behaving. I do
not know if you have a comment on this, but in the area of
beneficial reuse, it is really strikingly important in a region
like ours.
Mr. Lamont. Representative Kaptur, when I met you about a
month ago, we talked about this very subject. I agree with you,
this is a wasted resource. It is an opportunity, depending on
the quality of the resource, for beneficial reuse. If it is a
polluted sediment, that might be another consideration.
But up and down our coasts, we have heard from a number of
project sponsors asking while you are dredging your harbors, is
there the opportunity to put sand on the beach if it is of
suitable quality? Now, that is not exactly your issue, but in
your district, and certainly the sediment relative to the
landscaping industry, there is a potential opportunity, I
agree.
We have looked into our existing authorities, if there is
an opportunity, for example, hypothetically, the dredgers would
want to partner with the landscape industry or nursery industry
and then partner with the State and the State could partner
with the Corps of Engineers to maybe have a win-win situation
here.
General Semonite. And just to add on to that, ma'am, WRDA
2016 directed us to do 10 pilots in this area. We are very
excited about those pilots. We have gotten letters in from
different States and we are going to make a decision by the end
of '17. We are going to have a series of webinars to discuss
the criteria, how are we going to decide what the pilots will
be. We are going to be very, very open and transparent. But
these are great opportunities to do exactly what we are doing.
I am violently agreeing with you because we must figure out how
we can use that material beneficially to save all of us money.
We are doing a pilot right now in Toledo that is working
very well. We want to be able to figure out how we can save
taxpayers money and maybe even get public interest in this so
we can then empty some of these areas that are full of dredge
material over the years.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you for your aggressive leadership on
this, General. We truly, if there is some way I can help,
please let us know, and I know Mr. Joyce would feel that same
way. Am I out of time?
Mr. Fleischmann. I would be glad to let you ask another
question, sure.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. You know, I
am going to go to the Asian carp and we do not want this
critter in our Great Lakes, $7 billion fishery. And when we
last met, Mr. Lamont and I, thank you for meeting with us, you
indicated you are waiting for a new Assistant Secretary for
Civil Works to be confirmed before releasing the report. Is
that still your position today and to your knowledge, has
anybody been nominated yet?
Mr. Lamont. No, ma'am, unfortunately, no one has been
nominated to date. I continue to check with our White House
liaison on this matter every week, every Monday, in fact, and I
am hopeful that we are able to release the report. I share your
concerns about the economic and environmental consequences of
the Asian carp migrating up into the Great Lakes system.
Ms. Kaptur. Do you actually need that Assistant Secretary
to be in place in order to release the report?
Mr. Lamont. What I am trying to do is to work that so that
is not the case, so that we are not in a delay situation, which
we have been, unfortunately.
Ms. Kaptur. And my understanding is correct, the report is
complete?
Mr. Lamont. The report--it is a draft report, ma'am, which
would still need to go out for public review. And I want to
work with our counterparts and the White House to make sure
that we get that opportunity to get the report released.
Mr. Joyce. Will the gentlelady yield?
Ms. Kaptur. I would be pleased to yield to the gentlemen.
Mr. Joyce. Can you elaborate on this or any other Army
Corps efforts that you may have underway to prevent the further
spread of the Asian carp?
Mr. Lamont. We have met with the folks who have asked that
this report be put on hold. We have expressed our concerns
relative to the ability to get all sides of the story out
there. What I mean by that is to get a draft report out on the
streets so that the folks who are in favor of, for example, a
modification to the Brandon Road Lock, would be able to comment
on it, and the opposing interests would also be able to do
that. I think we have made inroads, they understand that
shareholder input and stakeholder input, if you will, is
critical to the ability to complete this report. I agree with
you. I am trying to do everything I can to convince the
Administration that this needs to be done.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, I yield back.
Ms. Kaptur. I just wanted to say that at one point you
stated the release of the Brandon Road Report has been deferred
pending further coordination and, in a way, you tried to answer
Mr. Joyce there. What is the coordination? You say a draft
report. What has to happen in order to release it? If it were
not so vital to the entire Great Lakes, I would not be
pressing, but it is.
Mr. Lamont. No, I understand fully your concern. I share
that concern, and I want to do everything I can, and hopefully
I am not dancing around this. I am trying to do everything I
can to convince the Administration to release the draft report,
to elicit all stakeholder input on this, so that we can come to
a potential solution that would serve everyone's interest. That
is critical.
Ms. Kaptur. All right. And I would just state for the
record to the members that may not be aware of this. In the
President's budget submission, he has eliminated the Great
Lakes Restoration Initiative, and that is where the money is
coming from to date, and it is not the right place to fish out
the carp south of Chicago--move them 30 miles south just for
the moment--but we do not have a regular funding source without
a biological control to keep these things out. So, one of my
questions is, either directly now or in an answer back to us,
assuming that we cannot fix the Great Lakes Restoration
Initiative--I hope we can--what area of your budget could we
plus up in order to move those fish back down the Mississippi?
We have to.
Mr. Serrano. Will they kill the beaver? I will take them.
Ms. Kaptur. I was going to ask, can you send us some
beavers? I do not know.
Mr. Serrano. I am saying, if they kill the beaver, I won't
take it, but I will take them if they do not kill the beaver.
Mr. Lamont. Representative Kaptur, we do have enough funds
to complete the draft report to get to a final feasibility
report. That is one critical step. We might be able to work
with you and your staff on looking at our Operations and
Maintenance account on possible opportunities there.
Ms. Kaptur. All right.
Mr. Lamont. General Semonite and I would be happy to meet
with you on that.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you Mr. Chairman. My questions will
be directed to you, General Semonte. I am sorry, Semonite.
Mr. Fortenberry. I am sure you have been challenged quite a
bit on the 408 permitting process. In Nebraska, we have a very
unique situation in which we have municipal authorities called
the Natural Resource Districts, which are taxing authorities,
which are held accountable by elected officials who run for the
Board of the NRDs, in which we call it. There are various
regions of the State. They do an outstanding job of flood
control, meeting the demands for recreational projects as well
as environmental restoration. A number of their projects enjoy
extraordinary high numbers in terms of the benefit-to-cost
ratio. You have supplemented their efforts on a number of
occasions.
There is a debate, of course, about the 408 permitting
process as going beyond the original intention of the law in
interfering, potentially, with the expedited issuance of
initiation of new projects. That is one concern.
Second is, is there consideration in which you can enter
into joint financing agreements so that projects that are
already evaluated by our municipal taxing authorities,
governance structures, that are shovel-ready and ready to go,
could be entered into with a supplement from the Federal
Government and jointly shared by, again, the local taxing
authorities so that we can expeditiously move shovel-ready
study versus waiting for piles of money to be set aside and the
huge opportunity cost that results from a slow progress on
important projects?
General Semonite. Congressman, we are very concerned about
the speed of which we are doing permits, whether it is a 408 or
all of the rest of the permits that we do under NEPA and 404.
We have committed to be able to delegate some of these
decisions. That allows the local commanders, the Colonels out
there on the ground, to be able to make some of these
decisions. There are about five different types. We have
already delegated three of those down to the field, and our
staff is looking at how we can continue to empower the team on
the ground. The other thing is there are authorizations to be
able to allow us to take monies; and what I probably need do,
because it is a complicated area, is to ask my regulatory staff
to come meet with your staff and look at the specific boards
you are talking about and what can we do when it comes to
funding. I do not want to get ahead of the P3 discussion here,
because it is really not P3, but if there are some ways we can
expedite it, anything that we can do to speed up the process,
we are committed to do that.
Mr. Fortenberry. Well, two things. In the 408 permitting
process, there is a debate about whether you have taken
authorities beyond where they were originally intended, which,
again takes away authority from local initiatives.
General Semonite. True.
Mr. Fortenberry. Second is the aggressive partnering, and
perhaps a new innovative way that would allow, again, municipal
structures like we have uniquely in Nebraska that are dedicated
to the similar mission. So these are held accountable to the
public through elected officials and, again, they have their
own taxing authority in which if there could be joint
financing, we are ready to go and go quickly, that would meet
the same objectives as the Corp of Engineers has.
General Semonite. And sir, we want to work with you on
this. We just have to make sure we have figured out what our
authorities are, what can we do, and if we can find better ways
of doing things for the right reason, we are all in.
Mr. Fortenberry. So, are you indicating a shift of culture
in the Corps in this regard? Are you looking at specific
changes in the regulatory atmosphere, or all of the above?
General Semonite. I think talking, personally, very
holistically--I have been in the Army 37 years; I have been in
the Corps 12 years. Over time, we have moved to where an awful
lot of things come to Washington, D.C., for decisions. And so,
in my 4 years, on my watch, wherever I can continue to make
those decisions at the right level, that people are informed,
they have the capacity, they have the authority to be able to
do that, whatever I can do on my watch to streamline, we want
to be able to do that.
Mr. Fortenberry. Well, again, I am talking about governance
authorities that have the same mission, or similar parallel
missions that you do, that are ready to go, and, obviously,
this affects us the most, so we are going to try to do it
right.
General Semonite. And sir, it is just a very complicated
area. I do not want to get in front of anything we are doing
for EPA or anything on which the Committee has given us other
guidance. I just want to make sure we research this and figure
out how can we find a common path ahead.
Mr. Fortenberry. Okay, can we then see your staff within
the next month or so?
General Semonite. Yes, sir, the next couple of weeks, 2
weeks.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, General. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My initial
question is of Assistant Secretary Lamont and Lieutenant
General Semonite because I am kind of at a loss here. Because
it appears that funding for other ecosystem restoration work by
the Corps in South Florida, including the Everglades Ecosystem,
you know, the non-CERP South Florida ecosystem restoration
funding has been cut by nearly $30 million. Are we really not
funding non-CERP projects under the Corps construction account
at all or is it that the Corps is supposed to perform all the
construction work on non-CERP projects with only the $1 million
allocated by this budget?
Mr. Lamont. Ma'am, if I could get some clarification? You
say, ``non-CERP,'' could you give me an example?
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Like the C-111 South Dade project
which helps to prevent groundwater from seeping out of the
Everglades National Park. I mean, that is an example of a non-
CERP project.
Mr. Lamont. There is not a concerted effort to slow down
the Everglades work and related work in that area. What we are
trying to do is to continue an orderly process. And I know you
may be looking at the top line number, for example.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Yes. But here is why, Mr. Lamont,
because non-CERP projects in fiscal year 2017 were funded at
$30.5 million, and that still was not enough. How is the Corps
going to continue to work on these vital projects with $1
million? I mean, really? We are never going to finish
restoration of the Everglades if----
Mr. Lamont. My understanding is these non-CERP projects are
anticipated to complete with prior year funds. That has been
the emphasis. I do not want to give you the impression that we
are trying----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Are you suggesting----
Mr. Lamont [continuing]. To slow things down.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz [continuing]. There are enough prior
year's funds? There were not in fiscal year 2017.
Mr. Lamont. Ma'am?
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. There are enough prior year funds to
complete non-CERP projects?
Mr. Lamont. Yes.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Well, not so far.
Mr. Lamont. If you need additional information, I will work
with you on that.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. If you could show me, that would be
wonderful.
Mr. Lamont. Okay.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And then I have a question for both
of you about Port Everglades. Because you are zeroing out new
starts, and we need construction funding for these projects
across the country, the proposed budget requests a steep
decrease in overall Corps construction funding.
For example, Port Everglades, in my district, requires
widening and deepening. We are authorized in the water bill. It
is critical to our region that the Port Everglades Channel is
widened and deepened. We have to go from planning, and design,
and engineering to the construction. How many new starts does
the Corps need to address all navigation construction projects
that should be started in fiscal year 2018, including Port
Everglades? And, also, how much construction funding would be
required to appropriately address all of these projects in
fiscal year 2018?
Mr. Lamont. Let me try to address first your concern on
Port Everglades. As with all Civil Works projects, they need to
compete, and the competition is based on a benefit-cost ratio
at a 7 percent discount rate. No matter what Administration,
that is the criteria we must deal with.
My understanding is on Port Everglades that preconstruction
engineering and design is fully funded in the work plan for
$2.8 million. We are trying to keep this project moving along.
It has already been authorized. I worked personally on
defending the Chief's report on this project in my former
position, so I know exactly what you are saying. I have been to
Port Everglades. I have seen the amazing amount of traffic
through that small port.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And if you recall, we were
significantly delayed by an error in the formula that the Corps
made themselves. And so, we are already behind the eight ball,
significantly behind where we should be, where construction
funding should be in the pipeline already because we should
have made the last water bill.
Mr. Lamont. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And it was because of the Corps'
error that we did not.
Mr. Lamont. Along with, unfortunately, all the mitigation
requirements that the project----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Yes.
Mr. Lamont [continuing]. Drew out through our coordination
process. I agree with you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And lastly, you mentioned in your
statement, Lieutenant General Semonite, that the budget gives
priority to coastal ports with high levels of commercial
traffic. Again, Port Everglades is one of the top 10 busiest
ports in the United States, but the budget allocates only
$420,000 in Corps' Operations And Maintenance. What criteria
was used in crafting the amounts allocated in this budget?
Because I can tell you right now, $420,000 is sorely
insufficient for the operation and maintenance of such a vital
port like Port Everglades. Either one of you can answer.
General Semonite. Congresswoman, there is a large backlog
in O&M. It is over $2 billion right now, so it is just that we
cannot do all the things we need to do across all the ports.
And if there is anybody that is a fan of both the coastal ports
and the inner waterways when it comes back to the imports and
the exports and the economic value of this country, it is me. I
have been involved in a lot of them. This is when we must keep
pushing to try to get all the right funds we need to get to
these projects.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Would you gentlemen mind, as I wrap
up, Mr. Chairman, coming in and giving me a more granular
briefing?
General Semonite. Not at all, ma'am, that would be great.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you so much. I yield back.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Lamont and General, can you please discuss
the status of the Columbia River Treaty? I know you got a new
line item in this budget, $9.5 million for Columbia River
Treaty, 2024 implementation. Where are we on that?
