[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT

APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2022
__________________________________________________________________________________

HEARINGS

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION
___________________

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT,

AND RELATED AGENCIES

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio, Chairwoman

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona KEN CALVERT, California
SUSIE LEE, Nevada CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee
TIM RYAN, Ohio DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
DEREK KILMER, Washington JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington
LOIS FRANKEL, Florida GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey

NOTE: Under committee rules, Ms. DeLauro, as chair of the full committee, and Ms. Granger, as
ranking minority member of the full committee, are authorized to sit as members of all
subcommittees.

JAIME SHIMEK, MARK ARONE, MIKE BRAIN, SCOTT MCKEE,
and WILL OSTERTAG
Subcommittee Staff

_____________

PART 5

Page

Stragety for Energy and Climate Innovation ............................................. 1
Innovation and Investment in Water Resources Infrastructure........................... 105
Domestic Manufacturing for a Clean Energy Future .................................... 191
Members� Day ........................................................................ 321
Public Witness Testimony ............................................................ 403

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

____________

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
46-015 WASHINGTON: 2021

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

ROSA L. DELAURO, Connecticut, Chair

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio KAY GRANGER, Texas
DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky
LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR., Georgia MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
BARBARA LEE, California JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota KEN CALVERT, California
TIM RYAN, Ohio TOM COLE, Oklahoma
C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee
MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington
DEREK KILMER, Washington DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio
MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
GRACE MENG, New York MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
MARK POCAN, Wisconsin CHRIS STEWART, Utah
KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
PETE AGUILAR, California DAVID G. VALADAO, California
LOIS FRANKEL, Florida DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington JOHN
CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida
BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan BEN CLINE, Virginia
NORMA J. TORRES, California GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida MIKE GARCIA, California
ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona ASHLEY HINSON, Iowa
ED CASE, Hawaii TONY GONZALES, Texas
ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
JOSH HARDER, California
JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia
DAVID J. TRONE, Maryland
LAUREN UNDERWOOD, Illinois
SUSIE LEE, Nevada

ROBIN JULIANO, Clerk and Staff Director

(II)

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
2022

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

Thursday, February 25, 2021.