General Semonite. Sir, I will give you more details, but
our staff, Major General Spellmon up in the Northwestern
Division, is working this to be able to continue, to be able to
stay on track, to be able to get the plan in place.
Right now, we are looking at some challenges with the
storage and what is in the old plan with prepaid storage and
what is going to happen with new storage. We are concerned
about how that is going to work, and we have got to be able to
make sure that we can set the conditions in the next couple of
years so that we do not lose any equities with the United
States as we continue to renegotiate this with Canada. But, I
will certainly come in and lay this out or have the Division
Commander do that as well.
Mr. Simpson. Okay.
General Semonite. It is ongoing. We have the best team
working it up in the Northwestern Division to be able to ensure
we are protecting the equities that we have had in some of the
prior treaties.
Mr. Simpson. I would appreciate an update on where we are
on the Columbia Treaty negotiations. But the $9.5 million is
just to do the work necessary? Continuing to negotiate this
treaty and being involved in it and so forth?
General Semonite. That is my understanding.
Mr. Simpson. And what we have done in the past has just
come out of the Army Corps budget, and this time we have line
itemed it out?
General Semonite. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Because there is so
much extra effort that is really required. We have a lot of
people working this, so I think that is where there is a
delineation now to be able to make sure that we have dedicated
funding so we do not end up somehow getting that effort cut.
Mr. Simpson. Okay.
Mr. Cameron. If I could, Mr. Chairman. The Department of
the Interior is coordinating with the Corps and the State
Department as well, because we clearly have interest in this
issue.
Mr. Simpson. Yes. Mr. Mikkelsen, you mentioned in your
testimony that the flooding that is going on currently in
Western States, if it is not a drought, it is a flood. It seems
like nothing in between. And as you know, we had a record
amount of snow in a lot of the Pacific Northwest and,
unfortunately, the melting pattern has been rather rapid.
What is the Bureau and what is the Army Corps doing about
the flooding that is going on, particularly in Idaho and other
Western States? As you know, we have had washouts of roads and
everything else. It is a mess up there right now.
Mr. Mikkelsen. Mr. Chairman, Reclamation has been
monitoring reservoir elevations, reservoir levels in
conjunction with releases ever since we started with runoff
this spring. And to the maximum extent possible, given the
limitations of the system and the existing snowpack, we have
probably minimized flooding to the tune of hundreds of millions
of dollars at this point.
For instance, just in Idaho, on the Boise River we are
running about 9,700 cubic feet per second (CFS) through
downtown Boise. That is about as much as we can run, but we
have been running that for a long time to just make sure that
we do not have to have any surge events happening.
Mr. Simpson. Good.
General Semonite. Mr. Chairman, very, very similar. A lot
of it is, pre-storm, pre-event, how we can continue to be able
to draw down to the right level.
Our teams are out on the ground working very, very closely
with local and State authorities. If there is damage out there,
then we can utilize our FCCE money that has been appropriated.
We are able to ensure that we are able to repair some of those
damages if that is the case.
I think the main thing also is being very transparent, and
we have a lot of systems that we can put on the web, so
everybody can see where we see the water going, and continue to
try to be advised of what is out there.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Who is next? What order are we in?
We are going to start the second round. Ms. Kaptur.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General Semonite, I
might ask your help in the following way. I know that General
Toy is going to be doing hearings throughout the Great Lakes,
and I would like to use this opportunity to see if you might be
able to help me.
The dates we have been given are dates that it is
impossible for a member to be there because we are voting, and
I would very much like to gather all of the mayors from my long
district along the lake to meet with him and deal with some of
the significant issues we face on our watershed.
So if you could just take--maybe you could help make that
happen if there is some way to reschedule or add another day or
something. There is really a lot of pent-up desire to meet with
the general. So perhaps you could take that message back for
me?
General Semonite. We will definitely take it on, ma'am.
Whatever we can do if it is General Toy, or if we need to have
other people there. If you want me to fly in, it is no problem.
We would love to be able to meet with the stakeholders.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much. I have a couple of other
questions, if I could here. Do you, General Semonite, do you
have any relationships on the Great Lakes related to energy
production?
General Semonite. So I probably need to get back with you
on the details. There are a lot of areas where we might have a
dam where we have a lock, let's say, and we allow a private
vendor go in and put a small hydro in one of those. A good
example, on Lake Erie, I know we have one of those.
That way we are able to save the taxpayers money because we
take some of the electricity that that vendor uses, and we run
our piece, and we do not have to pay O&M to some other power
vendor. And therefore, he is able to do O&M for the lock and
dam. This is something that is probably 20 or 30 years old.
But there are probably a lot more of those that are out
there, but wherever we have been able to find ways of bringing
in private entities, we have certainly done that. Of course, we
do the same thing for recreation. I know your question is
really on energy, but if you want I will have General Toy to
lay out the information for the whole Great Lakes region and
figure out where are we, and then if you think we should be
doing something more than we are doing within our authorities,
I am more than willing to look at those opportunities.
Ms. Kaptur. All right. Well, you know, we call our
committee Energy and Water, and I am very jealous, really, of
other parts of the country when I see what is going on and some
of the challenges we face. But with new energy technologies and
so forth I do not know how the Corps really thinks about that,
and I would be very benefited by a briefing on that and
examples from our region, and perhaps a few examples from
others.
They are very different systems, but with some of the
technologies and facilities that you manage it might be very
interesting to look at the energy piece, even though albeit it
very small, in the Great Lakes. But nonetheless, it would be
interesting to see your history there.
General Semonite. This goes back to a question the Chairman
asked earlier about P3, and I do not know if everybody was
here, but we need to have policy on this. We have a lot of
people that walk in, private companies, and say we would like
to be able to tack something on the back side of your dam
because we are able to make money on the use of the water.
Well, that is great, but, on the other hand, I need to make
sure that the interests of the Federal Government are taken
care of as well. So there cannot be any free lunch. We must be
able to figure out how to share that risk. And if there is a
way, without damaging the capabilities of the project, that we
can continue to be able to get some degree of private funding
if that would then bring down the O&M budget.
We are looking at a lot of these things now. It does go
back to the fact that we must have some good policy on exactly
how do we take the P3 piece and work that, even at a much
smaller level.
Ms. Kaptur. All right. Do you have any relationships with
the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation either
related to the lock operations or energy production?
General Semonite. I know that our Commanders have
relationships. I think they are actually on the Commission, so
they continue to look at water flow, ecosystem restoration,
both our Buffalo district, as well as General Toy and his role
there as the Lakes and Rivers Division Commander.
I am not sure of the formality of exactly what that gives
them with respect to authorities, but I know that we have a
very close relationship with the Commission.
Ms. Kaptur. All right. I would be very interested in a
briefing perhaps with our Great Lakes members to hear a little
bit more about what that is, how that works.
General Semonite. Yes, and maybe the best thing we can do
is if there is ever a time where you have either the Governors
together, or the stakeholders together that we fly in with a
team and lay out what we are doing in ecosystem. What we are
doing on energy.
We are systems people. We want to look at everything
because it all works together, and whatever we do for
navigation has impacts back to the ecosystem. The more that we
can talk about all the variables that are in these systems,
then everybody does not take a parochial viewpoint as to the
one thing that they care about.
They must understand there must be plusses and minuses
across the entire system.
Ms. Kaptur. All right. My final question relates to the Soo
Lock and we wrote a letter to the Corps expressing our concerns
about how you were conducting the economic reevaluation of the
Soo Lock. Could you comment on the methodology that is being
used in the reevaluation, and if that reevaluation will be
finished within the 2-year time schedule?
General Semonite. It will be done within the time period.
We are working funding issues right now. We want to make sure
that it gets the money it continues to need to be able to
finish. There is just a small amount of money there.
As far as the exact methodology, it includes consideration
of a conveyer system consistent with approaches taken on other
navigation lock projects throughout the Corps. We are looking
at least cost, technically feasible alternatives. Again, this
is another thing that is a relatively complex brief, but if you
want to, we can certainly schedule some opportunity to lay out
exactly what that methodology is.
And, again, we want to be informed. If there is something
that we should be doing that we are not, we want to make sure
that we are listening to the bright ideas of where, other
people need us to go. I think we have been very transparent,
but that is a relatively regional area, and I just do not have
the expertise at this level to answer your question.
Ms. Kaptur. All right. I know that Congressman Joyce and I
co-chair the Great Lakes task force, and Congressman Huizenga
is the representative from the House on the International Joint
Commission now, and all of us have a deep interest in the Soo
Lock and its future.
General Semonite. I will get you a factsheet right away. I
have my factsheets here that I can walk you through. It is
relatively detailed, so we can give you something in a couple
days, and then if you think you want a lot more, we will come
and walk through exactly where we are going to go on this.
Ms. Kaptur. All right. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Thank you, gentlemen.
Ms. Simpson. Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my
understanding that the Army Corps has played a role
historically in past Department of Homeland Security-related
border infrastructure projects along the Southern border of the
United States assisting with technical expertise, testing
oversight, and contracting out certain assignments. Could you
give us a run through of those past efforts, what you
anticipate your role will be in fiscal year 2018?
General Semonite. Congressman, you are right. We have
worked very closely with the Customs and Border Patrol not only
in the United States, but where they have gone to other
countries and tried to help. We have built border stations in
the country of Georgia, for instance.
What we have done recently is mainly repair work on what we
call ``the fence.'' There were some smaller portions, both
personnel fences and vehicle fences, that were put in by us
back in 2006. Some of those need maintenance or need additional
work. Some of those were not completed in their entirety.
Right now we are working for the Customs and Border Patrol
to go back into existing areas and mainly replace or finish the
type of construction that was done back in 2006 to 2009. Again,
we work for Customs and Border Patrol.
I do have seven large laboratories that are very good when
it comes to hydraulics, when it comes to things like tunnel
detection, when it comes to geospatial information. We have
been asked by Customs and Border to partner and to be able to
use the technology in those laboratories as they look at what
the options are on a future construction of the potential wall.
So right now we are offering our services to Customs and Border
mainly in a design and technical advice type realm.
Mr. Aguilar. What do you anticipate for fiscal year 2018
that support to Customs and Border Patrol being?
General Semonite. I think right now they have asked us to
do about $11 million in '17. I do not have the '18 number. I am
sure that is in the budget. I just did not pull that for this
hearing. We can certainly tell you that, but it is strictly a
reimbursable basis.
The money would go to Customs and Border, and then they
would contract us to do----
Mr. Aguilar. You are a contractor for services?
General Semonite. Yes, sir.
Mr. Aguilar. In providing that, if you are asked to flex up
or directed to provide additional support it would come through
that same similar type of line item, through CBP, appropriated
and authorized through CBP, and then you would then contract
that piece out? Whether it is the labs or whether it is, you
know, physical construction for the repair portions?
General Semonite. Correct. If it is done in-house, we do
not contract it. We would task our guys and then reimburse
them. But what you are saying is correct. We would then acquire
those services either with an independent contractor or with
our own in-house staff.
Mr. Aguilar. Okay. Well, I think that we will probably dig
a little bit deeper on this discussion and ask you additional
questions as we move forward.
General Semonite. And, Congressman, as we move forward we
would provide whatever you want. I would just ask that when we
do that, that we continue to be able to have the Customs and
Border team there. We are very committed to be able to work
underneath their direction and not to get out ahead of them.
Mr. Aguilar. Sure. I appreciate it. Thanks, General.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. And I thank all of you for being
here today and for your testimony. As the ranking member said,
this is the Energy and Water Committee, and obviously water is
a very important aspect of the bill that we put together. And
we have over the years been very cognizant, I think, as a
Committee and really as a Congress on a bipartisan basis of
sometimes the insufficiency of the request from either the
Obama administration or from this administration and stuff.
And, you know, we have got a WRDA target that is about $375
million or something like that, a million above what the
request was for, and this Committee has worked very hard to
make sure that we give adequate funding to the important work
that you do. And it is not because you all have sterling
personalities, although you do. It is because of the important
work you do and the recognition by members of Congress on both
sides of the aisle that infrastructure is very important. So we
want to work with you to try to devise a budget that is best
for the Nation and the work that you do.
So I thank you all for being here today and we look forward
to working with you.
Hearing is adjourned.
[Questions and answers submitted for the record follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Tuesday, June 20, 2017.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
WITNESS
HON. RICK PERRY, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Mr. Simpson. The hearing will come to order.
It is my great pleasure to welcome Secretary Perry to this
first meeting with the Energy and Water Subcommittee.
Secretary Perry, congratulations on your selection as the
14th Secretary of Energy, and thank you for your continued
service to our country.
We have a lot to discuss today, so I will keep my remarks
rather brief.
This budget request reflects the importance of the
Department of Energy's national security responsibilities. The
budget request proposes a strong increase, $994 million, for
the nuclear weapons activities, and we need to ensure the
effective nuclear deterrence now and for our future. This
program and other defense activities for this bill are and will
remain a high priority for this committee.
I am also pleased that this budget request proposes
appropriate funding for Yucca Mountain. The previous
administration made the costly, and I believe wrong, decision
to abandon the Yucca licensing application, changing courses on
this program, and ignoring the law.
The President's budget proposal proposes a $3.5 billion
decrease for energy programs, reflecting the Administrations's
decisions to focus resources on early stage research and
development. That is a substantial reduction, a reduction this
committee must carefully review in order to understand the
impacts to the important programs and activities within this
bill.
Like the President, we want to eliminate waste and
duplication, and ensure the best use of each and every taxpayer
dollar. This hearing is an important part of our oversight
process.
I appreciate you being here today and hope that we can work
together to move forward on a budget that will ensure our
energy independence and keep consumer prices affordable.
Please ensure that the hearing record, questions for the
record, and any supporting information requested by the
subcommittee are delivered in final form to us no later than 4
weeks from the time that you receive them. Members who have
additional questions for the record will have until close of
business on Thursday to provide them to the subcommittee's
office.
With that, I will turn to my ranking member, Ms. Kaptur,
for her opening statement.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I don't know if I can be as brief, but I want to welcome
the new Secretary, someone who has experience as an
appropriator himself, and also a Governor, former Governor,
from a very important energy State. You have a lot of
experience and we need it all.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding the time, and
Secretary Perry for joining us today in your very first hearing
before this committee, which you will come to like.
Congratulations on your confirmation.
The budget request for the Department of Energy, while
providing healthy increases of 9 percent to defense accounts,
unfortunately slashes the nondefense energy accounts by more
than one-third, of which science is cut by 17 percent.
To speak to the energy and science accounts for a moment,
initial estimates are that this budget request, if enacted,
would result in the loss of approximately 7,000 highly skilled
technical experts in job positions at the Department's world
class National Labs. This is a big worry, this is a big class
worry.
Given that the labs have a multiplier effect on jobs in
their communities, somewhere in the range of two to three, the
total job loss would be in the range of 14,000 to 21,000 jobs.
In addition, initial estimates are that the reductions to just
the energy efficiency and renewable energy and science
accounts, the sector inventing our future and of diversified
energy production in this country, will result in some $2
billion less in Federal support to universities and other
research institutions essential to nurturing America's future
scientific expertise. This is another world class worry.
The United States remains, despite recent efforts to reduce
funding, a leader in innovation. But this budget, I fear, cedes
that leadership to China and nations in the energy and basic
science sectors. China has already monetized the solar panel
industry, and I could talk to you for hours about that,
appropriating American innovation and cornering the market in
manufacturing for the industry with a lot of intellectual
property theft going on at the basis of that. While this budget
proposes to cut funding for clean energy, China is prepared to
spend $360 billion by 2020 on clean energy, while creating 13
million jobs and dislocating millions more of ours. This is
anything but an America First policy.
This budget request also moves the Department's focus to
early stage research, terminating all later stage research,
which frankly I can't understand, along with any deployment-
related activities. While we have struggled with the
appropriate split between early and late stage R&D, along with
which deployment activities to support, my fear is that this
approach will result in a cornucopia of good ideas residing at
the labs in a form still insufficiently mature for private
industry to take over. We must have attention to this segment
of the budget. We have been, for years, talking about what we
can do to accelerate the development of technology originating
in our labs; this budget would be a step back.
Let me end with this: Turning to the Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, I would like to read from a
letter written to our subcommittee, which I would like to
associate myself with. The letter is right here. It says: We
are the entire group of Senate confirmed Republican and
Democratic Assistant Secretaries of Energy who led the DOE
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy between 1989
and 2017. We are particularly concerned about the
administration's recent proposal to cut the EERE budget by 69
percent from fiscal year 2017 enacted levels.
While we have not always agreed on the relative emphasis of
various elements of the EERE budget, we are unified that cuts
of this magnitude in the proposed fiscal year 2018 budget will
do serious harm to this office's critical work and America's
energy future. EERE supported research development and
demonstration and energy efficiency, transportation, renewable
energy, clean energy, manufacturing, and electric grid
modernization are critical to encouraging U.S. innovation,
creating good paying jobs, cutting pollution, and ensuring
American global competitiveness.
Other important EERE programs with similar benefits focus
on setting efficiency standards for appliances and equipment,
helping States deliver energy efficiency improvements, leading
the Federal Government's efforts to reduce its own $23 billion
of annual energy bills, and cutting energy use in low-income
homes.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask permission to enter the entirety
of this letter into the record.
And with that, I will close my remarks.
Mr. Simpson. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you once again, Mr. Secretary, for being
here with us today, and we look forward to your testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the time.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. We are also glad to have the
chairman of the full committee and the ranking member of the
full committee with us today.
Mr. Frelinghuysen.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Secretary, good afternoon. Mr.
Chairman, thank you for the time. I also welcome Secretary
Perry to the Appropriations Committee. We look forward to your
testimony in hearing your frank and candid views on many
issues.
Today's hearing is an important part of the oversight
duties of the committee. After all, the power of the purse lies
in this building. It is the constitutional duty of Congress to
make spending decisions on behalf of the people we represent.
As you referenced in your testimony, Mr. Secretary, you
must annually certify to the President the American nuclear
weapons stockpile remains safe, secure, and reliable. I think
there is no more important responsibility. I think you know
that.
These are nuclear systems that are part of our national
defense, and they are essential to meeting our commitments to
our allies and showing resolve to our adversaries. The
committee has always provided vigorous support to the nuclear
weapons stockpile. I am pleased to see that the administration
recognized that with this budget request. And may I also say
that I am a strong believer in nuclear power as being one of
the solutions to our vast energy needs, and the fact that you
recognize that yourself I do hope is true.
Your proposal of the Department also takes great strides to
deliver our exascale computing system. This is an area where
the United States has been losing ground to China and others. I
agree with you, we must take back American primacy in computing
science. The United States has correctly invested heavily in
scientific research. This work has produced dramatic scientific
breakthroughs and innovation, and in the process, created high
quality jobs for Americans. We know you have a lot of difficult
decisions to make.
I do have some concerns about cuts to the fusion program
and to certain aspects of nuclear energy. As you may know, the
committee has repeatedly endorsed moving forward in the area of
fusion energy. The proposed decreases, which are pretty
dramatic, will inevitably delay some of the progress we are
making in this exciting field, including in my home State of
New Jersey, at the Princeton Plasma Physics Labs.
I look forward to hearing more about these proposed cuts,
and like the Chairman and other members, it should come as no
surprise, we are very supportive of the work we need to do at
Yucca Mountain. It's huge, billions of dollars of investments
there. We need to get it open and use it as a proper depository
for the future.
Again, thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mrs. Lowey.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Kaptur, for holding this hearing. And I would like to join my
colleagues in welcoming you, Secretary Kerry, before--Perry,
Secretary Perry, before the committee.
The Department of Energy has a critical role in America's
national security and its economic prosperity. Its focus on
research, development, deployment of clean energy, and
efficient technologies makes the Department a leader in
scientific innovation, job creation, and the battle against
climate change.
The President's fiscal year 2018 budget requests $28
billion in discretionary spending, a reduction of $2.6 billion
from the fiscal year 2017 enacted level. On its surface, this
funding level may not sound as drastic as the cuts proposed for
other agencies, but increases 11.2 percent the National Nuclear
Security Administration, 9.3 percent for atomic energy defense
activities, which means the energy and science programs would
be decimated with a 30 percent cut.
While you no longer propose to eliminate the Department of
Energy, your budget request would do grievous harm to American
families by abandoning scientific innovation and ignoring the
pressing threat of climate change. Carbon emissions are
creating holes in our ozone layer and contributed to changing
and often dangerous weather patterns around the world. Climate
change has manifested as catastrophic events that threaten our
national security and the livelihoods of American families.
We are at a pivotal moment in world history, as there is
still time to protect our planet from the disastrous impacts of
climate change. Yet your budget proposes to reduce energy
efficiency and renewable energy by a staggering $1.43 billion,
or 69.3 percent.
In addition, the National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine just released a study finding that
ARPA-E has successfully advanced American innovation, and yet
your budget would terminate the program. These two offices
contribute to important scientific research, reduce our
dependence on foreign oil, and create 21st century clean energy
jobs.
There are more than 678,000 jobs in renewable energy in
this country, and that number could be much higher if the
Department of Energy continues to invest in energy research.
Unfortunately, your budget is filled with false choices and by
reducing investments in clean energy jobs. Just another broken
promise by the Trump administration.
The Department of Energy should be looking forward, paving
the way to create new, clean, renewable energy technologies, to
create American jobs, foster American energy and dependence,
not cede the innovation frontier to other nations, with China
leading the charge to undermine American leadership.
I do hope Congress will work together. My friends on both
sides of the aisle, I hope, will reject the Trump
administration's misguided budget proposal in favor of a
spending bill that works for all Americans.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
Again, Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here today. We
welcome you. And let me say on a personal note, thank you for
getting out. I know you have been active in the first few
months in getting out and seeing the sites and the laboratories
and what the DOE does. And thanks for coming to Idaho and Oak
Ridge and other places. It is very nice to have a very active
Secretary that is going to get out and investigate what this
incredible Department does.
So the time is yours.
Secretary Perry. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and to
all the Members. Ranking Member Kaptur, Mrs. Lowey, thank you
for your remarks. And it is--I was just sitting here thinking
as you all were speaking that this is the first time I have
ever been on this side of the table, so I think I may like this
side better.
With that said, let me just share with you what an honor it
is for me to be sitting here on this side to discuss President
Trump's fiscal year 2018 budget request. I hope you know what a
great privilege it is for me to serve this country one more
time as the 14th Energy Secretary. And as you rightfully point
out, I was a former legislative appropriator and a Governor,
and I am very respectful of the budget writing process. I know
the importance of the work that you are undertaking.
And, Mrs. Lowey, again, I look forward to working with you
and the members of this committee and the rest of our friends
here on the Hill to finalize a budget that we can all be proud
of and that serves the taxpayers well.
In my three and a half months as Secretary of Energy, I
have seen the firsthand impact of the Department's leadership,
both domestically and internationally. I have traveled around
the country to many of the National Labs, some based in your
districts, and met with the brilliant minds that are driving
their missions. And I look forward to visiting every one of
them.
These labs are truly national treasures. They are the
future of innovation in this country. I have been in awe at the
diverse scope of the Department's mission, this consequential
work that we are charged with overtaking, overseeing. And I
have also traveled oversees representing the United States both
in Rome at the G7 and China a couple of weeks ago for the clean
energy mission innovation ministerials.
I had the opportunity to visit Japan on that trip to China
and met with their leaders and their stakeholders about the
future of our energy partnership. And on a pretty somber note,
I toured the site of the Fukushima disaster and recognized what
a monumental task they have before them.
Interesting in my trip, and coincidently I guess you could
say, that trip to China began on the day that President Trump
announced that he would officially withdraw the United States
from the Paris Agreement. I delivered his message to the world
that, even though the United States was no longer a part of the
Paris Agreement, we are still the leader in clean energy
technology and we are committed to that mission.
The Department of Energy does many things, many things
well. And America has been remind--I should say it has remained
on the forefront of technology for over 40 years because of the
amazing men and women that work both at our headquarters and at
these National Labs and men and women who are stationed with
the Department of Energy overseas. They wake up every day
knowing that they will make a real difference in people's
lives.
I told them on my first day that the greatest job I ever
had was being the Governor of Texas. But after working here, I
have come to realize that being the Secretary of Energy is now
officially the coolest job I ever had. Under my leadership, our
experts at DOE are going to continue to work for the benefit of
every American and our allies alike.
As Secretary of Energy, I am also a member of the National
Security Council, and this council obviously is supported by
the DOE and its mission to keep our Nation safe. President
Trump's fiscal year 2018 budget request for the Department of
Energy provides $28 billion to advance our key missions and
focuses on important investments, including ensuring the safety
and effectiveness of our nuclear weapons arsenal, protecting
our energy infrastructure from cyber attacks and other threats,
achieving exascale. That is so important, focusing the amazing
network of our National Laboratories on early stage research
and development.
And my goals are straightforward: Advance our Nation's
critical energy and scientific R&D missions, strengthen our
nuclear security, fulfill our environmental management
commitments.
Mr. Chairman, I have just painted a rather rosy picture, a
bright picture. And while there is a lot of good news to
report, there are other hard conversations that we need to
have. As you are well aware, there are approximately 120 sites
in 39 States that are storing spent nuclear fuel or high-level
waste. Every member on that dais has waste in your State. We
have a moral and national security obligation to come up with a
long-term solution, finding the safest repositories available.
Listen, I understand this is a politically sensitive topic
for some, but we can no longer kick the can down the road. As a
former legislative appropriator, as an agency head, as the
Governor, I understand following the rule of law is important.
I have been instructed to move forward towards that goal. The
President's budget requests $120.7 million to resume licensing
activities for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository and
to initiate a robust interim storage program.
Now, in addition to that challenge, Congress has spent $5
billion, taxpayer dollars on the MOX project that is way over
budget with no end in sight. The Army Corps of Engineers
estimated a cost of $17.2 billion and a completion date of
2048. The money appropriated for this project is money that
could be used towards other priorities, like national security
or cleanup at other sites. There is a better, there is a
cheaper, there is a proven way to dispose of plutonium. In
fact, we are already doing it.
I look forward to having an ongoing dialogue with many of
you about these tough but important issues in the days and the
months to come. This budget proposal makes some difficult
choices, but it is paramount that we execute our fiduciary
responsibility to the American taxpayer.
The President's proposal prioritizes the core mission of
the Department by consolidating duplications within our agency
in order to respect the American taxpayer. He deserves credit
for beginning this discussion about how we most wisely spend
our scarce Federal resources.
As for me, this isn't my first rodeo. During my 14 years as
Governor, I managed some tight budget circumstances. And I will
suggest successfully, Alison, and I will do the same as the
Secretary of Energy. Faced with limited resources, Texas became
a shining example of energy growth, economic growth, higher
educational standards, and important improvements to our
environment. And we did it by all working together, Democrats,
Republicans, folks that didn't want to be associated with
either political party for that matter, but they loved their
State. And just like you in this room, we love this country and
we will find the solutions together, because we will set clear
goals. We will manage the best and the brightest to achieve
those goals and we will spend those scarce resources wisely.
So with your help, I believe we can attain many positive
outcomes at the Department of Energy on behalf of the American
people.
I thank you again for the opportunity to be in front of
you, and I will attempt to answer your questions as well as I
can.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
My first question was going to be to ask you about your
vision for the Department of Energy, but I think you pretty
much described that in your opening statement.
Secretary Perry. Thank you.
Mr. Simpson. So I will forego that question and get into
some specifics. I was glad to see that you put money into, as I
said in my opening statement, into Yucca Mountain. That is
something that this committee has put money into for the last
several years, and it always gets dropped in conference between
the confrontation, I guess is the best word, between the House
and the Senate on this issue. I noticed you also put money in
for interim storage.