STRATEGIES FOR ENERGY AND CLIMATE INNOVATION

WITNESSES

ROBIN MILLICAN, DIRECTOR, BREAKTHROUGH ENERGY
DR. COLIN CUNLIFF, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND
INNOVATION FOUNDATION
DR. SHOBITA PARTHASARATHY, PROFESSOR, OF PUBLIC POLICY AND DIRECTOR
SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND PUBLIC POLICY PROGRAM, UNIVERSITY OF
MICHIGAN
RICH POWELL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CLEARPATH
Ms. Kaptur. This hearing will come to order.
Our first hearing of 2021 is fully virtual, as you can
tell, and we must address a few housekeeping matters first.
For today's meeting, the chair or staff designated by the
chair may mute participants' microphones when they are not
under recognition for the purposes of eliminating inadvertent
background noise. We all appreciate that.
Members are responsible for muting and unmuting themselves,
but if I notice you have not unmuted yourself, I will ask if
you would like the staff to unmute you. And if you indicate
approval by nodding, staff will unmute your microphone.
I remind all members and witnesses that the 5-minute clock
still applies. If there is a technology issue, we will move to
the next member until the issue is resolved, and you will
retain the balance of your time. You will notice a clock on
your screen that will show how much time is remaining. At 1
minute remaining, the clock will turn to yellow. At 30 seconds
remaining, it will--I will gently tap the gavel to remind
members that your time is almost expired. And when your time
has expired, the clock will turn red, and I will begin to
recognize the next member.
In terms of the speaking order, we will follow the order
set forth in the House rules, beginning with the chair and
ranking member, then members present at the time the hearing is
called to order will be recognized in order of seniority and,
finally, members not present at the time the hearing is called
to order.
Finally, House rules require me to remind you that we have
set up an email address to which members can send anything they
wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings or markups.
That email address has been provided in advance to your staff.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for my opening
statement.
Let me extend a warm welcome to our members, distinguished
witnesses, and those listening to this hearing. My goal as
chair of the House Energy and Water Subcommittee is to help our
generation embrace a better future for those that follow. We
must sustain life on Earth and help our country to meet the
challenges as we face the dawn of a new era for energy and
water.
Over half a century ago, Ohio Senator John Glenn embraced
the future in his momentous journey as the first human being to
orbit the Earth. Since that moment, the Earth's place in our
vast universe has never been perceived the same. People gained
a new perspective on our blue planet suspended in space.
Scientist Carl Sagan observed: Preserve and cherish the blue
dot. It is the only home we have ever known.
Across our world, that view of Earth from space began to
influence the thinking of leaders from all walks of life. More
came to understand about the Earth's ability to sustain itself.
More sophisticated imaging, like ozone monitoring, led to
greater understanding of our collective impact on the vital
resources essential to sustaining life on Earth; none more key
than those in our subcommittee's name, Energy and Water.
Their availability cannot be presumed. We must work
together to assure our Earth is protected from the harm that
can be caused by mistakes and even ignorance. Looking at recent
events across our country, who could have predicted the
perilous winter energy disaster that just struck Texas and
Oklahoma. Yet natural disasters happen and they do so with
alarming regularity these days, but the severity of what these
regions have endured alert us to pay attention to the why of
what occurred.
It appears that existing power systems were not suited or
prepared to embrace an energy future that had not been properly
imagined. Similarly, last year, wildfires in California and
Oregon were among the largest on record. Arizona experienced
100 days with over 100 degrees.
Scientific consensus indicates the Earth is warming at an
unsustainable rate. Glaciers and sea ice are melting at
historic rates. Our oceans are warming, rising, and acidifying.
Humans and human activity are the primary cause.
In the mid-20th century, approximately 150 million people
have lived in the United States. Today, the U.S. population has
more than doubled to over 330 million people. And globally, the
population growth has risen even faster, from 2.5 billion in
1950 to nearly 8 billion now. The cumulative load on Earth and
its atmosphere is impacting life itself. We must use what we
have learned over the last half century to heal our atmosphere
and, in turn, our blue dot.
As America stands at a crossroads in the new energy age, we
are here today to explore strategies for energy and climate
innovation. We are lucky to have the Department of Energy, the
Federal Government's leading agency for research and
development of new clean energy technologies under our
jurisdiction.
Technologies developed with DOE's funding are already
helping address climate change. They have markedly driven down
the price of wind, solar, energy storage, and efficient light
bulbs by 60 to 95 percent since 2008. They have led to
widespread deployment and consumer savings. New innovations
will lead to new opportunities. Reversing the impacts of
climate change will create good paying jobs across every State
in our country.
Already there are more Americans working in energy
efficiency and energy production jobs than as waiters and
waitresses combined. We must continue to innovate and lead in
these areas so our Nation is not left behind. As people and
communities succeed, so will America. Our witnesses today will
enlighten us with a path forward.
And I will turn now to our very able Ranking Member, Mr.
Simpson, for opening remarks.
[The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Chairwoman Kaptur. Thanks for
holding this hearing today. I am happy to join you, once again,
on the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee as we start
a new Congress.
I would like to echo your welcome to our witnesses. We
thank you all for participating today and look forward to
hearing your perspectives on strategies for energy and climate
innovation.
President Biden has said that advancing a clean energy
future and addressing climate change will be a strong focus of
this administration. There is room for significant bipartisan
cooperation on this issue if we take the right approach. In
fact, this subcommittee and the Department of Energy programs
it funds have been pursuing bipartisan climate change solutions
for decades now and have numerous successes to show for it.
We won't work--it won't work--what won't work, anyway, is
our command and control of regulatory heavy schemes. It would
harm the American economy, boost our economic competitors, such
as China and, quite likely, lead to increases in global
emission. Real solutions, on the other hand, are focused on
innovation and clean energy technology. I was pleased to see
Chairwoman Kaptur frame our hearing around this type of proven
approach.
Experience shows we can continue to grow our economy and
provide good paying jobs to hardworking Americans by being at
the forefront of improving current, clean energy technology and
developing new technologies for use here at home and around the
globe.
Written testimony from the witnesses highlights the need to
continue and ideally increase Federal investment in research
and development across the broad spectrum of clean energy
technologies, including advanced nuclear energy storage,
alternative fuels such as hydrogen, geothermal, hydropower,
carbon capture utilization and storage, as well as wind and
solar power.
I am also interested in the ideas offered on how to
structure this Federal investment rather than assuming that
just putting more dollars alone will be sufficient,
particularly since I am not convinced it is politically
feasible to think that we can spend our way out of this issue
or even outspend the economic competitors like China.
I look forward to the future and exploring these issues
with our witnesses. And I thank Chairwoman Kaptur for calling
this hearing today.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much, Mr. Simpson.
And I am very excited about the witnesses who are joining
us here today. First, we will have Ms. Robin Millican. Ms.
Millican is a director at Breakthrough Energy, which is a
network of entities and initiatives established by Bill Gates
to advance clean, reliable, affordable energy. As an expert in
U.S. clean energy policy, Ms. Millican leads the organization's
Federal efforts to accelerate the development and diffusion of
new technologies.
Next, we will have Dr. Colin Cunliff, a senior policy
analyst with the Information Technology and Innovation
Foundation. Dr. Cunliff focuses on improving national and
global innovation systems to address climate change, and
coauthored the recent book, Energizing America: A Roadmap to
Launch a National Energy Innovation Mission.
Following that, we will have Dr. Shobita Parthasarathy, a
professor of public policy and director of the Science,
Technology, and Public Policy Program at the Gerald R. Ford
School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan. Her
research and interest focus on how to develop innovation and
innovation policy to better achieve public interest in social
justice goals.
And finally, we will have Mr. Rich Powell, the executive
director of ClearPath and ClearPath Action. Mr. Powell has also
served as a member of the 2019 advisory committee to the
Export-Import Bank and was previously with McKinsey & Company
in the energy and sustainability practices portfolio.
And thank you all for taking the time to be here today.
Without objection, your written statements will be entered
into the record. Please feel free to summarize your remarks in
about 5 minutes each, starting with Ms. Millican.
Ms. Millican. Thank you for the introduction, Chairwoman
Kaptur.
Chairwoman Kaptur, Ranking Member Simpson, and members of
the subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to be here today
and for fostering bipartisan dialogue on a topic that is of
vital importance to the country.
My name is Robin Millican, and I am here on behalf of
Breakthrough Energy, a network founded by Bill Gates of
philanthropic programs, investment vehicles, and policy
initiatives with the common mission to help the world reach
net-zero emissions by 2050.
Our efforts are guided by the conviction that everyone
needs access to affordable, reliable, and clean energy, which
is central to today's discussion. My remarks will focus on
framing the issue of why we need innovation, why it is
beneficial for the climate and our economy, and how Federal
investment can help support it.
Next slide, please.
So why do we need Federal innovation? In short, we have a
greenhouse gas emissions problem, not just here, but globally.
And those emissions are embedded in every part of the economy,
including electricity, transportation, industry, buildings, and
agriculture. We have some promising solutions, like renewable
energy, which we should be using widely. These can take us a
long way, but not all the way.
A recent National Academy's consensus study notes we will
also need on-demand electricity resources to complement a
majority renewables grid, as well as solutions for aviation,
shipping, steel, cement, and chemicals manufacturing.
Similarly, a 2020 International Energy Agency report estimated
that nearly half of the technologies needed to address
emissions in the next 30 years are at the prototype or
demonstration phase. Developing these solutions will require a
big effort, especially in the next decade.
Next slide, please.
So what is the Federal Government's role in this process?
Unfortunately, as you see on this slide, clean energy
technology is not like software where venture capital has been
enormously successful. It is much harder. Energy involves
capital-intensive infrastructure, often long development
cycles, and is being deployed at the end of the day in an
industry that is highly regulated and risk averse.
On top of this, there is no natural market demand for low-
carbon products, other than that which public policy or
voluntary commitments provide. This means we need the Federal
Government to lead in developing the resources that we need to
develop technology, demonstrate to the market that it works and
is safe, and to provide policy support so that it can overcome
market barriers.
Next slide, please.
Beyond reducing emissions, innovation is also needed to
ensure that our country remains globally competitive in the
industries of the future. A Breakthrough Energy study that we
released in September of last year found that Federal research
and development currently supports over 1.6 million jobs
nationwide, has wages that are well above the national average,
and it contributes $66 billion more to GDP than we spend on it.
That is a very good return on investment.
Looking specifically at Energy R&D, that investment
supports over 112,000 jobs today, and those jobs are in every
State in the country. This shows how important research and
development and other innovation support is to our economy
right now.
Moreover, in the long term, investment in innovation
contributes to patents and invention that end up underpinning
the products of companies that will keep America competitive in
the future. So it is both a win in the short and the long term.
And we know if we export these technologies, we can both reap
economic benefits at home and also have an impact on the
emissions profile of the rest of the world.
Next slide, please.
In conclusion, to maximize the opportunity of innovation
and also to move with sufficient speed and scale to address the
challenges ahead, we need a true national innovation strategy.
I want to leave the subcommittee with five key points here.
First is that we should expand Federal funding for clean
energy innovation overall. Breakthrough Energy suggests
building up to a level comparable to that of NIH, but
ultimately this will need to be driven by bottom-up needs.
Second, additional funding should add coverage in
underinvested but critical technology areas. For example, we
are underinvesting in manufacturing relative to its share of
global emissions, as you see in the chart at left.
Third, Congress should allocate greater resources toward
demonstration and deployment activities given the large number
of technologies that are at the precommercial phase.
Fourth, over the longer term, Congress should consider
substantial updates to the structure in which our investments
are allocated. This includes exploring more ways to get more
innovation happening in more places around the country.
And last but not least, as the country recovers from the
COVID-19 pandemic, Congress should consider temporary measures
to fund innovation efforts that can directly support economic
activity in the next few years. These include increasing
extramural funding for small businesses, an investment in
demonstration and deployment projects that create jobs and
reduce technology costs. Congress must weigh many tradeoffs in
each of these points, but I believe they provide a good
starting place.
Thank you again for the invitation to be here, and I look
forward to your questions.
[The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much, Ms. Millican.
And, Dr. Cunliff, please, begin.
Dr. Cunliff. Chairwoman Kaptur, Ranking Member Simpson, and
distinguished members of the committee, I appreciate the
opportunity to provide testimony today. I am here representing
the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a
nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank that focuses on accelerating
innovation to spur growth, opportunity, and progress. I am also
currently serving on the National Academy's committee that
produced the report, Accelerating Decarbonization of the U.S.
Energy System.
Bipartisan support for innovation is surging. The Energy
Act of 2020 includes the legislative priorities of more than
100 Members of Congress and was passed by overwhelming
majorities in both parties. And as this committee considers how
to implement the Energy Act and fund the Department of Energy's
research programs, and questions about the scale and scope of
energy programs, and I hope my testimony can be useful as you
begin considerations of fiscal year 2022 appropriations.
First, innovation is critical to combat climate change and
boost economic growth. The National Academy finds that deep
decarbonization is technically feasible but proactive
innovation is essential. As Ms. Millican said, nearly half of
the annual emissions reductions necessary to decarbonize by
2050 will likely come from technologies that are now in early
stages of development but are not yet commercially available.
But current funding levels are not enough to [inaudible]
innovation needed. To accelerate innovation, the National
Academy recommends tripling investment between energy research,
development, and deployment at the Department of Energy. And
this tripling target has been recommended by many other
organizations. This target is both ambitious and measured.
Other national innovation missions in space and health and
defense show that the United States can marshal its innovation
resources on a much larger scale than it currently does for
energy. Federal investment in RD&D has accelerated the
development of life-saving products and modernizing military's
arsenal and put a man on the Moon. And by comparison, the
Federal Government has neglected energy innovation.
U.S. leadership in clean energy research is now being
challenged by China and Europe. China doubled its investment in
clean energy R&D between 2015 and 2020, and it now invests
twice as much as the United States relative to its economy.
As other countries have stepped up their investments in
clean energy, the share of cleantech patents granted to U.S.
companies has declined by 20 percent. Tripling the Department
of Energy's research and development programs can reverse this
decline and restore U.S. leadership in clean energy and
innovation.
Second, as the committee considers what technologies to
invest in, it is important to match the research portfolio to
critical decarbonization needs. In this figure, it shows U.S.
greenhouse gas emissions by economic sector. Transportation and
electricity generation are the largest shares, as we mentioned,
followed by industry, buildings, and agriculture. And on the
right is the Department of Energy's portfolio broken down by
sector. Nearly half of funding is devoted to electricity.
Energy science and cross-cutting technologies account for about
a quarter, and then transportation and buildings and industry
account for disproportionately small shares.
As Federal funding ramps up, increases should target the
underresourced sectors for the greatest increases. The highest
priority areas include the INDU sectors--manufacturing,
vehicles, and buildings. Also, cross-cutting technologies such
as zero-carbon fuels, energy storage, and carbon capture
utilization and sequestration, and firm, clean electricity
generation.
Third, the Federal Government should partner with State and
local governments. States bring different priorities, different
energy resources, and different industries to clean energy
innovation, and we need to take advantage of this diversity to
ensure that Federal funding helps cultivate regional innovation
to the systems. Doing so will bring local economic benefits to
communities around the country and stimulate locally
competitive industry.
It is clear the Federal Government could do more. In this
figure, it shows clean innovation across the country. In
yellow, you have the number of clean tech start-ups; in red,
clean energy patents. Innovative activity tends to cluster
around research universities and the DOE National Laboratories.
But large parts of the country are not participating in or
reaping the benefits from innovation. Congress and DOE need to
do more to support regional innovation clusters. Such clusters
will benefit from clean start-up incubators and accelerators,
as well as public support for locally sited demonstration
platforms.
This committee now has a tremendous opportunity to
accelerate the domestic clean industry, shape the U.S. response
to climate change, and help it lead in clean energy efforts
worldwide. And I hope that the committee can build out the
foundation paved by past year appropriations and continue to
elevate energy innovation as a national priority.
Thank you.
[The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Dr. Cunliff.
Dr. Parthasarathy, please begin.
Dr. Parthasarathy. Thank you.
Chairwoman Kaptur, Ranking Member Simpson, and members of
the committee, thank you for the invitation to participate in
today's hearing. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the
important issue of equity in energy and climate innovation.
In recent years, it has become clear that low-income and
historically disadvantaged communities of color are often
unable to gain the benefits of science and technology, yet may
be disproportionately subject to their harms. The key to
addressing this is to bring equity considerations explicitly
into every step of the research and development process, even
at the earliest stages.
It is easy to provide examples of how energy technology can
both reflect and reinforce inequalities. Coal workers have to
sacrifice enormously for our renewable energy transition, with
lost jobs and devastation in their hometowns. The production
and disposal of solar panels exposes poor people around the
world to health and ecological risks. Energy-efficient light
bulbs are more expensive and difficult to find in Black and
Latinx neighborhoods.
The problem is that our customary approach to energy
innovation addresses equity concerns after the fact when the
technology has already been developed and deployed. Then,
governments have to implement subsidy programs to help people
access renewable energy technologies, public health measures to
manage risks, and retraining programs for those who have lost
their jobs.
My central point today is that if we want equitable energy
technologies, then both governments and technologists must
incorporate this goal into the innovation process itself when
they are deciding which research to fund, which technologies to
develop, and even how technologies should be designed. Our
innovation decisions aren't just technical or economic, but
also simultaneously social, organizational, and moral, and the
equity implications are much more predictable than we tend to
think.
To accomplish this, I suggest that the Department of Energy
incorporate additional expertise, both from affected
communities and from social scientists throughout its R&D
process. The example of breast cancer provides us with a sense
of how this can work. As many of you know, in the 1990s, breast
cancer advocates successfully convinced policymakers to
integrate the expertise of women with breast cancer into the
research enterprise.
The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences,
for example, pioneered a scientist-patient partnership model
that produced greater trust among patients and changed
research. Scientists became more aware of what real women
experienced, and integrated this knowledge into their choices
about which research and funding to pursue. In energy, similar
changes could be made at the programmatic level and with
individual projects. Vulnerable communities often see great
benefits in community-based models such as solar microgrids,
for example, which enable grassroots empowerment and small-
scale or collective entrepreneurship.
DOE might create programs specifically to fund community-
based energy innovation and reward R&D partnerships between
technical experts and affected communities. So rather than a
customary approach, what scholars call a decide, announce,
defend model, DOE should consider a consult, consider, modify,
proceed model that could also help minimize opposition when
innovations are deployed.
DOE could also incorporate the expertise of social
scientists who know how to evaluate the equity consequences of
emerging technologies, first, by favoring interdisciplinary
research proposals. Consider a Dutch case where researchers
compared four smart grid systems and found that low-income
communities would experience different impacts depending on the
project's design. On the basis of these findings, they provided
recommendations to engineers and policymakers.
Second, DOE could include such expertise in its own program
staff. These experts could inform both the agency and potential
grantees on how to explicitly consider equity in R&D, and also
help identify the most equitable, innovation paths for further
demonstration.
The key is not just to support equity assessments of
emerging energy technologies, but to then use the findings to
guide priorities for further development.
In closing, to ensure that equity is considered in energy
and climate innovation and that inequities are actually reduced
rather than exacerbated, we need to incorporate the expertise
of both vulnerable communities and social scientists in the R&D
process at the outset.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
[The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much, Dr. Parthasarathy.
I am also a Michigan graduate, so I don't want to show any
prejudice, I just want to divulge there. Thank you so very much
for your work.
Mr. Powell, please begin.
Mr. Powell. Good afternoon, Chair Kaptur, Ranking Member
Simpson, and members of the committee. I am Rich Powell. I lead
ClearPath. We advance policies that accelerate clean energy and
industrial innovation. An important note, we receive no
industry funding.
Climate change is an urgent challenge that merits
significant policy action at every level of government and the
private sector. We need look no further than the events in
Texas and across the Midwest last week to see the havoc extreme
weather can have on the energy system.
As America creates the clean grids of the future, we must
utilize all forms of clean energy to ensure reliability and
affordability. As this committee considers its part in a
serious set of U.S. climate and clean energy policies, those
solutions should be ambitious but also technology inclusive and
politically realistic.
Policies must support U.S. jobs and ensure American tax
dollars are spent wisely. Too often solutions are
oversimplified to a set of false choices. Renewables versus
fossils or economy versus the environment. The reality is,
solution should follow a comprehensive agenda to make the
global clean energy transition cheaper, faster, and more
flexible.
We applaud this committee's important role in addressing
climate change and hope you continue to build off recent
successes.
Today, I will, first, level set on where we are; second,
discuss a roadmap for a goal-oriented, public-private
investment strategy; and third, look at options to reduce
industrial emissions.
So where are we and how can we build on your clean energy
innovation success? Since 2014, as you can see in my next
slide, you have significantly increased Federal funding for
clean energy R&D on breakthrough technologies. While these
aren't--investments are impressive, as Ranking Member Simpson
mentioned, your strategy to set clear objectives is even more
important.
Money should follow those objectives to demonstrations
through public-private partnerships. These demonstrations are
essential for America to provide affordable clean energy
technology to the rest of the world. Getting technology from
R&D through the valley of death to commercialization requires
robust public-private partnerships as we have had with the
shale gas revolution. Moonshot goals of bringing technology to
market like the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program and the
Energy Storage Grand Challenge are perfect examples.
Importantly, buyers are interested in the full suite of
clean energy technologies. America's largest electric
utilities, including Southern Company, Xcel Energy, Duke
Energy, and DTE, have committed to reaching net-zero emissions
by 2050. But these utilities have emphasized that many of the
24/7 clean technologies required to get them to net zero are
not commercially available today.
The last time I testified before this committee, Ranking
Member Simpson and Chair Kaptur spoke passionately about
putting cost filters in place to avoid waste and setting goals
with clear outcomes. While getting that strategy right may seem
overwhelming, in December, you passed an omnibus package that
included the Energy Act of 2020, a roadmap for goal-oriented
clean energy investing.
It sets a commercialization strategy that focuses the
American innovation engine around technologies that, as Ms.
Millican noted, the International Energy Agency identified to
meet global decarbonization goals. It codifies the
demonstration programs you have already established for
advanced nuclear and energy storage, and builds on that same
structure for a wave of carbon capture, direct air capture, and
enhanced geothermal systems as well.
Specifically, as shown in my next slide, the Energy Act
launches initiatives to support these programs over the next
several years. As you can see, the full scope of the programs
is impressive and would put the U.S. on a path to demonstrating
more than 20 commercial-scale projects across five major
technology areas by the middle of this decade. Likely, the
largest clean demonstration program in history. We are talking
about more jobs, more private sector investments, and remaining
the leading clean energy exporter.
Recognizing your job is very different from the job of
authorizers, we are excited about these demo programs and look
forward to working with you as you craft your fiscal year 2022
bill.
Our mantra and power sector work has been that the U.S.
needs more clean and affordable technologies to meaningfully
reduce global emissions. This holds even truer in the
industrial sector. As you can see in my next slide, the
industrial and power sectors combined now make up half of U.S.
emissions.
For the first time in 2020, industrial emissions were
likely larger in the U.S. than power, and the industrial sector
includes many energy intensive trade-exposed manufacturers,
including steel makers. Without low-cost options for low-
emitting technologies, emissions limits will almost certainly
cause industrial activity to relocate to other countries with
worse environmental standards, degrading U.S. competitiveness
while potentially increasing global emissions.
In December, Congress provided a head start on this
innovation priority. You included more funding at the Office of
Fossil Energy and the Advanced Manufacturing Office to work on
industrial emissions. As this committee looks to accelerate
both American manufacturing job growth and industrial emission
reductions, we recommend the following three points.
First, as Ms. Millican and Dr. Cunliff recommended, we need
more R&D on reducing and capturing emissions from existing
heavy industry. Second, let's set realistic goals for
demonstrating breakthroughs and, third, we should create
conditions for U.S. manufacturers to thrive, ideally bringing
home their operations from higher emitting countries like
China.
This committee has been at the forefront of clean energy
innovation. You dramatically increased clean energy R&D,
focused efforts at DOE by setting ambitious commercialization
goals, and made sure America stays ahead in the global clean
energy race. 2021 provides us with many exciting opportunities
to continue this progress.
Thank you for this opportunity, and I look forward to the
discussion.
[The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Ms. Kaptur. Thank you so very, very much.
I am just excited by all of your presentations. And since
this is our first hearing of the year, I will remind members
again about our hearing rules, as I mentioned at the beginning.
I remind all members and witnesses that the 5-minute clock
still applies. If there is a technology issue, we will move to
the next member until the issue is resolved, and you will
retain the balance of your time. You will notice a clock on
your screen that will show how much time is remaining. At 1
minute remaining, the clock will turn to yellow. At 30 seconds
remaining, I will gently tap the gavel to remind members that
your time is almost expired. And when your time has expired,
the clock will turn red, and I will begin to recognize the next
member.
In terms of speaking order, we will follow the order set
forth in the House rules, beginning with the chair and ranking
member, then members present at the time the hearing is called
to order, then recognized in order of seniority, and finally,
members arriving after the gavel by order of arrival. A second
round of questions may occur after all members have an
opportunity for a first round.
And I know we might be interrupted by votes, so I will try
to move it along. We will now begin questioning under our
normal rules. And this is the order I have: After myself, Mr.
Simpson, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mr. Fleischmann, Mrs.
Kirkpatrick, Mr. Newhouse, Mrs. Lee, Ms. Herrera Beutler, Mr.
Ryan, Mr. Reschenthaler, Mr. Kilmer, Mrs. Watson Coleman, and
Ms. Frankel.
Let me ask our witnesses. Many of you have mentioned
innovation and clean energy manufacturing and efforts to reduce
carbon pollution from the industrial sector. Developing these
strategies should rebuild domestic manufacturing to be robust
and not leave any regions or communities behind, especially
those that have been left behind. In so doing, we will build
back a better way of life, including good paying jobs for all
Americans.
Given the challenges of reducing emissions from the
industrial sector, can you discuss how addressing them can
create economic and job benefits, and how should we approach
the innovation process to ensure we get those benefits in every
region that desperately needs them which has not happened for a
very long time?
Dr. Parthasarathy. I am happy to start.
Ms. Kaptur. Please, Doctor.
Dr. Parthasarathy. So I think I would think about this in
two ways. The good news is that I think that we already see
places where communities have begun to try to take advantage of
the renewable energy transition and empower themselves. So, for
example, Tribes--the Navajo and Hopi Tribes out West have
already begun to manage the fact that many of them are off-
grid. 15,000 Navajo homes don't have power, and so they have--
there is an organization called Native Renewables that has
essentially attempted to bring off-grid solar to those homes.
And at the same time, they are helping people in those Tribes
develop the skills to build off-grid solar and participate in
solar energy. We see similar things in Puerto Rico as well.
And so I think it is important to build on existing
community efforts and leverage that, see what they are doing
well and how we can support that, and then perhaps bring those
insights to other places where they have been struggling. They
don't necessarily know what direction to go in terms of the
energy transition.
And so I think that is one thing that is interesting. But
at the same time, I would also say that while Native
Renewables, Resilient Power Puerto Rico, for example, are
excellent examples of how they have simultaneously been
building solar panels and reskilling their workforce, you know,
in terms of renewable energy, at the same time, there are also
communities who may not--it may not work that well. Those same
efforts might not work well in those communities.
And so when we think about the most marginalized
communities where these--we want to make sure that there is
equitable economic opportunity, we have to look specifically at
what might work well in those communities, but mindful of these
positive experiences that might provide lessons for them.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much.
Does any other witness wish to comment?
Mr. Powell. Chair Kaptur, if I can just add, you know, I
think, unfortunately, last week's experience in Texas has shown
us that, especially for poor and marginalized communities,
extremely resilient and affordable power supply is paramount,
as so many people were left without power in a dangerous
extreme weather event. I do think the technology can be part of
the solution to that problem.
And I think that, as we go forward, there are a number of
sort of ultra-resilient clean energy technologies, many of
which are already well on your agenda, that ought to perhaps
receive extra attention and extra focus. In particular, I would
think about long duration storage, advanced nonlight water
nuclear, and enhanced geothermal systems as three technologies
I would categorize as ultra-resilient that if they had been
deployed more widely in Texas, for example, we might have
avoided at least some of the issues we saw with the Texas grid
and some of the issues, then, that that had on particularly
economically disadvantaged communities.
Ms. Kaptur. Before I turn to Mr. Simpson on this first
round, I just want to implore every member of our subcommittee
and every one of our witnesses, help us help the Department of
Energy. We need to better meet the ground. If you look at where
energy labs are located, there is a lot of synergy around those
places, but really, there isn't a comfort level in other parts
of America that desperately need that technology.
And if we look at some of the programs that currently exist
within the Department of Energy, they could be so much better.
If you look at an agency like HUD, they have a Community
Development Block Grant program. Whether you like the program
or don't like the program, they have found America in every
community and hamlet.
The Department of Energy really doesn't have anything like
that. The closest we get is the weatherization program, and I
won't get into all the complexities on that score. If you look
at the Department of Transportation and the way, you know, the
mayors flock to the Department of Transportation and all of our
county engineers and State transportation directors, they have
met the ground.
The Department of Energy is a little more esoteric, in my
opinion. And as much as I respect it, in terms of their ability
to refine their programs in the modern era, they really need
our help. I was really shocked at one point when the director
of the National Nuclear Security Agency came to Ohio, mainly
because I was the chair of the committee, right, so they want
to make sure they are funded, but they had never set foot in
Ohio before. Ever. I thought, wow. That in itself was a huge
mind-opening experience for me.
And I would caution our members, think about the last time
you saw them in your area and what face they had, the
Department of Energy, in your region. So I think a key question
for us, and you think about it for the second round, how should
we approach the innovation process to ensure that there are
economic benefits in every region and district and how can we
improve the Department of Energy programs to do that.
I would like now to turn the questioning over to my dear
colleague, Congressman Simpson.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. I appreciate it.
It is very interesting to hear the testimony of the
witnesses today. I appreciate all of them being here today.
Let me ask a question, first of all, of Ms. Millican. The
national laboratory system has long been labeled the crown
jewel of our Nation's research and innovation ecosystem. The
national labs house an exceptional workforce and unique
capabilities that this committee has supported and built upon
year after year. The national labs as a system are connected to
universities, businesses, communities across the country. Even
though they might not have a national lab in every State, they
are connected all across this country, and applying their
expertise to many of our Nation's most challenging and urgent
problems.
One of the Breakthrough Energy's proposal is for a new
National Institutes of Energy Innovation modeled on the
National Institutes of Health that imagines focused institutes
located at sites around the country separate from the national
laboratories or the other hubs that we have. I think it is six
hubs. We have got like 17 national laboratories.
How is this different from the hubs and institutes that the
DOE currently supports, and how would the national labs fit in
to this vision, and would it be just separate--I think all of
us agree, we need to do more in terms of investing in research
and development stuff. I don't think there is any argument
there.
My concern is the structure of how we do that. And if we
just spread out our resources so finely across the Nation, do
we really get the bang for the buck rather than through the
national laboratory system that we currently have?
Ms. Millican. Thank you, Ranking Member Simpson. I am very
glad to be asked this question. The idea you refer to, the
National Institutes of Energy Innovation is an idea that Mr.
Gates proposed in December, and we are enormously excited about
it. It is an idea that really comes from looking at the great
experience that we have had with the National Institutes of
Health where we have been able to do incredible things in the
health and biomedical space.
We would love to see the same thing happen in energy and
climate. Of course, it is not a perfectly analogous example,
because energy commercialization challenges are much harder,
not in terms of the problem, but in terms of having the sort of
private sector incentives on the pole side. Nonetheless,
though, we think developing affordable reliable energy should
be a national mission that, you know, we place on the same
level.
So Senator Alexander proposed something like a, you know,
Manhattan Project for energy, and we really hope that the
public can get behind climate and energy in the same way that
we have, you know, through NIH.
I think when we look at the Department of Energy, we think
the problem is sort of twofold. We think that there needs to be
a better internal structure to do this work so that critical
things like low-carbon fuels, industrial decarbonization, and
energy storage aren't sort of buried down in the structure or
tackled, you know, as cross-cuts.
We also think there is a need to expand the capabilities as
you suggested, sir, on--the capabilities within the national
labs to focus on these challenges and to have more centers of
innovation like the national labs in more places. We think this
could be especially powerful for fossil fuel communities, for
example, that are going to be in transition or underserved
areas.
I will say, the idea that we have put out is still under
development and we would love to shape it with you and others
in Congress. But in any scenario, we do see the national labs
as remaining a very critical component and, in fact, we would
like to grow their role to focus on commercialization of low-
carbon technology.
One possible setup is you could have existing national labs
host new centers of excellence with industry and academia to
focus on some of these challenges.
So, again, we look forward to your input and to working
with you on this.
Mr. Simpson. Well, I appreciate that, because one of my--as
I said, I don't think anybody disagrees that we need to
increase our investment in all of these renewable energies and
clean energy and that type of thing. It is a question for me as
an appropriator of how we do that, how do we get the biggest
bang for the buck. And when we have got these gems out here--
and we all know that the national laboratories play a vital
role, no matter how this all turns out. But if there is a
better way to invest the resources to get a better result, I am
all for that.
So I would love to sit down with you all and talk about how
we move forward in that. It is a very important aspect of it
from an appropriations standpoint.
And, Rich, I appreciate your testimony and the importance
of nuclear energy and what it is going to be to the future of
this country. And if you are going to address climate change,
nuclear energy is going to be a huge part of that.
Mr. Powell. Absolutely. It is an indispensable tool. It
currently remains, by far, the largest source of clean energy
in the United States. It is a proven technology that has helped
decarbonize other major developing economies around the world.
And on this theme of industrial missions, it is one of our very
few options to reliably produce low-carbon heat so that you can
actually imagine running something like a steel plant or a
concrete facility with far fewer carbon emissions.
So finding ways to preserve the assets we have and then
expand our nuclear capabilities going forward has to be near
the top of the list of innovation priorities.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much for keeping your remarks
within the time limit.
Mr. Simpson. You bet.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much, Mr. Simpson.
I just wanted to commend to my colleagues attention a story
in The New York Times today about the role of China and
electric cars. As we proceed forward, it is important for us to
understand unfair international competition and how we succeed
against nation states that are subsidizing at a level that is
almost beyond belief, but that is part of what we face as we
try to innovate in our country.
I would now like to go to Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz
if she is still on the floor. If she is not on the screen, then
we will go to Congresswoman Kirkpatrick.
Then Congresswoman Kirkpatrick, please.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you, Madam Chair. I really
appreciate you having this hearing.
As you heard me say before, I was born and raised on Tribal
land in Arizona, and we got our energy from a generator at the
river, the White River. And, you know, sometimes it would break
down and we would be without any kind of energy for days. So we
always stored candles and lanterns and flashlights in our homes
to get through those times.
So this is very important to me, very timely. You know, we
want to make sure that our Tribal communities are treated
equitably and that they have renewable energy technology to
rely on.
So my first question is for Dr. Parthasarathy, regarding
the equitable approach to renewable energy technology for our
Tribal communities. You know, we have an abundance of solar
energy in Arizona, and is that part of your portfolio? If you
could address that for me, I would really appreciate it.
Dr. Parthasarathy. Yeah, sure. So I think that there--for
my research, what I have seen is that there is enormous
potential and there is enormous activity happening among Native
Americans in sort of Arizona, Utah, New Mexico area among, as I
mentioned earlier, among both the Navajo and Hopi people. And
you see sort of two things happening, and I think both of them
are ripe for support from DOE, for example, and the first
thing, which I mentioned earlier, is that as you, yourself,
have experienced, so many of these homes are off-grid, right.
And so this organization, Native Renewables, is attempting
to develop solar energy for these communities and, at the same
time, train these individuals to install solar as a means of
workforce development. And so, at the same time, I know that
some of these lands, some of these peoples are transitioning
out from heavy mining, heavy involvement in mining, and looking
to see whether older mining lands might be repurposed for solar
energy. And those projects are relatively early in their
development, but I think on both--in both dimensions, we can
think about DOE support.
I think when we think about, you know, how can we support
these communities in what they want to do and what they feel is
most appropriate for themselves, both in terms of procedurally,
that they feel that they have ownership, they know their lands,
they know their lives best, they can, you know--they can direct
innovation and technology and workforce concerns, but also in
terms of the kinds of technologies that might work best for
them.
Those are, I think, opportunities for innovation that we
don't tend to think about. We often tend to think about
underserved communities generally, and certainly Native
Americans in particular, as beneficiaries at the last stages of
innovation. We are then in a position of making sure that the
innovation that we develop reaches those communities. But
instead what I am suggesting is that we center those
communities and we say, how can serving those communities, what
those communities say they want, how can serving them actually
produce innovation for us. And that could then help other
underserved communities and actually center equity in
innovation.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Yeah. That is really interesting to me.
So we have large swaths of land, Tribal land, especially in
northern Arizona, that the power lines run right over their
Tribal land and that they are not attached to the grid. And so
a few years ago, I delved into it and I was just told it is too
expensive to attach them to the grid. So they pretty much have
to have stand-alone energy source. Solar seems perfect to me
for that, and they are embracing solar. And so, you know, we
would like to see much more investment in solar energy on
Tribal land. I think it is the perfect solution.
So many of these communities are remote and they are remote
from each other. So running a power line doesn't really make
sense, but if you have stand-alone energy resources for those
communities, to me, that makes the most sense. And it is
renewable, it gets passed on to our grandchildren, and it keeps
the climate clean, which is a top priority of mine. So I
appreciate your work.
Dr. Parthasarathy. Thank you. I will just say really
briefly that when I hear the words ``too expensive,'' I think
that is an opportunity for innovation. Right? That is what we
used to say about solar 10 years ago. So these are
opportunities, I think.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. I agree. I agree. At some point, it might
make sense to have stand-alone home solar units on houses in
very remote areas. So I looked into that a couple of years ago
too, but it was still pretty expensive. But I think, you know,
like you said, with innovation we can bring those costs down
and make that power available to people.
So thank you very much for your testimony. I appreciate it.
Dr. Parthasarathy. Thank you.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. And I thank the members for staying
within their time limit.
Again, I ask the members, as you look at Department of
Energy programs, take weatherization, you will find a really
arthritic program, a program that cannot embrace innovation
easily. House by house by house as opposed to community by
community by community or neighborhood by neighborhood by
neighborhood, or integrating other programs more easily, you
will find arthritis at the Department of Energy. We need your
help.
All right.
Congressman Fleischmann.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member
Simpson, for holding this hearing. This is truly exactly what
we love to look at at Oak Ridge Reservation I represent.
I want to thank the witnesses. I have got three questions,
so I will try to be as brief with the questions and ask for
rather terse answers.
Ms. Millican, as we think about our national energy
innovation capabilities, where does scientific computing and
advanced manufacturing such as Oak Ridge National Labs
leadership fit in, please?
Ms. Millican. Thank you for the question, Congressman. That
is an excellent one. So much of our conversation centers around
energy technologies and specifically generation technologies,
but we also have these really great platform technologies that
can apply in a lot of different context like scientific
computing that we also need to be investing in. Oak Ridge has
one of the best, you know, super computers in the world, as you
know.
And one of the really amazing things that we have been able
to do with computing capacities is actually look at some of the
materials and chemistries that can go into lots of different
technologies. One thing I will just quickly mention is a really
cool example is a thing called a metal organic framework that
is a nano particle that if you--it has one of the internal
structure--or its internal structure is one of the most
extensive of any particle on Earth. And if you were to unfurl a
gram of it, it would cover an entire football field. And we
have been able to analyze that with computing to find what are
the best kinds of these metal organic frameworks that we can
use, for example, in carbon capture technology, because it
essentially creates a molecular cage that can capture CO2
particles. So really cool things going on and Oak Ridge is at
the forefront of it.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you. Appreciate that answer.
Mr. Powell, so glad to see you, and please give our best to
our dear friends at ClearPath.
In addition to operating nuclear reactors, there is a
resurgence in new nuclear technologies. This broad bipartisan
enthusiasm over advanced reactors is in part due to private
sector developments that have advanced in recent years. Dozens
of advanced reactor designs are being developed by
entrepreneurs across the country, many preparing to put steel
in the ground in a few short years.
While these designs are promising, developing a new nuclear
reactor design requires significant upfront capital. In fiscal
2020, we directed the Department of Energy to launch the
Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program, the ARDP, which awarded
10 private companies grants to accelerate their deployment.
Most significant grants are to demonstrate first of a kind
advanced reactors in the next 6 years.
With China and Russia continuing to expand their influence
and building new nuclear reactors in other countries, this
program is even more important to help the United States
maintain a strong industry and competitive nuclear industry.
My questions are, why do you believe this program has the
potential to be successful, and why do you believe this program
is necessary? And my follow-up question will be, what can this
committee do to help ensure ARDP is successful? Dr. Powell?
Mr. Powell. Thank you so much, Congressman Fleischmann.
Terrific to see you too, and thank you for your long and
dedicated support for nuclear innovation and all of the great
technologies at Oak Ridge and across the lab system.
The Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program, the ARDP, is
perhaps the most exciting new development in the advanced
nuclear space in a decade. Your decision to prioritize really
next-generation technologies to find multiple different
technologies that can be invested in, so you have multiple
horses running, and I think very crucially to assemble an
industry council that represented not just the folks who are
developing and promoting the technologies, but the folks that
actually might buy the technologies or finance those upfront
developments as part of the selection process to buy them, was
really also an innovation in policy design.
And so I think we can all have greater confidence that the
right portfolio of technologies was selected because you got
the buyers and the investors involved in the selection process
alongside the great folks who work at the Department of Energy
and led that process. So I think we can be more confident that
the program will succeed and that we have got a robust
portfolio of technologies there.
In terms of what you can do going forward, I think two
things. I mean, first, crucially, it is a big program and it is
going to need large and continuing and dedicated support over
the next 5 years. You write the checks.
Just as importantly, though, I think holding that program
accountable. You set very aggressive milestones for when those
reactors need to be developed. As you said, a 6-year timeframe,
that will be record time to develop and license and site and
begin construction of a new advanced reactor. And so you are
really going to have to hold the Department of Energy across
multiple Presidential administrations to account to make sure
that that is delivered on time and on budget, and that we think
back on the program as a success.
That program I think now will serve as a model for many of
the other technologies that were included in the Energy Act of
2020 as well, and I think the same approach can be applied
there.
Ms. Kaptur. I thank the gentleman very much for staying
within the time limit. The gentleman's time has expired.
We are going to go to our next member, a new member of our
subcommittee, very energized herself, Congresswoman Lee.
Mrs. Lee. Thank you.
Thank you, Chairwoman Kaptur, Ranking Member Simpson. This
is, to me, an incredibly important hearing. This is my first
subcommittee hearing, and I look forward to working with
everyone on this committee in a bipartisan manner.
You know, I think that what has happened in Texas just
recently, this hearing is so incredibly timely, and my heart
and prayers go out to everyone in that State who had been
adversely affected. You know, every year we are seeing these
instances where we are seeing the effect of climate change on
having such major implications across this country and
communities across this country.
I wanted to just make a couple of statements first to Mr.
Powell regarding nuclear energy. As you know, I come from
Nevada, so I always feel like when we talk about research and
development and the importance of nuclear energy in our
portfolio, you know, I look at also coupled with this is not
just the development of technologies but the development of how
we manage waste. And that is something that is obviously
becoming so critical across this country and something that is
very critical to my State. And so I just hope that that becomes
part of this conversation as we talk about alternative energy
and research and development.
And, secondly, I cannot agree more with the concept of
potentially matching our research and development to national
innovation labs. I just think when you look at the map that we
saw here with Dr. Cunliff on where we see the innovation
happening and the research happening, and then you couple it
with the map that Ms. Millican put forth on where you see, you
know, the potential coming, there is a mismatch there. And so I
think there is a lot of opportunity, and, obviously, in my
State of Nevada, we view this as a key source of economic