First of all, despite the current law, the previous
administration shut down the activities at Yucca Mountain. And
can you briefly discuss your plans to move forward with Yucca
and what you can do now to get things going while we await the
additional funds from Congress? And tied with that is, what do
you plan to do on interim storage when the current law and the
thing that keeps us from moving there--and you mentioned how
you always want to follow the law--but the law says licensing
conditions for interim storage. Any license issued by the
commission for a monitored or achievable storage facility under
this section shall provide that, one, construction of such
facility may not begin until the commission has issued a
license for the construction of the repository under section
115(d), on and on----
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
Mr. Simpson [continuing]. At Yucca Mountain.
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir. Thank you. I am not sure there
is an issue that is any more politically sensitive. I mean, you
all have been dealing with this for years. But I think it is
important for us to step back and look at the kind of the
global aspect of--and I think it is so important for the
Members of Congress to be substantially a part of this
solution, because it is your citizens that have the most to
lose if we continue to leave this waste in your districts. And
in sites that are--Mr. Aguilar and I were just talking, over in
the Inland Empire you are right next to a nuclear facility.
When I was at Fukushima and we were talking about both the
construction and the geology, if you will, the geography as
well, and having those spent fuel rods in those cooling ponds
in a region of the world that is inside that ring of fire, as
they call it, and the potential to have a geologic event, and
we could have a repeat of what happened at Fukushima to some
degree. I mean, we have a moral obligation, as I said in my
remarks, to remove this from as many of these sites as we can
and put it in the safest repository.
I went to Yucca. The first trip I took as the Secretary was
to go to Nevada, to see that facility, to talk to the men and
women that have been working on it for, in some cases, decades,
and recognize that that is the proper place for long-term
storage.
So for us to do our duty, to follow the law, to put a plan
into place, I think it is very important, Mr. Chairman. And the
funding of NRC is important, because their licensing process,
you know--from my perspective, this is a--this is a dual track.
We need to be doing what we are doing, stand up the office,
move towards having an orderly transition back to following the
law, while the NRC is following their licensing. You can kind
of help me on this one, but their funding is not in our----
Ms. Doone. Correct.
Secretary Perry. They have their own funding, and so they
will be over here asking you for that.
Mr. Simpson. Yeah.
Secretary Perry. But anyway.
Mr. Simpson. Let me ask you, is there anything you can do?
I would like to believe this budget will become the law of the
land by October 1. I am not sure that is the reality, and we
may end up in CRs and all sorts of things like that. We hope
not, it is not our goal. Is there anything we can do between
now and when this 2018 budget becomes law to help stand up the
office and start moving forward on Yucca?
Secretary Perry. We have some funds available to do that.
And I am comfortable that that is our goal, to stand the office
up, to clearly send the message that, that is the direction.
You asked another question, Mr. Chairman, if I can briefly,
you asked, rather, about interim storage. And I happen to be
one of those that think that you can do and we should do both
interim storage as we are working towards standing Yucca
Mountain back up and getting it operational and following the
law.
The interim side of this, again, and I know we are going to
talk about MOX later, but WIPP in New Mexico, a waste control
specialist in the western side of Texas; those are both
places--and I happen to think out at the Nevada test site--and
again, I am not wanting to, stir something up here just for the
sake of stirring something up, but if we are truly looking for
the proper places to interimly store some waste, that test site
has the potential to do that as well.
And so there are a number of ways to deal with this. And I
think it is so important to have the discussion with the
Members of Congress so that they can share with their
constituents why this is so important, that we move as much of
this waste, whether it is transuranic waste or whether it is
high-level waste, out of their districts to appropriate either
interim, or in the case of Yucca Mountain, permanent storage
sites.
Mr. Simpson. I appreciate that. And I happen to be one that
agrees with both interim and Yucca Mountain, that we need both
of them. If we opened Yucca Mountain tomorrow, it would be
filled if we put everything in there.
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
Mr. Simpson. So we have got to have interim storage. It
would require to move forward with constructing an interim
storage facility to changing the law. So we need to be working
on that. So I know the Senate, Lamar and some others in the
Senate, are working on some language. But anyway, we will work
with you on that.
Members, I am going to try to keep the questions to the 5-
minute rule, especially through the first round, because we do
have many members here today.
So, Marcy.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary, I come from the industrial heartland, Ohio.
Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Indiana carried for the
President. And so my question really concerns the proposed cuts
in advanced manufacturing, which bite very hard in our region.
In my district alone, I represent the Ford EcoBoost engine
manufacturing facility at Brook Park; the largest truck
facility for Ford at Avon. This is their heavy truck facility,
the 750s and so forth; General Motors premier transmissions
facility globally at Toledo; the entire--the largest Fiat-
Chrysler manufacturing platform at Toledo for the Wrangler and
Cherokee and so forth; and of course, major steel industries
like ArcelorMittal, Republic, and U.S. Steel, which are
undergoing enormous pressure because of dumping.
I wanted to be direct--we can all get acquainted here. And
obviously, you are from Texas, I am from Ohio. But your
budget--the President's budget makes a 68 percent cut to this
advanced manufacturing office at DOE. And I would really ask
you, as we move forward with this budget, to work with us on
this. Because when I spoke to one of the CEOs, and I am not
going to tell you which one, for all North American operation,
I said, what can I do to help you bring jobs back to this
region? And his answer was, energy, energy. Find me a way to
cut my costs in energy by one-third. By one-third.
So we need--this is a tiny office compared to some of the
other ones. But I just wanted to ask you where should I direct
industries in my district if the energy audits and other
support services that DOE currently offers, which are not
sufficient, where are we supposed to send them?
Secretary Perry. Ms. Kaptur, thank you. If there is one
thing I have been a proponent of, and that is creating jobs and
how to do it in States, and we--while I was a Governor, we were
able to lure manufacturing jobs to the State of Texas, Toyota.
As a matter of fact, every Toyota pickup truck--you know, there
are lots of good brands of pickup trucks to drive. I am not
picking them out. I mean, they were just a company that we were
able to recruit and come to the State of Texas.
And so I live and breathe competition every day. So I
completely and totally respect what you have just said. With
that, I would like to remind people that I am very--I am fairly
versed in the budgeting process, and I know how this works.
Again, it is the first time I have sat on this side of the
table, but I know that the flexibility that you all can give to
an agency head will be very, very helpful.
So being able to prioritize where we focus our efforts,
where we--being able to reduce duplication, being able to find
places to save dollars, at the same time being able to deliver
the product that the citizens want. Your constituents, I think
they want to be able to know that there is an agency that,
number one, is going to be responsive to their request, if it
happens to be with energy efficiency or if it happens to be
with--you know, is there a better way to deliver to your truck
manufacturers some technology, innovation, partnerships? That
is what we are going to be working on. Is it going to be in the
structure that the previous administration or the previous
administration from before them?
Ms. Kaptur. Mr. Secretary, we invite you to the automotive
heartland.
Secretary Perry. Yes, ma'am, I will be there.
Ms. Kaptur. We will have the CEOs all there.
Secretary Perry. I want you to know--
Ms. Kaptur. My time is running out, and I have to get in my
second question, but I appreciate your openness.
Secretary Perry. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Kaptur. I appreciate your openness and your support of
private sector manufacturing.
My second question, you know, you come from down the
southwest. It was just 122 degrees in Arizona. And up where I
live, we are up against the Canadian border. And as a
representative from what is called the cold weather State, I am
especially fond of the weatherization program which your budget
zeros out. Here is another area where I think you need our
help. And that particular program has weatherized over 7
million homes and saved an average of $283 a year, which
doesn't sound like a lot of money in Washington to the average
consumer, but in my area, that is big savings. And the Mulvaney
budget completely eliminates this program.
So we hope that, as we move forward, that we will be able
to resume the activities that we believe are very important for
home weatherization in these older parts of the United States
that are leaking energy. And we know that with good
conservation we can save 40 percent of the energy we use, so it
makes sense. I am sure as Governor you managed those programs.
Secretary Perry. Ms. Kaptur, I--that is a statutory
program. And the funding for weatherization has been cleared
through our review process, and the 2017 budget and those are
going forward.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you.
Secretary Perry. And these are words that are going to make
their way through the regular financial assistance system to
get to the States. But I will assure you that I will work with
you. We will come. And again, you are going to hear me say this
a number of times here today, but I know--this is the first
step in a long process. And I was a Governor long enough to
know that Governor's budgets don't always come back to you the
way that they start. And I think that is probably a fair
statement.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Perry. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Calvert.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I heard--the Secretary mention Toyota. Obviously, I have
fond memories of Toyota. They used to be in California.
Secretary Perry. It is doing really well, by the way.
Mr. Calvert. Yeah, I know.
On the topic of Interim storage. I used to represent San
Clemente, CA. Darrell Issa represents the area now. He has a
bill on interim storage, H.R. 474. Obviously, this is a concern
in California that he has mentioned to you. A concern to me and
all Californians is getting that material out of California
into a safe interim storage facility. At the same time, the
Chairman mentioned we are going to do what we can in congress
to resolve the Yucca Mountain licensing issue that has been
festering here for a number of years.
If you put together a program for--for interim storage as
called for in your Budget request, I hope there are some
facilities that are on the top of the priority list. I think
California would be right up there, because of as you
mentioned, the ring of fire and the earthquake zone. San
Clemente is right there; Camp Pendleton is right there in the
middle of that region. So I hope you would take a look at the
possibility that some sites would receive priority for interim
storage.
Secretary Perry. Well, obviously, Mr. Calvert, we would
rely upon a lot of the expertise there at the DOE from the
standpoint of, you know, which is going to move first. And
obviously, I would suggest you all may have a bit of a say in
that as well. I know that Senator Feinstein has the same
concerns that you do, and a supporter of moving that waste with
the greatest expedition that we can.
So again, you know, how you prioritize which of those you
would move first, I will try to work with the experts on that.
But I think what is more important is that we agree that it has
to be moved first. I mean, I think that is----
The other issue is hydrogen fuel cells. Secretary, a number
of States have imposed zero emission vehicle standards on the
industry. And as you may know, the fuel cell vehicle technology
option is there. The State of California has been pushing that
pretty hard. They are very bullish on hydrogen. Currently the
technology is such that hydrogen fuel cell refueling areas,
which could refuel about the same time as conventional gasoline
engines, are feasible.
Your budget has cut more than 50 percent for fuel cell
activities, even though your Department has been pushing for
fuel cell technology in the past. How do you feel about
hydrogen as a potential fuel? And will your Department be
working with industry to ensure a successful rollout of the
hydrogen industry?
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir. Mr. Calvert, I am--and the
message that will come out of DOE is we are pretty much all of
the above. Hydrogen being one of the all off the aboves. And I
think working with our National Labs, working with our
universities, working with the private sector--I am a big
public-private partnership proponent, supporter. My 14 years as
being the Governor, one of the reasons we were successful is
that we, you know--inside that State, we removed the regulatory
burdens. We tried to put tax structures into place. We worked
towards having that skilled workforce so that those private-
public partnerships could flourish.
And you will see us pushing a lot of our innovation,
hydrogen fuel cells being one of those, to the private sector
to try to commercialize those technologies. We think that is--
Ms. Kaptur asked the question earlier--or she didn't ask the
question, she made the statement earlier about the reductions
in late--in our late modeling of our projects. And the fact is
that is where those need to be pushed out to the private
sector.
The early stage basic research, that is our core
responsibility. That is what the DOE was set up for back in the
late 1970s to do and going forward, and we will continue to.
You know, I think we do need to have a conversation about late
stage development and what is the appropriate amount of dollars
that we spend. How do we coordinate that? How do we find the
private sector partners to come in and then commercialize that
and make it work? I would suggest we are probably--I mean,
again, without having the experts here whispering in my ear
that here is exactly where we are, my instinct is that hydrogen
fuel cell technology is getting close to that point to being
able to push it out to the private sector, to see if it is
going to be able to stand on its own from the standpoint of a
commercialized technology. If it does, it is another
opportunity for us to create jobs. It is another opportunity
for us to show the world our commitment to the environment. It
is another opportunity for America to lead on this climate
issue.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Mrs. Lowey.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you again,
Mr. Secretary.
I just want to say I appreciate your comments regarding
interim storage sites, because as we know, Yucca Mountain is so
controversial. And even if it is built, it is still a year away
from being functional. And in my district, we have the Indian
Point Energy Center, which is scheduled to cease operations in
2021. And as I am sure you know, without a central repository
or interim storage sites for the waste, the spent fuel rods are
stored in dry casts onsite at decommissioned plants. And this
is key because we are all talking about creating jobs and
economic development. And these sites just cannot be
redeveloped into productive properties because of the storage
there.
Secretary Perry. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Lowey. So I just want to mention that I appreciate
that. You are supportive, and I hope we can move forward.
I wanted to ask you a question about our Nation's electric
grid, because you and I know it must be upgraded to address
reliability and security issues. And given the fact that the
grid is arguably the most complex and critical infrastructure
in our Nation, upgrading it will be a monumental challenge.
How would your budget request address this issue? Have we
anything to show for our recent efforts? What are the most
pressing issues we should be addressing? And what kind of
public-private partnership is the Department involved in to
accelerate efforts for the grid of the 21st century? I must
say, as you know, I am a New Yorker, and I often think about,
oh my, what would happen if this grid goes down? So I
appreciate your response.
Secretary Perry. Mrs. Lowey, I think you are very prescient
in having this issue at your forefront. And you are absolutely
correct, the chaotic event, if we were to lose one or two of
our grids in the northeastern part of the United States and a
massive amount of people without electricity, without the
ability to communicate, without our hospitals being able to
operate, I mean, the stunning impact that it could have on our
country, I am not sure that most Americans really understand
the potential.
And one of the core responsibilities at the Department of
Energy, by an executive order that was signed by President
Trump, with the Department of Homeland Security, being able to
have a cybersecurity study to make sure that this country is as
protected as it can be from individuals who would do harm to
our citizens through compromising our electrical grid.
There is--at this particular point in time, I want to
bifurcate just a bit and talk about, there is a grid study
going on now at the DOE to look at all of our ability to
deliver electricity in a sound and a thoughtful and a stable
way. And that is ongoing. We should be having that available at
the end of the month. And that is a question about do we have
the base load, or all of our different forms? Where does
nuclear come into this? Where does our renewables play? What
role does carbon capture, utilization, sequestration of coal
plants have to play in the base load? And then are we going to
be able to have a secure electrical grid, not just in the case
of protecting it against nation states or bad actors out there
that are digitally trying to penetrate into that. We have seen
what happened to Saudi Arabia with Aramco. We saw what happened
to Ukraine as there were some bad actors that attacked their
power.
And so DOE is comitted to that. When I was at Los Alamos,
when I was at Oak Ridge and INL, you have a test grid at the
chairman's lab. There is a lab, Mrs. Lowey, that is in place,
that is an operational grid, where we literally can come in and
break things and know how to patch them up or to keep those
types of attacks from occurring.
With that said, I have concerns--that is a priority, Mrs.
Kaptur. I mean, grid security is a priority of the Department
of Energy. It is one of the reasons that we have asked--well,
that I will ask at the appropriate time on the funding side to
make sure that that part of our responsibility is appropriately
funded and making it as efficient and as effective as we can.
Because you are absolutely correct, if we don't get that right,
it can be devastating for our citizens.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you, Secretary Perry.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Fleischmann.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Perry. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Fleischmann. And thank you very much for stepping up
and assuming this wonderful position as Secretary to the
Department of Energy. And I thank you for all of your past
service and current service, sir.
As part of my representation of the people in the third
district of Tennessee, I represent the great City of Oak Ridge.
It is the birthplace of the Manhattan Project. We have Oak
Ridge National Lab, Y-12 National Security Complex. We are
building the uranium processing facility. We have a large EM
mission. Literally, the city of Oak Ridge touches the
Department of Energy in many ways.
I also want to thank you for your visit. We had a great
visit, and I appreciate you addressing all of the different
issues we have there.
If I may, sir, I have a few questions. Several years ago,
the Department of Energy consolidated the management of the Y-
12 plant in Oak Ridge with Pantex in your great State of Texas.
From what I understand, that effort is now reaping benefits
through efficient execution of the mission for the Nation and
has saved several hundred millions of dollars. It took a lot of
foresight on the part of DOE to conceive of this contract. And
while it has not always been easy, we are clearly seeing the
benefits that we were promised.
Do you envision those cost savings continued? Are you
pleased with what you are seeing on the efficient delivery of
the mission at Pantex and Y-12, sir?
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir. There is a number of examples.
All too often, we talk about the challenges that we face. We
talk about, you know--we discuss or spend enough money in a
particular line item and what have you. There--as I have become
more and more familiar with the DOE's history and with their
budgeting process, there are multiple examples of where we have
been successful in what either you all or together we have come
up with ways to be more efficient.
I will take a little bit of a detour here, but the
nonproliferation side. I mean, we are now--I think there are 40
countries in Eastern Europe that no longer have highly enriched
uranium because of the work that DOE has done, and so we are
able to reduce the spending there. So there are a lot of
successes. That is not to say we don't have these challenges,
as you all are very good about pointing out. But the point is
this is one of those, thank you for pointing out a success
that, you know, all too often, government doesn't get patted on
the back and say well done.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, sir.
The uranium processing facility is a one-of-a-kind project
that you recently visited at the Y-12 Security Complex.
According to NNSA reports, it is close to the next phase.
During the construction, UPF will require a sharp funding
increase. Is the Department still prepared to build UPF at $6.5
billion by 2025? If so, how do you plan to handle the top
funding years, sir?
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir. The NNSA remains committed to
completing the UPF and ceasing the EU programmatic operations
in that old building 9212 by, I think, no later than 2025, and
at a cost of $6.5 billion. The commitment is contingent on
predictable and stable appropriations, as requested in the
budget. So it is--you don't hear this very often, but it
appears on budget and on time.
Mr. Fleischmann. Yes, sir. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary, I am concerned that vital DOE missions to
support the national security and economic security of our
country are targeted for deep cuts or elimination in the budget
proposal. It is important to note that national security and
economic security often overlap in today's world. Few program
examples that are funded through EERE and could not be
duplicated by the private sector are dark net research project
to protect utility customers and especially the electric grid
from cyber attacks; the manufacturing demonstration facility,
which you saw firsthand recently, that is helping U.S.
manufacturers solve difficult problems and, as a result,
flourish and add more jobs; the critical materials hub
targeting the scarcity of rare metals that could pose at risk
to technology.
How does the Department plan to support critical projects
within programs that are targeted for cuts, sir?
Secretary Perry. Again, Mr. Fleischmann, this is a straight
down the middle of the plate, this is about prioritization.
This is about picking and choosing those projects out there and
making sure that they are funded. And again, we may have a
healthy discussion about your priorities versus my priorities
versus, you know, President Trump's priorities.
From my perspective, this is right down the line of which--
the way we get back to our core responsibilities at the
Department of Energy. We fund those core responsibilities. We
may not get every program that you and the members of the
committee want to be funded at the level you want to be funded.
But I am comfortable that with the right leadership, that we
have a budget in totality that we can address the needs of this
country, that we continue to be cutting edge technology.
You know, we haven't even talked about exascale computing
yet. I know it will come up here in part of the conversation,
but there is a great example; we are probably going to ask you
for more resources there.
Today, we just found out, the United States is not number
one in super computing. As matter of fact, we are not even
number two. We are not even third. The Swiss passed us up
today.
Ms. Kaptur, I am not happy about the Swiss passing us up.
That is like--well, I won't even get into a State to State. I
will just get into trouble if I do that comparison.
But the point is our future and our ability to be able to
be competitive in the economic field, as well as the national
security field, deals with this innovation. And our funding
those innovations, our funding of those projects is important,
but doing it in a way that is responsible and efficient.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I appreciate
your responses.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Ranking Member.
Congratulations and thank you for being here, Mr.
Secretary.
I appreciate you mentioning California. I am going to keep
my first question specific to NNSA. I won't talk to you about
California and our GDP growth of 2.9 percent last year versus
Texas at 0.4----
Secretary Perry. I am not Governor anymore.
Mr. Aguilar. I am not going to quiz you on those, or in
2015 when it was 3 to 1.5 percent.
I will ask you, following up with what Mr. Fleischmann
talked about with NNSA--and I know Ranking Member Kaptur
mentioned it too--the budget that was submitted shows a
significant increase in fiscal year 2018. There are significant
reductions in other parts of DOE's budget, including the
science accounts that were highlighted. But my question here
is: Many of the labs that are funded through the science
accounts also support the nuclear mission. Will this shift in
funding out of science and into weapons activities undermine
the nuclear enterprise and nonproliferation goals in the long
run?
Secretary Perry. The short answer is no. But you need to
hear more than just no. And the point is that, again, I ask you
humbly to allow me to show you I know how to manage. And I am
not asking that just in the dark. I mean, I have got a 14-year
record of being able to manage a rather large entity. And it
wasn't all blue skies and smooth sailing. We had massive
turndowns in the early 2000s in my home State of Texas. We had,
I mean, a huge, 15, 20 percent, budget shortfall in totality.
And so knowing how to move those parts of the puzzle around--
that is not to say that everything is going to be whole cloth.
But it is to say that I am going to work with you, sir, to find
the resources to consolidate, to be able to show you that we
are working in really good faith to meet the requirements, to
meet the desires of the Members of this Congress--or this
committee and of Congress and the general public and to be
responsive to the taxpayers. So I am comfortable we can do this
in a way that does meet our nonproliferation requirements, that
does meet this lifetime extension program effort that we need
from our national security standpoint and to continue to have
the innovation and technology that can drive our economy.
Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, sir.
My second question: You talked about, in your response to
Mrs. Lowey, about cyber attacks and with respect to the grid
and outages seen in Ukraine, you highlighted, in 2015. In
recent days, we have seen reports of hackers reportedly aligned
with the Russian Government developing cyber weapons, dubbed
Crash Override and Industroyer, which could potentially disrupt
the U.S. grid. Our modern, internet-based, internet-connected
economy depends on a stable, efficient electrical grid for its
productivity. With growing reports of cyber intrusions, many
likely sponsored by foreign governments seeking ways to damage
the ability of our grid to function, why has the DOE chosen to
reduce funding for the cybersecurity and energy delivery
systems, that line item, by 32 percent from previously enacted
levels of 2016 and 2017? How would this affect the DOE's
ongoing cybersecurity efforts in the energy sector?
And before you answer, you mentioned current labs and
exercises being done throughout the country. Those labs and
those exercises are being done based on fiscal year 2016 and
fiscal year 2017 investments. Why shouldn't we make similar
investments in fiscal year 2018 if this is a priority?
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
Number one, it is a priority. And the President's executive
order clearly made it a priority. Here is what I would ask you
and the committee members to keep in mind, that just because
there is a line item that says--and has a particular name in it
and a particular direction, that we somehow or another are just
going to back away from that effort. We are not. When I sit
here before you and commit to you that we are going to put into
place the resources in both the dollars and the staff that is
required to make America as secure from a cyber attack
standpoint as we can, that is what we will do. Does that mean
we are going to have to, move dollars around in a budget and
prioritize? Yes. That is exactly what it means.
And, again, I know that this budget is the first step in
the process. But I shared in my opening remarks that the life
extension programs over at NNSA with our weapons system, that
exascale computing, that cybersecurity, those are three of--not
all of, but three of--the most important responsibilities that
the Department of Energy has. And we are going to work with the
private sector. We have got three of our labs that are part of
what is called CyberCorps. And they are working on the
cybersecurity issue now. We are in the process of talking to
private sector entities that have deep tentacles into the cyber
world. So my hope is that we are going to be able to leverage
some private sector funding with our funding to find the
solutions to these challenges on cybersecurity that confront
us.
Mr. Aguilar. A lot of questions and more follow up, but I
am out of time. Thank you so much. I appreciate it, Secretary.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
Ms. Herrera Beutler.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Secretary, it is a pleasure to have you with us. I have
a couple of questions. I am going to attempt to get through
them and then throw it open to you--
Secretary Perry. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Herrera Beutler [continuing]. And request your
comments, if that is possible. And they are a little divergent,
but I want to get them all in.
The first one is regarding Hanford and the nuclear site. My
district is downstream of Hanford. So, for me and my
constituents, the cleanup effort is vital to protecting the
Columbia River and southwest Washington communities from the
millions of gallons of nuclear waste currently stored in
underground tanks at Hanford. And, as you know, last month,
thousands of Hanford workers had to take cover after a Cold
War-era tunnel used to store contaminated, radioactive
materials collapsed, which led to mass evacuations and serious
concerns about contamination. Thankfully, no radiation was
detected. But this kind of scare highlights how important it is
that we get this work done.
And I would like to underscore this is a Federal Government
responsibility. We talk a lot about taxpayer dollars. It does
cost money to get this taken care of. But this wasn't something
this community did on its own. This was a Federal Government's
wartime effort. So it is our responsibility to take care of
this and take care of it well.
I know that you have received an invitation to come out to
Hanford. I am sure my colleague will reiterate that. We invite
you to come. It is important. And I wanted to just ask for your
commitment to maximize the Federal Government's role in
cleaning up this site in a safe, effective manner. And let me
move on really quickly, and then we can come back.
The Bonneville Power Administration. The proposed budget
calls for divesting the transmission assets of Bonneville Power
Administration. And I will tell you I love how the President is
focusing on infrastructure and getting America working again.
It is music to my ears. This is an area where I believe--that I
would submit for your consideration that BPA is self-financed
and has made in excess of $32 billion in payments to the
Treasury by selling power. And a quick $4.9 billion sounds like
a lot. But that credit from the divestiture of those assets I
think would be a poor tradeoff. Much of my district is rural
and sparsely populated, but they receive reliable power because
of the Bonneville Power Administration infrastructure. And the
ratepayers of our region are the ones that pay for that. And so
I wanted to ask if you had taken a position on BPA's
divestiture of the transition assets.
And, finally, there are reductions--and I agree with you,
Mr. Secretary, every area of this budget should be combed, this
budget and across the Federal Government, because we should be
finding waste or inefficiencies. And I applaud the President
for looking at that. One area where I want to submit for your
reconsideration would be with regard to hydropower. You know,
there are reductions in the budget for the Department's water
power program. And in southwest Washington producing clean,
reliable, efficient hydropower has been a staple of our energy
supply since the early 1940's. And to cut the Federal
investment in hydropower is concerning for our region, in part
because it is such a good--I mean, to replace the Bonneville
Power Administration, what they generate would take about 16
coal-fired plants. And here we have this amazing renewable
energy source. And on a global scale, China plans to invest
$360 billion in renewable power generation by 2020, including
$73 billion for hydropower alone. I just feel like they are
gobbling up assets in this area, and they want to eat our lunch
and pop the sack. And we need to take this back, especially
when we are talking about a renewable, load-bearing source of
energy.
So that is a lot to throw at you. But I wanted to get all
three of those in because they are so important to my neck of
the woods. And I thank you for your time.
Secretary Perry. Yes, ma'am.
Let me address the first one, and that is Hanford. This is
one of those classic examples of the Federal Government working
with the State government working with the local government. I
mean, the agreement that has been signed there, particularly
working with Governor Inslee, and going forward, not only do I
look forward to coming out to your district to tour Richland
and the Hanford site and to get a really good, hands-on look, I
have been briefed relatively extensively about the project out
there, about the progress that is being made. You know, I hope
to be out there before the summer is up. But then in
September--I think it is in September, this fall, at least, you
know, you are going to celebrate a pretty big milestone in the
above-grade demolition of the old plutonium finishing plant.