diversification and development. So I look forward to working
with all of you on that.
I just want to go back. I want to talk about the costs and
technologies. So we know that renewable and clean energy, such
as wind, solar, and batteries, have dropped between 55 to 94
percent since 2008. Simultaneous, we have seen the development
of robust clean economy, and I am proud of the progress that my
State has made with the 45.5 percent increase in clean energy
employment just in the last--between 2016 and 2019.
And, Ms. Millican, can you walk us through what you view as
the major drivers for the decline in the cost of clean energy
technology?
Ms. Millican. Thank you, Congresswoman. That is a great
question. I think in the case of solar, that is the perfect
example of what we can do when we sort of combine what we call
the supply side of innovation with the demand side of
innovation. So in the seventies and eighties, we were able to
reduce the cost of solar from a very high price point very
quickly, roughly 80 percent, through research and development,
but then we sort of entered this stagnation period where there
wasn't a whole lot of supportive public policy in the nineties
and then the early 2000s.
But once we saw Germany coming in with the feed-in tariff,
Chinese manufacturing bringing down the cost of PV panels, all
of these kind of global components coming together, plus in the
United States, you know, on our side of things, we started
putting in place things like renewable portfolio standards, you
really saw that demand pull side of innovation coming together.
As well, tax credits played a role, of course, in addition to
portfolio standards.
So we really think that same model needs to be used for
other clean energy technologies where we are using Federal
leadership resources and support to really drive down the costs
through research, development, and demonstration. And then you
need to think, you know, on the demand side about things like
procurement and incentives and all the things that can help
pull those innovations out from the lab into the marketplace.
Mrs. Lee. Great. Thank you.
I also--I don't have much time, so I just wanted to say, as
we move forward, just specifics from an investment standpoint
or also public-private partnership, what should we do to
continue to incentivize that to lower the cost?
Ms. Millican. I could take that if it was directed at me.
Mrs. Lee. Yes.
Ms. Millican. So I think there are a few things to mention
here. We really do need that Federal leadership, especially on
the research, development, and demonstration side, but in
tandem, we also need philanthropic and private sector efforts.
And I think some of the things that I mentioned in my written
testimony around getting the Federal structure to be more
conducive to coordinating more closely with the philanthropic
and private sector would be a really great place to start.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you all so very much for being conscious
of the time. You did excellent, Congresswoman Lee, excellent.
All right. Congressman Newhouse, please.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, Ranking
Member Simpson. And thank you to all of our panelists that are
here with us this afternoon. I too think that this is a very
important subject, and I appreciate all of your insights on it.
Mr. Powell, welcome. It is good to see you again, and thank
you for participating and contributing to this important
discussion.
I want to start off with a couple of questions for you.
First of all, as you know, advanced nuclear energy could
provide unparalleled domestic benefits as well as substantial
clean electricity for generations, and we are all excited about
that. But getting the first reactors to commercial operations
seems to be the biggest challenge. Mr. Fleischmann talked a
little bit about this.
So my question about that is, how integral is Federal,
certainly congressional support, to the success of these
current projects and to future innovation?
And then, secondly, as a followup to that, as we discussed,
the Department of Energy announced the Advanced Reactor
Demonstration Awards just last, I believe, October. And Energy
Northwest in my district was listed as a utility partner for
both the X-energy and the TerraPower-GE Hitachi partnerships,
and I am just tremendously excited about the prospect of either
one or possibly both of these plants being built in our region.
So with Washington State's mandate for a carbon-free grid
by, I believe, 2045 in mind, how important are projects like
this to achieving that goal, both reliably and affordably?
Mr. Powell. Thanks so much, Congressman. Great to see you
as well. Thanks for your continuing leadership on nuclear and
on energy storage. Congratulations, by the way, on the
leadership of the Western Caucus. It is a very important group
of members.
So on the two parts of your question, first, on how we get
these technologies from zero to one and then, second, how they
play a role in a fully clean energy grid. So, you know,
stepping back, the reality is that every new energy technology
in the United States' history has required significant Federal
investment to get that technology up and running. That was true
in the early days of oil. It was certainly true as part of the
shale gas revolution. Absolutely true in the first generation
of nuclear technologies, in all of the grid scale renewables
deployment. And so I think we should expect that, for better or
for worse, to be true of next generation technologies like
advanced nuclear as well.
Nuclear is particularly difficult to get from zero to one
because of the heavy regulatory burden, the appropriate
regulatory burden, on such a power-dense technology. And so
whether it has been the new scale reactors which recently sort
of broke the barrier and got the first small modular reactors
through the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or Oklo, the first
microreactors, or TerraPower and X-energy, the first larger
scale nonlike water reactors that, you know, are the selected
technologies for the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program.
All of these would need a significant Federal cost share to get
the first generation of the technologies running. It would just
be extremely difficult to finance that entirely by the private
sector.
Hence, the need and the appropriate role for the program
and then a diversity of sites where it is picked in good host
communities, places like your neck of the woods and the broader
nuclear complex there or perhaps the Clinch River site in
Tennessee, you know, finding communities that are already very
welcoming to nuclear as the first host communities for these.
Now, how they fit into 100 percent clean energy grid, I
think Energy Northwest worked with E3, one of the more
sophisticated energy modeling firms, to look at how it could
comply with that 100 percent clean energy mandate. Washington
State is sort of a--you are a vision of the future. You are
already at 80 or 90 percent clean because of your hydro
reserves and the renewable--the other renewable development you
have. Now, you are going that last, you know, 10 to 20 percent
of the way, so you are where so many other States might be 10
or 20 years from now. And that E3 study found that small
modular reactors, bar none, are the most cost-effective way to
get that last 10 to 20 percent of the way to 100 percent clean.
You really need something that is a firm and flexible zero
emission source to fill that remaining gap. If you were to
attempt to do the rest of that, for example, entirely with
variable renewable energy--you know, wind is terrific and
extremely cost effective until it is not, right, until it has
reached very high penetration of the grid. But filling that
last part of the gap, it is very clear that a flexible source
like nuclear could be the lowest cost way to do that.
Mr. Newhouse. Awesome. Perfect. I appreciate that. And
thank you again for your contributions today, as well as the
rest of the panel.
Madam Chair, I am out of time. I thank you very much for
the opportunity.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you for staying within the limit,
Congressman Newhouse. I really appreciate it.
And I just want to say to the new members on the committee
and the returning members, we need an answer to where to store
nuclear waste. If it is not going to be Yucca Mountain, which
seems to be the will of the State of Nevada, we simply have to
find an answer. If I have to support a separate task force to
create it, volunteer, I will put you on it. But we have to
solve this problem for the country. I am tired of the issue. I
inherited it, and I am determined to find an answer. So all of
our experts, help us out. We really need it. Got to move the
country forward here. Time is awasting.
Congressman Ryan, Senator Ryan, there he is.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you. I appreciate it, Chairwoman, and
excited to be back on this committee. I was on it back when it
was Dave Hobson and Pete Visclosky, and we continue to work. So
great to be with you and Mr. Simpson.
I have a question, Robin, that I would like your opinion on
and maybe some insight. We know that the innovation is critical
and that is really how we are going to get home from the
climate crisis. And I have been supporting, over the last
however many years, with the help of Ms. Kaptur, the Office of
Technology Transitions at DOE, and that is essential to drive
some of the innovation that we are talking about across the
agency and in the communities throughout the country. And that
is why for the last couple of years I have supported an
increase in their budget for clean energy incubators, and
incubators like one we started, it was one of the last earmarks
I got, it is called the BRITE Energy incubator in Warren, Ohio,
to empower energy start-ups and to launch these energy
companies.
I think it is going to be vitally important for us to, as
Ms. Kaptur talks so eloquently about so often, getting these
investments into the communities, over the last 30 or 40 years,
that have lost investment. So coal and steel and auto and
rubber in these communities that really have been devastated,
how do we drive some of this investment into those communities?
And I think these incubators could be a great opportunity.
Brookings had a study a couple of years back where
businesses that come out of incubators, they locate within 5
miles of the incubator. So we have been putting these
incubators in our downtowns--downtown Akron, downtown Warren.
There is a business software incubator in downtown Youngstown--
because we know that those companies spinning out are probably
going to stay in the downtown, which builds capacity there and
there is quality of life, and on and on and on.
So I would love to hear you talk a little bit about the
role of start-ups in the energy innovation economy and maybe
what else, in your view, OTT could do to help continue to
cultivate that ecosystem. And I will let you take the rest of
the time.
Ms. Millican. Thank you, Congressman Ryan. Well, in our
assessment, no surprise, given, you know, Mr. Gates'
orientation, we think start-ups play an incredibly vital role
in the overall innovation process. That is true in any
industry, but it is certainly true in energy as well.
We, you know, think that the vital role they play is
because if you look at incumbent players, right, they are--this
isn't true across the board, but they are often sort of trying
to make the thing that they are already making incrementally
better, not necessarily working on the truly disruptive game-
changing technology, which is where start-ups come in.
We have a couple of programs at Breakthrough Energy that
are oriented toward those, you know, sort of early stage
innovators. Breakthrough Energy Ventures was the first effort
that we launched that focuses on investing in new companies
that can mitigate at least half a gigaton of greenhouse gases
when deployed at scale. And then we have a new program called
Breakthrough Energy Ventures that is looking at taking
researchers and scientists that don't have companies yet, but
they might have great ideas, and try to coach them into, you
know, understanding how they can take those ideas and turn them
into products and companies. And we hope that is a program that
helps seed innovation across the country.
In terms of what OTT can do, you know, we are really
excited that it was authorized for the first time, despite, you
know, being around for a few years, but authorized for the
first time in the Energy Act in December. I think a few ideas
come to mind around what they might be able to do to help, you
know, start-ups in a more fulsome way.
One is, you know, I believe the Energy Act authorized $5
million for them to work more closely with incubators and
accelerators. We would like to see that funded. And we would
also like to see them have programs like the Small Business
Vouchers Program, for example, which focuses on getting small
businesses access to the great national lab facilities. We
would like to see that program brought back and funded. So a
few ideas off the top of my head.
I also will mention the Small Business Innovation Research
Program. That is a program that gets nondiluted grant funding
out to companies, and that program has been very successful.
DOE has one that is almost the size of ARPA-E, so we would like
to see that expand as well.
Thank you.
Mr. Ryan. Great. I appreciate that.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And I would be derelict in my duty
if I didn't say I would love for you to come to Ohio and see
what we have going on there and would love to partner with you
if we could.
So thanks, Congresswoman Kaptur, Chairwoman.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for staying within the limit. Greatly appreciated.
I just want to make sure Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz is
not on and Congresswoman Herrera Buetler is not on. I don't
want to miss anybody.
Okay. Then we are going to Congressman Reschenthaler, a new
member of the subcommittee. Welcome.
Mr. Reschenthaler. Thank you, Chair. I really appreciate
it.
I just want to start by saying that American innovation, if
you just look at the United States, we currently actually lead
the world in CO2 emission reduction. China currently emits more
greenhouse gases than the United States, Japan, and the EU
combined. And also, China has increased emissions by nearly
four tons per every ton reduced by the United States in the
last 15 years. And under the Paris climate agreement, China and
India, who, again, emit significantly more carbon than the
United States, are allowed to increase their emissions through
2030.
But let's just focus on the United States and our
innovation. The National Energy Technology Laboratory, or NETL,
which I am proud to say is located in southwestern
Pennsylvania, actually right down the road from where I grew
up, and the Department of Energy's Office of Fossil Energy,
these institutions are global leaders in carbon capture
research and development.
Carbon capture ensures that we can reduce greenhouse gas
emissions while still taking advantage of domestic coal and
natural resources--natural gas resources, both of which are
produced in my district. Continued innovation in carbon capture
technology will benefit our environment, it will benefit our
energy sector and, I would argue just as importantly, will
benefit our economy.
With that said, Mr. Powell, the DOE's carbon capture
program has long targeted commercial demonstrations in the 2025
timeframe. These goals were incorporated in Congress' recent
enactment of the Energy Act of 2020.
With the recent extended 45Q tax credit also expiring at
the end of 2025, what do you think Congress can do to best
support the Department's commercialization goals?
Mr. Powell. Thanks so much for the question, Congressman
Reschenthaler. Thanks for your leadership on the China Task
Force and, you know, continuing to pound the drum and raise the
profile of that massive emissions issue. And terrific to see a
fellow Pennsylvanian on the panel. I am a proud Scrantonian, so
it is great to see that you are here.
I think the work that the National Energy Technology
Laboratory has done is indeed world-leading. We have
significantly decreased the cost of carbon capture, and we have
now brought it down to the level where, for industrial
facilities, it is equivalent or less than the incentive we
created in 45Q.
So you have now seen a whole wave of industrial facilities
across the country, ethanol facilities, cement plants, ammonia
plants, say that they are going to take advantage of that
incentive and start installing carbon capture. The problem is
we haven't yet brought it down to the level where power plants
are in the money under 45Q, and so there is work to be done on
further demonstrations. We know it works on power plants. It
has been demonstrated multiple times around the world. Now it
is a question of doing more of it, learning by doing it, and
further bringing down the cost.
So in terms of what Congress can do, I think first and
foremost, it is funding the wave of demonstrations that are set
up in the Energy Act of 2020. That act authorizes six total
carbon capture demonstrations, two more on coal, two on gas,
two on industrial facilities. I think funding those through the
Office of Fossil Energy is probably the top priority,
especially those gas and those coal demonstrations, to further
bring down the costs so that then the incentive is enough to
get them going by themselves.
Mr. Reschenthaler. So, Mr. Powell, the incentive is why
there is so much commercial interest in carbon capture, the
financial incentive, or are there other reasons why the free
market is interested in carbon capture?
Mr. Powell. Well, the incentive is part of it. There is
also an opportunity to commercialize the CO2 that is captured
as a commodity. So, for example, in Texas, Carbon Engineering,
one of the firms that Mr. Gates' organizations have invested
in, is partnering with Occidental Petroleum, pulling CO2
directly out of the atmosphere and then putting it into older
oil fields to do enhanced oil recovery and produce barrels of
oil that are either neutral or net negative emissions barrels
of oil. So there is a whole opportunity there in utilizing the
carbon capture and emissions.
And, relatedly, investors and many large energy companies
have demanded that those companies go to net-zero goals, and
many of those companies don't see a way to get to their net-
zero goals and commitments without some robust use for carbon
capture. So there is a bunch of sort of voluntary corporate
demand for the technology.
Mr. Reschenthaler. And knowing that we have less than 30
seconds left, what are some opportunities for downstream carbon
capture benefits or how we can use it downstream? Quickly, I
know we are running out of time, please.
Mr. Powell. Well, absolutely. I think there are a number of
things. So there are places for carbon capture that folks don't
necessarily think about. There are a lot of smaller industrial
facilities, pulp and paper, for example, that could take
advantage of this kind of thing. There are also clusters, like
in the Louisiana industrial cluster, for example, where
multiple different facilities could come together and share
common infrastructure to capture the CO2 and sequester it.
Mr. Reschenthaler. Thank you, Mr. Powell.
And thank you, Chairwoman Kaptur.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Congressman Reschenthaler. You are a
good member. Glad to have you.
Mr. Reschenthaler. Thank you.
Ms. Kaptur. And we have got to get some of this carbon
capture technology to my district with all of our refineries,
so you gave me an idea.
Congressman Kilmer, please.
Mr. Kilmer. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thanks to our
guests for being with us.
My question is for Dr. Cunliff. It would probably not
surprise any of my colleagues who have been on this
subcommittee previously to hear me talk about the only marine
lab in the Department of Energy's lab complex. It is the
Pacific Northwest National Lab's Marine and Coastal Research
Lab in my district in Sequim, Washington. And they are really
at the leading edge of innovation in marine and hydrokinetic
energy, especially focusing on how to use this emerging
renewable power source for ocean-based applications and to
bring power to remote coastal communities.
Dr. Cunliff, in ITIF's recent report, you called for
significantly ramping up investment in the EERE Water Power
Technologies Office that funds this work. I was hoping you
could share more with the committee about why investing in
those technologies is important and the opportunity you see for
marine power to contribute to our national and even global
climate goals.
Dr. Cunliff. Sure. And thank you for the question. I
appreciate your long support for marine energy. And, of course,
I am very familiar with the great work out of the Pacific
Northwest National Lab and with DOE powering the fuel economy
road map [inaudible] Energy.
As far as its importance, natural resource assessments have
found 1.25 to 1.85 terawatt hours per year of untapped
technically extractable marine energy potential. And just for
comparison, that is 30 percent of total electricity generated
in the U.S. But marine energy technologies are still in the
early stages of development, due to some of the scientific and
the engineering challenges associated with the marine
environment.
So the powering of fuel economy road maps, as you mentioned
invites near-term opportunities for marine energy in places
that are far from land-based power grids, onboard energy
generation, and remote recharging.
In our report, we did make a couple of recommendations for
an innovation intended [inaudible] For marine energy, and one
of the things we found is that price competitions are
particularly well suited to marine energy in part because of
the technological [inaudible] But also the uncertainty about
the eventual optimal design. And then also, test beds is
another area where there is a huge gap.
The European Marine Energy Center allows prototypes of up
to 1 megawatt to be tested in the open water, and there is
really no comparable test bed of that scale in the United
States.
So those are a couple of recommendations for how we could
tap into marine energy.
I can also--I can keep going.
I do think DOE should also focus on marine maritime
assistance more broadly. So shipping is a particularly hard to
decarbonize sector, and that really requires energy-dense
fuels, and the batteries that enable electrification for light-
duty cars and trucks are likely not to attain sufficient
density for marine shipping. But some opportunities that DOE
currently is not exploring at all include hydrogen and ammonia,
but certainly more work is needed. But also for ports'
electrification and energy management, are opportunities to
reduce emissions as well as local pollution.
Mr. Kilmer. I really appreciate it. Sorry, I put myself on
mute, so I just didn't want to be talking into the ether.
I really appreciate your suggestions. I think the notion of
price competitions, I think, is a great idea. The opportunities
related to our ports, I think, are enormous and would really
just like to invite your partnership as we start to think about
the fiscal year 2022 bill. So thank you for your input.
Madam Chair, I know you have got a lot of folks in the
queue, just out of respect knowing votes are coming up, I will
yield back the remainder of my time.
Ms. Kaptur. How kind of you and how like you, Congressman
Kilmer. Thank you so very much. Thank you.
We will hear from Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz now. And
then we will go to Congresswoman Bustos, Watson Coleman, and
Frankel. I don't believe Ms. Herrera Beutler has returned to
the screen, but she might.
So, Congressman Wasserman Schultz.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madam Chair, climate change is a defining issue of our time
because it affects virtually every policy area. And we also
have to recognize that communities of color and marginalized
communities in the United States and all around the world are
being hit hardest by climate change and pollution. These
communities are often forced to confront environmental and
public health hazards where they live, work, and play.
Professor Parthasarathy, I have some questions. With a last
name like Wasserman Schultz, I feel your pain. I have some
questions.
Dr. Parthasarathy. You got it, you are fine.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I have some questions for you, and I
also just want you to go back and touch on the breast cancer
research. As a breast cancer survivor, that was really
intriguing, and I would love to talk to you after the hearing
further about that.
But your work focuses on achieving social justice goals,
ethics, and science. How can we approach energy innovation so
that it combats the historically unequal impacts of pollution,
while increasing equitable access to new economic opportunity,
improve public health and resilience? This is such an
incredibly important challenge that we tackle. And it just
feels like there is so much to do, it is hard to know where to
begin.
Dr. Parthasarathy. Well, Congressman Wasserman Schultz, I
was hopeful that we would have the opportunity to talk about
breast cancer, because over the many years in which I have
looked at that issue, your extraordinary work on the issue has
been really an inspiration for me.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
Dr. Parthasarathy. But you raise, of course, a very
important point. And the horrible winter storm in Texas last
week has already come up in this hearing, and I would be
neglectful if I didn't mention that my parents live in Texas,
in Houston. And, in fact, last week there was a moment of real
panic when I wasn't able to find a hotel room for them and they
were struggling. But, of course, my parents are relatively
privileged. They live in a nice neighborhood. The power came
back, the water came back, and they have children who are quick
with internet technology around the country.
But what we have seen from that episode is the fact that
inequality is a nested problem, right. So families who lack
power and water in that moment had insecure housing. They
didn't have the kinds of funds that my parents had. They don't
have--they are obviously also at greater risk when it comes to
environmental pollution, air and water pollution, housing
issues, et cetera, right.
So I think that the key is to understand that it is a
nested problem, that these are nested problems and that from
the top down we don't always understand how those problems are
connected to one another. And so that is why, as I said
earlier, it is important to engage with communities to find out
exactly how these problems work together and how to unravel
them.
But the other thing that I wanted to mention, which I
discussed briefly in my oral testimony, is that there are
social scientists doing this work too, that there are scholars
who have considered developing equity impact assessments, for
example, in the areas of health, health equity impact
assessments, social equity impact assessments, that I think
that we can bring into the energy space.
These discussions are newer here, right. Environmental
impact assessments, of course, are something that we have a lot
of experience with, but it doesn't necessarily have that equity
dimension to it. And I think bringing in and normalizing that
expertise in these conversations is the first place to go to
start to even begin to understand what we are dealing with. I
think we are still at the stage in this discussion where we
don't necessarily know what are the different dimensions of it
that we may need to consider as we are thinking about new
climate and energy innovation.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And briefly, on breast cancer, can
you elaborate a bit on what you touched on?
Dr. Parthasarathy. Yes, sure. So in addition to the fact
that as you, of course, know, in the nineties, breast cancer
advocates were able to get huge increases in funding. There
were a couple of things that happened that really, I think,
revolutionized the game.
The first was that breast cancer advocates sit on
scientific peer review panels, for example, at the Department
of Defense's Breast Cancer Research Program. In addition, we
see breast cancer advocates as partners across the country in
what seem like scientific projects. And, in particular, we have
seen the research partnerships that I mentioned, the National
Institute for Environmental Health Sciences, these kinds of
partnerships have changed the kinds of questions that
scientists ask.
So, for example, one of the interesting dimensions of this
is that scientists tend to look at environmental causation of
cancer at the community level--or sorry, at the county level,
and instead patient advocates said, no, actually the operative
issue is ZIP Code as opposed to county. They convinced
scientists to look at radiation risks, right. So it changed the
kinds of questions. It sometimes changed the measurement tools.
And those kinds of things are really important if we, you know,
at the end of the day, we want--we are investing in all of this
innovation for it to have social impact.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. I would love to follow up
with you. If you would reach out to my office.
And, Madam Chair, thank you for your indulgence. I know I
am out of time, and I yield back.
Ms. Kaptur. I know, Congresswoman, you were on the floor
speaking, and we thank you for coming back to the meeting. We
thank you very much.
Congresswoman Watson Coleman was with us earlier. She may
be on the floor herself.
Congresswoman Bustos.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. I am here.
Ms. Kaptur. Oh, you are here. Okay.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Yes, I am here. Thank you.
Ms. Kaptur. Oh, there you are. Oh, okay. All right.
Congresswoman Watson Coleman.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thanks very much.
I appreciate this hearing that we are having on innovation
and the impact on underrepresented and poorer communities. I am
very concerned about that.
But I am also concerned about--two questions. Number one is
that if we think nuclear energy is part of our clean energy
portfolio, why are we not doing more research on what to do
with its waste as opposed to finding some place to collect it?
Why aren't we trying to figure out how to repurpose it? And are
we so we would be investing in that?
And the second question is, since Princeton Plasma Physics
is in my home district, why are we not discussing fusion energy
as one of the innovations that we should be investing in? And
where do you see it falling on the portfolio line?
Those are my questions, Madam Chair.
Mr. Powell. Congresswoman, I am happy to take a quick stab
at both.
First, couldn't agree with you more that we ought to be
doing more at the back end of the fuel cycle. We are going to
need a long-term repository. No matter what happens, we are
going to need some long-term repository, so we need to find a
solution on that matter. But there is so much more that we
could be doing on repurposing and reprocessing the fuel we had.
I think it is better thought of as spent fuel or lightly used
fuel than it is as waste. There is so much energy left in it,
and a number of these advanced reactor technologies could
actually much more easily use that as the fuel to fire those
reactors going forward and potentially also break down some of
the nastier things that are left over in the spent fuel from
the existing light-water civilian nuclear fleet. So we should
certainly be doing that.
I think there is also more that we could be doing on
innovative ways to store the waste. For example, there is a
company called Deep Isolation that is looking at whether we
could use horizontal drilling technologies to much more quickly
go both deep and sideways and find places to securely store,
maybe even temporarily store the waste that would be--we
perhaps all feel a little bit better about it being sort of
above ground in parking lots, even though it is actually stored
relatively securely in those places.
Second, couldn't agree with you more on the need to do more
on fusion. We were very excited to see that the Energy Act of
2020 had a public-private partnership program included to
actually start thinking about really commercializing a fusion
reactor technology in this company. There are a number of
innovative start-ups around the country, from Commonwealth
Fusion in Massachusetts to Tri-Alpha and many others on the
West Coast, that are getting close to something that could
actually produce power sustainably.
We are not talking about a science project anymore. We are
talking about something that is very close to application. I
think funding and supporting that fusion public-private
partnership could be a great next step to move that forward.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you.
Does anyone else want to comment on this particular
question?
If not, my only last comment has to do with, as we move
forward and we think about all of these innovations, those
communities, those poor communities, those urban as well as
those rural communities, are communities that we need to make
sure the DEP really has its eye on and has a commitment to in
this administration.
And I thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back the rest of
my time.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much, Congresswoman Watson
Coleman. You have given me an idea. I would like you and
Congressman Fleischmann to think about this, and if it is okay
with the ranking member, maybe we need to have a little task
force of our committee look at this issue of waste from our
nuclear waste and have a little more work done by members of
the subcommittee before we actually go to hearings and so forth
involving your labs, involving finding witnesses who can talk
to us about this, to try to move us forward on an approach
which the Department seems to be stymied or we would have an
answer. And so you can think about that and let me know if that
interests you----
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Kaptur [continuing]. As we move forward.
And I apologize to Congresswoman Bustos. I should have
called on her first. I just attribute it to my bad handwriting
for the day.
Congresswoman Bustos.
Mrs. Bustos. I can definitely relate to bad handwriting,
so--thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Dr. Cunliff, this question is for you. In your written
testimony, you talked about our country's enormous geologic and
terrestrial reservoirs for carbon dioxide sequestration, your
words.
So I want to give you a little background before I ask my
question. So the congressional district that I serve sits on
top of the Mount Simon Sandstone basin. You might know that as
one of the best geological formations for carbon storage in the
entire Nation. And on top of that, we have seven biofuel
refineries in and around the congressional district that I
serve.
An ethanol refinery in my district called Pacific Ethanol,
located in Pekin, Illinois, wants to capture carbon. And they
know that deploying this technology would be good for jobs,
good for the economy, good for the environment, and they know
they can do it cheaply, maybe less than $25 a ton.
So we know also that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change says that there is a need for carbon capture and even
say that it should be a hundredfold scaleup in order to meet
our 2050 decarbonization goals. But right now, there is only 26
operational carbon capture and storage facilities across the
entire world. Twelve of them are in our own country.
One more bit of background and then to my question. So the
Energy Act enacted at the end of last year authorizes Congress
to spend almost $7 billion over the next 5 years for carbon
capture use and storage programs at the Department of Energy
and EPA, which is more than three times the authorization
limits in previous years.
So, Dr. Cunliff, what I want to ask you is, how can we on
this committee, appropriators, leverage those innovation funds
to get more carbon capture jobs in places like the district I
serve and get businesses, like the one I mentioned, to have the
technology that they need to make this happen?
Dr. Cunliff. Sure. Congresswoman, thank you for the
question. And I think you are absolutely right, ethanol
facilities are an excellent near-term opportunity for carbon
capture in part because they produce a near pure stream of CO2.
So you don't have to--with ordinary power plants, you have to
separate the CO2 from flue gas, and that is very energy
intensive, but with ethanol it is almost 99, almost 100
percent. So it is very cheap to capture. It is one of the
lowest-cost opportunities and the first place that we should
start. And we know how to do it. As you mentioned, it is
already being done in parts of the U.S.
There still is some cost associated with transporting it
and then storing it underground. And one thing that I think is
underexplored at the Department of Energy and requires more
investment is focus on mapping underground reservoirs and
characterizing them and understanding the available capacity
and injection rates. We know we have a lot already from the
U.S. Geological Survey, but we need to really characterize it
in much more granular detail, and that is just a hurdle that
individual companies can't always overcome on their own.
And then I would say just as it is deployed more and more,
costs will come down, so that other companies that have
slightly higher capture costs can continue to build on that
infrastructure.
Mrs. Bustos. My next question is for Ms. Millican. You
highlighted the importance of direct air capture and the impact
it can have on achieving our long-term decarbonization goals.
Scientists have been very clear about the benefits of direct
air capture, sucking CO2 out of the air, burying it underground
in places like the place I just mentioned, the Mount Simon
Sandstone basin in Illinois.
So we also know that we need to be removing 500 million or
more tons of carbon dioxide per year by 2050, and right now, we
are not even removing 1 million tons per year.
So my question is, what research design and demonstration
steps does this subcommittee need to take to get direct air
capture to the point where we are capturing 500 million tons
per year?
Ms. Millican. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman.
Direct air capture is definitely one of the technologies that
we think is going to be very critical in the future.
Fortunately, it is invented, right, and there are some very
small scale pilot projects that are happening right now, one of
which Rich Powell mentioned earlier, but it's nowhere near the
scale we need it to be. It is also still very expensive, so it
is not going to be widely deployed until we can bring costs
down.
I think there are a lot of different things that could help
in the bringing costs down category, certainly more, you know,
research and development into, you know, things that I
mentioned earlier, like metal-organic frameworks, you know, how
we can, you know, sort of reduce the individual components of
the system--or reduce costs for those individual components
rather. We also need to do more demonstration projects. There
are some other efforts at the Department of Energy that are
mentioned in the Energizing America Report that Dr. Cunliff
coauthored that speak to the subject as well. So I would
encourage you to take a look at that as you all think about
fiscal year 2022 funding there.
Mrs. Bustos. Thank you very much.
I yield back, Madam Chair.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much, Congresswoman Bustos.
Now, the winner of the big bouquet this afternoon is
Congresswoman Frankel. She has waited throughout the whole
hearing. Thank you so very, very much, Congresswoman.
Ms. Frankel. I guess that is what I get for being last.
Good to be with all of you. And thank you to the panelists.
I want to change the subject just a little bit, especially
because we have Ms. Millican on the panel here, but I would be
interested in others' opinions on this. And that is, I know
Bill Gates has said that alternative protein innovation will be
a core part of the fight to halt global heating. Cattle
rearing, it surprised me, but apparently it is about 4 percent
of all carbon emissions in the world.
So I would like you to talk about--because we are talking
about climate change, how to reduce carbon emissions--what kind
of research is being done in terms of producing alternative
meats? Do you think it is necessary? Do you think that the
Federal Government should get involved?
Ms. Millican. Thank you, Congresswoman Frankel. The short
answer is yes. Perhaps not surprisingly, I do think that there
is a role for Federal research and development funding here.
There are a lot of different things that go into the
agriculture picture. As you mentioned, not all of it is CO2;
actually a lot of it is methane, nitrous oxide, things for
which we don't have great solutions. And Mr. Gates is fond of
saying if, you know, cattle were their own country, they would
be the third largest emitter in the world, ahead of India,
which is pretty remarkable. So we do need solutions there.
I am not an expert in the ag space, but some things that we
talk about frequently in the proteins department are, you know,
we need bioreactors that are capable of developing, you know,
the synthetic meat that, you know, could potentially help
offset some of the, you know, regular consumption of meat.
There are also innovative feedstocks that can help reduce
emissions from cattle. One thing that they have discovered is
certain types of seaweed, if you form those into cattle feed,
can help cattle emit less. There are actually breeding programs
that specifically select certain types of cattle that produce
less emissions. Actually, U.S. cattle are among the most
efficient cattle in the world, so it is something for us to be
very proud of.
But there is a lot more to be done here. There are some
things at the Department of Energy that are happening in this
space, so ARPA-E has some limited agriculture research going
on, but a lot of it is the USDA, so we would like to see both
of those efforts be well funded.
Ms. Frankel. Does anyone else on the panel want to comment
on that? Otherwise----
Dr. Cunliff. I could comment on agricultural emissions more
broadly.
Ms. Frankel. Yes.
Dr. Cunliff. As Robin mentioned, DOE does have some
programs at ARPA-E. The roots program is aimed at selectively
breeding plants with deeper root structures to enhance soil
carbon absorption. And then there are some other precision
agriculture programs at ARPA-E that are looking at using
sensors to maximize fertilizer inputs and minimize watering and
other industry inputs, which is a way to lower cost for farmers
but also reduce the nitrous oxide emissions associated with
fertilizers.
And then, finally, Bioenergy Technologies Office is also
looking at diverting agricultural waste into energy products
through anaerobic digesters. So there is a lot going on in this
space.
Ms. Frankel. Thank you for that.
And I think I have another minute. Ms. Millican, earlier in
your comments you talked about, I think you said temporarily
supporting some businesses or start-ups. Can you give me some
examples of what you mean by that?
Ms. Millican. Yes, I would be glad to. So one of the really
important programs that is not just at the Department of Energy
but is at most Federal agencies is called the Small Business
Innovation Research Program. That program funds nondilutive
grants to start up some small businesses to work on innovation,
and we have seen some pretty great results from that program.
So that is an example of a program that, as we think about
recovery, we think it is really important because,
unfortunately--
Ms. Frankel. Could you give me an example of a business?
Ms. Millican. Yes. There are actually several businesses
that are compiled by--there is a great organization called the
Clean Energy Business Network. They have got a handful--not
just a handful, numerous business profiles that we would be
happy to send to your staff that have been supported through
the Small Business Innovation Research Program.
Some of the programs in Breakthrough Energy Ventures'
portfolio have also in the past received SBIR grants, not just
from DOE, but from other Federal agencies, like NSF as well.
So can't remember any specific company off the top of my
head, but would be happy to follow up with your staff about
that. But it is a really important program that we think could
help provide a lifeline to the businesses that are sort of like
the front lines of the pandemic, right, because as capital
tightens up, venture capital, for example, is often the first
to sort of go in, you know, fiscal crises. So that is an
example of a program that we think is very important.
Ms. Frankel. Thank you. I yield back, Madam Chair.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much, Congresswoman.
We are going to move to a second round. I just wanted to
let the members know that, of course, there is a vote on. We
will have probably another half hour here. They say it is 45
minutes until the gavel will be struck over in the Chamber, so
I just let members know that.
I wanted to move toward a couple of questions and then have
the panelists respond.
In my region, I experienced the following over the last
month: Deep fear by the head of the United Auto Workers, very
worried about the transition to clean energy; and with Chinese
competition being as unfair as it is, the likelihood that
places--and I will mention some of the names--Kokomo, Indiana;
Detroit, Michigan; Buffalo, New York; Toledo, Ohio--could be
deep-sixed because they will not be able to accommodate the
changes being asked.
So similarly, in agriculture, the decarbonization needs
identified in Energizing America for clean agricultural systems
include prospective hopes that don't exist yet. So, for
example, if we are trying to absorb carbon in soil that locals
are--local farmers are trying to make regenerative, because the
soil is basically worn out in row crop production across the
country.
I am worried about how we make the transition without
harming these communities, be they urban or rural--I represent
both--and how we work with other Federal agencies. I am
thinking we in Energy, Department of Energy, with Department of
Energy responsibilities ought to have a cross-cutting hearing
or convening with Department of Agriculture appropriations
representatives.
How can we coordinate these types of efforts, be they
industrial or agricultural, to assure increased climate
benefits and without harming the communities and industries
that are in transition in our country surrounded by a very
unfair global marketplace, certainly in the vehicular industry?
We are not offsetting their predatory practices. We are not
offsetting their dumping. And here we are trying to fix
something. I don't know the mechanisms to do that so the
American people ultimately benefit.
If you have thoughts on that, I would welcome them.
Dr. Cunliff. Thank you, Congresswoman, for the question,
and I can go ahead and start. But I think you are right, you
know, the United States is a leader in global solar photo-
voltaics and invented solar cells here in the U.S., and now
eight of the top ten solar PV manufacturers are in China.
Ms. Kaptur. Yes.
Dr. Cunliff. There is a concern that that could happen with
electric vehicles. They produce and consume half of the world's
electric vehicles, so that is a very real concern.
Ms. Kaptur. I didn't hear you. Half of the world's what?
Dr. Cunliff. Electric vehicles are produced and consumed in
China right now.
So I think to Dr. Parthasarathy's point, it is important to
engage the communities that are being impacted in the
innovation process from the beginning, and I am very interested
in hearing what she has to say.
I will say, on agricultural sector, you know, I think you
are right, it is very important for the adopters of the
technologies to be involved from the beginning, and that is
part of the reason why I think USDA should continue to be the
lead on agricultural decarbonization research, with DOE playing
more of a supportive role, because USDA has those ties to the
farmers and to the industry that would be consuming these new
agricultural practices and agricultural technologies.
Ms. Kaptur. You make very wise comments because, in my
region, the farmers tried to use methane digesters, and they
didn't work. So they are actually angry. They are angry, and
they need a better solution. They need a workable solution. The
issue of manure in the region that I represent is not a small
issue, and we don't have an answer to that within our
watershed. I think we have to develop a watershed mentality,
and we need to look at what that watershed is producing and
figuring out how we are going to reprocess materiel that has a
future use. We are not yet doing that in any sense. We are
tiptoeing toward a really massive transformational change in
the way we handle materials, whether it is spent nuclear waste
or spent cow fuel, whatever. We aren't very good at that yet,
but we need to be by--within these watersheds.
Within the automotive and vehicular sector, we need to look
at the subsidy that the Chinese Government is eating in the
form of lost profits, because they are underselling in the
market. I mean, they are not--they don't have a normal balance
sheet, and the competition just isn't in the creation of an
electric vehicle. It is in the inherent subsidy that that state
economy is providing, and they are going to do the same thing
they did with steel. They are going to overproduce by four
times and then dump in every market in the world, and we will
be wiped out. We can't be that stupid. I mean, we have got to
figure out a way to offset that enormous negative force on
innovation, creativity, and then adopting those technologies in
an open economy like ours.
So I don't know if you have done work on that, but I think
that the economics of electric car production country by
country is a very important element here so we can succeed.
I know I am over time. I am going to go over to--and I
would appreciate any of your thoughts on that so we can pin
down the reality of what we are dealing with.
Congressman Simpson.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Chairwoman Kaptur.
I noticed we have talked about spent nuclear fuel and how
we are going to handle it in the future and the challenge that
it brings. So I will just say it is not a technology issue; it
is a political issue. That is what it comes down to now. We
have got to decide politically what we are going to do with it.
But I do want to thank all of the people here that have
been testifying today. You have got some great ideas, and I
look forward to being able to discuss them with you one on one,
because you have got some ideas on how we might be able to
better invest our resources and get more bang for the buck. And
I look forward to being able to sit down with each of you and
talk about this.
And, Doctor--and I am going hammer this, so I won't try.
Dr. Parth----
Drs. Parthasarathy. Think of it as two words, Partha
sarathy.
Mr. Simpson. Parthasarathy. Is that right?
Dr. Parthasarathy. Pretty close.
Mr. Simpson. Okay. I have got that down.
I want you to contact our offices, or we will contact you,
but I would like to sit down, because you bring a subject to
the table that, to be real honest, I have not spent much time
in thinking about, and it is very interesting, and I would like
to sit down and talk to you about the challenges that we face
and how we might be able to address them. So thank you for your
testimony today.
And then, Rich, I have got one question for you that hasn't
been asked yet. And that is, you know, I read a book a few
years ago, about 10 or 12 years ago, on the hydrogen economy.
And there was a lot of research and development and thought
about, you know, we are going to--everything is going to move
toward hydrogen and stuff, and then it seems to have died down
a lot.
Where are we in moving toward a hydrogen energy transition?
What role will that play in the future? And should the
Department be more involved in that?
Mr. Powell. Thanks so much for the question, Congressman. I
think it is a really timely question, because it died down, and
then last year, I think, it started to come back. If we didn't
think of 2020 as the year of COVID, I think we would have, you
know, thought of it as the year of hydrogen, because there is
quite a bit of new commercial activity, quite a bit of new
policy interest in the space.
Just to take a big step back, it remains an extremely
important topic. We know we cannot electrify everything. It
just will not be possible to use batteries for--well, not be
possible to do it economically for a number of things, like
long-haul shipping or long-haul freight, for big parts of
heavy-duty industry. We are going to need fuels, right. Fuels
are just very, very good and efficient at densely storing
energy in very small spaces, and they are really good at
producing a lot of heat, and we need those two characteristics.
Hydrogen is the core for a clean fuel future, and it is a
future where you can imagine using a lot of the existing
infrastructure we already have, the trillions of dollars of gas
pipelines, for example, that we have around this country, and
using those, you know, all the way into the second half of the
century, just running a different kind of fuel through those
same pipes, and that is a fuel based on hydrogen.
So there is a couple of ways that I think we can do a lot
more in terms of investment. Right now, the DOE is already
significantly funding pilots on using waste heat from nuclear
plants to produce hydrogen, and I think that is a really
important path for discovery in this. It is actually possible
that the cheapest way to produce hydrogen at scale is going to
be doing something called high-temperature electrolysis, which
nuclear is kind of uniquely positioned to do. As well, we
should be doing more in the carbon capture space.
Today, the cheapest way to make clean hydrogen is called
blue hydrogen. That is with using natural gas with steam
methane reformation, which is the main way hydrogen is produced
around the world today, but then bolting CCS carbon capture
onto those steam methane reformers. That is the cheapest way to
produce clean hydrogen today. And then there is a whole other
realm of work around what folks call green hydrogen, and that
is using renewable electrons to produce that hydrogen.
But I think it is going to be some combination of these
different approaches and these different technologies, and then
this hydrogen is going to be extremely useful in low-carbon
applications across all of these bases. It may also be very
useful in aviation fuels, for example, and in a variety of
different places in heavier duty transportation and in heavier
duty industry.
So I do think that the hydrogen future of the hydrogen
economy is still on us. It is probably not as broad as it was
initially envisioned. I think batteries have come along so far
and so fast that a lot of that simple passenger transportation
is probably more likely to go toward batteries than it is
toward hydrogen fuel cells, but anything that is bigger and
heavier, I think hydrogen still has a major role to play.
Mr. Simpson. Yeah. I think you could take our rail industry
and make--you know, because they can carry their own hydrogen
tanks.
Mr. Powell. Absolutely.
Mr. Simpson. It is a perfect way to do it, so--anyway, I
appreciate all you being here.
Thank you, Marcy, for holding this hearing. I look forward
to working with all of you as we try to investigate how to do a
better job of our investment. Thank you.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your
serious work. You enlighten us all. Thank you so very, very
much.
I wanted to ask a question. Are there any--I come from a
racing family, and my question is with hydrogen technology, are
there any race tracks that competitively race using hydrogen
fuels, to your knowledge, in our country?
Ms. Millican. I am not sure about that, Congresswoman. I do
know that there is a race series that uses electric vehicles,
but it would be very interesting to look at hydrogen. Hydrogen
is, of course, what we put in rocket ships to send them up to
the Moon. So I don't see, maybe other than, you know, some
safety considerations, why you couldn't do the same for race
cars.
Ms. Kaptur. Well, I would like to ask you to help me
envision what that might look like. I would like to offer a
racetrack in Toledo, Ohio. If you look at the double A fuel
dragsters that we race across our region where a lot of
innovation comes from, I am really interested in the individual
inventor. I come from a part of the country where we actually--
I have people that make parts, not just by numerically
controlled machines, but they precede the numerically
controlled machines. They are inventors who love
transportation. And I would love to see a green energy
racetrack in our country, and I would like it to be in my home
community, and I will contribute to it, because I know what
these people are capable of.
But I am just interested in, you know, the development of
the technology, just think of what I am saying, and, well, who
we might be able to gather to participate in that. I have
always viewed--my hometown is the home of the Jeep, the home of
the old Clyde Bicycle Works. I am just a few miles from where
Thomas Alva Edison invented the light bulb. And we just lost a
great, great inventor and businessman named Norm Nitschke, who
was a part of founding the company's solar cells and for solar
and so many others and was involved in the glass industry. And
we have those kinds of minds, which are rare, taking basic
research and applying it.
And so I would be very interested--and I have got quite a
few people back in my region interested in some kind of a race
that would involve new fuels. So maybe think about it and give
me any advice you might have.
And I can't thank you--you were just a marvelous panel.
Thank you so very much, and we hope many people beyond our
subcommittee members will hear what you had to say today. Each
of you had something--you are really an outstanding group.
I want to thank Jaime Shimek of our own staff, and Scott
and Matt for helping us put this hearing together.
And if you wish to submit any additional material to the
record, please do, and we will be in touch with you.
Thank you so very much.
Bravo.
[Questions and answers submitted for the record follow:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Wednesday, March 10, 2021.