That is going to be completed out there. So, you know,
retrieving and packaging that highly radioactive sludge that is
stored in the basin along the river on the central plateau, for
instance, I mean, they are making some good progress. I mean,
none of us like to have to deal with when, you know, Murphy and
Murphy's law comes into place and something happens and you
have to deal with it, that kind of came out of left field, with
the tunnel collapsing. But, again, I think we got to see the
real professional response, and no one was--you know, there was
no individual harmed by that activity. So our continued focus
on the cleanup, which is the Federal Government's
responsibility, obviously coordinating with the local State
government and doing it in a way that is appropriate, that
remediation is going to take some time. But this country is
committed to it. We will continue to do that.
The second thing you asked about, which was the power
agencies, I will be brief on this one. That is an interesting
idea that has been discussed many times before, and I look
forward to the continuing discussion and debate. So you make
some very strong arguments about what they are doing, how they
function.
And just on hydro in general, just let me say, we will work
with you, and the agency will be very open to your ideas and
your directives relative to--I agree with you that we need to
be looking at all-of-the-above energy approach and not taking
anything--you know, unless it is just a straight-up economic
issue, if it just won't work, it won't work--but not for any
political reasons do we need to be removing any sources of
energy. We are going to need them all to be competitive.
And there are good points you make about the Chinese and
what they are doing and what they appear to be committed to. So
we have got our challenges out there. And I think taking a
source of energy, particularly good, clean, low-emission, no-
emission energy, off of the playing field is not wise for a lot
of reasons.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Newhouse.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Perry, welcome to the Appropriations
Subcommittee. My colleague from her district downstream
mentioned Hanford. And I am proud to say that my congressional
district is home to Hanford as well as the Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory, as well as many other companies that work
very closely with the Department of Energy.
We only have a few minutes here, but I want to make sure
and just reiterate that you are cordially invited to come and
visit. It sounds like you have plans to do so this fall
perhaps. As a followup to my earlier invitation, just let me
say I will work with you in your schedule to make that happen
and look forward to doing that.
A couple of things I wanted to touch on, and there are
several more that we will submit for the record as well. As you
know, there are approximately 56 million gallons of waste held
in temporary underground storage tanks at Hanford, and adequate
funding is certainly going to be needed to continue to design
and construct the waste treatment plant. The request provides
$8 million for WTP commissioning, although additional funding
will also be needed as commissioning and startup begins.
What do you envision WT's funding needs will be,
particularly over the next 5 years, in order to meet the court-
mandated timeline for its full operation by 2026?
Secretary Perry. Mr. Newhouse, my instinct here, is that
looking 5 years down the road--or, for that matter, looking 9
years down the road--is always a tricky thing in this business.
But I would suggest to you that the funding levels that we see
currently are most likely the minimum that would be required to
reach the goals that they are looking for.
Mr. Newhouse. I certainly appreciate your underscoring the
Federal Government's legal and moral obligation here, and then
that answer helps as well.
As I said, also, the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
is in my district, and I am very proud to be able to say that.
It is a powerhouse of innovation in addressing pressing
national challenges. So, as you can understand, I am very
concerned about the impact of the President's proposed budget
as it relates to the PNNL. If enacted, the budget cuts of
approximately $200 million, let me just tell you what that
means in human terms: That would be a loss of about 1,000 jobs.
So let me just ask, as you talked about earlier in your
opening comments, what is your vision for ensuring the
Department's strong, vibrant science and energy programs, and
with those cuts, how does the administration plan to maintain
our position as a world leader in scientific research?
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir. Mr. Newhouse, as I said in my
opening remarks, the commitment to science, to innovation, to
technology, that is a major priority, obviously, and will
continue to be. I might just add that I made mention of three
laboratories that we are working on that that will be tasked--
already are tasked, but will be prioritized as we go forward on
the issue of cybersecurity. PNNL is one of those.
So your concern about your constituents, your concern about
the observation that there could be massive loss at a lab, I
don't necessarily agree with that reflection. And the reason I
don't agree with that reflection is because it doesn't take
into account our being able to manage, our being able to use
year-end expended balances. It doesn't take into account--I
think it is a very cold look, if you will, and I don't want to
belabor that word. But I think it is just a very sterile look
at: Here is what the budget says, here is going to be the
result.
You know, my intention--you know, there is not any of these
labs that are going to be shut down, obviously. These labs are
going to be continuing to be the future of this country from
the standpoint of innovation and technology. I am comfortable
that we will manage these labs in a way that continues to keep
the employment levels at the level to deliver the innovation
and the technology that this country is going to need. So I
fully respect your concern and, rightfully so, as an elected
citizen to represent your constituents. But I hope I can give
you some good comfort that, from a management standpoint, we
are going to do everything we can to make sure that we keep our
labs functioning at the level of which I think the American
citizens need and deserve.
Mr. Newhouse. I appreciate that commitment on your part and
look forward to working with you----
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
Mr. Newhouse [continuing]. To make sure those don't equal
the drastic numbers of loss of human resource.
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
Mr. Newhouse. So I appreciate that.
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, again, for being here, and look
forward to your visit in September.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Joyce.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon, Secretary Perry.
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
Mr. Joyce. Just before, you brought up the study you
initiated in April to explore the critical issues central to
protecting the long-term reliability of the electric grid. I
understand the study will examine the evolution of wholesale
electricity markets, adequate compensation for onsite fuel
supply, and other factors that contribute to grid resiliency,
and the effect of the continued regulatory burdens on base load
power plants.
I think the more we know here, the better. So I am glad to
hear your Department is conducting this study. The safety and
security of our communities depend on the resiliency of the
electric grid. As you said in your April memo about this new
study, we must provide American families and business with an
electric power system that is technologically advanced,
resilient, reliable, and second to none.
In my district, the Perry Nuclear Plant has played a
critical role in the economy of eastern Lake County for
decades. The 1,284-megawatt power plant employs more than 700
workers and, in 2016 alone, contributed $14 million in State
and local taxes to support local schools, police and fire
departments, and other vital public services. The Perry plant
is one of the largest plants of its type in the U.S. and
produces enough electricity to power more than 1 million homes
daily.
Mr. Secretary, what potential problems or challenges would
our Nation face should our base load power plants, particularly
our nuclear plants, be shut down?
Secretary Perry. Mr. Joyce, not just our nuclear plants,
but I think any plants that are able to run that base load, we
need to give appropriate oversight and concern about from the
standpoint of keeping them operating.
And I think it is 122 degrees somewhere in Arizona today. I
know, yesterday, it was 117 degrees in Las Vegas. We may get a
test this summer from the standpoint of our reliability. I hope
that is not the case. I hope we don't see, brownouts in your
home State, Mr. Calvert, or, for that matter, in my home State.
But it is the preparation that we do today. It is the--not
picking winners and losers from a political standpoint, but
looking at, how do we make America's energy reliable,
affordable, and sustainable? We know that requires a base load
capability that can run 24/7.
You know, and with that said, we are all of the above. You
know, nobody expanded wind energy more than we did in the State
of Texas while I was Governor. We became the number one wind-
energy-producing State in the Nation. As a matter of fact, we
produce more wind than all but five other countries. So I
understand about having that diverse portfolio.
But base load, if we are going to continue to reach out to
companies and say--yesterday, I was with Secretary Ross, and we
had a foreign direct investment conference. And we are talking
to individuals from around the globe about coming to the United
States and investing in our country and all the different
opportunities that were there. If we cannot guarantee them that
when they build a $1.8 billion facility here, that the power is
not going to be available 24/7, then we are not going to be
successful in that. So, not only is this about, as Mr.
Fleischmann said, our national security, it is also about our
economic security--and not shying away from and not trying to
pick winners and losers. Just let the facts fall where they
may, that if you are in the coal side of things, you are in the
natural gas side of things, if you are in the nuclear side of
things, you are in the hydro side of things, you are in the
wind side of things, you are in the solar, or whatever other
renewable that we would be looking at, we are going to need all
of these. But it is really important, from my perspective, that
we don't shy away from and talk about how important base load
and that guaranteed base load is if we are going to be
successful economically in this country.
Mr. Joyce. And for what it is worth, Mr. Secretary, as Ms.
Kaptur pointed out, we live in sort of a cold area of the
country up there in Cleveland where we get the snow that comes
down through Canada. And so, while we now require the air
conditioning that you point out, we will also require a lot of
heat. We have been darn close to brownouts because of the
shutting down of the coal plants. And the ability to produce
energy and have a grid that can maintain it and hold all that
is produced from wind and the other ways we got it is very
critical, as you well know, to the United States. So I applaud
your efforts in taking this challenge forward.
I have exceeded my time, and so I can't yield any back to
you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, good afternoon. Thanks for appearing before
us. I am sorry I didn't have the benefit of your earlier
testimony. I got here as quickly as I could.
I understand, though, that you made some very firm comments
about MOX. I have a number of items here. I would like to go
through them----
Mr. Perry. Yes, sir.
Mr. Fortenberry [continuing]. And perhaps you could respond
one at a time.
I applaud that. And this is not meant to be an indictment
of anybody's past judgment as to how we were going to deal with
spent fuel and in agreement with the Russians. But,
nonetheless, year after year, we have sat on this committee and
committed millions of dollars each year to something called
cold storage. Well, that is a cold decision. It is not getting
us anywhere. It is a waste of money where there are significant
other priorities. And, as you said, some sort of orderly
process to wind this down, perhaps some appropriate transfer of
the facility to another use, in fairness to the people of that
State, is absolutely necessary.
Now, there is an issue in trying to secure the proper
location in New Mexico. There is a residue of some type of
complicated commitment to the Russians. That is a dynamic here
that I would suggest perhaps we can go into another time. That
is one consideration.
The second, though, is related to the last comment. Is
there any remnant of scientific cooperation between the
Department and the Russians continuing? This is a legacy
program that goes back to Nunn-Lugar, where the opportunity
presented itself to try to secure dangerous loose nuclear
materials. It is a proxy, potentially, for other--if it is even
possible--reestablishment of some working relationship with
that country. That is difficult to say in this moment. I get
that. It is my understanding this is all but dead. I would like
to hear if there is any remnant of cooperation going.
Third, the International Atomic Energy Agency, its mission
is developing in a very important, critical way. It is moving
from just standard for nuclear security to a verification
mission, which I think is absolutely essential. Now, like the
Iran agreement or not--I didn't vote for it. Many people voted
for it. Some voted against it. Many of us voted against it.
Nonetheless, they are playing a critical role right now in
assuring verification. And if we could ever break the impasse
with North Korea, I would anticipate the IAEA would play a
critical role as well. I think a continuing emphasis in
investment in that important multilateral institution is not
only in our own national security interests, it is in the
absolute interest of international stability. If we are going
to try to be a leader in nonproliferation, I think this is a
gateway to doing so.
I will stop there. And I have a few others, if we have
time.
Secretary Perry. Let me just quickly address the issue of
MOX. And in my opening remarks, I made comments about that it
is--and, again, I am like you. I have been here for coming on 5
months, and previous decisions, previous Congresses, previous
Secretaries of Energy, I don't want to cast any aspersion on
them at all. I have got a job to do. And we have analyzed this.
And I cannot in good faith say that going forward with that
program is wise in a number of ways, the least of which is not
from a financial standpoint and from the fiduciary
responsibility that we have.
Dilute and dispose is a process that is proven, and it is
substantially cheaper. Again, you know, I have had pretty
lengthy conversations with Senator Graham, and will continue
to, and the delegation from South Carolina. There are some, you
know, possible legacy programs where the people of South
Carolina won't feel like that, you know, here you have--you
know: Thank you, Federal Government. You have strung us along
here for these many years, and you are going to jerk this out
from under us.
But the more important part of this is that we do have a
process that works. I think WIPP has already taken five of
those deliveries. And so you asked if we have had any
conversation with the Russians. And they announced in, I think,
October of last year and then they reiterated in May of this
year that they were suspending the PMDA and based on a number
of strategic issues unrelated to the disposition of plutonium.
But they basically have--from my perspective, they walked away
from the deal. And so any useful discussions at this particular
point in time, I think, are----
Mr. Fortenberry. It is over.
Secretary Perry [continuing]. Useful--excuse me, useless.
Mr. Fortenberry. There is no conversation going on?
Secretary Perry. That is correct. And the----
Mr. Fortenberry. IAEA.
Secretary Perry. Oh. Well, I can tell you I agree with your
comments. I think that, you know, a relationship with them,
continual engagement with the IAEA, for a lot of different
issues, not the least of which is JCPOA, and----
Mr. Fortenberry. If I could make one suggestion, Mr.
Secretary, even though the door with the Russians is locked,
and, again, in this climate, and this--or it is shut, let me
put it that way.
Secretary Perry. I think that is a better descriptive term.
It is just--it may not be. There may be a crack. Who knows.
Mr. Fortenberry. Yeah. Because once we get through the
current political turmoil and tensions, again, the cooperation,
potentially, on loose nuclear materials, and the whole
architecture of nonproliferation is going to depend, obviously,
on other key international players, including the Chinese. And
residues of cooperation on spent material can serve, I think,
as a proxy to potentially rebuilding relationships in addition
to being important in and of itself.
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir. And I am not sure you were in
when I made a statement about one of the successes that we have
had at the DOE is in our nonproliferation. I think there is
some--is it 30 countries? Forty. There are 40 countries that
have had that highly enriched uranium removed. And so we have
got some good stories to tell out there about the
nonproliferation side of what we have been conducting.
Mr. Fortenberry. Hopefully we will continue to project
significant leadership in this area. There is a Nuclear
Security Working Group here in Congress, just for your
information. We look forward to----
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
Mr. Fortenberry [continuing]. Potential dialogue with you
on creative policies that continue to show leadership in this
area.
Secretary Perry. Consider it done.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry.
And thank you for bringing up MOX. I knew you probably
would. Now let me tell you the other side of the story.