INNOVATION AND INVESTMENT IN WATER RESOURCES INFRASTRUCTURE

WITNESSES

BECKER BIDTAH, ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY, NAVAJO TRIBAL UTILITY AUTHORITY
KEVIN DEGOOD, DIRECTOR OF INFRASTRUCTURE POLICY, CENTER FOR AMERICAN
PROGRESS
JASON UHLEY, GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER, RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD
CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
THOMAS J. WINSTON, PRESIDENT & CEO, TOLEDO-LUCAS COUNTY PORT AUTHORITY
Ms. Kaptur. The hearing will come to order. As this hearing
is fully virtual, we must address a few housekeeping matters.
For today's meeting, the chair or staff designated by the chair
may mute participants' microphones when they are not under
recognition for purposes of eliminating inadvertent background
noise.
Members are responsible for muting and unmuting themselves.
If I notice that you have not unmuted yourself, I will ask you
if you would like the staff to unmute you. If you indicate
approval by nodding, staff will unmute your microphone.
I remind all members and witnesses that the 5-minute clock
still applies. If there is a technology issue, we will move to
the next member until the issue is resolved, and you will
retain the balance of your time.
You will notice a clock on your screen that will show how
much time is remaining. At 1 minute remaining, the clock will
turn to yellow. At 30 seconds remaining, I will gently tap the
gavel to remind members that their time is almost expired. And
when your time has expired, the clock will turn red, and I will
begin to recognize the next member.
In terms of the speaking order, we will follow the order
set forth in the House rules, beginning with the chair and
ranking member, and then members present at the time the
hearing is called to order will be recognized in order of
seniority, and, finally, members not present at the time the
hearing is called to order.
Finally, House rules require me to remind you that we set
up an email address to which members can send anything they
wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings or markups.
That email address has been provided in advance to your staff.
I now recognize myself for a 5-minute opening statement.
And let me extend a very warm welcome to our members and
distinguished witnesses. My goal as chair is to help provide a
better future for generations to come, and I know you share
that. I hope you will join me on this journey to sustain life
on Earth, starting in our Nation with today's focus on fresh
water to help seamlessly address the challenges of a new era.
As you can see, the United States is a vast network of
interconnected streams, rivers, and watersheds, underlying
watersheds comprised of 18 major river basins. These systems
have sustained the American way of life for generations, and
they serve as the backbone for feeding our people and growing
our economy. This continent was explored and developed on these
same inland waterways that now annually carry 630 million tons
of cargo.
Unfortunately, we now face a historic dichotomy of water
disasters--water scarcity in the West--and water surpluses in
the heartland and the Mississippi River system.
Headlines tell the story. In the arid West, millions of
people are threatened by water shortages that may upend their
daily way of life. In areas like the Mississippi Valley, the
Everglades, and in my home region of the Great Lakes, water
surpluses threaten to swamp our cities' drinking water systems
as toxic algal blooms proliferate. Along the Gulf Coast,
stronger hurricanes batter our shores more frequently.
In 2020, the West endured an unprecedented year. The
occurrence of historic wildfires, heat waves, and drought
caused billions of dollars of damage. This photo shows water
levels at Lake Mead have dropped to dangerous levels. You can
see the encrusted line.
In Arizona, planes were grounded during 100 days when
temperatures were over 100 degrees during last year. 2021 will
be no different. Most areas from California to Colorado are
under extreme or exceptional drought conditions.
In my region, the Great Lakes shown here hold 84 percent of
our continent's fresh surface water. Climate change resulted in
harmful impacts that have disrupted delicate ecosystems that
have sustained life in our region.
My district is located on the far southwest edge of Lake
Erie at the southernmost tip of these lakes. The vast
agricultural region located to the west of the lake, which is
dark blue shaded, drains large amounts of fertilizer and manure
into the lake which has only increased since we have endured
the wettest 12 consecutive months in 124 years.
Each of our regions face challenges that look nothing like
one another, but we all have common enemies--a changing climate
and a rapidly deteriorating infrastructure.
For our Nation's sake and for our future generations, we
must act boldly and reinvigorate investment in our
infrastructure. Doing so, we will spur economic recovery,
create jobs and protect the environment and public health.
Let me applaud the water resources agencies under our
jurisdiction, the Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of
Reclamation--for they all have done and will do to meet the
needs of our Nation.
The Corps is moving forward, as the slide shows, by
prioritizing the Engineering With Nature initiative which seeks
to create new ways to develop a more resilient, water resources
infrastructure. In the photo, you see a proposed design of a
nature-based jetty. It would use natural features such as marsh
grasses to benefit the surrounding ecosystem and even raise
oysters at the same time.
Reclamation is also doing its part by incorporating climate
change information into its planning process. I can't thank
reclamation enough for prioritizing basin, basin studies to
meet the demands of climate change.
On your screen, you see a photo of Glen Canyon Dam. This
dam was constructed in 1963 to harness the Colorado River and
provide for water and power needs for millions of people in the
West. As we move forward, projects like this must adapt, and
evolve to meet the ever-changing needs of the next generation.
Many challenges we face are daunting, but it is the
American spirit and ingenuity that will see us through into our
next period of even greater prosperity and ecological
sustainment.
Our witnesses bring a wide array of expertise, and we so
warmly welcome them. And our subcommittee looks forward to
hearing from them. And in many instances, the magnitude of what
is required, the Federal responsibility is ours, because it is
interstate and sometimes binational.
I will now turn to our ranking member, the very able, Mr.
Mike Simpson from Idaho for his opening remarks.
[The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Chairwoman Kaptur. I would like to
echo your welcome to our witnesses today. We thank all of you
for participating today and look forward to hearing your
prospective on innovation and investment in water resources
infrastructure.
The Energy and Water Subcommittee is responsible for
funding the Federal Government's primary water resources
programs through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works
Program, and the Department of Interior's Bureau Reclamation.
These programs provide a wide variety of benefits across the
Nation. In fact, I doubt there is a single congressional
district that doesn't benefit from the water resources
infrastructure supported by these programs.
For example, navigation projects don't just create jobs at
the immediate location of the port, they also help farmers to
move crops and businesses to move products to market elsewhere
in the United States, as well as around the world. Dams, and
levees, and other flood and storm reduction--damage reduction
projects protect people's lives, directly impact floods and
hurricanes, but they also protect other types of public
infrastructure, such as roads and drinking water and wastewater
treatment plants, which are important to helping communities to
get back on their feet after a natural disaster.
Congress and this subcommittee, in particular, has long
recognized the importance of these programs by appropriating
more funds than proposed in the annual budget request of almost
all Presidents. It has been bipartisan support also. It hasn't
mattered which party has been in the White House or which party
has been in the majority, either in the House or the Senate. I
suspect that dynamic will continue in future fiscal years as
well.
Madam Chair, before I yield back, I would like to ask
unanimous consent to include in the hearing record a letter
from the Natural Water Resources Association and the 11 state
water associations.
Ms. Kaptur. We will place that material in the record.
Thank you.
[The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, I look forward to
exploring these topics with our witnesses, and I thank you for
calling this hearing.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Simpson.
And I think all of us are just chomping at the bit for a
real recovery bill. And I am excited by the witnesses that are
joining us today.
First, we will have Mr. Kevin DeGood. Mr. DeGood is the
director infrastructure policy at the Center for American
Progress. I want to underline ``progress.'' As an expert in his
field, Mr. DeGood focuses on how our policies from various
transportation modes impact America's competitiveness and
provide opportunities for our diverse communities and
environmental sustainability.
Next, we will have Mr. Thomas Winston, the president and
chief executive officer of the Toledo-Lucas County Port
Authority. He is responsible for the development and
implementation of the strategic direction of that port and
oversees all aspects of their activities, including economic
development programs, brownfields development, and other
strategic activities of the port authority's multi-modal
facilities.
Following that we will have Ms. Bidtah Becker, an associate
attorney for the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority. She is also a
member of the leadership team for the Water and Tribes
Initiative in the Colorado Basin and has focused her career on
water management frameworks and solutions that benefit Tribal
members in surrounding communities.
And, finally, we will have Mr. Jason Uhley who is the
general manager and chief engineer at the Riverside County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District. He has served
this organization for 25 years and is an expert, a strong
advocate for integrated approaches to storm water management.
Thank you all for taking the time to be with us today on
America's behalf. Without objection, your written statements
will be entered into the record. Please feel free to summarize
your remarks in about 5 minutes each, starting with Mr. DeGood.
Welcome.
Mr. DeGood. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Kaptur and
Ranking Member Simpson and members of the subcommittee for
inviting me to testify. Water infrastructure facilities are
essential to our economic productivity and national
competitiveness. The Army Corps provides essential service to
the Nation, including flood control navigation and
environmental restoration. The Corps estimates the annual
economic value of the flood protection of more than $138
billion in avoided property damage and lost productivity.
Corps projects and facilities also enable navigation and
trade. In 2018, U.S. maritime ports handled 1.6 billion tons of
cargo valued at more than $1.7 trillion. Each year, ports along
the Great Lakes handled more than 100 million tons of cargo. In
2019, the inland waterways system moved 515 million tons of
cargo.
The jobs associated with water board transportation are
strong and middle class jobs. For example, data from Bureau of
Labor Statistics indicates that the average wage of the inland
water transportation workers is $67,000 a year.
Unfortunately, Federal investments have not kept pace with
the country's needs. The Biden administration has called the
robust infrastructure investment, and water infrastructure must
be a part of any long-term recovery package. However, money is
not the only issue. The Corps must take a leadership role in
combating climate change, as well as addressing environmental
damages caused by past projects.
Unfortunately, environmental projects are only a small
share of the Corps' overall work. Fiscal years 2019 and 2020,
Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration represented just 7 percent of the
Corps' budget, improving ecosystem performance to serve as a
foundational goal of all project planning with a co-equal claim
on Federal funds.
This is especially true when it comes to flood control
where natural and nature-based design elements should take
priority wherever possible over harden grey facilities. The
catastrophic flooding that occurred in many communities along
the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers in 2019 provides a powerful
example of the nature--the broken nature of the Corps' mandate
and structure of Federal funding. For instance, severe flooding
in Atchison County, Missouri, inundated 56,000 acres and
destroyed 121 miles of roadway.
The levees along this portion of the Missouri River tightly
followed the river's course, leaving little room for wetlands
habitat, and limiting the ability of the flood control system
to accommodate increasingly high waters. Yet, Federal rules
only require the Corps to reconstruct the damaged levee to its
prior state. Fortunately, local leaders pushed the Corps for a
redesign of this system to include a substantial levee set
back. Unfortunately, the cost of land buyouts to facilitate the
setback was well beyond the financial capacity of the local
community.
In the end, a significant portion of the money for the
buyouts came through the Emergency Watershed Protection-
Floodplain Easement Program at the Department of Agriculture.
And while the Atchison County project was a success, it is
deeply problematic that money for the buyouts was only
available because Congress happened to pass a disaster
supplemental in 2019 that included money for conservation.
We cannot hope to achieve meaningful environmental progress
if the design and flood control and navigation projects do not
start with improved environmental performance as an objective
on par with economic development. The Corps must take a
leadership role in environmental protection and enhancement,
not simply make ad hoc improvements when all the pieces happen
to fall into place.
Ongoing environmental restoration work in Central and South
Florida demonstrates the enormous ecological toll or short-
sighted flood control and water development projects that
failed to balance sustainability with resource utilization. As
a result, we will spend most of the 21st century undoing the
damage caused by the Army Corps in Central and South Florida
during the 20th century.
Beginning in the early 1960s, the Corps turned the thriving
Kissimmee River into a series of stagnant pools in the name of
flood control with devastating effects on wildlife and wetlands
habitat. In today's dollars, the Kissimmee's channelization
would cost roughly $200 million. While a partial restoration
will cost more than $1 billion, a five-fold increase. The
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Program will cost the
Federal Government at least $16 billion and take more than 50
years to complete.
This cycle of destruction and partial renewal could have
been avoided if only the deeply talented engineers at the Corps
had been handed the mandate to balance flood control and
resource utilization with environmental sustainability. We do
not have to choose between economic development and sound
environmental stewardship. And when projects cause unavoidable
damage, the Corps should compensate with restoration projects
that provide greater habitat and environmental services than
what has been lost.
For nearly two centuries, Army Corps projects have
furthered our national development. As important as this legacy
is, the existential threat posed by climate change means that
the Corps' most profound work lies ahead. The Corps must assume
that position of true environmental leadership. And any
additional funding for water infrastructure must come with the
highest possible standards for sustainable environmental
performance.
Thank you again, Chairwoman Kaptur, and members of the
subcommittee. And with that, I look forward to answering your
questions.
[The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much, Mr. DeGood. Thank you for
taking time with us today.
Mr. Winston, please begin.
Mr. Winston. Chairwoman Kaptur, Ranking Member Simpson, and
esteemed members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today regarding the critical importance
of investing in the Nation's port infrastructure. My name is
Thomas Winston, and I am president and CEO of the Toledo-Lucas
County Port Authority. Today, I would like to discuss how
investments in the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway System in
the port of Toledo support our regional and national economy.
As one of the largest and most cargoed diverse seaports,
Toledo handles between 8 to 12 million tons of cargo on 400 to
800 vessels that call upon our 16 marine terminals. Toledo is
an important part of the bi-national Great Lakes St. Lawrence
Seaway System that in total supports over 237,000 jobs in the
U.S. and Canada, while generating $35 billion in economic
activity.
The ports on the Great Lakes serve a critical role in
moving raw materials, grains, and other products throughout the
interior of the Nation in a matter that is economic and has a
lesser environmental impact than other modes of transportation.
The U.S. and Canadian ports in the system do not view one
another as competitors, but instead as trading partners in a
supply chain network that has served the Nation well for
generations.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers plays a key role in the
system by keeping the ports connected, safe to navigate, and
resilient. The Corps maintains our marine highway by dredging
shipping channels, constructing, and maintaining breakwaters,
and confined disposal facilities, and taking on massive
construction projects, such as the new Soo Lock where
approximately 80 million tons of commercial commodities pass
through annually.
It is critically important that Congress maintain annual
funding to keep the Soo Lock project on schedule and to avoid
costly delays. In fiscal 2022, the project would need $229.1
million in the Corps construction account. An additional $37.3
million is needed from the construction account to upgrade a
public well that will serve both existing locks and new locks.
We rely on the U.S. Congress to appropriate sufficient
funding so that the Corps can continue to keep the entire
system open for business. I want to commend the committee for
its efforts in recent years to expand appropriations for the
Corps' operation and maintenance activities. These funds are
desperately needed, because the navigation system suffers from
a $920 million maintenance backlog. This backlog includes $375
million to dredge Great Lakes harbors and channels authorized
dimensions; $320 million in breakwater and jetty repairs; and
$225 million of maintenance work for the existing Soo Locks.
At the Port of Toledo, we rely on the Army Corps of
Engineers to dredge and maintain Toledo Harbor which has a
greater dredging need than any U.S. Great Lakes port. Each
year, the Corps dredges between 400,000 to 1.2 million cubic
yards of material from the Maumee River and Maumee Bay in the
shadow western basin of Lake Erie. The U.S. Government derives
a return on the annual investment to dredge Toledo Harbor in
the form of more than 7,000 jobs associated with the Port
operations, $375 million in the direct business revenue, $50.3
million in State taxes, and $129.5 million in Federal taxes.
Many companies throughout Ohio, Michigan, and Indiana
depend on the maritime capabilities of the Port of Toledo.
Without annual maintenance dredging, the Port of Toledo will
silt-in, and vessels would not be able to safely access
Toledo's marine terminals, having a devastating impact on the
U.S. Steel industry, agricultural exports, power generation,
and many other aspects of the regional and national economy.
Our Port Authority and the Army Corps has a longstanding
partnership and work with other agencies, such as Ohio EPA and
Ohio Department of Natural Resources to ensure that dredging is
done annually, and that there is a plan for what to do with the
massive amounts of dredge material. The State of Ohio has
banned the practice of open lake placement for dredge material
in all of Ohio's harbors. For the first time in decades, in the
fall of 2020, all the material dredged from Toledo Harbor was
placed upland into the Port's confined disposal facility
instead of in the open waters of Lake Michigan--Lake Erie.
The 2020 effort was closely coordinated with the Corps and
the Corps' dredging contractors. We have capacity for
approximately 10 more years of material into the CDF in Toledo
before it reaches capacity. The Port, Corps, and other agencies
continue to explore beneficial uses for the material. We need
to shift the mindset and begin thinking of it more of a
resource than a wasted product.
The Port is involved in several research initiatives
cooperating with multiple universities at Toledo's Dredge
Center of Innovation where we are studying how well crops can
grow and dredge material and what engineered soils can be
produced with Toledo's dredge material.
It is our hope that we can one day return the dredge
materials to the agricultural fields from which it originates,
as well as make marketable products and use the material for
wetland construction and in other landscaping applications. We
view these and other beneficial uses as opportunities. There
are harbor regulatory barriers that the Army Corps and the
State of Ohio would need to address so that more beneficial
reuses for this material are permissible.
Currently, to use material dredged from the Federal channel
in certain beneficial use applications, the Corps would require
individual project permits consisting of a full NEPA analysis
and other components that are costly, slow moving, and
burdensome. The end user will always find alternative material
rather than going through this permitting process to utilize
dredge material.
We are hopeful that the State of Ohio and the Army Corps
can streamline permitting for beneficial use projects moving
forward so that we can one day harvest material from the CDF
for beneficial uses to extend the life of the facility beyond
10 years.
Thank you for the opportunity to share this information
with the committee. And I welcome the opportunity to entertain
any questions now or in the future.
[The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Ms. Kaptur. Thank you so much, Mr. Winston.
And, Ms. Becker, please begin, and then we will move to
questions.
Ms. Becker. Thank you, Chairwoman Kaptur, Ranking Member
Simpson, and members of this subcommittee. Thank you for
providing me this chance to speak with you about the
opportunities for the Bureau of Reclamation to address
innovation and investment in much-needed infrastructure in
Indian Country.
Yaat eeh. My name is Bidtah Becker, and as the chairwoman
mentioned, I am a member of the Navajo Nation, and I am an
attorney with the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority. I am
speaking with you from my office on a Navajo Nation, which is
about 35 miles northwest of Gallup, New Mexico. And Chairwoman
Kaptur shared a picture of the Navajo Nation when she showed
Glen Canyon Dam earlier. So I appreciate that.
Prior to my employment here, I had the honor of a lifetime
to serve as the director of the Navajo Nation Division of
Natural Resources as a political appointee of then President
Russell Begaye and Vice-President Jonathan Nez, and I was
confirmed by the Navajo Nation Council.
As the chairwoman said, I have focused my career, 19 years,
on water management frameworks and water supply solutions that
benefit both Navajo Nation Tribal members, other Tribal
members, and surrounding non-Indian communities. And hopefully
that work has corrected some historical injustices along the
way.
Water is a critical unmet need for many Native American
Tribes and Alaskan Native communities. Access to clean and safe
drinking water is essential to public health, educational
attainment, and economic development, as the two previous
witnesses have already attested to.
Today, roughly 400,000 people, nearly 30 percent of homes
in Native communities across the United States either have
inadequate or no access to reliable clean water and sanitation
services. So to put this number in context, less than 1 percent
of the homes in the entire United States of America lack these
facilities. One percent versus 30 percent. And the COVID-19
pandemic has shown a bright light on this inequity.
COVID-19 has had a disproportionate impact on Native
American people and Alaskan Native people. Earlier in the
pandemic, the Centers for Disease Control reported that Native
people suffered COVID infection, COVID-19 infection rates at a
rate 3.5 times higher than the White population. I checked the
website yesterday and now they are reporting 1.9 percent.
Regrettably, Native people and Alaskan Native people suffer the
highest rate of infection as compared to any ethnic or other
racial group.
And as this chart starkly shows, a chart presented by Dr.
Fauci in the presentation to the Indian Health Service, Native
people are dying at a much higher right from COVID-19 than the
White population. These devastating impacts are largely
attributable to both persistent racial inequity and the lack of
public health infrastructure, including the lack of access to
clean, running water.
While this is an appalling situation, the silver lining to
this pandemic cloud is that we can build back better. By
investing in water and wastewater infrastructure in Indian
Country, this subcommittee and Congress will be addressing the
four pillars of the Biden administration.
By funding the Bureau of Reclamation to design and
construct a water infrastructure in Indian Country, by funding
Reclamation's technical assistance program to Native American
Tribes, and ensuring that Reclamation is a leader and engages
in a collaborative whole of government approach with the Indian
Health Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the
United States Department of Agriculture we will be able to
address the four pillars. Which are COVID-19, it will address
economic recovery by creating jobs in the short-term, and
providing Tribal members and surrounding communities the basic
services necessary to allow them to work and thrive in the
future.
We will be addressing climate change by ensuring that
resilient appropriate infrastructure is constructed that will
be able to withstand the impacts of climate change and address
the effects of the prolonged drought that Chairwoman Kaptur
discussed earlier. And it will finally address racial equity
issues.
The number one indicator as to whether a person lacks
access to clean drinking water in this country is race. A
Native person is 19 times more likely than a White person to
lack access to clean drinking water.
In closing, I would like to share two pictures of the
realities of a lack of clean drinking water to home. This is
called water hauling. The artwork is a beautiful picture done
by an elementary school child in about 2008 and shows you how
our children see the delivery of fresh water to their home. The
picture of the beautiful woman was taken last summer at one of
the utility authority's water hauling stations. She drives
about 40 miles one way two to three times a week to fill her
containers with fresh water.
This subcommittee can help eradicate the lack of access to
clean drinking water in Indian Country, and I am confident that
it will. Thank you so much for this opportunity.
[The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Ms. Kaptur. Thank you so very much, Ms. Becker. I
appreciate your participation today. And I understand that our
dear colleague, Representative Calvert is with us, and I know
he had a lot to do with our next witness, Mr. Uhley, and I
would like to ask Congressman Calvert for 1 minute to introduce
this important witness.
Mr. Calvert. Well, thank you Chairwoman Kaptur and Ranking
Member Simpson for inviting my constituent, Jason Uhley, as a
witness for today's hearing. I have worked with Jason to solve
Riverside County's most pressing flood control management
issues for nearly as long as I have served in Congress.
Jason is a general manager chief engineer for the Riverside
County Flood Control and Water and Conservation District, which
was established to protect life and property from flood risk.
Jason has served the district for 25 years, beginning as a
junior engineer and now manages the district's 250-person staff
and annual capital improvement budget of over $100 million per
year.
In addition to localized flood risk management, Jason
oversees the Santa Ana River Mainstem and Murrieta Creek Flood
Control Projects, two congressionally authorized flood control
projects in my districts. Both have had their fair share of
challenges over the years, and we have had to continue to make
progress for its completion thanks to his leadership and
collaboration with the Corps of Engineers.
So, Jason, welcome to the subcommittee. I thank you for
joining us today, and I look forward to your testimony, and I
yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Uhley. Thank you. Chairwoman Kaptur, Ranking Member
Simpson, Congressman Calvert, and members of the committee,
thank you for the invitation to participate in today's hearing.
This district was created in 1945 in part to partner with
the Army Corps of Engineers on flood-risk reduction projects in
the wake of the devastating 1938 Santa Ana River floods. The
nascent district corps partnership--next slide, please--the
nascent district corps partnership would lead to early
innovative projects, such as the $2.8 billion Santa Ana River
Mainstem Project, one of the Corps' largest projects, and a
unique three-county partnership, to address Santa Ana River
flooding issues at a watershed scale.
The project will protect over 3.35 million people in
infrastructure, such as the BNSF Railroad bridge which carries
over 31 percent of the Nation's imports. We are particularly
thankful for the recent appropriation of 2018 bipartisan budget
act funding which is accelerating project delivery.
The Mainstem is just one of many local and national
projects that are becoming more critical as changing climate is
driving catastrophic flood risk. The evolving risks are
straining the capabilities of local agencies, and they are
increasingly looking to Federal agencies like the Corps for
technical and financial assistance. To promote Federal
investment, larger sponsors are offering planning design and
construction leadership to accelerate project delivery and
reduce overall Federal costs.
Next slide. And there are many shovel-ready projects
throughout the Nation that could benefit from an influx of
flooding. One such project is our Murrieta Creek Flood Control,
Environmental Restoration and Recreation Project. This project
provides for protection to Old Town Temecula, the gateway to
Temecula Wine Country, and an interstate destination visited by
over 2.7 million people per year. This project will protect
nearly 600 structures worth $1.35 billion, improve water
quality, and enhance flood protection Marine Corps Camp
Pendleton, and critical sewage treatment facilities in the
area.
The need of this project was highlighted in 1993 when
floods caused $88 million in damage to Camp Pendleton and $20
million in damages to our local cities. The district has
actively partnered with the Corps to develop and refine an
innovative project that enhances its local and national value
by integrating trails, parks, and ecosystem restoration
features that benefit endangered and threatened species.
Project Phase 1 and 2A are complete and Phase 2B is shovel-
ready awaiting funding.
We believe there are also opportunities to promote national
innovation resiliency by addressing limitation in corps
authorities through an infrastructure funding bill. For
example, segments of the corps' 1950s-era Santa Ana River
levee's project were damaged after a 2010 river event.
Although, Public Law 84-99 eligible, the scope of the exceeded
PL84-99's annual funding capacity. Further, the aging levee
needed resiliency improvements, and PL84-99 could only address
enhancements to the damaged areas.
The 2018 Bipartisan Budget Act has provided $56 million for
the PL84-99 damage segments. But nearly half of the aging levee
will remain at risk due to authority limitations.
Lastly, I would like to touch on the Salton Sea, its shores
are shrinking and exposing disadvantaged communities, including
farm workers to increasing public health risks. We are thankful
for your support of a Corps feasibility study in WARDA 2020,
but also encourage Federal support for shorter-term, shovel-
ready projects that can help stabilize the sea's receding
banks.
These projects are representative of needs across the
Nation. There are many incredibly valuable projects that are
ready for federal funding and legislative language that can
entangle some of unintended consequences of the Corps'
authorities that keep these projects grounded.
Further, we encourage the subcommittee to continue to
support public private partnerships and other split-delivery
approaches that can promote cost savings, innovation, and
leverage the full capabilities of local sponsors. The return on
investment from Corps projects is tremendous, and the Corps'
flood-risk reduction role has never been more important to our
communities.
As you consider wise use of investments in the water
resources arena, I encourage to you focus strongly on the
Corps' flood protection program and the communities across the
Nation who are partnering and bringing their resources to the
table. The effect of these decisions is to grow the return on
Federal investment. Thank you for your time, and I stand ready
to answer questions.
[The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much, Mr. Uhley, we appreciate
your participation. And I thank you all for your statements.
Since this is our second hearing, I will just remind
members about our hearing rules. As I mentioned at the
beginning, I remind all members and witnesses that the 5-minute
clock still applies. If there is a technology issue, we will
move to the next member until the issue is resolved, and you
will retain the balance of your time.
You will notice a clock on your screen that will show how
much time is remaining. At 1 minute, the clock will turn to
yellow. At 30 seconds remaining, I will gently tap the gavel to
remind members that their time has almost expired. When your
time has expired, the clock will turn red, and I will begin to
recognize the next member.
In terms of the speaking order, we will follow the order
set forth in the House rules, beginning with chair and then
ranking member, and then members present at the time the
hearing is called to order recognized in order of seniority,
and finally members arriving at the gavel by order of arrival.
A second round of questions may occur after all members have an
opportunity for a first round.
We will now begin questioning under our normal rules.
I would like to begin with a question about investments. As
I stated in my opening statement nearly every region of our
country is facing common enemies of changing infrastructure,
one that is aging and the climate, and the changes that we see
in that.
Starting with Mr. DeGood, much has been said about the need
for incorporating nonstructural, as well as nature-based
elements into our infrastructure investments. Can you please
describe for us what this means and provide examples of how
these emerging innovations can be incorporated into our water
resources infrastructure.
I am particularly reminded in some of the discussions this
morning about dredging. I have worked for four decades to try
to get the Corps to find alternate uses for the enormous amount
of dredging material that it takes up from the ports across
this country, and it has been an utter failure.
So I identify--I have such high level of frustration. I can
tell you, I was on the phone this morning with the Corps
because of their Vicksburg station and trying to find the
answer they give today is, is well, we can't, you know, turn
dredge material into a by-product that could be reapplied to
the land because there might be PCBs in it.
And you mean to tell me that we can't figure this out? I
was in a plant yesterday that blew my mind here in Washington
where they are taking all the raw sewage from 3 million people
and obviously processing it but turning it into a fertilizer.
Can you imagine that? Semi-loads of fertilizer going out of the
DC wastewater treatment plant.
So I would like to ask you, Mr. DeGood, what kinds of
recommendations can you give us and examples of how emerging
environmental innovations can be incorporated into our water
resources infrastructure?
Mr. DeGood. Well, thank you very much for the question. I
would say, you know, natural and nature-based features are
really any landscape element that mimics a natural system to
control the characteristics of a flood or a storm surge and
reduce the risk of property damage, injury, or loss of life.
Examples of this include restoration of fresh water
wetlands and flood planes, using dredge materials to, for
instance, reconstruct barrier islands to provide both erosion
protection and mitigate storm surge damage.
Other examples include the stabilization of riverbanks and
coastlines against erosion with design features that avoid rip
raft, concrete, or other hard grey facilities. There has been a
number of decades of research that shows that armoring
riverbanks and shorelines increases the speed of water flows,
it reduces vegetation and habitat that fish and other wildlife
need to thrive among other detrimental outcomes.
I would just flag a couple of other, at least in the
coastal arena, these natural and nature-based features could
include marine forests, oyster and coral reefs, dunes, sea
grass beds, salt marshes, and other structured and constructive
facilities that again mimic natural features.
And I think it is important to note that natural and
nature-based features can be used in combination with
traditional grey facilities to produce projects that have but
not only meet the underlying either storm damage reduction,
flood control, or navigation purposes, but also have superior
environmental outcomes that would be possible with grey
facilities alone.
But I think to your question about the Corps and dredge
materials, part of it is about just financial resources, and
part of it is about, I think, changing the Corps' mindset so
that they understand that helping port authorities and other
State and local jurisdictions turn these materials into
potentially economically useful products is a part of their
mission, not just, you know, a side frustration or something
that they get questions every now and then from Members of
Congress. It really has to be a matter of culture change and a
formal part of the Corps' mission, I think.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much. Mr. Winston, I don't know
if you want to comment on that, but I would appreciate your
thoughts on how our subcommittee can assist our Nation's port
in overcoming some of their most important challenges. And then
can you comment on how the interconnected nature of the St.
Lawrence Seaway System, what kinds of steps can we take to meet
the challenges facing that coastal system?
Mr. Winston. Thank you for the question, Chairwoman Kaptur.
As I alluded to earlier, I would say the biggest challenge that
we have, particularly at the Port of Toledo is ensuring the
consistent annual dredging by the Army Corps of Engineers to
take place at the Port of Toledo. This is critical for
sustainability and continuity of commodities flowing through
the Port of Toledo and its connectivity to the Great Lakes
system, which has a tremendous economic impact for our region
and for the Nation in general.
So, specifically, I would say for our area, it is certainly
the dredging and having the Corps adhere to that
responsibility. From a more regional standpoint, I would
certainly say that the funding and investment into the Soo Lock
system is critical. And having support from this committee
working with the Corps to ensure proper sustainable funding----
As I mentioned earlier, there is a backlog of funding in
basically the Corps, and, particularly, the Soo Lock
initiative, we are moving in a right direction with some of the
actions that this committee and the leadership of this
committee has undertaken over the last few years.
But, certainly, there is more to--more to be done to ensure
connectivity between the Great Lakes and the Port of Toledo and
our other systems.
With respect to the question on the Corps and some of the
investment and opportunities, I would certainly say, perhaps as
Mr. DeGood alluded to, having the Corps look at other means and
how to invest and ensure that the process is streamlined within
the Corps and, particularly, mitigating wetlands, I would say
perhaps relinquishing the control over material when it gets
into the CDF and have the ports and State agencies, in essence,
work together on permitting is a great example--and I am sure
that state agencies will certainly welcome--welcome the
opportunity to work with local port authorities to remove some
of the barriers that I mentioned earlier.
And as I mentioned, we have our dredge center of innovation
that is looking at ways, we have better utilization of that
dredge material to be able to put it back into useful and
beneficial production.
Ms. Kaptur. I know that my time has expired, and I want to
go to the next member. One thing I do know about the port, they
don't have enough environmental engineers. They have a lot of
civil engineers. And I think it is a real problem in the way
that they think or don't focus on the environment as much as
they could.
We will wait until the second round to ask a question about
the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, and I will
turn it to Mr. Simpson.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Chairwoman Kaptur. First, I just
want to say, this is probably not a question, Mr. DeGood, it is
a statement that I found in your testimony that I happen to
agree with--I am not saying I don't with the rest of it, but
you write in here where you are talking about the Missouri
River and floods that occurred. You say yet under current
federal rules for the levee rehabilitation and inspection
programs, the Corps is only obligated, and I would also add,
and authorized, to reconstruct a damaged levee to its prior
state.
I will tell you as former chairman of the Interior
Subcommittee and Mr. Calvert as chairman of that subcommittee,
also, we have run into this with both FEMA and the Army Corps
of Engineers, particularly when they had the floods there, the
hurricanes in Puerto Rico, and they had to rebuild some of this
system. And we were kind of going, you mean you could only
rebuild it to the--to the state that just got destroyed by the
hurricane? You can't strengthen it and improve it? That just
seems rather silly.
But I guess my statement is this is an authorizing issue
which we always ran into on the Appropriations Committee, and
we need to get this before the authorizing committee so that
they can actually address this and allow, as you say in your
thing in the Biden administration says build back better.
Because if you can rebuild it, you need to be looking at how
can you make it better than it was before it got destroyed by,
by a natural disaster.
So I agree with where you are coming from there, but we
need to work together to see if we can get the authorizing
committees to take a look at that. I mean, there is reasons why
this language is the way it is now that we need to take into
consideration, but we ought to be able to do better than we
are--than we are currently doing when we are spending the money
to rebuild. So I appreciate your noticing that in your
testimony.
Ms. Becker, I believe this subcommittee, and as I said, Mr.
Calvert and I have both chaired the Interior Subcommittee also,
but this subcommittee on a bipartisan basis places high
priority on fulfilling the Federal Government's Tribal trust
responsibility, particularly, with respect to the Bureau of
Reclamation Indian Water Rights Settlements, rural water
projects, and Native American Affairs Programs.
I appreciate that your testimony explains some of the
positive steps you have seen firsthand from these programs. Do
you have any additional ideas on how we can help the Bureau of
Reclamation promote success in these areas, and are there
lessons learned from some of the programs or projects that
might not have been successful that could help us moving
forward?
Ms. Becker. Thank you, Representative Simpson. I am so
honored you asked the question. So, a couple of things, the
Navajo Nation has extensive experience with Indian Water Rights
Settlements, and the bureau was currently constructing what is
called the Navajo Gallup Water Supply Project. It has, thank
goodness, started delivering clean drinking water on one of two
laterals. The second lateral, which is the bigger lateral, is
expected to be constructed by 2027.
I think one of the challenges with the bureau through
Indian Water Rights Settlements has been when these projects
come to Congress, they are at an appraisal level study, and
they aren't at that final study. So it is not uncommon for the
bureau to have--or for the settlement parties to come back to
Congress and ask for Congress to increase the cost ceiling.
Because the cost ceiling that was imposed in our case, in the
case of Navajo Nation back in 2009, and now we are in 2021, you
know, the cost ceiling is reached and then expected to exceed.
How the bureau addresses that I think that is the more
challenging question, because the settlement process doesn't
always run parallel with the process for getting these
engineering studies done. So it may be at the front end going
eyes wide open into these projects and recommending that they
are--that we need to build in some sort of contingency to
address the fact that these appraisal level studies are not the
final--the final design of these projects.
On the programmatic side, the Bureau, Reclamation--and I do
want to say the Army Corps as well--they are full of dedicated,
dedicated civil servants who want to help with local projects,
and smaller projects. And I think when--when taking nationwide
Federal regulations and streaming them down into Indian
Country--and I would suspect that the other witnesses and the
other Representatives have seen this in their communities, in
rural communities, employees--civil servants are kind of
beating up against the regulation. Maybe the need is less than
the, you know, the threshold that is set.
And the third part of the answer would be specific to this
committee, for the Native American Affairs Technical Assistance
Program, which I can attest to, let me say back to Chairwoman
Kaptur's comments about the Bureau of Reclamation's basin-wide
study, they also did a Tribal basin-wide study. It is such an
important document. It is an important go-to document for
anybody who wants to understand Tribal water basin.
The Native American Affairs Program was critical to making
that happen. But for this committee, the subcommittee's
consideration--what the bureau could or reclamation, I should
say, could be assisting more Tribes with greater funding.
And I truly believe that they could provide tremendous
assistance in local planning and local climate change issues
that are so critical to making sure Indian Country projects
succeed. I hope that is responsive to you.
Mr. Simpson. You bet. Thank you.
Ms. Kaptur. The gentleman's time has expired. We will move
to Congresswoman Kirkpatrick.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks so much
for having this hearing.
And, Ms. Becker, I agree with you that the reclamation can
do much more for the Tribes. So, I was born and raised on
Tribal land in Arizona, although, I am not Native American, and
we had--we were right next to a river, the White River, and we
got our water from the river, but we couldn't drink it without
boiling it first. So, you know, I know how important it is to
the Tribes to have drinkable water that is accessible for them.
So this an issue that is really, really important to me.
And, you know, I have discussed on the subcommittee many
times that Arizona and the Southwest are experiencing record-
breaking droughts, and water has become scarce. These
conversations about water infrastructure are so important and
have been something I have been working on for 15 years.
Ms. Becker, I am glad you brought up the unique challenges
that come with water infrastructure on Tribal lands. And I just
want to know based on your experience why has it been so
challenging to get clean, reliable, and safe water
infrastructure built in Indian Country? And then how can the
Bureau of Reclamation and this subcommittee work to begin to
solve some of these problems?
Ms. Becker. Thank you, Representative Kirkpatrick, and
thank you for your service to Arizona, and your previous
service to this region of the country.
So the United States has historically--in the mid 20th
century, in early 20th century, the United States invested
quite a bit in infrastructure development. That infrastructure
funding did not seem to come to Indian Country. In the 1950s,
Congress created the Indian Health Service, specifically, to
address sanitation deficiencies. And I pause on that because I
don't think sanitation deficiencies meant anything to anybody
before COVID-19 hit, right? What that means is we are starting
from an uneven playing field as we enter into something called
the pandemic.
So IHS has been chronically underfunded. And in the latter
half of the 20th century essential vehicle that I just
discussed with Representative Simpson, is our Indian Water
Rights Settlements, those became a very--those vehicles became
very important to getting clean drinking water infrastructure
to some Tribes. Every Tribe is unique, as you know. Some Tribes
might be settling for fishing rights or other rights. But for
many of us in the Southwest, we need those clean drinking water
projects.
They are very good vehicles, but they are not without their
challenges. We discussed one--I just discussed one with
Representative Simpson. Another one is the time. The length of
time it takes to get through the settlement process to an
actual drop of water hitting Indian Country.
In the case of the Navajo Nation, we have entered into a
settlement for our rights to the San Juan River in New Mexico
which flows into the Colorado River. The underlying case was
filed in 1975, and as I mentioned the first drop of water from
the Main Settlement Project was delivered last year. That is 45
years. So those--that decade, decadenal process that we can't
wait anymore.
To address your question about what the Bureau can do--for
those of us watching and have done this for a long time, the
Bureau does--they can build the long, the big projects that
serve of hundreds of homes, thousands of homes. Indian Health
Service does a great job of building the smaller projects that
serve tens of homes.
The Navajo Gallup Water and Supply Project is an excellent
example of a whole of government approach that that the
technical people, I would argue, kind of force to happen. They
saw how these different programs could work together to make a
whole. So the bureau is building the big truck line, they
partner with the Indian Health Service and with the Navajo
Nation who build the smaller systems and who get water to
people's homes.
It is really the best--it is such a great orchestrated
process of how government can function at its best, partly,
because it could have happened sequentially, like kind of like
what I have described before. You could have built a trunk line
and then years later built a system, but it is happening all at
the same time.
The bureau's funding though is project-based. So how the
bureau works through these systems versus programmatic-based
funding, I think, is something they are going to have to think
about as they pursue a whole of government approach.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. I think the fact that these groups are
working together now and collaborating is huge progress. And
so, you know, I thank you for that. Thank you for your
leadership. At this moment, this is very, very important to me.
We want to make sure that you have got the resources you need
to build that infrastructure. And I don't want the next
generation to have to boil their water before they drink it. So
thank you so much. I yield back, Madam Chair.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Congresswoman.
Congressman Calvert.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Madam Chair. You hear me all right?
Great. Okay. We often think about fund control projects
through a parochial lens. Obviously, in all of our
congressional districts we want to make sure we protect the
folks' lives and properties. But sometimes the national
implications can be clear with projects such as the Santa Ana
Mainstem Project. Can you describe some of the regional and
national benefits associated with the fully funding projects
like Murrieta Creek.
Mr. Uhley. Sure, thank you Congressman Calvert for the
question. Murrieta Creek was an innovative project that was
really well ahead of its time and provides benefits well in
excess of the NED benefits that the Corps uses to justify
projects. And just as a couple of examples, I would point out
that it includes very significant national environmental
benefits, in that this project includes an environmental
corridor that is going to connect national forests with state
preserves. They are going to help protect and ultimately
restore endangered species and threatened species like the
Least Bell's Vireo and Santa Ana mountain lions.
The project also includes elements of the national trail
system, the Butterfield Stage Overland Trail, which
historically in the 1800s connected San Francisco to San Diego
and St. Louis. And this project will be part of the restoration
of that trail over time.
And, then, lastly, this project incorporates important
regional economic developments through the incorporation of
parks that have ball fields that could lead to the Temecula
area becoming a national destination for youth sports leagues
because of the adjacency of Temecula Old Town and Wine Country.
But I think, most importantly, you know, fully funding
projects like Murrieta Creek will accelerate the delivery of
benefits and deliver them in a more cost-efficient manner. You
know, the way Corps--the Corps funds projects now, there are
starts, there are stops, there is inefficiencies, new staff
coming in, and then they want to relitigate elements of a
project.
It is a very inefficient process. And if we can promote
fully funding projects, I think we can deliver benefits faster
and at a significant reduction in costs to both Federal
Government and local agencies.
Mr. Calvert. I might also point out Jason, the benefit of
protecting one of our Nation's largest military installations
at Camp Pendleton.
Mr. Uhley. Absolutely.
Mr. Calvert. We lost $80 million worth of helicopters back
in 1993. And so we had to put together a significant amount of
money to--ironically, that would have been more than enough
money to pay for this whole project.
Mr. Uhley. Absolutely.
Mr. Calvert. So we need protect that institution also. You
also mentioned in your testimony the full range of benefits
associated with Murrieta Creek were not fully captured by the
Corps' current economic month.
What are some of the specific areas where Congress and the
Corps can improve how we think about benefits associated with
types of multipurpose projects? It has been frustrating having
to be----
Mr. Uhley. Yeah, the Corps focuses on national development
benefit. And we really need to start with the recent memo that
ASA James produced before he retired. And that memo basically
directs the Corps consider the full range of benefits. Other
societal benefits, environmental benefits, regional economic
development, that is a good start. But in addition to that we
need to not only present them, but we need to incorporate them
into the decision making process both with the Corps, with OMB,
and ultimately with Congress.
Second, I point out that I think it is important that we
take a good look at how NED itself is structured. The National
Economic Development Alternative can often promote projects
that don't even provide 100-year flood protection, which is
FEMA standard, and results in projects where residents still
have to buy flood insurance. And so I think that is another
area that is worthy of some investment of time.
And I would also point out that these more multipurpose
projects tend to be promoted through LPPs, locally preferred
plans, because they don't fit well in the NED alternative. And,
unfortunately, when the Corps evaluates LPP projects, they look
at it from a total cost versus total benefit perspective which
completely ostigates that the fact that local sponsors are
often bringing a lot of resources to these projects. We really
need to switch to an analysis where it looks at federal cost
versus total benefit of the project. And if we can do that, I
think that would enhance the delivery of more innovative multi-
benefit projects.
And, then, finally, there may be an opportunity for
Congress to consider a special fund or enhancement of a P-3
program to be able to target money towards these types of
projects to promote them and also to evaluate their benefit and
maybe promote long-term changes to the Corps.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. And, Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much.
Congresswoman Lee.
Ms. Lee. Hello? Did you call on me, Madam Chair?
Ms. Kaptur. I did, Congresswoman Lee. You are next.
Ms. Lee. All right. Thank you. I am sorry for that
confusion.
First of all, I want to thank the Chairwoman and Ranking
Member Simpson for hosting this important hearing and for all
of the witnesses for their participation--hold on, I have got
to do something here--for participating.
Listen, I think all of us can agree about that bolstering
our infrastructure is important, and in theory this should be
bipartisan work. I think we all can agree that we need to make
these conversations a reality.
The recent American Civil Society of Civil Engineers 2021
report card for America's infrastructure highlights the need
for investment in our water infrastructure. I reign from Las
Vegas Nevada, home to the Hoover Dam, so, obviously, this is an
incredibly important issue for my region; but this extends to
all congressional districts. And while I am pleased to see that
there has been some improvement in my home State in terms of
our overall infrastructure, there is still a lot of work to be
done, specifically around water.
For instance, of the 656 State-regulated dams, 154, almost
a quarter of them, are considered to be high hazard potential.
And as we move forward in this fiscal year's appropriations, I
hope that we can work with everyone in a bipartisan manner to
find some solutions to these problems.
I was glad to join this committee because I think it is
important to add regional perspectives, especially as we talk
about efficient water resource management.
My State is in the Lower Colorado River Basin where we
consistently face duress from dry weather conditions, and this
probably has been compounded by the intensity of climate change
that we are experiencing.
Ms. Becker, I was pleased with your testimony, and you
spoke at length about the Drought Resiliency Program which has
helped your community to smartly manage water. Can you walk us
through how this program has helped your community in
developing a drought mitigation and response plan?
Ms. Becker. Yes. Thank you for the question, Representative
Lee. Nice to have a neighbor to chat with.
So the Bureau of Reclamation local staff works very closely
with the Navajo Nation staff in developing the drought
resiliency plan. And most recently the Navajo Nation, we have
some tremendous young people coming home to work with us and
water--hydrologist experts who have shared with me that climate
change is affecting groundwater quality. So when we are
thinking about climate change in drought, there is also a water
quality issue that is part of this concern.
So they applied from the Bureau of Reclamation for drought
funding to address some water supply issues, one in Oljato,
which is where the woman, the picture that I showed in the
beginning of today, that is where she is from. They have a very
limited water supply there, a system that runs 12 hours a day,
so they need to relieve the pressure on that.
So that drought funding is part of the overall response
that you were asking about. That funding will go help build a
new well in the Oljato area.
In addition, the second pot of funding that is coming from
the Bureau last year and this year from the drought response
program is addressing a long-term project that the Bureau of
Reclamation has been working with the Navajo Nation for quite
some time called the Western Navajo Pipeline.
In the western part of the Nation, not far from where you
are--I mean, we are right in your backyard, as you know--that
is where we have some of our lowest precipitation, and we have
some serious groundwater problems. So they are analyzing ways
to bring surface water into the Navajo Nation.
So these are ways that reclamation has been so helpful in
addressing issues in our area region.
Ms. Lee. I must say, yes, I would like to also note that
your reclamation recently awarded Nevada some grant funding
through the Drought Resiliency Program. So we appreciate the
work that the reclamation department is doing with our
partners.
My second question is, I really don't have much time, Mr.
DeGood, just quickly can you talk about how green
infrastructure can be used alongside or even as an alternative
to traditional gray infrastructure with the goal of bringing
multiple benefits to a project in a cost efficient manner?
Mr. DeGood. That is a great question.
I think it is important to understand that when we bring
these nature and nature-based features and national features
into design, oftentimes we end up with projects that have
either a lower total cost or a lower total lifetime cost, life
cycle cost, because natural features tend to need less ongoing
maintenance, and we often end up with projects that have better
overall environmental performance.
So it is so much about mindset, and when you start the
planning process, if you only start with pure sort of
navigation or flood control, without considering what these
other, you know, benefits could be, you are going to end that
planning process with something that looks like the old kind of
traditional gray facilities that we are trying to move away
from.
If you start with improved environmental performance at the
beginning, what you will end up with is a project that has a
mix generally of traditional gray and green infrastructure that
will again typically be lower total life cycle cost and have
better environmental performance, but that is a lot about
Congress providing direction and helping to change the course,
culture, and mission.
Ms. Lee. Great. Thank you.
And I am sorry I ran over. Thank you. I yield.
Ms. Kaptur. Listen, I am so proud of this subcommittee. You
have all been doing great. It is hard to talk within 5 minutes
in complicated issues. Thank you so much, Congresswoman Lee.
And now we are going to go to Congressman Fleischmann.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member
Simpson, again, another outstanding topic or set of topics, and
to all of the witnesses, thank you so much. Madam Chair, I know
you have championed the Great Lakes for years, and I really
appreciate that and look forward to working with you on Asian
carp issues and the like.
In the past I have supported efforts to widen and deepen
the Norfolk Harbor in Tennessee's neighboring State, Virginia.
As many on this subcommittee may recall, I have been very
enthusiastic in my advocacy for the funding of the Chickamauga
lock replacement project in my home district. These projects
are enormously important for commerce and industry in my home
State, but I also know that Tennessee is not unique when it
comes to the economic importance of inland waterways.
So the witnesses, if you could speak a little bit more to
the role that inland waterway transportation plays in
supporting the American economy. And I will open that up for
the witnesses.
Thank you.
Does anyone want to take that question?
Mr. DeGood. I will just go ahead and say that I think the
story we need to focus on here is really one about efficiency
and the fact that our water infrastructure allows us to move
critical, not only agriculture commodities, but commodities
that are essential to our national industrial production and
our export sector and our balance of trade and that when we
have unplanned outages, either due to facilities breaking down
or because of shifts in weather and water volumes, we know that
the trucking and freight rail industries can often struggle to
try and match that unexpected surge in demand to move those
commodities.
So even though it is not part of our transportation system
that is one that probably most Americans think about on any
kind of regular basis, we do know that it has this essential
role to play. So I think it is incumbent for the folks on this
panel and others in Congress to continue to try and tell the
story to highlight for people why it is essential that this be
a part of any build back better rescue and recovery package.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you. I really appreciate that
response.
Would anybody else like to address that?
Mr. Winston. Representative, Thomas Winston here.
Certainly I think an investment and our ability to improve
our inland waterways will be important. Here, particularly as I
refer to the Great Lakes and the system and the impact that it
has, clearly, the Port of Toledo has a direct impact to Ohio,
Michigan, and Indiana; but at our port we have 16 marine
terminals, and those terminals supply products throughout the
Nation.
We have ADM Grain Corporation and Anderson that is sending
soybeans and corn across the Nation. We have oats being
produced, at least exported here, and bulk material. We have
Mondelez that has the largest flour mill in North America here
at the Port of Toledo.
Certainly the impact of the inland waterways, as it relates
to the Great Lakes, not only has an impact from a regional
standpoint but certainly the connectivity to across our Nation
and, you know, certainly being able to distribute goods and
services. We have Cleveland Cliffs as a result of some of the
initiatives that we have taken here. We have an internationally
known company, now Cleveland Cliffs, that made an $850 million
investment in a plant here. They will be taking in ore from
Minnesota through the Great Lakes. They will be able to provide
the hot briquette product for the Nation that will service
Tennessee, the south, the west and across the channels here.
So I think your question is well served, and I think some
of the initiatives that we have talked about earlier, and the
funding from this particular Appropriation Committee,
subcommittee to the investment in the waterways and the
channels and the Great Lakes would be instrumental for success
across the Nation.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you.
And my time is about up, so with that, Madam Chair, I thank
you so much, and I will yield back.
Thank you.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much, Congressman Fleischmann.
Congresswoman Frankel.
Ms. Frankel. Hello. Good to see you.
Okay. Thank you, everybody, for your comments today, and I
think these are questions for Mr. DeGood, but if anyone else
wants to answer, fine.
My first question is, what are some of the specific aspects
the Army Corps should focus on more in regards to Everglades
restoration? And will that require a policy change, a change in
the law?
Mr. DeGood. To the best of my knowledge, I don't think
there are any major pending changes to law that need to happen
with that. I think it is really about making steady progress
and continuing to demonstrate both the economic and ecological
benefits of that project.
I think something that most folks maybe don't know is they
think about the Everglades restoration and the Kissimmee River
and Lake Okeechobee projects that are associated with it
upstream as being simply about maybe birds and reptiles, or
something like that, as though it were a side issue.
In truth, by improving the flow of freshwater into the
Everglades and by improving the rate of recharge to the
underlying limestone Biscayne aquifer, you are helping to sort
of stave off that saltwater infiltration that will be speeding
up as sea levels rise and the total pressure from that sea
underneath that lies in the reservoir increases, right.
So it is not just about the environment as being sort of
separate and apart from the economy in south Florida, it is
about making sure that you have water to keep that economy
going.
Ms. Frankel. Well, thank you. I absolutely agree. Those of
us who live in south Florida think about it as our water
supply, although we do love the Everglades National Park, and
we know it is a refuge for many species. And, obviously, when
you don't have water, you don't have an economy. So I
appreciate those comments.
Also, again, talking about south Florida, we have, as you
know, a sea level rise. Parts of south Miami are constantly
under flood. Any comments on what you think are some of the
best ways to protect our coastal infrastructure?
Mr. DeGood. Yes. I mean, I think it needs to be an
integrated approach, and one of the things that is tricky about
water is that it moves. And so if you do one-off changes or
improvements in one area, you can actually create additional
problems, you know, upstream or downstream for other
landowners.
So what we need is for the Federal Government to serve as a
true partner, not just in a fiscal sense of bringing dollars to
the table, although that is important; but I also think playing
a coordinating role so that all of the jurisdictions in south
Florida, as well as the State, you know, DEQ and other
agencies, can come up with a plan and a sequencing for those
projects so that we do it right and so that there is the least
amount of disruption and the least amount of what I would call
unintended environmental and economic consequences.
You know, one of the things I highlighted quickly in my
testimony was the work that the Corps had done to the Kissimmee
River in the 1960s in the name of flood control, but it was
because you didn't step back to think about what the second
order of consequence of that channelization project would be
that we ended up with this remediation bill which is more than
five times greater than the initial cost of the project.
So it has got to be multi jurisdictional. It has got to not
just be about funding. It has got to be about smart funding and
sequencing.
Ms. Frankel. Are you saying that it should be the Army
Corps should be the coordinating agency or somebody should be?
We have to pick one?
Mr. DeGood. Yes, I don't know I would sit here right now
and say it has to be the Corps, but I think that should be a
discussion to figure out who needs to take that lead role.
Ms. Frankel. Okay. Thank you very much. Madam Chair, I
yield back, and thank you for this hearing.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you so much, Congresswoman Frankel. You
have been at every meeting, I think. You have been fantastic.
Congressman Reschenthaler, please.
Mr. Reschenthaler. Thank you, Madam Chair, I appreciate it,
and thank you to Ranking Member Simpson as well.
You know, investment in our water resources infrastructure
is actually critical to my district and, frankly, it is
critical to all of southwestern Pennsylvania. As the eastern
most gateway of the inland waterway system, the Port of
Pittsburgh is strategically located to move freight to and from
the Ohio Valley and the northeastern regions.
And, Madam Chair, I know you are aware of this because you
saw it firsthand when you were in the district, when you were
in southwestern Pennsylvania with my colleague, Conor Lamb. I
think that was in 2019. I know you were there. Regardless, I
think you may have witnessed the deteriorating conditions of
our aging locks and dams, and some of these locks and dams, I
mean, they are from the 1930s. They need improvement.
But as a new member on this subcommittee and the
Appropriations Committee on a whole, I really appreciate the
bipartisan approach that we are taking when we look at this and
we look at waterway infrastructure both in corridor work and
the ecosystem perspective.
But just historically, my district has benefitted from the
prior work of this subcommittee, including the New Start
Designation for the Upper Ohio Navigation project, and then
going way far back when I was actually like 9 years old, when
this committee authorized the lower bond project in 1992, which
is just set for completion in 2023.
So, again, this is really critical for my district,
especially when you look at the Elizabeth Lock, which is the
oldest lock on the Monogahela River and a lock which all river
transportation entering to and from my district has to pass
through.
So I was going to talk and ask the witnesses some questions
about the T&I package that is coming, the $37 billion funding
for portions of inland waterways, but my colleague, Congressman
Chuck Fleischmann beat me to the punch, so I would just like to
say I appreciated the witnesses answering that question.
With that, I will move on to another set of questions that
I have for Mr. Winston. Mr. Winston, in your testimony you
stressed the importance that the multimodal connectivity,
including maritime, has with economic development throughout
your port region in Ohio.
Mr. Winston, all along the Monogahela River in my district,
we have former industrial and brown field sites, of course. So
just a two-part question for you. I am going to ask you these
and just give you the remainder of my time. But with your
experiences, can you elaborate on what it takes from both the
public and private sectors to successfully redevelop, or
however, redevelopment project?
And do you have any suggestions for Congress on what we can
do to better assist communities in redeveloping brown sites,
former industrial sites, along our waterways?
And with that, Mr. Winston, I will yield to you.
Mr. Winston. Thank you for the question, Representative
Reschenthaler. Thank you for being with us as well.
I think your question--and I know it is in two parts. I am
trying to ascertain that here a little bit, and I will try to
answer that in the abstract. You know, certainly I think it is
important--here at the Port Authority, we are a very unique
port authority.
The State of Ohio provides us with broad powers. We were
established in 1955 as the first port in the State of Ohio as
the opening up of the Saint Lawrence Seaway. And since then we
have certainly continued to involve ourselves in maritime
activity; but because of the powers that the State has afforded
us, we are also broadly involved in economic development. We
can buy, sell property and really deal with that, and that
gives us a multidimensional aspect to do economic development
by issuing bonds and debt and, thus, bringing access to capital
to the market for businesses.
It also affords us to use some of the expertise that we
have in certain areas, such as maritime and economic
development, to take brown field sites and turn that into
economic development working environments, and we have done
that.
I alluded to Cleveland Cliffs project earlier that is on
what we call the dry side of our Port of Toledo. We have taken
an old brown field site, redeveloped it, working with the
private sector, and now we have an $850 million investment here
that is generating close to 200 jobs for the area.
So I think the collaboration, if I can answer your
question, I think the collaboration between the public sector
and private sector is essential. We are able to do that with
working with a marine terminal operator on the private side as
well as with the Federal organizations, like the Army Corps,
and the Ohio Department of Natural Resources and other economic
development entities.
I think a collaboration is essential to making these things
come to fruition. On the private side, you generally see
activity happening a little faster than, you know, on maybe
some of the issues that might present themselves at the Federal
side.
So I think working together is essential, and as much as we
can shift down responsibility to the local level, I think that
would be advantageous to meet some of that.
Mr. Reschenthaler. Thanks, Mr. Winston.
Since my time has expired, I would yield back to the Madam
Chair. Thank you so much.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Congressman Reschenthaler. You know,
you have been a really active new member, and we are glad to
have that energy, and we need it from western PA. And thanks so
much. Appreciate it.
Mr. Reschenthaler. Thank you, I appreciate it.
Ms. Kaptur. That is all right.
We will now go to Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz from
Florida, and thank you so much for your faithful attendance
also.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Madam Chair and thank you
very much for this really important hearing both to you and to
Mr. Simpson.
Mr. DeGood, it won't be a surprise that my questions are
for you, and I want to thank you for referencing the Everglades
and the case studies are important on the sustainability and
the development of water infrastructure.
As you probably know, given that I represent the area that
encompasses the Florida Everglades, I care a lot about it. In
1948, Congress created the Central and Southern Florida
project, the largest civil works project in the country. The
Corps constructed a massive flood control system that enabled
south Florida to township. Unfortunately, as you know, the
Corps did not really consider the environmental consequences of
this huge ecological redesign, and now we have spent the last
two decades trying to restore the Everglades.
So I am going to ask you my three questions at once because
I want to get in another one. How can we be careful to avoid
environmental damage like the kind suffered by the Everglades
when we build water infrastructure projects going forward?
And do you recommend that the Corps should be required to
implement compensatory litigation projects when water
infrastructure projects result in ecological harm, kind of like
the mitigation that developers have to do when they destroy
wetlands and they have to mitigate that somewhere else? So how
do you envision that policy working?
And then also I have joined the entire Florida delegation
in the House, as well as Senator Rubio, in asking President
Biden to request $725 million for Everglades restoration in
fiscal year 2022. We have to make these investments to expedite
this restoration effort and fight climate change and create
jobs. And job creation has been mentioned by several people as
a benefit of water infrastructure development.
So can you, or any of you, elaborate on how we can use
water infrastructure to address other key national priorities
as well, like economic recovery and job creation, actually like
we did in the American Recovery and Investment Plan?
Mr. DeGood. Thank you for the questions.
I will say quickly, I know you have got multiple, that I
think it is important to point out that the Central and South
Florida Project first authorized in the fifties and then moved
through construction in the sixties predates the National
Environmental Policy Act. One of the things that, you know,
Members of Congress have fought about for a number of years now
is sort of whether or not we feel there is value in NEPA. And I
think that it demonstrates just how much damage you can do when
you don't, on the front end, ask the question what are going to
be the consequences of this build, right.
So the benefit of NEPA is that all of the substantive
protections that Congress has passed, a lot of them in the
sixties and the seventies. I am talking about the Clean Water
Act, the Endangered Species Act, Historic Preservation, Title
VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act which prevents Congress from
funding anything that is either directly discriminatory or
discriminatory in its effects, right, all of these substantive
statutes are important.
And when we go through the project planning and review
process, that is how those are surfaced, and NEPA's, I think,
real value is that it pulls together all of these different
studies into one place and provides the kind of transparency
that allows for true democratic and civic input into the
planning process.
So I think we get better outcomes. We avoid damages that we
have to, you know, spend a lot of money to try and remediate
afterwards. So we should understand the value of NEPA in water
resource projects.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
Is there anyone else that wants to elaborate on how we can
use water infrastructure to address other key national
properties?
If not, then I will cram in my last question. According to
the Congressional Research Service--and I am going to quote--
earmarked moratoria appears to be altering the makeup of Corps
and reclamation appropriations, particularly by reducing the
congressional additions of specific projects for the budget and
by Congress funding broad categories of activities rather than
specific projects.
As a result, some projects that historically have
benefitted from congressional support have reached less or zero
funding in recently enacted appropriations bills, end quote.
I know I have run into this obstacle again and again on
this subcommittee because of the ban of the power to fund
projects given to agency staff instead of Members of Congress.
And agency staff don't always take local interest into account.
So I want to open this question to anyone on this panel
with the last little bit I have. How do you think the earmark
ban has impacted funding levels and even new congressional
authorizations for water infrastructure projects?
Mr. DeGood. Quickly, I will say that I think it is--
Congress should consider whether or not water projects that
have received two stages of congressional authorization, one
for the, you know, initial investigation and then a separate
one for construction, should even be considered earmarks.
I think that that process is fundamentally different from
what happened pre earmark ban with, say, the Surface
Transportation Bill where you had conference reports that had
literally thousands of projects that were attached to a
particular account but had never been actually vetted, had
never received any kind of oversight, hadn't gone through
anything nearly as rigorous as what water resource projects
must go through.
So I think they should, in a sense, be treated separately
from the general conversation of earmarks in many respects.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
Mr. Uhley. Yes. I am sorry, this is Jason Uhley. And I
would agree, you know, projects get authorized and then they go
through these funding droughts. And I think one of the impacts
of earmarks has actually been to depress the ability to fund
multipurpose, multibenefit projects because a lot of these
multipurpose, multibenefit projects score inherently lower than
the NED version of the project.
And they may still be very valuable projects, provide
better benefits to the community; but because of the very
narrow way the Court looks at projects, it tends to depress our
ability to look at those types of projects and fund them.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Ms. Kaptur. Very good questions. Thank you so much,
Congresswoman.
Now I would like to move to Congresswoman Cheri Bustos of
Illinois.
Mrs. Bustos. Thank you, Madam Chair.
This question is for Mr. DeGood. The congressional district
that I serve covers pretty much the entire northwest corner of
the State of Illinois, also going into central Illinois. So our
western border of this district is the Mississippi River, and
through the southern part of the congressional district I serve
is the Illinois river. We also have eight locks and dams. So--
and by the way, on a personal note, my front yard is the
Mississippi River.
So, you know, I think that inland waterways are often
overlooked, but are so critical, not just to the district that
I serve but also to our entire Nation.
The Upper Mississippi River System is the only river system
that Congress has designated as a nationally significant
transportation corridor and nationally significant ecosystem.
I really appreciate what you said in your testimony where
you stated the Corps must stop treating the environment as a
separate business line. I applaud that. A great example of the
type of innovative project that you are describing is NESP, the
Navigation Ecosystem Sustainability Program. It was authorized
to modernize seven locks and dams along the Upper Mississippi,
while also providing critically important ecosystem
restoration.
So, Mr. DeGood, can you please speak to the magnitude of
investments needed on both inland waterway infrastructure and
ecosystem restoration? That is part 1 of my question. And part
2 of that is, do you think that Congress should be using this
large scale dual purpose model more often?
Mr. DeGood. To your second question, absolutely. I think
one of the things that is really interesting about NESP is that
they took a system-wide approach, right. And so often when we
look at the kinds of planning the Army Corps does, it is
through a narrow lens of a particular project in a very
specific geographic area, and sometimes it sort of misses the
forest for the trees, if you will.
I would just note that currently there are 15 lock projects
with an estimated total cost of roughly $7 billion that have
completed all of the studies and reviews and are ready to be
constructed as soon as Congress appropriates the funding.
Completing these projects will improve overall system
efficiency by reducing unplanned lock outages and expanding
system capacity; thereby, allowing tow operators to move goods
to market more quickly, more cheaply, and just as importantly
with greater predictability.
So as I alluded to earlier, I think part of it is about,
you know, education, because, again, not a lot of folks think
about the inland waterway system; but for members such as
yourself that have them in their district and understand how
vital it is to the environment, to recreation, but also
critically commerce, we just have to keep making that case and
make sure it gets its fair share of the recovery package.
Mrs. Bustos. Very good.
You also said in your testimony, you referenced the 2019
flooding along the Mississippi River. You know devastating
doesn't even begin to cover those events. They really were
catastrophic, and this is something, again, that I could see in
real-time. For months the locks along the Upper Mississippi
were closed. As you know, it literally stopped in its tracks
the movement of goods, not to mention the property damage and
the impact of the growing season for our family farmers all
along our region.
And while Congress passed hundreds of millions of dollars
for emergency operations like dredging in early June of 2019,
the allocation of funds took months, took months. And so while
relying on the emergency funding is never the ideal scenario to
be in to begin with, is there a better way to streamline the
process to get our communities really faster in these emergency
situations?
Mr. DeGood. That is a great question and one I am not sure
I have a particularly good answer for. I would say in deference
to the Corps, when you are talking about destruction on that
scale, trying to figure out the process and the sequencing of
what you can do with the money that Congress has allocated is
not something that can happen maybe as quickly as we would
like.
I do think, though, that the project that I reference in my
testimony points to a longer term issue of the flood control
works that were built earlier in the 20th century don't really
fit the kinds of hydrological cycles that we are experiencing
now in which we are modeling to experience more frequently in
the future.
So I think the question is, are there places where we can
go in and make improvements to the systems so that it has a
greater flood stage capacity so that we are less likely to have
the kind of disasters scenarios that were experienced in 2019?
And that, again, comes back to we have to be proactive and say
let's not just build things the way they were done in the
thirties and forties. Let's think about ways we can make the
system more resilient but also far more--have better
environmental performance overall.
And that, of course, touches on the very politically
sensitive issue of buyouts, and that is where it needs to be an
inclusive process and one that happens over time to bring
landowners in so that they understand the vision the Corps and
State and local authorities have. They can become comfortable
with what the proposal is.
Mrs. Bustos. Thank you, Mr. DeGood.
My time has expired, and, Madam Chair, I yield back. Thank
you very much.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you for your faithful attendance and
excellent participation, Congresswoman Bustos.
We are going to move now to Congresswoman Bonnie Watson
Coleman.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman.
I really appreciate this education I am getting here as a quick
learning curve here.
Mr. DeGood--first of all, thank you to all of our
witnesses. They have been excellent briefers, and they raise a
lot of questions.
Mr. DeGood, I would like to ask you a question about what
the Army Corps of Engineers is not considering that it should
consider when it is advancing projects, particularly the
environmental impact versus any sort of economic benefit that
is supposed to be derived from it? Because I have a number of
small towns that, you know, may not represent an economic
advantage in any way, shape, or form, but they can get wiped
out pretty good in bad storms, and they are poorer towns, and I
think we have a responsibility to them, but I keep kind of
getting pushed aside on this issue.
Mr. DeGood. Yes. I think, as some of the other panelists
have mentioned, part of it comes down to what are the types of
benefits that the Corps is allowed to try to quantify and put a
dollar value on so that it can be part of its cost/benefit
calculation. I think for too long we have focused on the narrow
issue of really property damage in a sense because, you know,
from an actuarial standpoint, it was the easiest thing to go
out and figure out, look, when we damage roads, here is how
much it costs to rebuild them.
When we lose houses, here is how much it costs to rebuild.
When we lose agricultural production, here is how much, you
know, lost value of that.
So it tends to be very narrowly focused on property
protection because it is harder to say exactly what spawning
fish or wading birds or, you know, other environmental aspects
are worth; but I think that is wrong.
So there is really this question of, again, changing how
the Corps does planning and changing how it calculates costs
and benefits to be more inclusive to have more integrated and
more comprehensive projects.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. So even when these towns are not, you
know, very high-end homes, you know, rather low-end
communities, so the cost to actually doing something in those
communities that would save those communities or even providing
alternatives to those communities is something that is not even
being considered.
Is there anyone else that would like to respond to that for
a second? And then I have a question for Ms. Becker.
I guess not.
Ms. Becker, I listened to your discussion about making sure
that there was drinkable water that was brought into the Navajo
community, that infrastructure was built up in order to be able
to do that. And you kind of said that things are working, and
there is a whole of government consideration here.
My question is twofold. Number one is, how far along are
we? When do you expect to have the infrastructure in place?
And, number two, to what extent are your issues with sanitation
being addressed at the same time?
Ms. Becker. Thank you so much for the questions,
Congresswoman.
So let me be clear, the project that I am talking about
covers one corner of the Navajo Nation. It is arguably 30
percent done, and the rest of it will be done, the expectation
is, by 2027. The Navajo Nation is the size of West Virginia. So
we are just talking about, um, maybe about a third, a quarter
of the Navajo Nation is what will be covered with that project.
We have a long way to go.
It is very hard to determine the number of people living in
homes today without access to clean drinking water, and that is
because definitions change or--there is a long explanation
behind that, but the estimations range anywhere from 20 percent
to 40 percent of the homes on the Navajo Nation lack access to
sanitation.
So for the rest of the Navajo Nation that hasn't enjoyed
the construction of that sort of project, we are years, we are
years and years away from sanitation.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Yes. Are there barriers to that
infrastructure being constructed, other than the lack of
funding?
Ms. Becker. Yes. There is some regulatory hiccups that
could be addressed in terms of how much--specifically the
Indian Health Service, where they can put their funding. And
then there are continued concerns with land access issues in
various parts, meaning it can take years to go through like the
NEPA process to get permission to cross lands.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madam Chair.
Ms. Kaptur. Sorry. My finger is on the wrong button there,
Congresswoman.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Madam Chair, can you hear me?
Ms. Kaptur. I can hear you.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. I just wanted to say something really
quickly in closing.
I would like to close those kind of barriers that Ms.
Becker is talking about, but I also would like to know what we
need to be thinking about when we talk to the Army Corps of
Engineers about how it needs to envision its moving forward and
its impact and the considerations that go into those decisions
environmentally and in the long term.
Ms. Kaptur. Yes.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you.
Ms. Kaptur. We will work with you on that. Thank you so
much, Congresswoman. I am glad you are on our subcommittee, I
am so glad.
All right. We want to move to Congresswoman Herrera
Beutler. We go from one coast to the other now.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. All right. Thank you so much, Madam
Chair.
And my question, my first question is for Mr. Uhley. I
thought that you made a key point in your written testimony
about the importance of local involvement and engagement with
the Corps on flood management projects. In my district there is
a project that has been underway for many, many years, longer--
certainly longer than I have been in Congress, in Lewis County,
Washington, to solve a decades' long flooding threat by--and it
is by Bottom Up, a community-led process, including, you know,
everything from local council, city councils to county, local
stakeholders, more than one tribe, I mean, businesses. It has
really been an amazing group.
And while this project is mostly State level with the
Department of Ecology and the Department of Fish and Wildlife,
I think we can take some lessons about the importance of the
local entities engaging with their Federal counterparts, like
the Corps. When I first got involved with this, the Corps was
dictating to the locals how this was going to look and what it
was going to be. And it has taken a long time and a lot of
conversations and push, but now we have finally flipped it to
where it is this local driven project, and the Corps is
stepping alongside as a partner.
And I was hoping you could share from your experience how
crucial it is that the Corps work with these local communities
and stakeholders when executing a Corps project?
Mr. Uhley. Yes, absolutely, Congresswoman Herrera Beutler.
I think we are finally turning a corner with the Corps, and we
are starting to see the Corps interested in true partnerships
more than they historically have been, and I think that is
going to lead to better projects.
In our area, you know, having the locals involved and where
you have capable sponsors, having them take the lead on
projects, we are much more vested in the outcomes in a lot of
cases. And the Corps, you know, in our L.A. District--it is one
of the largest districts in the Nation--they are dealing with
some of the most challenging projects in the Nation, the staff
are stretched. And they can't always put the time in they need
to find the innovative, creative solutions that are going to
lead to the projects that are going to benefit our community
and save money.
So I think taking--when the Corps can take advantage of
capable and interested local sponsors, we end up with better
projects, we end up with better outcomes, and we end up with
ultimately cost savings.
So I definitely encourage Congress to consider promoting
local engagement in projects and local leadership in projects
where the sponsors have the capability because it allows the
Corps to focus on some of the more challenging issues that
really require their expertise and a allows the locals to
really spend the time and resources to develop fully the
projects in their area.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Absolutely.
Mr. Uhley. So you raise an excellent point. Thank you.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Absolutely. I think they are more
attuned to the consensus, the fit within the community where,
obviously, the Corps's technical capability is unmatched and so
important, and it does kind of divide up the work more to get
some of these crucial big projects done.
My next question is for Mr. Winston. I am really struck by
the parallels in your testimony with the ports and the
terminals in my district in southwest Washington State. I have
15 public ports along the Columbia River, which goes out to the
mouth of the Pacific. The Lower River Channel is a major trade
gateway for the Nation. It is, I think, the third largest
inland waterway in the Nation, moves 60 percent of all U.S.
wheat exports. It did in 2020. And just like your port, our
ports have to overcome a lot of hurdles to operate efficiently.
And if our channel isn't properly maintained, growers,
manufacturers in many States will be impacted.
I am especially interested in the opportunity you mentioned
to better use dredged material for beneficial uses. So could
you tell me a little bit about how you recommend streamlining
the regulatory process to make better use of dredged materials?
Mr. Winston. Thank you, Representative, for the question.
It certainly has been an issue for the Port of Toledo and
many of the ports in the Great Lakes, and particularly as it
relates to Port of Toledo, we have a very shallow port being on
the western end of the basin of Lake Erie. So dredging is quite
significant for us and important for our ability to continue to
have vessels coming in and out.
As I alluded to in my testimony, we have developed the
center of dredging innovation here, really collaborating with a
number of universities, as well as working with the Corps to
really look at ways to better utilize the dredged material and
put it back in production.
I am a big proponent of collaboration. I am a big proponent
of perhaps having some of the accountabilities more regional or
local to better expedite and execute on these type of
initiatives. So certainly having collaborations with our
leading public and private institutions, with the cooperation
of the Army Corps and other institutions, will be instrumental
in being able to identify ways in which we can, you know, look
at those materials and better put it back into the system.
It is going to be critical for our infrastructure and our
ability to move commerce going forward, so I think
collaboration will be the key, particularly at the local level.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you for that. Thank you.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Kaptur. I am glad to hear that our ports have
asymmetry.
All right. Yes, I would like to call on Congressman
Newhouse.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I apologize for being in and out, but, you know, the
convenience of the video virtual meetings is everybody thinks
you can have them at the same time and so trying to be many
places at the same time. But thank you.
Let me just say, if I could, it is an honor to return to
this subcommittee to work with you, Chairwoman Kaptur, and also
with Ranking Member Simpson. I appreciate both of your
leadership on this subcommittee. It is truly a pleasure. I hope
the panelists can sense that this is a good committee, very
cooperative, we work very well with each other, and I
appreciate being part of it.
I want to thank the panelists for being with us today and
sharing your perspective with all of us, a very important
topic. Actually, Madam Chair, I was delighted to hear that this
was going to be what we were discussing today. It is important.
It is a very important subject about innovation and investing
in water resources to everybody, from Florida to Washington, to
Ohio, to Idaho. Everybody has interests in this topic.
And as has been pointed out by the folks that are
presenting today, we have severe challenges all over the
country; but I could boldly say that many of those challenges
are centered in the western United States. I represent a very
rural and agriculturally rich district in Washington. Many of
my constituents, as you probably know, are farmers, they are
ranchers, and they depend on a stable water infrastructure, not
only for growing, but also for moving cargo on the water via
barge. A lot of our wheat travels by barge. So water arguably
is our most precious resource in the west, and reliable access
is certainly crucial to our way of life.
So as we continue to debate the infrastructure
improvements, I do hope that we make investments in water
storage, in conservation, delivery systems, to not only serve
today's needs, as you talk a lot about, Madam Chair, but also
for future generations, our growing communities and those
people who we will leave this great green earth to at some day.
Aging federally-owned infrastructure, water infrastructure
has plagued the west water managers for several decades now. It
is estimated that 80 percent of the Bureau of Reclamation's
facilities are more than 50 years old, and many facilities are
over a hundred years old or near a hundred years old. According
to the Bureau of Reclamation, over the next 5 years, roughly
$3.2 billion will be needed to cover for extraordinary
maintenance costs.
And if you go out 30 years, that number gets up to over $10
billion. In many cases local government entities, like
irrigation districts, which I am a part of, have little to no
access to affordable long-term financing for their share of
these expenses of rebuilding and maintaining these projects.
So that is why last Congress I was very happy to have
included in our appropriations a bill that I sponsored creating
an aging infrastructure account, if you recall that. It is
within the Treasury Department, and it will provide funds
directly, dedicated to making sure our infrastructure remains
up to date and efficient.
In December we made major progress when this language, as I
said, was included in our year-end spending package. So thank
you for your support on that.
This newly created account will be able to be used by the
bureau to offer long-term loans to water managers and operators
of Federal water storage and delivery infrastructure. In other
words, this account would be used to address significant
maintenance backlog at reclamation facilities, projects that
must be paid for by irrigation districts like the one that I
represent.
While this would be funded through appropriations,
obviously to get started, the repayment of those loans by
project operators and the beneficiaries would then be
redeposited into the account and revolve to meet other needs in
the future around the Nation.
So as the funding subcommittee for reclamation, we must
begin to put away some funding for the aging infrastructure
accounts so that we can begin reinvesting in our aging and
vital western water infrastructure. And this is a commitment by
the Federal Government. It will be a huge win for many
communities, but certainly those like mine that heavily rely on
this water infrastructure for our way of life.
And so I just wanted to thank you all for being here today.
I want to thank you, Chairwoman Kaptur, for allowing me to make
some comments on this very important topic.
Thank you very much. And I will yield back the balance of
my time.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much, Mr. Newhouse. We are
always so glad to have you. Your background in agriculture is
vital, as well as the kind of trade that you do in the far
northwestern part of our country, so you really are very
diligent, hardworking member.
I just want to make sure we don't have anyone else that is
currently on the list.
So we will move to our second round, and I want to thank
all of our witnesses again. Thank you for taking the time to be
with us, and as you have heard from several people, including
Congressman Newhouse, this subcommittee actually gets along.
Every single person is a hardworking member.
You will never see us on the national news as we do the
country's business, and that is something for Americans to
reflect upon, where the hard work is done at the subcommittee
level, listening to Americans who really have something to say,
but you can't get it in a three-word sound bite.
And I just want to thank our members. We have had total
participation today of our large subcommittee. That says
something also. And I just wish there were a way to communicate
this better to America.
Before I ask my question, I also want to say to the staff
who are listening, particularly to Jamie Shimek, a clerk on the
subcommittee side, as well as Matt Kaplan on my own staff, to
Mike Brain who has done so much work. And I know Mike Simpson
will recognize those on his side of the aisle. They have just
done marvelous--young Americans who are contributing and really
having an extraordinary experience in their own young lives to
make a difference for our country. So I want to thank all of
them.
And also for our members and their staffs, if you want to
have fun, there is a great little film I was notified, it is
about 5 minutes or something, called ``Kiss the Ground.''
Congresswoman Scott, the Chairman of the Agriculture Committee
actually told me about it.
So if you want to think about the kind of challenges that
we face in this new century, that is a really well done piece.
If you haven't seen it, you can just go to the internet and
look at it, and you will have fun watching it. It is about
regenerative soils. It is about water. It is about what we face
in terms of carbon capture. And we all have a lot to absorb and
improve what this country does through our powers on this
subcommittee.
The other thing I wanted to recommend is that you go to the
website to something called the Washington, D.C., the D.C.
Public Works Department. They have built right near where we
work here at the Capitol the most amazing building that
actually works with waste water, treats it, but turns it to
energy and also a vast fertilizer plant right here at the edge
of the Capitol.
It is amazing. It is the new America, and I recommend it to
every member of our subcommittee to take a look at that website
and think about what that means for your community and for this
subcommittee in our work as we move toward a recovery bill.
All right. Now, in terms of questions, for myself I would
like to say to--let me see, I just wanted to ask Ms. Becker, I
will offer my two questions first and then will listen for the
answer.
Ms. Becker, the recent drought monitor shows that 80
percent of the west is in drought and 40 percent in extreme
drought. Can you clarify for the record how much of that is
actually on Native American reservations? Are you dryer than
most of the west? I am just curious whether you would express--
does that fit with what you are experiencing, 80 percent in
drought but 40 percent in extreme drought? How much of the
tribal regions that you are aware of are in extreme drought?
Does that mimic the proportions that I have just stated?
And then to Mr. Winston, thank you so much for giving voice
to the Great Lakes today. We need to hear more from the Great
Lakes region. But I wanted to ask you, in looking forward
toward investments in a recovery bill, what can you say about
multimodal links through the Saint Lawrence Seaway system
working with our Canadian brethren to move cargo with so many
of our communities, such as Chicago, backed up, Halifax backed
up, what kind of solutions can the corridor called the Saint
Lawrence Seaway Development Administration, what can be done
there with multimodal to make us more relevant in this global
congestion that we have been experiencing and also as the
shortest distance to the ports of northern Europe? Do you have
ideas about that as we move toward a recovery bill?
Maybe first Ms. Becker.
Ms. Becker. Thank you, Chairwoman Kaptur.
The answer is yes, on the Navajo Nation, we are
experiencing extreme--severe, extreme, or exceptional drought.
And, regrettably, for many, many months you could see the
Navajo Nation outlined in red on the drought monitoring. We are
very much experiencing extreme drought in the four corners
region of the Navajo in the United States.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much for that clarification.
Thank you so very much. We will do what we can to help. You
have been a very excellent witness, and I thank you for coming.
Ms. Becker. Thank you, Chairwoman. It is an honor.
Ms. Kaptur. And also Mr. Winston?
Mr. Winston. Thank you for the question, Chairwoman Kaptur.
Certainly I believe multimodal linkage, particularly within
the Great Lakes and just from a national standpoint, will be
critical for our ability to move goods and services across the
distribution channel. We have a very good system here,
particularly at the Port of Toledo where we have the port
connecting to several first class tier railroad systems, and we
have the luxury of having I-80, I-90 going east and west, and
I-75 going north and south here.
I think it is going to be critically important, as I
mentioned earlier, supporting the maritime functions and the
Great Lakes through Soo Locks, the existing Soo Locks system,
as well as the new lock system that is underway. That is going
to really be I believe the core opportunity for us to have the
goods and services and commodities coming through the vessel
channels.
That Soo Lock is very, very important. There is a study
that is being done that if there is some issues within that Soo
Locks, and I will just say for a 6-month period, that could
lead to unemployment of 10, 11 million individuals within the
system, as well as the economic impact.
And I believe looking at our rail system, from the
multimodal standpoint, I think is critical as well. There is a
need to move with expediency, and having these systems connect
with each other with the latest and greatest technology will be
astronomical for our success from an industry standpoint and
moving goods and services across the highway.
Infrastructure, in essence, is in place. We need to invest
in some of these infrastructures that have not had the proper
investment in the past. This committee has been great in doing
that. There is another committee, I believe, that supported
port infrastructure, particularly the maritime grant funding
that helps the ports and other infrastructure that have been
utilized to help multimodal. And I believe particularly this
particular committee, as well as some of the other structures
that are in place working with the private sector, but also
working with the local organizations, like a port here, that we
really have our feet on the ground here, and we can expedite
things much quicker if there is a channel and authority
opportunities from Federal straight to a regional organization
or directly to a local organization to get things done in a
more efficient manner.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much. I look for further
clarification. The Canadian rail spurs that come into the
United States and what the possibility is for cooperation with
the deep water ports in Canada at Halifax and at potentially
the Straits of Canso. And what--if it is economically feasible
even. And I am just very, very interested as we move into
infrastructure what we can do working with our rail companies.
So there isn't time right now, but just know that I am really
interested in that.
Congressman Simpson.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, I don't have any
further questions, but I would like to thank the witnesses for
being here today and for their testimony. Interesting subject
that we will continue to work on.
Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much. And I want to thank
Congressman Simpson for just being a royal pleasure to work
with. And we don't always agree on everything, but we get the
work done.
And that concludes this afternoon's hearing. Again, I would
like to thank our witnesses, each of them, for joining us
today--Mr. DeGood, Ms. Becker, Mr. Winston, and Mr. Uhley. I
ask the witnesses to please ensure for the hearing record that
questions for the record and any supporting information
requested by the subcommittee are delivered in final form to us
no later than 3 weeks from the time you receive them.
Members who have additional questions, for the record, will
have until the close of business on Monday to provide them to
the subcommittee. And I will officially say, our hearing is
adjourned. Thank you all.
[Questions and answers submitted for the record follow:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Wednesday, March 17, 2021.