The past administration has proposed shutting down MOX and
going to dilute and dispose. We have asked for the last couple
of years for the Department to give us a rebaselining of MOX.
They failed to do so. So we have a hard time comparing what the
costs are. And I can tell you that when they did the cost
estimates--this is a statement more than it is a question.
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
Mr. Simpson. When they did the cost estimates and they said
dilute and dispose is going to cost X much versus something
else, I can tell you that is not an accurate comparison,
because there is a lot of things that they left out of the cost
of dilute and dispose, such as transportation, such as keeping
WIPP open and the long-term storage at WIPP, and so forth. My
concern has been--and I am not advocating for MOX. I am not
advocating for dilute and dispose. I want to do things in the
most economical way possible.
One, we do have a treaty with Russia. Russia did not walk
away from the treaty. They asked to go to a fast reactor rather
than the MOX facility in Russia, and we agreed. If we are going
to walk away from the treaty with Russia, then let's declare it
and just walk away from it. But let's not try to go around it.
We have got to do one of the two. We have got to talk to the
Russians at some point in time.
Secondly, have we got the okay of the State of South
Carolina?
Thirdly, do we know that it can go into WIPP? While they
have put small quantities of the same type of material in WIPP
so far, that was authorized at the beginning. I don't know that
all of the material that MOX is supposed to take care of can
fit in WIPP without additional land withdrawals. If so, have we
talked to the State of New Mexico? Are they okay with this? How
about the two Senators from New Mexico? Are they okay? The one
thing I do not want to have happen, as has happened so often
with agreements with the Department of Energy and when they
have moved down these paths, because these are long-term
things, that 10 years from now, the chairman of this committee
will be sitting here going: Well, we shut down MOX, and we got
racquetball courts there, and they are real pretty--because
that is how we can repurpose that building, make beautiful
racquetball courts; I don't know what else you would do with
it--but we shut down MOX. The State of New Mexico is holding us
hostage. The State of South Carolina is fining us. And the
State of New Mexico says: Well, we will do a land withdrawal,
and we will go along with that okay, but we want every road in
New Mexico paved.
I don't want to be held hostage to that. And before we walk
away from something that we are in the middle of, we ought to
have the plan to move forward and be sure that we can do it.
Otherwise, we will be sitting here in 10 years with our fingers
in the air wondering what the heck we are doing and where we
are going to go next. It is not that I am opposed to dilute and
dispose. But I think you have got to have an honest cost
comparison. And I do believe that you have to do an honest--I
talked to some people at the MOX facility: 70 percent complete.
Talked to some DOE people: 10 percent complete.
Now, wait a minute, somebody is wrong here.
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
Mr. Simpson. So we need an honest assessment of what this
is going to be. And I think to--we talk about cost overruns. I
mean, I look at this budget. Frankly, and we are asking for--
what is it? Let me see if I can pull it up real quick.
Oh, it is in your phone.
Yeah. Last year, we required you to, when you do your
budget, to give us a 5-year budget plan for NNSA. I suspect
that will be coming. Last year, the 5-year budget plan that
puts out what the budget request is going to be for the next 5
years, 1 year later, this year, is $225 million above what it
was last year. Cost overrun, I guess you could call it that. I
don't know. But we will be looking forward for a cost estimate
for the 5 year for the NNSA, in the near future, when you
provide that to the committee.
The second thing I would like to talk about for just a
second is nuclear energy in general. I do have some concerns
with the budget because it is going to be difficult to be
supportive of the license renewals that are going to be
necessary for the current reactor fleet while also providing
support for the next generation of nuclear reactors under the
current budget. You talked about the need for the base load,
and nuclear energy is obviously one of the things that provides
an environmentally friendly, no-hydrocarbon-emission base load
that is absolutely essential, I think, for the future.
What is your strategy for ensuring that our research
infrastructure provides adequate support for our current
nuclear technologies while also enhancing the technological
advances for the future reactor fleet? And along that same
line, I was glad to see you put $10 million in here for
developing the technical capabilities that would be needed for
developing a fast reactor. I really think we need a fast
reactor in this country. If we had a fast reactor, we wouldn't
be talking about dilute and dispose or MOX.
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
Mr. Simpson. You know? So, anyway.
Secretary Perry. I think your focus on nuclear energy from
the standpoint of small modular reactors may be the next gen,
if you will, the next generation, that can take us to where--I
am not sure--well, yes, I am. I am sure you cannot go forward
with these massive, big nuclear energy power plants that cost,
you know, $6-plus billion. That is not feasible. We see the
problems that we have with it now.
I think for America to be stable in the nuclear, civil
nuclear side of things--and the civil nuclear side of things
goes to our ability to have our national security both--not
only in the form of a steady form of energy, but also the
technology that is driven in the civil nuclear side is also--
will be driving our weapons technology, as well, and vice
versa. And, I mean, one of my great concerns about what is
happening and Westinghouse and the challenges that we have
there, knowing that the Chinese and the Russians are more than
happy to step in, around the world, and take on the mantle of,
``We will build your nuclear plants for you,'' because, you
know, America doesn't have the ability to do that. You know,
two plants down in the southern part of the United States, they
couldn't finish those. So, you know: Trust us; we will be there
for you.
That is a really bad message, and it is a really bad advent
if that is where we end up. And my goal is that is not where we
end up, that we, obviously, find the solutions for the
Westinghouse issue in the short term and the long term, and we
transition in this country to small modular reactors. That is
being developed out in your part of the world. And, you know,
we got--and, again, we are at the point, I think, Ms. Kaptur,
when we talk about--we have been investing in NS on the basic
research side, and Mr. Gates and NuScale, they are at the point
of being able to move this to the commercialization side of it.
And I think if we are successful and we continue to support the
small modular reactor, that it can be a game changer in the
nuclear side of things and bring America back to a preeminent
role as leaders in the technology and innovation and nuclear
energy.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
And I didn't mean to sound so vehement on MOX. I am just
saying that there is always--everybody always looks at it as
just a cost issue----
Secretary Perry. Yes sir.
Mr. Simpson [continuing]. And there is more to it.
Secretary Perry. I don't disagree.
Mr. Simpson. And every year in conference between the House
and the Senate, this becomes an issue between us. And I have
always said: Hey, I am willing to go there, but you got to
answer these questions for me, and you got to show me that you
got an agreement with the State of New Mexico, and you got to
show me that South Carolina is going to be okay with this. And
you got to show me that you at least talked to the Russians; if
not talked to them, then decided that we are going to walk
away.
Secretary Perry. I don't want to get in trouble.
Mr. Simpson. One of those two. I know what you mean. So I
appreciate that.
Ms. Kaptur.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, thank you for your time today. I was glad to
hear you talk about the issue of civil nuclear power
production. I come from a State where this is a big issue.
Congressman Joyce and I understand it well. And I really
believe that the sort of current solution, which is let these
sick fish fall on the States, isn't working. And someone has to
think about the defense industrial base of this country and the
component supply chain relative to that. And I would hope, as
you think about this sector--and I have encouraged the industry
to think about some of the workouts that we have had in other
troubled sectors, including the automotive sector. I am
concerned about what I see happening out there, and I don't
really see a workable solution yet. And I am concerned about
it, and I represent a region heavily impacted by it. It
provides opportunity. But I don't see the leadership that I
think is necessary to really help us to stabilize this
industry.
Maybe I am wrong. Maybe I just haven't talked to the right
people. But I have talked to a lot of people. So I think your
leadership might be vital.
In terms of the discussions up here on base load power, we
agree that investments in energy storage are critical. In terms
of the study that will evaluate future technologies, such as
distributed--will distributed energy and storage be a part of
that study for the base load power work that is being done?
Secretary Perry. Yes. I mean, the short answer is yes and,
this goes back to what we happen to think, and I have for some
time, well before I took this current position I am in, that
storage is kind of the Holy Grail. And if we figure out how to
store energy, at that particular point in time, it gives us
such a broad, but, again, we don't yet, and there is still
research going on. There is still Jell-O being thrown at the
wall, so to speak. But, you know, we support that.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. I may be the only member of this
panel that is concerned about the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
But I do want to make a comment about it. And I don't want us
to be a country that is penny-wise and pound-foolish. We have
been at war 16 years now, and one of my objectives in serving
on this subcommittee is to make sure that we aren't just 100
percent energy independent here at home, but 125 percent. Okay?
So that is my goal.
The Strategic Petroleum Reserve has played a role. We know
that every time gasoline goes over $4 a gallon in this country,
we go into deep recession; my part of America gets really
walloped hard. And so I become very uncomfortable with
proposals to sell off the majority of crude oil. A, we are at
war. B, we have real enemies. And we can't anticipate what will
happen in the future. So I just wanted to say that I have a
concern about this particular proposal in your budget. You are
on the National Security Council. You can raise a lot of
questions there. But I am very uncomfortable with this. So I
just wanted to express that opinion. You don't have to answer
any questions.
I think it is a mistake. And it is certainly a mistake to
sell it at low prices. But when you are at war, I think that
you can't anticipate what is going to happen out there.
Secretary Perry. Ms. Kaptur, not as much to answer, I am
very familiar with that facility because part of it is in Texas
and part of it is in Louisiana. There are four of them and I
think the idea of being able to consolidate down to two rather
than four, there is some sensibilities about that because of
the cost to upkeep.
But here is another--this is coming back to you and the
committee more as a question about what do you all think about.
If we consider pipelines to be a form of storage, if you will,
if there is crude oil in a pipeline, then I consider that to be
again, this is not apples and oranges but if your point is we
need to have this access to our crude that we have control of.
The world has changed in the last 10 years, and America's
ability to go retrieve these molecules, these hydrocarbon
molecules, from places that we never thought we could get them
prior to 10 years ago because of hydraulic fracturing and
directional drilling. And so, and, again, I think the Dakota
Access pipeline, full, is like 5 million barrels. If we are
building more pipelines in this country so that we have better
transportation and we have connectivity and we have the ability
to deliver product to different places and economic development
comes because of that and what have you, then maybe that does
soften a little bit your concern about, you know, reducing some
of the supply.
I am not asking, you know, for an answer here. I am just
saying, should we think about that as an opportunity? My role
is to look at ways that we can consolidate that we can save
some money. This may be one of them. Just a statement.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you.
Secretary Perry. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much. I think we need more
review on that one. And I appreciate your openness.
Let me ask the Department, in terms of how you will respond
to congressional inquiries as Secretary, is there a policy that
you have been given or guidance that would prohibit you or
delay responses if, for instance, I were to send a letter over
to the Department of Energy, versus our chairman, someone who
is on a subcommittee or a full committee? So is there any
guidance that has been given that you must adhere to that we
might not be aware of?
Secretary Perry. My history as a chief executive, being the
Governor of the State of Texas, is when a member of the
legislature asked me for something, I got it to them on a
timely basis. I have no reason to think that, quite frankly,
any reason, if you send a letter asking for information to the
Department of Energy, and you didn't get a response, I hope
what you will do is call me first, and then we will go find out
who didn't write you back in a timely way.
Ms. Kaptur. Okay. But there is no policy or guidance
prohibiting or delaying responses to Democratic Members of
Congress?
Secretary Perry. You know, I used to be a Democrat.
Ms. Kaptur. We will invite you back at the right moment.
Secretary Perry. I was going to tell you: There is still
time for you, ma'am.
In all seriousness, not at all. If you find that the agency
is not responsive, seriously, a phone call to me is all that
will be required.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Calvert.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You mentioned the small module reactors. As a Nation, we
have spent a considerable amount of resources into research on
fusion. I know that the results from that have been less than
spectacular. But, as you know, you were in France recently, we
have a Project ITER, international thermonuclear reactor, that
we have put a lot of resources into--and along with a number of
other nations. I just bring this up hoping at some point in the
future we can resolve this issue of fusion--which, you know,
from President Eisenhower on, we have been looking to resolve.
On the issue of computer capability. I would assume, and I
would hope, that the Department of Energy works closely with
NSA and the Department of Defense on what they are doing to
develop computer technologies and I hope there are no
redundancies in research that is being conducted as far as that
is concerned.
Secretary Perry. Mr. Calvert, I wanted to turn over here
because I want to give you some numbers that I think are really
important about exascale. And you are absolutely correct. And
it is not just about, you know, wanting to wear the crown of
having the fastest computer with the most capacity. What our
national labs and the partnerships that we see out there, and I
will give you one example of something that I would suggest
every one of you is supportive of, and that is our veterans.
The national labs are partnering with private sector and with
other agencies of government, because of this massive computing
capability that we have and our ability to keep up, whether it
is on the NNSA side with our weapons, or the VA who came to us
last year, well before I got there. My support of veterans is
known. When I found out that we had the potential here--it is
called the Million Veteran Project. We are asking 1 million
veterans to give blood and volunteer their medical records so
that we can do DNA testing. VA is running that program using
DOE computing capability so that we are going to be able to
tell a million veterans: Such as a young female military
veteran, who has a DNA marker for breast cancer or for cervical
cancer, or a young man who has the potential in his DNA marker
for prostate cancer and how they could prepare for that. I
mean, this is really life-changing and a quantum leap forward
from a medical standpoint, from my perspective. And DOE's
computing capability is a quality of life issue for our
citizens. And then you take it over into the scientific side,
there is this issue of fusion that you talked about. And, you
know, again, that is kind of a Holy Grail on the side of
energy, as well that we have been pursuing for a long time. But
our supercomputing capability may be what allows us to crack
that. And so our investment in that is really important. We are
requesting $508 million. That is $249 million over fiscal year
2017 to accelerate the delivery of an exascale computer by
2021. That is going to Argonne. And then by 2022, there is a
second machine going to Oak Ridge. And it is totally different
architecture. I mean, that is kind of the fascinating thing, is
so you have got exascale, which is going to Oregon; then you
got the next gen, which is going to Oak Ridge. That will,
again, put the United States in its rightful place, from my
perspective, as being the most technically advanced
supercomputing Nation on the globe.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Fleischmann--or, Mr. Aguilar. Sorry.