DOMESTIC MANUFACTURING FOR A CLEAN ENERGY FUTURE

WITNESSES

ROXANNE BROWN, INTERNATIONAL VICE PRESIDENT AT LARGE, UNITED
STEELWORKERS
DR. PAT CHOATE, DIRECTOR, MANUFACTURING POLICY PROJECT
TIM CORTES, CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER, PLUG POWER
DR. THOMAS KURFESS, CHIEF MANUFACTURING OFFICER, INTERIM DIRECTOR--
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE DIVISION, OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY
Ms. Kaptur. This hearing will now come to order.
Thank you all for participating. As this hearing is fully
virtual, we must address a few housekeeping matters.
For today's meeting, the chair or staff designated by the
chair may mute participants' microphones when they are not
under recognition for the purpose of eliminating inadvertent
background noise.
Members are responsible for muting and unmuting themselves.
And if I notice you have not unmuted yourself, I will ask if
you would like the staff to unmute you. If you indicate
approval by nodding, the staff will unmute your microphone.
I remind all members and witnesses that the 5-minute clock
still applies. If there is a technology issue, we will move to
the next member until the issue is resolved. And you will
retain the balance of your time.
You will notice a clock on your screen that will show how
much time is remaining. At 1 minute remaining, the clock will
turn to yellow. At 30 seconds remaining, I will gently tap the
gavel to remind members that their time has almost expired. And
when your time has expired, the clock will turn red, and I will
begin to politely recognize the next member.
In terms of the speaking order, we will follow the order
set forth in the House rules beginning with the chair and
ranking member. Then members present at the time the hearing is
called to order will be recognized in order of seniority and,
finally, members not present at the time the hearing is called
to order.
Finally, House rules require me to remind you that we have
set up an email address to which members can send anything they
wish to submit but do so in writing at any of our hearings or
markups. That email address has been provided in advance to
your staffs.
I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes for my opening
statement.
Again, let me extend a warm welcome to all of our members
and distinguished witnesses. Today we will discuss how domestic
manufacturing will anchor the Build Back Better agenda. The
clean energy future of our Nation and our ability to reboot and
energize the domestic manufacturing economy depends on the
Department of Energy's programs for inventing the future. We
must create and even bring back good-paying jobs here at home.
Addressing climate change is our portal to sustain life on
Earth for generations to come.
Headlines coast to coast tell the story. The Earth is
warming. The rate of increase of damaging weather events is
unrelenting. We personally experience, our colleagues
experience the impacts of this historic change. If we fail to
address this hastening crisis, it is to our collective peril.
As we discussed at our first hearing, technologies and
innovations are already helping address climate change. They
have led to widespread deployment, consumer savings, and good-
paying jobs. For example, solar installations in the year 2020
set a new record. And there is now enough solar to power
17,700,000 American homes.
For motor vehicles, 98 percent of the gasoline sold in the
United States includes 10 percent ethanol, showing that
renewable fuels as the future of agriculture, while we watch
agriculture positioned to plant millions of acres of crop cover
to absorb more carbon while restoring and regenerating soils
with higher nutrient content.
Clean energy jobs are the future. American solar jobs have
increased 167 percent over the last decade. And according to
environmental entrepreneurs, clean energy workers earn an
average median wage of $23.89 an hour, 25 percent higher than
the national median wage. Clean energy sector jobs are more
likely unionized and come with better healthcare and retirement
benefits.
Beyond installation jobs, our Nation must manufacture the
wind turbines and solar panels here in the United States. We
must squarely meet predatory competition posed by nations like
China that do not hesitate to steal intellectual property. Our
efforts must be dedicated to commercializing new technologies
for electric vehicles and obviously hydrogen fuel cells. We
must reinvent and retool our transportation and our domestic
vehicle industry and produce those vehicles here at home.
I applaud President Joe Biden for pointing out serious
shortages of domestically produced silicon chips impacting our
manufacturing supply chain. And while we continue to pursue
innovation for new-age energy technologies like advanced
nuclear, carbon capture, hydrogen, and efficient grid
transmission, we must plan ahead strategically so those
industries and jobs are based here in America.
Employment in U.S. manufacturing has continued to decline
from 17.3 million jobs in 2000 to 12.2 million jobs in 2020.
And that is why we must urgently make the investments in clean
energy, manufacturing, and infrastructure to provide a much
needed opportunity for job creation and real-wealth generation
as distinct from financial markets that surpassed manufacturing
as the key sector of corporate profits starting back in 1995.
Innovation will be critical to developing strategies for
transforming energy-intensive processes like the buildings all
around us, the ones we are sitting in, like the facilities that
process water and waste water, along with energy-intensive
sectors and industries like steel, cement, refining, and auto
and truck production.
Investing in manufacturing will create jobs for
electricians, welders, solar installers, roofers, plumbers,
pipe fitters, engineers, steam fitters, boilermakers, and many
others. Training must be extended for workers too often left
behind so their skill levels will translate to a number of
jobs. And I am elated that President Biden supports a national
strategy to develop a low-carbon manufacturing economy, and
Secretary of Energy Granholm has been promoting place-based
investment plans to help regions that have been falling behind.
As you can see in the map, manufacturing job losses have
disproportionately harmed specific places. We must create jobs
that reinvest in areas and workers who too often have been left
behind including manufacturing workers in rural communities and
blue collar workers in industries that have closed or been
outsourced. As people and communities succeed, so will America.
To our witnesses we look forward to hearing from you.
And I will now turn to our very capable ranking member, Mr.
Simpson, for opening remarks.
[The statement of Ms. Kaptur follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Chairwoman Kaptur. I am happy to
join you once again on the Energy and Water Appropriations
Subcommittee as we start this new Congress. I would like to
echo your welcome to our witnesses.
We thank you all for participating today and look forward
to hearing your perspectives on domestic manufacturing for a
clean energy future.
Frankly, domestic manufacturing to keep and create good-
paying jobs here in the United States is important. It is
especially relevant when the technology to be manufactured was
developed here and when it was developed with Federal taxpayer
dollars.
The Department of Energy's Advanced Manufacturing Office
directly supports investigation of new manufacturing
technologies. Several other programs also support efforts that
could benefit domestic manufacturing and reduced industrial
emissions. For instance, the Office of Nuclear Energy is
working to demonstrate producing hydrogen at existing nuclear
power plants. Hydrogen as a fuel source has a great potential
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, especially when the
hydrogen is produced from clean sources like nuclear energy.
This process can also help extend the viability of nuclear
reactors which are a good source of clean baseload power for
the electrical grid.
To truly support domestic manufacturing, what we must
recognize is that there are hurdles beyond the jurisdictions of
this subcommittee, hurdles beyond technology development.
Intellectual property must also be protected. Regulatory
overreach must be corrected, and we must not rely so heavily on
foreign sources for critical materials.
The Trump administration initiated strong efforts to
address these issues, and we must continue and further
strengthen these measures supporting domestic manufacturing.
I look forward to further exploring these issues with our
witnesses. I thank Chairwoman Kaptur for calling this hearing
and look forward to hearing from our witnesses.
Thank you.
Ms. Kaptur. I thank our ranking member very much. Like him,
I am very excited for our witnesses joining us here today. I
welcome your observation of how innovation in the energy field
can confront the challenges of climate change, while creating
more and better jobs in manufacturing.
First we will have Dr. Pat Choate. Dr. Choate is Director
of the Manufacturing Policy Project. An economist and
development strategist, Dr. Choate has served on several
presidential and congressional commissions, served as Vice
President of Public Policy at the TRW corporation, a hi-tech
international conglomerate.
Served as an economic advisor to commissions in Oklahoma
and Tennessee, and has given expert testimony before Congress
numerous times and is an author of nine books and is proudly a
preeminent expert on patents, trade, and infrastructure.
Additionally, he has worked on and advised numerous national
and regional economic development organizations.
Next we will have Ms. Roxanne Brown, the International Vice
President at Large, United Steelworkers.
Ms. Brown oversees the union's public policy and
legislative agenda, as well as its political work. She has
represented the steelworkers with global policymakers including
at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
And she was a founding Steering Committee member of the
renowned BlueGreen Alliance.
Following that, we will have Mr. Tim Cortes, the Chief
Technology Officer of Plug Power. Plug Power is a leading
hydrogen and fuel cell company. Mr. Cortes is responsible for
the company's long-term technology strategy and vision. And
prior to joining Plug Power, Mr. Cortes served as Chief
Technology Officer and Vice President of Engineering at Smiths
Power.
And finally, we will have Dr. Tom Kurfess who is the Chief
Manufacturing Officer and Interim Director of the Manufacturing
Science division at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Dr. Kurfess
is responsible for the strategic planning for advanced
manufacturing at Oak Ridge. And he has significant experience
in production operations, manufacturing systems, and policy
issues related to advanced manufacturing.
Thank you. Thank you all for taking the time to be with us
today. Without objection, your written statements will be
entered into the record. Please feel free to summarize your
remarks in about 5 minutes each.
We will start with Dr. Choate.
Dr. Choate. [Inaudible] Makes five points. First, energy
inefficient buildings are our largest source of greenhouse
emissions.
Two, several new technologies are available or will soon be
available that will allow us to tackle the climate crisis at
scale quickly and cost effectively. I will describe one such.
Three, these new technologies can have cities realize
significant amounts of new revenues through savings.
Four, manufacturing and installing these technologies
offers a real chance to create millions of good, new, long-term
American jobs.
And five, where these factories are located can help reduce
the massive regional inequality that has emerged over the past
4 decades.
To the first point, both the U.S. Department of Energy and
the United Nations report that energy inefficient buildings
create more unwanted emissions than all transportation
combined--that is, cars, trains, planes, ships--and they create
more emissions than all industry combined.
In New York City, 70 percent of greenhouse emissions are
from buildings. Moreover, 90 percent of those buildings will
still be in use 30 years from now. And this concentration is a
good thing for dealing with climate change. As I will explain
later. Fixing our cities now, therefore, is essential.
Three, important new clean climate technologies or cost of
commercialization are at the early stage of deployment. Over
the past decade I have worked with many of those inventors and
highlight one such technology in my testimony.
Specifically, thermal heat extraction from raw sewage can
harvest massive amounts of clean energy and pour cooling and
heating through heat pumps while emanating zero carbon
emissions. Think geothermal. Instead of holes drilled into the
Earth, which is invasive and expensive, the heat is drawn from
sewer waste water which uses existing sewer lines, is
inexpensive, and is quick.
A striking demonstration of this technology exists \1/3\ of
a mile from the Capitol at the new DC Water headquarters. In a
3-year-old, 151,000-square-foot smart glass building, sitting
atop a 100-year-old sewer pumping station, the heat used to
cool and heat the building is drawn from the waste water. DC
Water saves more than $100,000 annually for its heating and
cooling. It also saves more than 1.5 million gallons of fresh
water that otherwise would have been used in the air
conditioning cooling towers. Most pertinent, this waste heat
system emits zero greenhouse emissions.
Third point. If this technology is linked by a loop to many
buildings on the same sewer system, major new revenues can be
created for cities' water and sewer authorities. This is really
important.
Four, creating a clean climate necessitates that these
climate technologies and machines be manufactured and
installed. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of new jobs
can be created. I argue that these machines should be
manufactured in the U.S.A. And the jobs filled by American
workers, no offshoring on this.
Fifth and finally, where this manufacturing is located
offers the Congress and the President a direct means to
confront America's growing regional inequality. Today regional
inequality is out of control. Between the early 1930s and the
end of the 1970s, incomes converged towards a high single-
American standard of living. But since the late 1970s, the
inequality between a few locations at the expense of other
regions has soared. The community distress index reference in
my testimony reveals this.
Where the Nation chooses to locate these new factories and
jobs can help directly reverse regional inequality. In sum,
climate change is the most dangerous threat the United States
has faced in generations. But it is also a massive
manufacturing and jobs opportunity, and it offers an almost
once-in-a-generation opportunity to reverse the worsening
regional inequality, in essence, to reinforce a fading American
dream.
Thank you for having me, and I look forward to your
questions.
[The statement of Dr. Choate follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Dr. Choate, very much.
Ms. Brown, please begin.
Ms. Brown. Thank you, Chairwoman Kaptur and Ranking Member
Simpson and members of the subcommittee.
My name is Roxanne Brown, and I am honored to serve as
International Vice President At Large for the United
Steelworkers Union.
Chairwoman Kaptur, I send special greetings to you from the
over 600 USW members at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion
facility in Piketon, Ohio. You and the subcommittee have been
strong and consistent champions for them in the work you do,
and our union can't thank you enough.
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to
discuss the critical role domestic manufacturing and its
workers play in the transition to a clean energy economy. Done
correctly, America can recover from this economic crisis
stronger than ever before, having maintained and created
millions of good union manufacturing jobs.
As the largest industrial union in North America, the
Steelworks Union has members concentrated in energy-intensive,
trade-exposed industries that produce primary commodity
products. We want to ensure that manufacturing and our members,
some of whom should be appearing on the screen now, are not
overlooked in the development of clean energy policy. Their
industries and the products they make are essential for the
reconstruction of our failing infrastructure systems. But these
industries are also uniquely at risk of emissions and jobs
leakage, absent sufficient policies to prevent that leakage.
Addressing climate change not only meets our environmental
principles but can also drive job and production growth in the
United States. For our union, there is never a question about
the reason we need to decarbonize the industrial sector. Our
members are not climate deniers. They live and work in their
communities, and they see and feel the impacts of climate
change.
Our members in the refining sector in the Gulf have surely
experienced their share of superstorms over the years. The
questions for them are about the unintended impacts of clean
energy policies, and these unintended impacts would be layered
on top of ongoing battles with unbalanced trade practices that
affect almost all of our trade-exposed sectors.
A robust domestic manufacturing sector, supplying the clean
energy transition, is not just important to our members but
also to their communities. The average steelworker is paid
about $85,000 a year, plus benefits. Those wages ripple out
into the community and help fund infrastructure projects,
schools, and hospitals, not to mention the multiplier effect as
for every one job in the U.S. steel industry alone, seven more
are created.
So for our union we have to strike a very delicate balance.
It is clear that our economy is undercalling an energy
transition, and it is clear that the industrial sector will
also need to go through this transition. A key goal of clean
energy policies has to be to help bring backbone industries
like glass and steel, chemicals and cement into the new
economy. My testimony details some of the policies we view as
necessary as we engage in this conversation.
But some top lines are, first, workers have to be at the
table. You can't develop worker-focused policy if workers have
no input. So we very much appreciate the opportunity to be here
today.
Second, investments in clean energy manufacturing. It will
take a suite of policies to ensure an even more efficient
manufacturing sector including things like a clean technology
manufacturing and industrial bank, broader manufacturing R&D,
grid modernization, investments in carbon capture utilization
and sequestration and direct air capture technologies.
Third, make the products and technologies here. We have to
harness American innovation into products and technologies to
achieve the transition to a clean energy economy. There are so
many examples of technologies like wind energy being innovated
here but widely deployed elsewhere. We have to do better.
Fourth, buy America. A bedrock policy for our union are
``buy America'' policies. Taxpayers overwhelmingly want that
money to be spent creating jobs here in the U.S. It is crucial
that strong ``buy America'' preferences is applied to
infrastructure investments.
American workers in industry are the best in the world. For
this transition to be successful, manufacturing workers and the
communities in which they live must be the leaders of this
transition, not the victims of it.
That is the mission, and that is the goal. Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Brown follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Ms. Kaptur. Thank you so much.
Mr. Cortes, please begin.
Mr. Cortes. Thank you, Chairwoman Kaptur.
[inaudible] Energy and decarbonizing the U.S. economy.
The Federal Government has a critical role to play in the
success of this industry.
And on behalf of our CEO, Andy Marsh, and all the employees
of Plug Power, I look forward to working with the committee as
you explore opportunities to accelerate development of clean
hydrogen and fuel cell technologies across a wide spectrum of
American industries and economic sectors.
A hydrogen fuel cell generates power by combining hydrogen
and oxygen to produce electricity without combustion, producing
only water and heat as byproducts. This zero-emission
alternative energy source can be used in a growing number of
applications including electric vehicles such as forklifts,
delivery vans, and cars. Additionally, hydrogen fuel cells can
produce enough energy to provide both primary and backup power
for a variety of commercial, industrial, and residential
buildings. Finally, clean hydrogen can be used to decarbonize
other transportation sectors like aviation and marine, as well
as heavy industrial processes.
In addition to decarbonizing entire sectors of the economy,
it is estimated in the 2020 McKinsey Reporter, the ``Roadmap to
a U.S. Hydrogen Economy,'' that by 2030 the U.S. hydrogen
economy can generate $140 billion of revenue and support
700,000 jobs across the hydrogen value chain. By 2050, this
number has the potential to raise to $750 billion in revenue
and a cumulative 3.4 million jobs. Achieving this vision will
require collaboration between the Federal Government and the
private sector to establish key economic incentives that drive
innovation and investment.
Unlocking the potential of clean hydrogen will require
progress on three fronts: Federal Government support of key
programs at the Department of Energy and other agencies
throughout the government, favorable tax incentives enabling
the scaleup of clean hydrogen production, and Federal
Government investment for large-scale clean hydrogen
production, scaleup of manufacturing of electrolyzers and fuel
cells, establishing a nationwide refueling network for on- and
off-road zero emission vehicles, and building the
infrastructure needed to transport clean hydrogen to markets.
We are the leading national provider of comprehensive
hydrogen and fuel cell turnkey solutions. The company's
innovative technology is an example of the paradigm shift in
the power, energy, and transportation industries to address
climate change and energy security, while striving to meet
sustainability goals. We aim to build the first green hydrogen
generation network across the U.S. and are working with
multiple renewable energy companies across the country to
provide clean energy to our green hydrogen production
facilities.
Last year during the COVID pandemic, as an essential
business, 30 percent of all retail food and groceries in the
United States went through a distribution center powered by
Plug Power hydrogen e-mobility systems. We are expanding our
network and have created jobs nationwide. Last year our company
added 427 new jobs, 49.47 percent increase from the previous
year. And importantly we did not eliminate any positions during
this time. Today we employ over 1,300 people across the country
and have almost 200 new open positions that must be filled
immediately.
We also are honored to be a preferred employer for a 137-
person veteran workforce. These green-collar jobs Plug Power
provides specifically on our service team complement the
training and the discipline our employees learned while in the
U.S. military.
Plug Power will be opening its innovation center this year
in Rochester, New York. This will mark a significant expansion
based on the need and demand in the production and
manufacturing capabilities for fuel cells and electrolyzers.
Plug Power will invest $125 million in the local economy,
creating 375 new jobs and bringing materials and component
suppliers to the region.
We are thankful to Congress for its past support for clean
hydrogen including maintaining robust appropriations for the
DOE's hydrogen and fuel subtechnology program in recent years.
In particular, funding through the annual appropriations and
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Plug Power
developed hydrogen and fuel cell products for concept and
commercialization.
Finally, although it is not in the jurisdiction of this
committee, other policies will be essential to complement the
work of DOE to achieve full economic and environmental
potential of the clean hydrogen industry. Toward that end we
hope Congress will consider establishing new clean hydrogen tax
incentives for production and investments in nationwide
hydrogen infrastructure.
Again, I want to thank the members of the committee for
allowing me to testify on behalf of Plug Power, on the ways in
which the Federal Government may assist in the acceleration of
the use of clean hydrogen to decarbonize the American economy,
and create millions of new domestic jobs in the process.
I look forward to answering your questions.
[The statement of Mr. Cortes follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Cortes.
Dr. Kurfess, please begin.
Dr. Kurfess. My name is--there you go. We unmuted. Of
course, that is a typical goof there in terms of WebEx.
Thanks again, Chairwoman Kaptur and Ranking Member Simpson,
for the invitation to participate here.
My name is Tom Kurfess. As was stated before, I am the
Chief Manufacturing Officer for the U.S. Department of Energy,
Oak Ridge National Laboratory. My formal training is
engineering and computer science, but I have got manufacturing
in my blood.
I grew up in a small machine shop in the Chicago area, and
what I am here to tell you today is really what the Department
of Energy's national laboratories are doing to develop,
demonstrate, and deploy the latest and greatest scientific and
technical capabilities for advanced manufacturing here in the
United States, not just for the big players but for all the
small, medium-sized enterprises. It is called democratizing
advanced manufacturing getting out there.
I don't think it is a big secret in terms of how important
manufacturing is: 12 million jobs in 2018, $2.3 trillion in
terms of economic activity, 11\1/2\ percent of the gross
domestic product. Every dollar you spend in manufacturing, 274
is added to the economy. And really what we are doing here at
Oak Ridge National Laboratory is to bring over 5,500 scientists
and engineers together in more than 100 disciplines to move
advanced manufacturing forward.
We are doing this via one of the areas is our manufacturing
demonstration facility, DOE's only R&D facility of its kind. It
basically provides our industry partners with infrastructure
tools and, in particular, expertise to move forward new
technologies in advanced manufacturing.
We have work with over 200 industry collaborators, 54
universities, and we engage our sister laboratories, 10 other
laboratories we have work with. Our mantra is ``Innovate faster
than the competition can copy.'' Our vision is rapid innovation
and ensure a U.S. dominance in advanced manufacturing. And our
mission is to identify, scale up, and integrate critical
technologies for new and emerging advanced manufacturing
sectors.
We do this with a hub-and-spoke model. We partner with
industry, university partners, and other national labs
throughout the country. Actually the University of Toledo is
one of them. We just had a big workshop in terms of using 3D
printing, metal 3D printing to generate molds for the
automotive sector. Rather than waiting for a year or two for
those molds to come into China, we should be able to produce
those, here locally, so that we can turn around new car designs
within just a matter of months.
Also looking at some of the material models, so instead of
metal, why not carbon fiber technology? So we have an entire
pilot plant here that produces 25 tons a year in a roll-to-roll
process. So it comes off, and it rolls up on a roll. We
actually worked with Cummins. And we provided a significant
support. Cummins is now producing 1 million N95 masks a day
based on the technology developed over here. Not only are they
producing masks but they have great jobs as well. So the idea
is really: How do we move this technology forward?
By the way, you see behind me in my virtual background. All
this is just about 50 meters away. It is our MedUSA system.
These three robots are putting down metal in a large-scale
metal 3D printer that we could use to make these guys for the
automotive sectors, things that are stamping out car doors and
so forth.
So the bottom line is that really together with our
university and industry partners and the other national
laboratories we are developing and demonstrating advanced
capabilities.
Again, carbon fiber technology, this is what you see on
lightweight vehicles. If you take a look at the large-scale
wind turbines, those blades are carbon fiber. The same role-to-
role technology we are using to move battery technology forward
which is critical for clean energy, where are we going to store
all that solar energy?
Speaking of solar energy, again, roll-to-roll, we are
producing--when you do that, you use--roll to roll--technology
for solar panels and solar cells. So manufacturing is here. We
are working together with our industry partner. What we do for
them is we take a look at the next-generation technology. We
derisk it. We help them move it into their production
operations.
So the bottom line is, together with our university and
industry strategic partners and the other national
laboratories, we will innovate faster than the competition can
copy. We are developing, demonstrating, and deploying advanced
technology that will keep the U.S. manufacturing sector at the
forefront of innovation and score the creation of highly-
compensated jobs. By leveraging the assets of the National
Laboratory system through a variety of agreements, the private
industry can derisk their innovation and accelerate
commercialization.
We look forward to continuing our scientific and
engineering pursuits in the form of clean, efficient, and
sustainable manufacturing for the Nation's prosperity and
security. Anytime you want to come out and take a look at some
of our facilities, let me know. You are most welcome, and it
will be looking at something like you were in a Star Wars
movie, because you can see right behind me there. My kids tell
me I look like Dr. Octopus with those robots coming out of me.
But it is unbelievably hi-tech, and it really is next-
generation technology.
Thanks very much for your opportunity to testify today in
front of this distinct committee, and I welcome your questions
on this important topic.
[The statement of Dr. Kurfess follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Ms. Kaptur. Thank you so very much, Dr. Kurfess.
And what an outstanding panel this has been, and we have
had outstanding turnout of members as well today. So your
message is falling on very fertile ground.
We are going to begin questions. We have been interrupted
by votes, and some members may have to go vote and come back. I
will ask Congresswoman Kirkpatrick to replace me when I am
forced to leave just to make the vote.
But I will start questions with Dr. Choate. I would like to
ask him to please expand on your point that new technology can
be used to create a new financing mechanism for city, water,
and sewer authorities. That was a very interesting statement in
your presentation.
And then, secondly, how can we confront the regional
inequality issue as we address the need to give a reboot to
manufacturing in our country.
Dr. Choate. Thank you, Representative Kaptur.
On the question of financing, what happens in this new
technology that exists out at DC Water is it makes massive fuel
savings. The energy is pulled out of the wastewater that is
flowing through there and, as such, DC Water is saving about
$100,000 a year just on fuel savings. It is saving probably
another $10,000 or $12,000 on not having to produce water for
their air conditioning. They save about 1.5 million gallons of
water per year as such.
Now imagine, for example, that that building were put into
a hot water loop with buildings around it. Those savings could
increase substantially, almost proportionately. Those savings
themselves could then be capitalized on. They could, for
example, be used to create a sinking fund. They could be used
to issue bonds as such.
The savings from a business perspective are substantial.
The cost of the device that was put in is about $300,000. The
installation is about $600,000. This is a system, if it is put
into a series, can save and can be paid off in 2 to 3 years.
You take that on a machine that is designed to last for 45
years. You put it in a city such as Washington or Toledo or
Cleveland or Denver, and you will generate millions of dollars
of revenue.
Now one of the thoughts that comes to my mind doing that is
to perhaps consider changing the Federal formulas in a way that
doesn't seem obvious. What if we had a 6 percent Federal match
and a 94 percent local match but the local match is helped by
the Federal Government to receive private money?
In other words, the Federal Government could create a
regional infrastructure bank. That bank would back the bonds
with that assured set of revenues dedicated through a sinking
fund. This could almost be a AAA bond, low interest money, as
it could pay off very quickly. Those revenues then could be
used for repair, replacement, rehabilitation, and to further
expand the system. The water system itself becomes a major
source of revenues that the city can use.
As to the regional question, the problems that were
identified, for example, in your chart, regional income, and in
the chart that I put up on regional distress are widespread.
But they are also heavily concentrated. They are concentrated
in the Great Lakes. They are concentrated in the Mississippi
Valley. They are concentrated on the Crescent on the southern
borderer, in parts of the northwestern United States. They
require special attention.
The model for dealing with this is the Tennessee Valley
Authority. Here is an independent authority that has
supplemental funds. It has wide authority to invest in
infrastructure, economic development. And more importantly, it
can deal with problems across the region. Many of the problems
are not simply isolated to a State or a community but are truly
regional in nature.
This will allow those States working together with the
Federal Government to lay out long-term plans to sustain long-
term efforts and make the case for a substantial increase of
funds to deal with what is truly a national problem that they
cannot solve on their own.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you so very much.
Just this morning I got off a telephone call relative to
the automotive industry that is a regionally troubling issue in
the Great Lakes. So thank you for recognizing that our coast
exists. I truly appreciate it: It is heavy industry.
So I wanted to move to our ranking member, Mr. Simpson, for
questions. Then we will have a second round as members rotate.
And when I am forced to leave to go vote, I will be back. I
will ask Congresswoman Kirkpatrick if she could take the gavel
at that point.
Thank you, Dr. Choate.
Dr. Choate. Thank you.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Chairwoman Kaptur.
First, Mr. Cortes, let me ask you. At the Idaho National
Laboratory, the INL, we are leading a trylab effort on
integrated energy systems to harness, to process heat from
nuclear pants and turn it into hydrogen. The research at the
INL is centered on a high-temperature electrolysis that has the
potential to deeply decarbonize steelmaking and other
refractory processes.
Do you agree than an abundant and inexpensive hydrogen
produced from non-carbon energy sources such as nuclear can
make the U.S. manufacturing of these building materials more
environmentally sustainable?
Mr. Cortes. Yeah, absolutely. So, Plug Power recently, we
made two acquisitions last year. One of them was actually an
electrolyzer company that is based in Boston, Massachusetts. As
we have looked at our green hydrogen initiative and our
strategy for the future, we are definitely focused on all
energies that are considered renewable including nuclear.
So we are looking at wind, solar, hydro, nuclear and how
can those--how can we take advantage of those existing
technologies and those existing energy sources that are
renewable to help us grow and expand our capacity in terms of
our green hydrogen.
So the network that we are build out, that we want to
building out is a green hydrogen network. It will be based on
renewables and it will be based on electrolysis and we are
considering nuclear power, as well as other renewable sources.
Absolutely.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Dr. Kurfess, a catalyst is a material that speeds up and
directs chemical reactions. I know that you already know that.
Catalysts are the backbone of chemical manufacturing. Ninety
percent of all chemical production relies on a catalyst. We
need them to make everything from diapers to diesels.
Over the past several years at this committee's direction
DOE has provided for research of dynamic catalyst science with
data analytics. These investments have provided the tools that
researchers need to study how chemical reactions unfold on real
catalysts, allowing for a pivot from catalyst trial and error
to science-based design for advanced catalyst materials.
This breakthrough will allow for the use of more effective
catalysts and cut the energy use and carbon intensity of
chemical manufacturing processes. What benefits do you believe
radically lower carbon chemical manufacturing processes
designed for distributed dynamic operations will have on the
manufacturing sector at large and the U.S. competitiveness?
Dr. Kurfess. Yeah, so that is a great question, Congressman
Simpson.
And I believe that this is--so, first of all, it is a
perfect area for us to be in because a lot of these catalysts
and so forth are very important in terms of reducing our energy
consumption. So, again, you reduce energy consumption, you make
our processes much more competitive and so forth. It also
allows us to really scale up more green capabilities as we take
a look at really being able to leverage our production
operations, and really you are talking chemical sector. You are
talking petrochemical and so forth. It is a huge amount of
energy consumption.
So if we could use these catalysts and move these catalysts
forward and, again, to lower the energy requirements for
consumption, not only is it great in terms of reducing carbon
output and consumption or production in our processes but it
also allows us to use lower amounts of energy. A combination of
these two, again, just makes us more energy efficient. Energy
efficient makes us much more capable in terms of our
competitiveness.
The other thing I really want to point out is we can
reduce. We all see that energy costs do fluctuate around. They
fluctuate around the recent situation in Texas, then you could
have some significant fluctuations. If we could reduce that
consumption of energy, then you could actually make the
manufacturing operations more robust to flexible pricing and so
forth. You could actually have reduced risks in that. You
reduce the risk for carbon emissions. You reduce the risks for
energy fluctuation and cost fluctuation. It would pretty much
guarantee a better profit margin.
Thank you.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
Let me ask you one more question before I have to go vote.
This subcommittee previously has heard many anecdotes
suggesting it is difficult for private companies to engage
partnerships with the National Laboratory. Your testimony,
however, discusses the many partnerships that Oak Ridge
National Lab has, one of our great national laboratories,
especially through the manufacturing and demonstration
facilities.
Could you please discuss any challenges to establishing
these partnerships, and do you have any suggestions on how we
can let more companies and innovators know about the
capabilities available at our labs to help them with their
manufacturing questions?
Dr. Kurfess. Yes. So, first of all, I think the biggest
challenge is really people are concerned about intellectual
property and who owns it and so forth. The bottom line there is
we have really streamlined the process. We have put out the
best possible deal. We are not interested--we are not
interested in making money off of this. We are interested in
having U.S. companies make money off of it, strengthening our
national security. So I think that is a key thing in terms of
just streamlining the process.
In terms of what we might do to have people come out, look,
we have several thousand visitors coming through our facility.
So we are actually now, I mean, one of the pluses, if you will,
for the current virus is we do have virtual tours that are
going on and so forth. Again, we want to make sure these are
U.S.-type companies going through. We do have these kind of
operations, but people just come through. I would say let's
make sure we get the word out.
And you mentioned a couple of other laboratories. We work
closely with those laboratories. So, in fact, we are making
plugs for them. You mentioned Idaho over in the cybersecurity
area. We are working together in all these different areas to
make sure that our industry partners really see it. It is that
engagement, the virtual tours and also just the engagement of
industry.
So please send them down to us. As soon as we can open our
doors, come on down. We are willing to have people come
through, and you are welcome.
Mr. Simpson. Well, thank you for that. Thank you for that,
and thank you for the work you do at Oak Ridge. It is truly one
of our great national laboratories.
I yield back.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick [presiding]. I am taking over for the
chairwoman while she goes to vote. I am Representative Ann
Kirkpatrick.
And at this time I would like to recognize Chairwoman
DeLauro.
The Chair. Thank you very, very much, Ann. I would just
take this opportunity to say to you that I am going to miss
you, my friend. Going to miss you and just God love you. You
are the best, and say hello to your children for me as well. I
have deep, wonderful memories of being with them in New Haven.
So, my question is for Ms. Brown. I think we all share the
desire to create good-paying American manufacturing jobs, and
millions of jobs can be created by a clean energy revolution.
You know, again, we believe the U.S. has the opportunity to
reassert itself as a manufacturing powerhouse for renewable
energy technologies.
I am concerned about American-led innovations moving
offshore for skilled-up manufacturing. You know, technologies
will require a highly skilled workforce that we need to prepare
for. So I am interested in hearing more about what measures you
think the subcommittee can take to ensure that American workers
are in a strong position in this regard. What opportunities
exist for educational and workforce training for your
membership? What is the best way to incentivize this expansion?
Ms. Brown. Thank you so much for the question, Chairwoman
DeLauro, and it is so great to see you.
So I think for us it is layered. We are not a building
trades union, and so we don't offer the traditional training
halls that building trade unions do. However, a lot of our
employers, our members' employers, do offer, you know, on-the-
job trainings for, you know, upskilling and learning additional
skills at their facilities. So that is one piece of it and
making sure that those partnerships can be created with those
employers and local community colleges for an example.
The former ArcelorMittal Steel, which is now Cleveland-
Cliffs, ran the ``Steelworkers for the Future'' program. It was
a program that allowed, you know, steelworkers to be trained
up. After they were trained up, they were able to get an
associate's degree and they were placed at an Arcelor facility.
That is a great program and a model that can be replicated
across the manufacturing sector.
But I think the other piece of it goes to what you said
about these technologies being developed here and then going
elsewhere. I think a big thing that we can do rests a lot in
what is happening at our national labs. You know, innovating,
breeding the technologies here, making sure that there is buy-
in from the domestic producers of these technologies and,
therefore, making sure there is buy-in from domestic
manufacturers, so somehow creating a link between what is
happening at the labs, what is happening with the producers of
these technologies, and the needs of domestic manufacturers,
because in many cases--and you know, this has been been
discussed--small and medium-sized manufacturers in particular
know that they need help decarbonizing but they don't know what
is available for them to do that. They don't know what is
happening at the national labs. They don't know the types of
technologies that are being discussed.
So I think creating that link between the labs, the
producers of the technology, and the manufacturers would be
really, really key in making sure there is actually a market
for the use of those technologies here.
The Chair. So we can deal with incentivizing the labs and
linking up the producers and the manufacturing and then your
emphasis on looking at community colleges and industry so that
they can partner in terms of apprenticeship programs,
internship programs, those kinds of the efforts to develop the
workforce. Thank you. Thank you very much very much. Thank you.
I have about a minute or more left.
So let me ask Dr. Kurfess, and I will just truncate any
introduction to this. We are trying to reduce global greenhouse
gas emissions. We are trying to make a transition to clean
energy, critical in reaching the goal. You highlighted ORNL's
work--wind turbine, carbon capture, battery storage, lower
emissions.
Given that we need to move quickly the terms of a
transition on additional resources, what incentives are
necessary for greater industry investment in clean energy
manufacturing, clean energy transition?
Dr. Kurfess. The bottom line--thanks again, Will, for
unmuting me.
The bottom line here is that I think the incentives are
really in many cases in place. We really need to get that
carbon out, but the cost of energy continues to go up. The idea
is sort of let's use less energy. Let's make use of the carbon.
Really what we are working towards is making it cost effective
to do this. So how do we move this forward?
I agree with actually what Ms. Brown has said. The bottom
line is really making sure that, you know, what we need to
incentivize is to have the workforce that can use the
technology. It really increases your profit margin. So, you
know, to us it is really about how do we make it more
profitable. The bottom line is the green option is very much
profitable, and it also really de-risks this. So these are the
types of things that we look at, but we have got to get that
right workforce space in there to help us move forward.
And I want to point out. When we talk about universities
and colleges, it is about next generation but it is also about
current generation. That current generation workforce can
easily be retooled. You take your smartphone. You go check the
weather. You are accessing constellations of mili-satellites,
supercomputing models, and a whole to tell you whether to take
an umbrella out or not. People are comfortable with it. We can
do the same thing in manufacturing.
The Chair. Hear. Hear. Thank you. I know I ran out of time.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
I have got to tell Congresswoman Kaptur and our ranking
member I love the visuals in the backgrounds here. Done a great
job with the creatively with the visuals.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you, Rosa. I appreciate your
thoughts and your perspective.
I now like to represent--recognize Mr. Fleischmann for his
comments and questions.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Chair.
As you well know, our ORNL has a tremendous track record of
facilitating the transition of technologies out of laboratory
out of a laboratory setting and into the economy. Ment
companies, universities, and research institutes have
cooperative agreements with ORNL and other national labs in the
manufacturing, science spaces. How do we engage our smaller
companies, mom-and-pop shops that make up the backbone of the
U.S. manufacturing ecosystem?
Dr. Kurfess.
Dr. Kurfess. Well, thank you, Congressman Fleischmann.
This is a great question because really this is like 85
percent of our manufacturing operations. It is so critical to
the middle class.
Part of the engagement, of course, is working through
resources like the Manufacturing Extension Partnership out of
the Department of Commerce. Other elements are really
engaging--I think we heard from Ms. Brown--really engaging on
the educational side to make sure that these companies know
that technology is there. You go to them. They buy a piece of
equipment. It is state of the art. They are not buying a 20-
year-old piece of equipment. It is state of the art. What they
need to know is they need to know how to use it, how to connect
it up in a secure fashion.
CyManII, our cybersecurity institute that Oakridge is a big
province. Sandia is in there. Idaho is in there. We are showing
them how to really connect it up and not worry about a lot of
the security issues because they are prepared for it. So it is
an issue of engaging them.
The hub-and-spoke model is perfect. Really as we engage--
and the larger companies do get it. As we engage the larger
companies, they know their supply chain needs to be brought
along as well. I think a lot of what is happening, there is a
realization that, you know, it is not just the big people are
putting together the cars or the aircraft. It is everybody is
making all the way down to the nuts and bolts. They are
important. That realization and understanding and making sure
that they can move forward with everybody else is critical. So,
again, universities, hub-and-spoke type of models, excellent
way to operate.
Thank you.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you. A follow-up. I will ask for a
quick response because I have a question for Dr. Cortes. This
is again for you, Dr. Kurfess. This morning another
subcommittee on which I serve as ranking member, the Homeland
Security subcommittee, held a hearing with two former DHS
secretaries, one Republican and Democratic. We discussed a
myriad of challenges, threats, and issues but cybersecurity,
understandable, came up numerous times. Are there any specific
cybersecurity concerns related to manufacturing that are being
addressed by your operations?
Dr. Kurfess. Yes. So I will say there are really a couple
of large ones. One is on just the personnel side, again,
getting back to workforce development. Most of our
cybersecurity problems really come from human errors and so
forth and people not paying attention or not following the
right protocol. So there is a lot of training going on that we
are working on.
The other one is really just to put together the right type
of hardware and software to defend against cyber breaches and
so forth. What I will tell you is it is not about building a
wall. It is really staying--it is just like I said before:
Innovating faster than the competition to copy. We have got to
stay ahead of them in terms of technologies and knowing how it
is going on, knowing what to look for and knowing how to react
very quickly. Thank you.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you.
Dr. Cortes, I understand there will be a renewed focus on
the Department of Energy's loan programs to support the
deployment of renewable and clean energy. How could a program
like DOE's Title XVII loan guarantee program help the hydrogen
industry and companies like Plug Power.
Mr. Cortes. Yeah, thank you very much for the question.
The Title XVII loan program has definitely demonstrated its
ability to support innovative technologies, being deployed for
the first time on a commercial scale.
So if you look at the program's existing portfolio, you can
see that it has been an instrumental role and played in help
launching the utility scale's solar industry a decade ago. We
are very hopeful that the enthusiasm from Secretary Granholm's
Title XVII and the experience brings together the role of the
executive director of DOE's loan program office.
There will, again, be tremendous opportunity to help
support new technologies and industries particularly like green
hydrogen and fuel cells that are necessary to achieve near-zero
emissions by 2050. These programs have been instrumental. We
are looking forward to the opportunity to continue to take
advantage and use those as we moved forward to build additional
opportunities within the sector from a manufacturing standpoint
but also to, you know, create more additional jobs.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you.
My time is growing near. As a longtime supporter, Dr.
Cortes, of hydrogen and fuel cells, I am pleased to see the
wide range of activities that the DOE around hydrogen, energy,
and fuel cell technologies across various offices. What should
DOE do to ensure there is a coordination and effort between
these programs to ensure that we are maximizing our investments
and preventing duplication of effort, sir?
Mr. Cortes. Yeah, absolutely. So Plug Power in the
industry, you know, are very pleased and appreciate the R&D and
the other support for hydrogen energy and fuel cell
technologies within the hydrogen fuel cell technology office,
as well as within the Office of Fossil Energy.
As new sectors emerge to utilize hydrogen to decarbonize
the industrial processes and operations, it is even more
important, we feel, for interior and intra-agency coordination
with the DOE and other Federal agencies, as well as with
industry, to ensure that these investments truly have the
maximum impact in moving the industry and all the applications
forward. So that better tightly-coupled communication and work
together between the other offices we think can really bear a
tremendous amount of fruit as the potential for hydrogen within
other sectors becomes readily available.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Cortes.
Thank all the witnesses, and I yield back.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Fleischmann. I appreciate
your perspective, especially because I think Oakridge is in
your district, isn't it? Yes. I thought so.
Mr. Fleischmann. That is correct.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. I don't see Congresswoman Wasserman
Schultz is on. So I am going to call on myself for questions.
You know, my home state of Arizona is the second fastest
growing state in the country with massive population growth and
development in some parts of the state. At the same time
Arizona is really on the front line of climate change.
Temperatures are rising every year and we are seeing more
extreme flooding and our wildfires are getting more and more
severe.
I talked to manufacturers in Arizona who tell me that it is
too expensive to stay in Arizona when they could just move
their operations to Mexico just a few miles away. This can't
continue. We have to ensure that our workforce has access to
good-paying union jobs here in the United States, and we must
prioritize clean energy solutions at the same time.
So my question is--and this is for everyone on the panel--
how can this subcommittee best prioritize underserved
communities, job training, and expanding the capabilities of
the American workforce as we looked to modernize our energy
infrastructure and workforce?
Ms. Brown. Congresswoman Kirkpatrick, this is Roxanne
Brown.
You know, I think a key way to do that is to build equities
into the policies that the committee--that the subcommittee
will be advancing. And one of those equities, as I mentioned in
my testimony, buy America. You know, if there is a preference
placed on the products that American workers--in many cases,
union workers--are making across the spectrum--you know, I
mentioned our members are in all of commodity based industries,
from steel to glass to aluminum, cement, you know, mining.
If we are placing a preference on those products that are
being made by American workers domestically and we are saying
that for all of our systems, you know, for infrastructure, for
these clean technology systems, wherever taxpayer dollars are
used, there should be a preference placed across the board on
domestically produced products. I think that is one piece of
it.
The second piece of it is also something that is in my
testimony. Buy clean, you know, which would be layered on top
of buy America. That is another equity that can be built in for
domestic industry. You know, U.S. manufacturers are really the
most efficient in the world, and so, with benefit from a policy
that places a preference on goods made in the cleanest, most
efficient ways, again, in many cases, by union workers.
So I think, you know, building those types of equities into
the policies that are generated are key ways of ensuring that,
you know, there are investments being made--they lead to good
business decisions, I think--would be really key.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you, Ms. Brown. Thank you very
much.
Anybody else on the panel like to comment on that?
Dr. Choate. Yes.
Dr. Kurfess. I would. I will just add very quickly--this is
Tom Kurfess--that Ms. Brown couldn't be more correct. And let
me tell you the other thing that I look at is--so I want to
make sure that there isn't a misconception that--that I am all
for having it made in America. So moving this technology
forward, really leveraging the technology, having the well-
trained workforce makes us much more efficient, as she has
directly said.
And what a lot of companies are starting to find is you can
build things in the United States of America, you can make
money, and you can actually do better than building them
anywhere else in the world. So the bottom line is we are
competitive, and we need to drive that across.
And, by the way, this is not just me blowing smoke here. It
really is. We see a lot of our large industry partners shifting
over here. I'll just give you an example. BMW's largest
production facility, South Carolina. So, I mean, yeah. This is
just one of the things that we should be looking at.
So it is--it is not a pipe dream. It is not charity and so
forth. It is a reality that it makes business sense.
Dr. Choate. Congresswoman, I am Pat Choate. May I make a
couple of comments?
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Sure. Please.
Dr. Choate. I live in Tucson, and I am very pleased that
you represent me and my family, and we were disappointed to
learn that you will be retiring.
Several things can be done. The first thing is we need to
create a national capital budget for our infrastructure. We
need to lay out a long-term plan specifically what we are going
to do.
Secondly, we should buy the materials and the equipment
from American companies, or even foreign companies but are
located in the U.S. and/or have a domestic content. There are
other things that we can get into, but we need some very
specific agendas.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you. Thank you very much.
I would like now to recognize Mr. Fleischmann for--I mean,
Newhouse for any questions he might have.
Mr. Newhouse.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you very much, Acting Chair
Kirkpatrick. Let me just say I too am disappointed to hear
about your retirement plan, so look forward to continuing
working with you in this term.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you.
Mr. Newhouse. Yes. Yes. Thank you very much. This is an
important topic, and I appreciate the hosting of this hearing
on the domestic manufacturing for our clean energy future.
And, if I could just humbly, but proudly say that I am a
champion for clean energy. My district in central Washington
State, if you didn't know, we are at the forefront of leading
our Nation's clean energy solutions. We are a leader in both
clean energy production and innovation.
And I believe our region should serve as an example for
this committee, but also for the country, the importance of a
diversified energy mix and how a holistic approach to energy
production can provide reliable energy to millions while
supporting thousands of well-paying jobs.
So I am glad to see a representative for the United
Steelworkers with us today--thank you--as we discuss domestic
manufacturing jobs in America's energy sector.
From our world-class hydroelectric system to the only
nuclear-generating station in more than a dozen States, to
hosting the largest solar and wind farms in the State of
Washington, which are only made possible due to our hydro and
our nuclear baseload systems, we love our clean energy in
Washington State, and we love our clean energy jobs. And I
really am very proud of the example we set.
What I am not proud of, though, if I may, Madam Chair, is
this administration recklessly and heartlessly tearing away
thousands of American jobs in the middle of a global pandemic.
What I am not proud of is President Biden, on his first day in
office, unilaterally signing away thousands of well-paying jobs
by halting construction of the Keystone XL pipeline with the
flick of a pen.
What I am not proud of is this administration leaving local
communities in the west in limbo as they try to manage the dire
implications of the moratorium on Federal oil and gas leasing
on their State, local, and education budgets.
Madam Chair, these unilateral approaches by President Biden
and his administration are simply, in my view, unconscionable
in the face of a global pandemic that, as we all know, has
wreaked havoc on rural communities in the west and across the
country.
I simply refuse to lend any credence to the notion that the
greatest country on the planet cannot both champion clean
energy innovation, which we do, and climate solutions, which we
do, while recognizing the continued need for traditional energy
resources and ensuring American workers in these sectors are
not having their livelihoods ripped away from them with the
flick of a pen, but that is exactly what President Biden has
done. It is heartless, it is unconscionability, and I believe
it is absolutely wrong.
Ms. Brown, again, welcome. Your brothers and sisters at the
North America's Building Trades Union recently released a
comprehensive report assessing job quality in the energy
sector. The results of the study found quality job
opportunities in the oil and natural gas construction sector,
and both union and nonunion energy construction workers report
that oil and natural gas jobs are better overall careers for
them.
If I may quote Sean McGarvey, the president of the Building
Trades Union, quote, ``the findings outlined in these reports
demonstrate that today's oil and natural gas jobs are better
for energy construction workers across the country in both the
short and the long term. Research confirms what our members
tell us. The career opportunities for renewables are nowhere
near what they are in gas and oil, and domestic energy workers
highly value the safety, reliable duration, and compensation of
oil and gas construction jobs,'' end quote.
Madam Chair, I ask that this report be entered into the
record.
Mr. Newhouse. So my question for you, Ms. Brown, with the
short time we have remaining, with millions of Americans
unemployed because of the impacts of COVID-19 and the lockdowns
on our economy, is it a smart idea to unilaterally eliminate
existing jobs simply because they happen to be in an industry
that many of my Democrat friends find unfashionable?
Ms. Brown.
Ms. Brown. Congressman Newhouse, I really appreciate that
question.
Two things, I would say. Number one, there was an
opportunity for the Keystone XL pipeline project to actually
have significant jobs benefits across--across the country, both
in the building and construction trades, and also on the
manufacturing side where our union lives. And unfortunately it
was extremely lacking on the use of domestically produced steel
pipe. They chose to source pipe from India. And so it was
questionable in terms of the overall jobs impact that that
project would have had.
But the second piece of your question, it is a very little
known fact, I think, about our union, is we represent more than
30,000 men and women in the domestic refining sector, and the
crux of your question, I appreciate, because this is why it is
difficult for labor. Our members in the refining sector make,
on average, you know, $120,000 a year, and it is a--we can't--
we can't tell them that they then should look to--forget about
their jobs and look to jobs installing solar panels, right,
that would pay them, you know, maybe $20 an hour.
So, to your point, we are focused on making sure that the
jobs that do exist for our members are able to exist for the
long term, and that is why, for us, for our members in the
refining sector, we are looking at carbon capture utilization
and sequestration technology. We want to make sure that that
technology is deployable at scale so that those existing jobs
at those existing facilities can be brought into the future.
And that is our focus.
But you pinpoint a very complicated issue that remains
within the labor community.
Mr. Newhouse. Well, I appreciate that. I really--I have to
say, though, that there certainly were jobs lost due to that
one decision--8 to 10,000 jobs immediately lost. And, you know,
the things that you talk about are great goals. I don't argue
that.
But we have got to get to the future. We just can't, you
know, wiggle our nose and blink our eyes, and we are there.
There has to be opportunity for people to continue to make a
living in the meantime, and these jobs are being ripped away
now. And that is, you know, not--whether a pandemic or not,
that is not a good thing.
And so I appreciate your response. But I have been to some
of these small communities in the areas where they are directly
impacted by these decisions, and I wish I could bring those
folks here so that you and the rest of the committee could see
their faces, hear their stories.
When I use those words I used, it is not just some
rhetoric. These are things I have witnessed myself, seen in
people's eyes the struggles that they are having, and I just
wanted to point out the fact that these have consequences.
These decisions have hard consequences for working men and
women across this country.
And I appreciate your answer.
And, Madam Chair, I know my time has long expired, but
thank you very much for helping answer that question.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Without objection--without objection, the
report is entered into the record.
[The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Mr. Newhouse. Thank you very much.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. And thank you for your kind words.
So I would like now to recognize my neighbor from Nevada,
Representative Susie Lee.
Mrs. Lee. Thank you. I want to thank the Chairwoman Kaptur
and ranking member for having this important hearing today, and
thank you, Congresswoman Kirkpatrick, for filling in.
You know, I think that boosting the manufacturing is going
to be crucial to helping fuel an economic recovery for working
families, and I have been pleased to see that the Biden
administration is rolling out policies to support manufacturing
growth in the United States.
But we must also support the expansion of clean energy
generation capacity ensuring that we are on the forefront of
clean energy export markets for the future.
And I am really proud that my home State of Nevada is one
of seven States to have committed to 100 percent clean energy,
and this progress has been achieved with the leadership and
partnership of the private sector, with companies such as
Switch, which is a technology company focused on the design and
operation of data centers. Switch is now using 100 percent
renewable energy for all of its operations.
We have gotten great results in Nevada with our State
seeing an increase of 66.6 percent in the use of clean energy
over the past decade, while the national average has been just
a 20 percent increase.
There is still plenty of work to be done on a national
level, and I am looking forward to working in a bipartisan
manner on this subcommittee to find some real solutions to
these issues.
Dr. Choate, I wanted to ask you: In your testimony, you
talked about the heating and cooling making up the majority of
energy use in the building sector. As you stated, since 2010,
space cooling is the fastest growing use of energy in buildings
growing by 8 percent a year.
As I am sure you can imagine, coming from a State
representing the Las Vegas area, this problem is especially
concerning because we are in a hotter State, and, despite being
a leader in renewable energy, Nevada's electricity consumption
often exceeds our in-state generation, and additional
electricity supplies are often brought into Nevada over high-
voltage transmission lines from other States.
Can you speak to challenges that States are facing in
keeping up with the energy demands while incorporating a shift
towards renewable energy within the overall grid?
Dr. Choate. Yes, ma'am, I can.
Basically, I live in Tucson. We have experienced the same
problems of energy demand. What we now see is a real
breakthrough in technology in heat transfer, blowing heat from
sewer. There is an inventor and a company in Germany. There is
one in Canada.
What is happening in parts of Europe, what is happening in
parts of Canada, is you are having a major shift where
buildings are adopting this new technology and are pulling
their heat from the sewer systems. Vancouver is under a process
to put roughly 20 million square feet of heating and cooling to
drive it off of sewer heat.
Washington, D.C. has the--is the only city in the country
that has representations of the two technologies, one from
Germany. It is at the American Geophysical Building at 2000
Rhode Island, I think, and then the D.C. Water System.
If we make the shift in cities such as Las Vegas and Reno
and Tucson and Phoenix to these types of systems, first of all,
we can cut the cost of heating and cooling in old buildings by
up to as much as 70 percent, and, in new buildings that are
super energy efficient, such as D.C. Water, we can cut it up to
30 percent.
And we can do that--when we do that, there will be zero
emissions from our heating and cooling. This is a wonderful
opportunity. I am convinced this technology is going to be
adapted worldwide.
There will need to be tens of thousands of units
manufactured. These are the kinds of jobs that the steelworkers
do. I have worked with the steelworkers over many years. These
are the kinds of jobs that--of installation that our existing
trades can do.
We can do this very quickly. The very fact that most of the
infrastructure is in place--we have the sewer lines. We have
the water lines. All we need is that connection of this device
to pull it out. We can take the existing heating and cooling
equipment in the building and modify it, leaving the existing
boilers as backup.
This is a great new potential that this technology offers
to the country.
Mrs. Lee. Thank you. It sounds very exciting. Love to bring
you out to Las Vegas and introduce you to some of our big
hotels and see if we can lead the way. I am not--
Dr. Choate. May I say something?
Mrs. Lee. Yeah.
Dr. Choate. The D.C. Water System is a third of a mile from
the Capitol. I am sure they would be delighted to show you the
system in operation so you can see what is really possible for
Las Vegas and other parts of the country.
Mrs. Lee. Absolutely. Thank you.
I am over my time, and I yield. Thanks.
Ms. Kaptur [presiding]. Thank you, Congresswoman Lee.
We are going to do a special committee meeting up there. I
don't know how we are going to do it, but I think our
membership would be astounded to see what is going on, and you
really see the future. That is for sure.
I talked to Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton about that.
And so, Congresswoman Kirkpatrick, thank you for subbing. I
really do appreciate your efforts.
Congressman Reschenthaler.
Mr. Reschenthaler. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate it.
You know, critical minerals are necessary to manufacture
everything from cell phones to weapons systems. Additionally,
some on the left fail to recognize this, but critical minerals
are also needed to build things like Tesla batteries and even
wind turbines.
And, despite having a $6.2 trillion value in our domestic
critical mineral reserves, we as the United States still rely
on China for roughly 80 percent of our rare earth elements.
What makes this even worse is that the Department of the
Interior and DOD listed 35 minerals as critical. China has 23--
has a leading edge on 23 of the 35 of those minerals. So
basically 23 out of the 35 critical minerals we need are
controlled by the Chinese Communist Party.
At the same time, not only is that a threat to us in terms
of national security; it is also a threat to the global
environment, because China emits more greenhouse gases than the
United States, Japan, and the European Union combined.
So, given our reliance on Chinese minerals, given the fact
that China has a horrible record of being good stewards of the
environment, we need to recognize that any green manufacturing
policies that we implement in the United States will simply be
undercut by China's abysmal standards on the environment.
So, if we are serious about reducing manufacturing--
reducing manufacturing impact on the environment, we have to
come to the reality that we have got to mine critical minerals
here in the United States. And, remember, thanks to American
innovation, the United States currently leads the world in CO2
emission and reduction. In fact, prior to COVID, we were the
only Nation--even though we had not--we had gotten out of the
treaty, we were the only Nation in the Paris Climate Accord to
actually do anything to reduce CO2 emissions.
So we can and we should deploy American ingenuity to take
advantage of our domestic supply chain of critical minerals to
not only strengthen our industrial base, improve our national
security, but also to make sure that we are good stewards of
the global environment.
So, that said, Dr. Kurfess, in your testimony, you note
that Oak Ridge National Laboratory's work on green
manufacturing and advanced battery areas rely heavily on these
critical minerals. Do you have a recommendation for how this
subcommittee can facilitate solutions to reduce our Nation's
reliance on China and their stranglehold on critical minerals,
in particular how Congress can help cultivate our own domestic
supply chain?
Dr. Kurfess. Yes, Congressman. Excellent question.
And I really think that there are a couple of different
approaches here. One certainly is to say, you know, how do we
mine these critical minerals? So a good chunk of them are
available here in the U.S., but it actually has not been very
cost effective due to, you know--you know, due to technology
limitations and so forth. So one of the things that is really
taking a look at next-generation technology is to allow us to
mine these and then subsequently really process them, will
actually give us a very good opportunity to move forward. That
is one approach to this.
Still, I think that you do have these rare earth minerals
and so forth that are difficult to mine, and they are hard to
process and so forth.
The other one is really coming up with new designs. And we
are working very closely with a number of different partners
both on the battery side as well as, for example, electric
motors side, where we can eliminate the use of these materials
in the product.
And I think, if you do that, all of a sudden, you have a
tremendous advantage over our international competition,
because now we can produce those here in the U.S. We can market
those abroad. And number one is we are no longer relying on the
foreign supply, for example, from China.
And, number two, we are also meeting a lot of the standards
that we are seeing other nations are also putting forward. So
it is going to allow us to mine things and process things using
the latest technology, but number two is figure out how we
substitute if we don't make use of those types of materials.
Thank you.
Mr. Reschenthaler. Thank you. No, thank you.
And, Ms. Brown, in your testimony, you said--and I quote--
''we must invest in, expand, and refocus existing DOE energy
and manufacturing loan programs to establish strength, domestic
clean technology manufacturing and supply chains.''
Do you believe that USW believes that critical minerals
should--and the supply chain of critical minerals should be
included in these efforts?
Ms. Brown. Absolutely. I will keep it very short and just
say absolutely. And, in fact, in 2019, we held a summit on
sustainable mining with our union, a handful of environmental
organizations, and a large global miner, Rio Tinto, to talk
exactly about this. And we have been heavily engaged in this
work since then, because we need critical materials, as you
pointed out.
Thank you.
Mr. Reschenthaler. Okay. Thanks, Ms. Brown. I appreciate
it.
And thanks, Dr. Kurfess.
With that, Madam Chair, I yield back, and thank you.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. Very good. And I think it would be
useful to submit those--the names of those minerals and
substances to the record, Congressman, and let's get DOE to
respond a little more thoroughly, okay? With me on that?
Mr. Reschenthaler. Yes. Yes, Madam Chair. I will get you
those for the record. Thank you.
Ms. Kaptur. All right. Very good. Thank you. Thank you so
very much.
[The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