Mr. Aguilar. No problem. No problem. Happens all the time,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. You are so far down there.
Mr. Aguilar. It is like a 5-9 caucus he and I occupy. Don't
worry. Yeah.
Voice. You guys look alike, right?
Mr. Aguilar. I appreciate it.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
I wanted to get specific on something I saw in an appendix
to NNSA. A recently released GAO report raised some concern
about cost estimates associated with our nuclear modernization
programs and said they might be understated. I will use the B61
life extension program, B61-12, as an example. One cost
estimate produced by NNSA Office of Cost Estimating and Program
Evaluation points out that it could cost $2.6 billion more than
previous estimates to complete this program. But the original
baseline from NNSA's fiscal year 2017 Stockpile Stewardship and
Management Program Plan was just released in March of 2016.
So here is my question: The discrepancy between these, in
such a small window of time, do you feel that program cost
estimates provided by the Office of Cost Estimating and Program
Evaluation show that it is improving the program and it needs
to change or expand? As a followup, what are some of the
implications to the variety that we see in the cost estimating?
Secretary Perry. Mr. Aguilar, let me get back with you on
that----
Mr. Aguilar. Sure. We can put something into the record and
ask----
Secretary Perry. I want to give you an answer, but I can't
because I am not privy to the discrepancies there.
Mr. Aguilar. Sure. And we will put it into the record----
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir, please.
Mr. Aguilar [continuing]. And ask your staff to get back to
us.
Sticking with nonproliferation, the fiscal year 2018 budget
shows a reduction in these programs, as we have highlighted.
Will these reductions continue in future budgets? The chairman
alluded to a multiyear outlook that the agency will provide.
Does this say anything about U.S. policy towards nuclear
nonproliferation? And is NNSA--do you feel this sets us down
the right path?
Secretary Perry. Here is one of the things, and I mentioned
this earlier, that because of our successes that we had with
some of the nonproliferation programs and I think the backing
out of those, and what I am talking about are 40 countries and
the eastern European countries that have had successful
reductions of that highly enriched, and materials removed from
them, that there is some reductions in the nonproliferation
budget because we have been successful.
Now with that said, I am not telling you that going forward
we are going to continue to have reductions. What I will tell
you is that the agency is as committed to nonproliferation as
its ever been. We will manage the dollars and we will manage
the programs and, obviously, working with the Members in
Congress, in a way that is acceptable to you and to our
partners in this.
Mr. Aguilar. I appreciate it. Thank you.
Continue down to the electrical grid that we have discussed
about. As we have talked, the electric power system is vital
and efficient to our economy and the capabilities of our
system. The smart grid improvements are widely considered
essential. DOE has changed the smart grid research and
development program to the resilient distributions system
program and decreased its budget by 71 percent, compared to
fiscal year 2016, enacted, and 80 percent from fiscal year
2017, enacted.
Given those considerations, can you talk about the
rationale for the proposed reduction under this category, the
smart grid category?
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir. Obviously, managing the agency,
and again, I go back to I hope that the committee will have
some flexibility when it comes to being able to move dollars
around line item to line item. I am a big supporter of smart
grid. We did some major projects in the State of Texas.
You know, I think one of the things that we do need to do
is, not necessarily from just a straight up funding standpoint,
but best practices go back to the States and have the Governors
and the legislators aware of the programs that are out there to
be able to let them manage their grids in particularly smart
meters and those types of technologies that we can get out into
their hands.
So to answer your question about are we going to be able to
address the smart grid, you know, the smart meters, the
different innovations and technologies, I feel comfortable that
we will. And again, this being the first step in this budgetary
process, I feel comfortable.
Mr. Aguilar. I appreciate your answer. And this is the
second time you have mentioned, you know, the flexibility. And
I want to let you know and convey that I trust your management
ability, but I do feel, you know, there are rules within the
committee, and that is between the ranking member and the
chairman and your agency, on how money gets moved around based
on those priorities.
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
Mr. Aguilar. That is why we take this budget process so
seriously.
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
Mr. Aguilar. That is why we dig in and we want to get this
right, because we want to give the guidance to your agency so
you don't have to come and ask for movement. But that is your
prerogative and we trust that leadership. So thank you so much.
I appreciate the time.
Secretary Perry. I look forward to working with you, sir.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Fleischmann.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I would like to thank you for a very
positive, insightful, and thoughtful hearing today. And my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I think we did an
outstanding job. And we have touched on the depths and the
breadth of all the different things that the Department of
Energy touches, so I want to thank everybody for that.
An important issue I promoted, Mr. Secretary, for years is
a closer working relationship to alleviate some of the
Department of Energy's unintended consequences on local
communities, especially sites that are close to population
areas. Land transfers, aging infrastructure, like the Oak Ridge
water plant, and environmental challenges require a closer
partnership between DOE and its host communities. I would like
to see the Department do more.
Mr. Secretary, will you and your staff work with me to
encourage innovative solutions and more effective partnerships
between the Department offices under you and our local
community, sir?
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir. And, you know, having visited
with Oak Ridge and both spent the night there and driven
through the community and recognizing how it is not unlike what
I think I am going to see when I go to Richland. These are
communities that are symbiotic. The city of Oak Ridge and the
Y-12 facility, the uranium processing facility, exist because
of each other. And I think having a respect, both ways, is
really important. And you have my commitment that not only am I
going to be open to your suggestions, but the Mayor of Oak
Ridge, the Governor of Tennessee, and the Congressman that
represent that area, to manage the challenges, but to also
recognize the extraordinary potential that is there for those
communities as well as to coordinate with them and not be
making decisions unilaterally. There is a great opportunity and
I am very open to let's talk.
Mr. Fleischmann. Mr. Secretary, thank you so much. And it
is mutual. You will find that not only from me, from our
Senators, and also from our local communities and elected
leaders. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Newhouse.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I appreciate the extra time here so we can
really drill down into some deep parts of the Department's
responsibilities.
I wanted to talk a little bit about the building
technologies office, which as you probably know, has saved many
Americans, over time, billions in energy costs. It certainly
has been able to bring together a collaboration between, in my
State, the University of Washington, WSU, as well as the
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in helping connect
campuses to test energy savings technologies.
So could you talk a little bit and explain how these
programs are going to be able to continue under the current
budget proposal in order to see the benefits in both private
and public sectors?
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir. And I will be pretty brief and
straight to the point here. You know, these funding opportunity
announcements that will continue to come out of the agency and
working with the local universities, and the private sector,
you know, are we going to have a reduction of the total number
of dollars? Yes. But I think that is where it gets down to us
working together and prioritizing what are the real core
missions of the Department of Energy, and are these projects,
you know, worthy to go forward?
And I did that, Mr. Newhouse. As the Governor of Texas, we
had a number of programs, both with emerging technology, in
particular, where we had basically a private sector review
board that looked at the projects, made the decisions about,
you know, whether or not they should go forward and did they
meet the standards that we put in place. I know we have a group
not unlike that. I may want to fine tune it. I may want to, you
know, ask for the input of the committee here as we go forward
as we do that. But we will continue to be looking.
I think the core mission of the Department of Energy is to
promote innovation and technology. I understand the NNSA's role
and what they have to do, but those National Labs, and working
in concert with our universities and the private sector out
there, they have the potential to continue to really make a
difference in people's lives. Does that mean we are going to
get every one of these projects right? Does it mean that every
one of these is going to, you know, commercialize into some
great next big thing? No. But I think it is our responsibility
and I think it is our duty to continue to look for the ways to
promote innovation, technology. And, you know, that is my
philosophy.
I am historically used to doing it and, you know, not every
project is going to get funded. I understand that. And I look
forward to folks coming forward with their best ideas and their
best ideas about how to fund these projects, and then we will
collectively make a decision about what direction we will go.
Mr. Newhouse. I appreciate that.
I also had one question too on payments in lieu of taxes,
the PILT program that has been in place for many decades. I
believe it is significantly reduced or even eliminated at least
four counties surrounding Hanford reservation. Could you talk
about your philosophy there and perhaps the rationale behind
that?
Secretary Perry. Well, since I didn't completely write all
of this budget, sir, I will, in that particular area, if you
will allow me the flexibility one more time to get back to you
and give you an appropriate answer, rather than just taking a
wing at it here.
Mr. Newhouse. Okay. We will have a lot of time to talk when
we are touring the Hanford site.
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir. That we will. Yes, sir.
Mr. Newhouse. All right. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Joyce.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I am troubled that the United States no
longer has any capacity to enrich uranium, and the current plan
is not to restore this capacity for 21 years. Do you agree that
uranium enrichment is vital for our national security, and that
restoring enrichment capacity in the near term is in the
national interest?
Secretary Perry. As a general rule, yes, sir, I do. I think
that, from a national security standpoint, that having the
ability to do that is in our national security interest.
With that said, I think we have a fairly robust stockpile
at this particular point in time. But if we are to go forward
with these life extension programs and, for that matter, on the
civil nuclear side, we are going to have to have a conversation
here in the Halls of Congress about when and if and how that
does go forward.
Mr. Joyce. Well, if, in fact, you were going to have that
conversation, there are certainly some fellow Buckeyes in
southern Ohio, from the Piketon plant, who would love to have
that conversation with you, as well as Ms. Kaptur and Mr. Ryan,
who are also on appropriations.
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you. I yield my time back.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Fortenberry.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I just want to turn very briefly back to
MOX. What I don't want to see--please, I am just lowering your
temperature--what I don't want to see is what the chairman
alluded to, another conference committee this year that says,
oh, well, we just couldn't make a decision and let's put
another $300 million more into it, when we have got all kinds
of other places to park that kind of money for important
national values and objectives.
So to the chairman's point, we don't want to waste money;
the projection of the project is very tenuous. Yet the deeper
answers just seem to be allusive, will New Mexico take it. Is
there a dormant agreement with the Russians which will be
complicated by this? Is the fast reactor a more medium-termed
decision that could unwind some of the complexities of this?
Why don't we just make a commitment quickly to get some
answers to these things so we have a true cost comparison
versus treading water, throwing more hundreds of millions of
dollars at it, with an ever increasingly remote possibility
this thing will ever get built. I think that is just the best
thing to do.
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir. And to direct answer that, that
is what we are attempting to do. I mean, we are----
Mr. Fortenberry. Okay. We have got about 90 days.
Secretary Perry. Right, I understand that. And I have had
multiple meetings. I have been on the job now since the 2nd day
of March. And MOX is--I know more about MOX than I ever thought
I would and ever wanted to know, to tell you the truth.
Mr. Fortenberry. Well, I feel the same way. I am just going
down line items, what is this?
Secretary Perry. That is beside the point. You are
absolutely correct that we as a country need to get the
answers. We need to know how much this is going to cost with
some amount of certainty.
And, Mr. Chairman, you are right. I mean, it is stunning
the difference in the numbers that you can get. You know, the
Corps of Engineers has their estimates. And, you know, I want
to sit down with the contractor, and you know, Senator Graham
shares with us this is what the contractor has said that they
can get this done for. And then we have letters that basically
do not agree with that. So--
Mr. Fortenberry. Well, you can imagine our frustration----
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir. We need to get some people in a
room and figure this out.
Mr. Fortenberry. Okay. The second point. Back to
nonproliferation. We have also had this conversation last year.
This is a hallmark, I think, of smart, prudent public policy to
have an accent mark on the--again, an architecture for
nonproliferation. If one of these things goes off in the world,
it doesn't matter the healthcare debate, it doesn't matter the
budget. Just one. And the purpose of a nuclear weapon is to
prevent nuclear war. And so yet nuclear weapons are back.
China's increasing, Russia's increasing, we know the situation
in North Korea. And other areas of the world, actually, over
the last 25 years, thankfully, have pulled back from the
precipes, leaving us with spent nuclear material, leaving us
with dangerous material out there. And a number of these
programs have been very successful in pulling that back, which
again is related to mitigating a terrorist threat. But it all
gets combined, I think, into creating a culture in which this
is a decided priority, and we project that on the international
stage.
So in that regard, please, let us think creatively with
you. I completely agree with the last administration's emphasis
on nuclear security summits. I think those were successful.
They began to get more and more multilateral buy-in to the
issue of securing material, but it also creates, again, the
gateway of the raising of consciousness internationally as to
just how dangerous of a situation we are entering into with
international stability and more and more weaponization and the
technology readily coming out of the bottle.
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
Mr. Fortenberry. So if there is one thing that you can do
as Secretary to pull us back from this precipes, we will do
whatever we can to creatively think with you. I think that is
the most valuable thing we could do together.
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir. Consider us being a partner.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
That was a good idea. If you have a MOX summit, I will be
there, because we have been debating this for so long and we
need to make some final decisions. But I would point out that
we don't save $340 million by not funding MOX. There is still
$270 million in there for cold storage, so--and put it in cold
standby or whatever. So it is a perplexing problem. And Mr.
Alexander, Chairman Alexander and I have spent a lot of time
debating and arguing and so forth. I understand where he is
coming from, he understands where I am coming from, but we need
to make some decisions.
Secretary Perry. Yes, sir.
Mr. Simpson. We need to make some decisions on that. We
need to make some decisions on a few other things that are
perplexing within the complex.
And I want to tell you that we when you decide to go to
Hanford, I would be happy to go with you. That is a great place
to go. I know a great restaurant. We can have some good times.
You know, everybody--when we think about Hanford, we always
think about the cleanup, and it is huge cleanup issues up
there. But we forget about PNNL. PNNL is a great laboratory. It
does some great work. So I was glad to see that Mr. Newhouse
brought that up.
But thank you for being here today. We look forward to
working with you as we go through and address some of our
concerns and some of your concerns within this budget, that we
will get a budget that you can work with and do the job that
you have been hired to do. We appreciate it. Thank you.
Secretary Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
members.
Mr. Simpson. The meeting is adjourned.
[Questions and answers submitted for the record follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]