I think Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz is next.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Brown, I want to thank you for raising the often
overlooked issue of carbon leakage. I really believe, in many
cases, offshoring emissions has gone hand-in-hand with the
offshoring of manufacturing jobs to countries with weaker labor
standards.
Ms. Brown. Uh-huh.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So we need to not only create
manufacturing jobs here in America, but we also need to make
sure that they are clean manufacturing jobs that we create here
in America. And I know that is possible.
So, if you or anyone else on the panel can chime in as
well, can you talk about this relationship? And how can we stop
carbon-intensive activities from being offshored rather than
being actually mitigated?
Ms. Brown. I think it really boils down to investment, and
I think, you know, I am--I am heartened to be a part of this
panel, because I think, to a person, the theme--the two key
themes are investment and innovation. And, you know, I think,
if we focused all of our collective efforts in those two
places, then that will, without question, lead to the
competitiveness of domestic industry so that it could--it
could, you know, prevent that leakage to other nations.
But this is where it is critical to have the programs that
DOE operates in terms of low-cost loans and grants and other
funding mechanisms to make it affordable for domestic industry,
again, especially small and medium-sized facilities and
industries, to be able to make those investments.
If the investments don't have--happen, industry will not be
here, because clearly we are transitioning. And, if it is not
profitable for them to ultimately do business here because they
haven't been able to reduce or decarbonize their facilities as
we move into this regime, you know, survival is not there.
And so those are the two areas that I would say as we focus
on investment and innovation for domestic industry.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. It sounds like you are saying it is
really three Is, investment, innovation, and incentives?
Ms. Brown. That is right. That is right.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. So----
Dr. Choate. May I--may I add another----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Yes, please.
Dr. Choate [continuing]. Element to that?
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Yes, please.
Mr. Choate. Basically what we are doing is we are competing
with the government of China, as such. American industry, when
they compete with China, it is not a Chinese company. They are
competing with the Chinese government.
What we require, I believe, is a national overarching
policy, for example, on advanced technology products. Last
year, we ran 192 [inaudible] And 500 advanced technology
products. The preponderance of that came from China. When you
take a look last year at trade--global trade in advanced
technology products, China exported more than $600 billion. We
were fifth in the world at $171 billion.
Now, the Chinese engaged in the strategic policy to control
not only the rare earths, the 17 rare earths; they had a
strategic policy to control key technology, such as
semiconductors.
What we need is an across-the-board advanced technology
product agenda. We need to be in a position where we simply
say, if you are going to sell advanced technology products,
particularly the critical ones, that you are going to make them
in the United States--it really doesn't matter who owns the
company, but you must have 100 percent of local content. So you
have got the R&D, you are training the workers, and ideally you
would have at least two suppliers in that.
So we do that, we link it with our universities, we link it
with our research, and we have a holistic--whole-of-government
approach. The difficulty that we have now is we have a trade
policy that doesn't recognize this, and we have a policy, as we
are dealing with it in bits and drabs here and there in various
departments. We need the whole-of-the-government approach and a
whole-of-the-government strategy on advanced technology
products. It will create hundreds of thousands of new jobs in
the process and better secure our national security.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. And, in my final 30
seconds, I want to just ask Dr. Kurfess: Given the life cycle
emissions for solar and wind are far lower than coal and fossil
fuels, manufacturing clean energy source technologies like PV
panels still generates some emissions. The National Renewable
Energy Laboratory found that 60 to 70 percent of those solar
panels' life cycle emissions come from upstream processes like
extraction--materials extraction and manufacturing.
How can we reduce these upstream emissions, and what kind
of R&D is already out there looking at this challenge?
Dr. Kurfess. So, in terms of reducing it, really we do see
it--we do see a lot of carbon capture techniques or
capabilities that we are developing here at Oak Ridge and at
some of our other national laboratories to ensure that, as you
are producing something, that you are capturing the carbon, you
are actually recycling the carbon, sequestering the carbon. So
there is a lot of good work there.
The other thing, of course, is that, as we look at really
improving the capability of these solar panels, for example, or
the wind turbines, for example, their lifetime expands further
out. So, if I double my lifetime, really the carbon impact is
50 percent. It really reduces it down.
So improved product, as well as processes that are low
carbon emission, and actually capturing that carbon would be
a--I mean, a great way to go, and this is the direction that we
are moving. So thank you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you so much.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much, Congresswoman Wasserman
Schultz.
And I hope that our witnesses will provide to the record,
Dr. Choate, the various trade accounts that you referenced in
your answer to Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz where you feel
that, in terms of advanced technologies, that we are falling
behind.
And then I wanted to ask Ms. Brown if she could provide to
the record--she is not appearing on my screen right now. I hope
she is there----
Ms. Brown. I am here.
Ms. Kaptur. Okay. You mentioned in our opening remarks an
infrastructure bank. I am very interested in your submitting to
the record how you think that should be structured.
We have loan programs at the Department of Energy and so
forth, and I will be honest with you. I have been reflecting a
lot on the role of the Department of Energy in helping to
finance some of what we are doing going forward. So I would be
interested in reading that proposal, and I know our members
would as well.
We are going to now go to Congresswoman Frankel of Florida.
Ms. Frankel. Hello, everybody. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you to the panel.
This--my question is sort of a follow-up to yours, Madam
Chair. Since we are the funding committee, Appropriations
subcommittee, I would like to ask each of you if you could, you
know, give me your priorities of where--of what we should fund.
Where should we put our money, the United States Congress?
Who would like to start?
Dr. Kurfess. I will keep going. I will be fairly quick
about it. I mean, the bottom line there, our facilities like
the manufacturing demonstration facility, where we could take
next-generation or newest-generation technology, really scale
it up--so we are talking benchtop type of capabilities and so
forth, scale it up for use not only as--and, again, you know,
Ms. Brown continues to hit this on--the nail on the head. Not
only for the big companies, but also for the small, medium-
sized enterprises that are really the backbone of
manufacturing.
So the ability--I mean, invest in facilities like this that
really reach out, and provide us with the funding that allows
us to engage our key industry sectors and move them forward.
That would be a really critical opportunity and a great
opportunity, not only for Oak Ridge, but for all of the
national labs and a lot of our government entities out there.
Thank you.
Ms. Frankel. So, just to follow up on that, would that be
through a grant process, a direct appropriation? What are you
recommending?
Dr. Kurfess. So--and it is a great question.
One of the ways that we fund our partnerships with
industry--now, there are some that are direct grants that say,
yes, we really need to work in this area. This is important for
the Nation, and move it forward.
The other way is a company will come to us and say, Hey, we
are moving forward in certain technologies. So you see the big
3D printer behind me. That was with Lincoln Electric. That is a
CRADA, cooperative research and development agreement. And we
have funding--if Lincoln says, We are going to work on this,
they put in--they send us a system and so forth, and that is
part of their cost sharing, their engineering is cost shared,
Department of Energy matches it dollar for dollar to fund us to
work with them.
They supply about 80 percent of their technical know-how,
but we have got 20 percent of some unbelievable technical know-
how that they just don't have, and so we can apply that, really
derisk it for them, and help them to move it forward.
This gives us flexibility to meet what industry and what
U.S. industry is looking to--you know, looking to grow in. So
that--there are a couple of different avenues there.
One is, you know, where does the government like us--want
us to go? The other one is really what is industry voting for
with their wallet and signing CRADAs with us?
Thank you.
Ms. Frankel. Thank you.
Ms. Brown, do you have a recommendation?
Ms. Brown. Sure. You are--it was already mentioned that it
would be great to have an infrastructure bank, and that is
something that we think would be wholly beneficial to domestic
manufacturers, but two other areas.
I mentioned before carbon capture and storage, as well as
DAC, direct air capture. Those are two technologies that are
very clear would be very beneficial to industries like steel
and cement and fertilizers and refining in the United States.
So I think funding more direct loans or grants through DOE to
help get that stuff off the ground and at a deployable scale
would be tremendously beneficial.
But that is also, you know, just one piece of it. We have
the 45Q tax credit that was expanded.
We also really need to fund building out the infrastructure
for carbon capture. That has not been done to a sufficient
level. And I keep thinking in my mind--because there are no
domestic producers, especially in the steel industry, that are
using carbon capture technology, and I keep thinking in my mind
that, if we build it, they will come, right?
And so we have the tax credit that tries to attract. We
have these programs at the Department of Energy that would seek
to, you know, fund a little bit of this technology some more,
but we also need to have the infrastructure built out
throughout the country to actually move the carbon that is
sequestered through this technology.
So I feel, if we build it and we fund, you know, these core
pieces, then industry will look to these technologies as
viable, because right now, they don't.
Ms. Frankel. Thank you.
Dr. Choate.
Dr. Choate. Well, I would say--I would look for some basic
opportunities that can immediately move to create jobs.
First, I would recommend doing a national energy capital
budget, where you go to the cities and you find out what kinds
of energy projects that they have, where there are deficits,
and then lay out a plan to deal with that.
I would recommend going with heat capture. This is a brand-
new technology. It is commercialized. It is ready. I would work
with cities to try to reduce their carbon emissions 20, 30
percent. I would design a program around an infrastructure bank
to deal with that. I would invest moneys in new materials to
move those forward.
Those are some of the things that I think fall within your
purview.
Ms. Frankel. Thank you.
I yield back, Madam Chair.
Ms. Kaptur. Sorry about that. I can never put the arrow
exactly where it goes yet on the screen.
I will mention to the guests, our witnesses, that
Congresswoman Frankel is a former mayor, so I watched her
listen to those answers very, very carefully.
And I will just inform the panelists that I represent a lot
of refineries, and nobody has reached out from anywhere to try
to help us capture what is being emitted other than through EPA
regulations. So, if there is no technology out there, it hasn't
arrived where I live, and I doubt that it has arrived in
adjacent States that also have a lot of refineries.
All right. Now, let's see. Who is next here? We are at
Congresswoman Bustos, please.
Mrs. Bustos. All right. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I really appreciate you holding this hearing. You are doing
a wonderful job of really enlightening us on so many important
issues as it pertains to energy and water. And I want to thank
our witnesses for testifying also today.
Today is a pretty important day from my perspective in that
Congressman Veasey and McKinley and I introduced the
bipartisan--always love being able to say that--bill called the
Storing CO2 and Lowering Emissions Act. And, because we like
acronyms, we call it the SCALE Act.
And what it would do--this flows perfectly into this
discussion that we are having around Lois Frankel's question
that she just asked. It would make critical infrastructure
investments in carbon capture and storage so we can have net
zero emission--an economy driven by that.
So the SCALE Act is estimated to directly and indirectly
create nearly 13,000 jobs per year over each of the next 5
years. And I am from the State of Illinois. We in our State
would be fourth in the Nation in terms of new jobs created as a
result of this legislation. That is why I am pretty excited
about it.
So, Ms. Brown, I have a question for you. You started
hinting at this just a little bit with Lois Frankel's question,
but can you speak to the benefits that the SCALE Act would have
in terms of jobs for steelworkers?
And, specifically, I would like to learn more about the
indirect impact this legislation--of this legislation from your
perspective when it comes to things like feeder lines and
facilities that would be associated with a large-scale
transport infrastructure system?
Ms. Brown. Definitely. And thank you so much for the
question, Congresswoman.
I think, again, this is an extension of what we were just
talking about before about building out the infrastructure to
support technologies like carbon capture. And, you know, right
now, it is completely absent. And we are strong supporters of
the SCALE Act, so we really appreciate your leadership there.
For our union, I think the jobs benefit would be in a few
places. We are the steelworkers. We make steel pipe. And there
would be a tremendous potential benefit to steelworker jobs in
the United States who are making domestic steel pipe to
actually have their products used in the infrastructure to
build out this--these carbon pipelines. So that is one.
But, in terms of constructing the pipeline itself, you
know, you mentioned the trunk--trunkline. That would be roughly
between 1,200 to 1,500 jobs. Rhodium recently did a study that
really broke down the jobs numbers associated with scaling out,
not to--no pun intended--the carbon infrastructure, and that
was one of the projected job numbers that they put out there.
In terms of the operation jobs of the trunkline, it would be
between 8 and 20. The feeder lines would be about 200 to 370
jobs in terms of getting that going.
The steel, you know, in terms of the steel mills and carbon
capture, the jobs that would be associated with creating a
carbon capture system at a steel mill would be about 3,000.
So there are huge opportunities kind of directly and
indirectly in terms of the actual construction, the downstream
in terms of the manufacture of the pipe, but then also the
operation of the system once it is up and running.
Mrs. Bustos. Yeah. That is significant, great to hear. And
anytime we can create union jobs, we are all in. So we are
excited about that.
I think I have time to ask, and we will get an answer in
the remaining time, but the Energy Act that obviously passed
and was signed into law at the end of last year, it authorized
$775 million for demonstrations, pilots, front-end engineering
and design studies, and to deploying carbon capture at power
and industrial facilities.
In the congressional district that I represent, we have
seven biofuel refineries that are scattered in and around our
congressional district. So, for the broader group, how do you
see these robust investments in retrofitting some of our
industrial facilities like steel mills and ethanol refineries,
bolstering our domestic manufacturing capacity?
And if you could talk about how that would affect job
retention and creation.
And, again, this could be for the broader group.
How about if I call on Tom Kurfess.
Dr. Kurfess. Sure. I was just about to--I was just about to
hit my unmute button there.
So, I mean, I think basically what this does, once again,
is it makes us more competitive, because the bottom line is we
see new technology and so forth, and the way that the--the way
that we could really move forward on this is, again, to
leverage the capability of places like the national labs that
really do have centralized R&D capability, again, hub and
spoke.
Let--you know, let us work with our industry partners. We
are not going to work in a vacuum. We are working together to
make this, see and understand what works. And then let's get it
out to the spokes to make sure it is being utilized accordingly
and so forth.
And then also continues in terms of what should the new
materials be, how do we want to refine it? You know, part of my
operation is all in the chemical processing side and the
petrochemicals side, and so a lot of the biofuels. So there is
a lot of work that could be done there to really help it move
forward, including things like sensors.
We could measure some of the quantities--people said, Well,
we just don't quite know what we should be looking for, how to
do it. Once we can start to measure it--it is like your O2
sensor on your car. Once we have that thing working and we
figured that one out, we can do a lot of things in terms of
emissions control and so forth.
So just a better understanding of what we have, leveraging
our really powerful national lab and university system to
really move this forward, let us take some of the heavy lift
out of it so we can move some of these facilities forward.
Mrs. Bustos. As much as I would love to hear other people
respond to this, my time is up, and I will yield back, Madam
Speaker--Madam Chair.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much, Congresswoman Bustos, and
congratulations on introducing your bill. And I know many of us
will want to get on to that. I hope all of us.
And, as I listen to your concerns and I listen to many
members, as I listen to these brilliant witnesses, I am saying
to myself: Some of this is going to be done by public
financing. Some is going to be done by private financing. Some
is going to be done by joint capability. And what is the role
of the Department of Energy in all of this?
And, as we think about a green infrastructure bank, we
think about infrastructure banks, there is climate banks. There
are so many different proposals out there. I hope that our
witnesses and our members are thinking: What is the role of the
Department of Energy as a partner in financing some of these
new technologies, where we have technical expertise and not
just accounting expertise?
And so start thinking hard about what this looks like as we
move forward with Build Back Better.
All right. We are going to go to Congresswoman Watson
Coleman. I understand there is a photo that Congresswoman
Speier is planning for those of us who just voted on the Equal
Rights Amendment, and I am not quite sure where it is. But I
just want to inform those listening.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Bustos. It is on the steps, just so you know.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. And
thank you to the witnesses.
An advantage to being one of the last questioners is that
you get to learn a lot, but your questions also get to be
asked.
But let me turn your attention to just sort of jobs in
general. Dr. Kurfess and Mr. Cortes in particular, both spoke
to the fact that there were jobs available. Mr. Cortes, you
spoke to that in terms of your industry. And, Mr. Kurfess, you
talked--Dr. Kurfess, you talked about it in terms of
manufacturing industry in general.
I am interested in knowing what kind of jobs we are talking
about. What kind of experience, what kind of education and
training are we looking for, for people to fill these jobs? So
if you could just tell me quickly some of the categories of
jobs.
Mr. Cortes. Sure. Absolutely.
So, with respect to our industry, the types of jobs are
very vast. So all the way from scientists and engineers and
individuals doing R&D all the way to the implementation of the
product through into manufacturing. And then, as far as beyond
that, even into installation.
So we have well over a hundred refueling stations across
the country with our customers, and those installations
require, you know, trades and mill rights and electricians and
folks that actually know how to install the equipment.
Now, we have actually utilized quite a bit of individuals
from the oil and gas industry who are trying to look at how
they can make a change from their current industry that they
are working into, into a clean energy environment. So we are
creating many green-collar jobs, but----
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you.
Mr. Cortes. But, you know, the vastness of what we can
provide in terms of, you know, all of that expertise, but also
the--you know, the high-tech positions as well in terms of the
development and the R&D is really important to us, so we are
looking for those new positions----
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you.
Mr. Cortes [continuing]. That I mentioned before. You know,
they are very vast.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Let me just ask you really quickly in
your experience in observing diversity, both women and
minorities, in these jobs that you all apparently pay decent
salaries for.
Mr. Cortes. Yes.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. And it is very important.
Mr. Cortes. Yes. So, from a diversity standpoint, that is
something that we are very, very attuned to, and we continue to
look across the country to find skilled labor and a diverse
workforce.
We currently have plans in place to continue to look for
that. We have been pretty successful. We have hired quite a few
women engineers and minorities in the field, and we are going
to continue to look forward.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Right. Do you have a relationship with
the Historically Black Universities and Colleges when you are
recruiting?
Mr. Cortes. We don't, but it is an interesting question
that you ask. In my role as the chief technology officer, one
of the things that I want to focus on this year is our
relationships with universities. And part of that is finding--
--
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Good.
Mr. Cortes [continuing]. Universities, you know, from a
representation standpoint in coordination with the technology.
So those two things marry together. How do we take advantage of
universities in the technology sectors that we are in, and also
look at those, you know, diverse universities that we can pull
from.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you.
Dr. Kurfess, same kind of questions for you.
Dr. Kurfess. Sure. So, you know, I mean, I think, if you
take a look at it, one of the things that we are going to look
at in the industrial sector is a lot of good technically savvy.
What is interesting is really, you know, you don't have to
be a math or science guru or genius to really know what is
important in terms of what you want to do. You need to be
technically savvy. So, you know, even these kids that are not
focusing on the technical area, if they understand how to use a
tablet and a smartphone, they have all done a little bit of
programming in Arduino and so forth.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Uh-huh.
Dr. Kurfess. They are good to go. And so we are working
with--and, in fact, we actually--we work with the team over at
University of Tennessee Knoxville, where they just put out some
free courses, hey, here is how you would take your current
skills set and morph them over into something that a machine
shop might use. And so that has worked out really well.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Yeah.
Dr. Kurfess. In terms of the HBCUs, we actually work--and
all of the national labs. I have to say we have a lot of
integration there and so forth. We all work very closely with
the HBCUs to help move them forward and really get them going a
lot.
Our recruiting efforts, of course we really do focus on the
underrepresented groups. We have--I have to say we have some
tremendous young female engineers. And it turns out that they
are some of our best spokespeople out there. They have--they
are out there doing podcasts and so forth. And so we are
working with some of the different societies.
We have got Amy the Engineer. She is one of the people on
my staff, and the kids love her out there, and she is really
being a role model, you know, for the kids out there. I see
great engagement.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you. I just have a really quick
question for Dr. Choate. I just dropped my tablet, so here
goes.
I am really interested in this extraction of energy from
wastewater, and even the use of the water to use for air
conditioning and other purposes.
What stands between having this and not having this? Is
this something that we as a Federal Government ought to be
investing in and making possible?
Dr. Choate? Maybe I lost him?
Dr. Choate. I am here. I am sorry.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Madam Chair----
Dr. Choate. Yes. Can you hear me now, Congresswoman?
Mrs. Watson Coleman. I can, yes. I am really interested in
that whole issue of extracting energy from wastewater and just
repurposing any kind of waste that we have, but what you talked
about was very interesting to me.
How do we make this happen?
Dr. Choate. Well, first of all, the technology is
developed. There is a company in Canada that is installing it
in various places in Canada and the United States.
What we need is to scale that up dramatically. The cost
savings to cities are phenomenal. I would suggest that perhaps
you and Ms. Kaptur could go out to the D.C. Water and see a
demonstration of it.
From that point on, I earlier gave some suggestions on how
to finance this thing. I think that this can be a type of
technology where massive amounts of private money can be
brought in and where only a small amount of Federal money is
necessary to be brought in, and the savings is--are phenomenal
on the freshwater.
The whole question of freshwater conservation is going to
be increasingly important, but this is technology that gets you
to net-zero emissions immediately on your heating and air
conditioning. I think--
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you.
Dr. Choate [continuing]. It should be a priority.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you. I do as well.
And, if I had a chance to ask--to talk to Ms. Brown, I
would remind her that the city of Trenton is the capital of the
State of New Jersey and where the--where Roebling factories
were--we made iron. We made steel. We made pottery. We made
everything. And I just would love to make sure that my capital
city becomes a positive target for reinventing itself in this
new clean energy field.
Thank you. I yield back, Madam Chair.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much, Congresswoman Watson
Coleman.
I wanted to ask a question myself. And I offer the panel or
committee a chance to go up to D.C. Water. I talked to
Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton last week, and she has been
up there, but she agreed to join us at such time as we would
want to go together if members have a deep interest in that. I
really do think it is worth the effort.
I am worried about the financing of everything as we move
into a infrastructure bill, and I am thinking about our
subcommittee's work and how we include some provisions in that
bill to advance these technologies that we are talking about on
the clean energy front.
And I wanted to ask Dr. Choate and anyone who wishes to
comment if they could provide some historical context about how
places like the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Appalachian
Regional Commission, the power marketing authorities in the
west have fueled a generation of industrial growth and
community growth in those regions of the country, and most of
those instrumentalities come under our subcommittee.
So the question really is: Can you--as I look at my region,
the Great Lakes, we don't have anything like that, and we have
got massive problems with nuclear power plants that are failing
because of natural gas competition. We have got automotive and
heavy truck and U.S. Army tank operations that are huge energy
users. And we don't have the competitive energy rates, plus we
have the problem of base power load being threatened on the
nuclear front because of natural gas competition.
So it is very complicated and very difficult to figure out
how you get yourself out of this cobweb, so--and go forward. So
I wanted to ask about these other instrumentalities and what we
can learn.
And, Dr. Kurfess, you live there in the Tennessee area. You
might want to comment as well as we try to embed some of our
thinking in the infrastructure bill that is moving forward on
behalf of our energy Appropriations Committee.
Dr. Choate, and then Dr. Kurfess.
Dr. Choate. Well, just as background, when I was working
for the State of Tennessee, I was the representative for the
Ozarks Commission, a commission forum.
And then, when I was commissioner of development for the
State of Tennessee, I was the Representative for the State for
Appalachia and worked closely with the Tennessee Valley
Authority.
I think, as you go to the future, the TVA is the model to
go with, because it has an independent authority. It has
significant funds. It has operational capacity.
I would use the regional commission, such as the Crescent
Commission, the Border Commission, et cetera. I would take the
organizational structure and use it. The organizational
structure there is the president appoints a co-chair, and then
the involved governors appoint a co-chair.
I would have a professional staff, as the Appalachian
Commission has. And I would have within the bounds of those
regions a development of long, forward-looking capital budgets,
education policies that blend what the Federal Government and
the State governments are doing, and then add supplemental
funding, because more than what the country needs as a whole,
those regions require--the Great Lakes has a special
obligation. Those eight States are the trustees for 90-plus
percent of freshwater. And dealing with it by individual States
or just by EPA alone cannot really safeguard and clean up.
Now, in your region, you have major problems with
transitioning with the older nuclear plants. A plan is going to
be needed there. It needs to be a regional plan.
So my suggestion would be to have TVA-type authorities and
have a commission form of governance, have joint capital
budgets with the State and the Federal Government and with the
Federal agencies, and bring real focus to what you are
undertaking.
Ms. Kaptur. Dr. Kurfess.
Thank you, Dr. Choate.
Dr. Kurfess.
Dr. Kurfess. So I think Dr. Choate just made some very good
points on some of the policy sides.
The other thing I would really take a look at are really
what are some of the next generation of energy capability? So
you have mentioned, Congresswoman, some of these big nuclear
power plants, and of course they are very centralized, and that
does put a lot of stress on the grid right by that plant
because it is trying to get all of that power, all of that
energy out.
So some of the work that is happening, for example, in
solar and wind, where it is more distributed over a broader
area is very critical. And so I think that this is really a
very good opportunity to try and distribute it so now you are
not loading up your grid as much, and that helps out with the
grid.
Of course the other problem--people do say this--the wind
isn't blowing all the time. The sun isn't shining all the time.
So, somehow or other, we have to be able to store that energy
so we can use it a little bit later on.
So, there, we would actually take a look at--so, there, we
would actually take a look at some of the battery technology
that can store the energy for use later and try and level it
out.
The other one that is really very exciting is the small
modular reactor. So these are reactors that are using--and, in
many cases, are using things like 3D printing and so forth that
allow us to build a whole next generation of reactor that might
be on a 3 megawatt level and so forth, that can be used just to
power just a neighborhood.
So, again, these can be distributed around. You have a much
more robust system, and it also just locally helps to keep that
cost of energy at a fairly level and ultimately lower--you
know, lower price level so you don't worry about some of these
big spikes in energy when you have spikes in cost and fuel
costs and so forth.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Ms. Brown, did you have any comment on that based on what
you have said about the steel industry and your associated
companies?
Ms. Brown. No, I think both Mr. Kurfess and Dr. Choate had
really good responses. Thank you. Thank you, Chairwoman.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much.
I think Ms. Lee, Congresswoman Lee? She is no longer on. I
understand that Congressman Simpson has no questions.
Is that correct, Ranking Member? Are you there?
Mr. Simpson. Yes. That is correct.
Ms. Kaptur. All right.
Mr. Simpson. Very interesting panel. They have been great
to listen to.
Ms. Kaptur. All right. Hasn't it been an outstanding panel?
I would agree. We are just glad you are Americans, and we are
glad to be pulling with you.
We will leave the record open to further answer the
questions that we have.
I want to thank our staff, Jaime Shimek and Scott McKee and
all those who have helped us put this together today, Matt
Kaplan, and obviously on the minority side, Angie Giancarlo.
So officially this concludes the afternoon's hearing. I
would like to thank all of our witnesses for joining us today.
I ask the witnesses to please ensure for the hearing record
that questions for the record and any supporting information
requested by the subcommittee are delivered in final form to us
no later than 3 weeks from the time that you receive them.
Members who have additional questions for the record will
have until the close of business on Monday to provide them to
the subcommittee office.
At this moment the hearing is adjourned, and I thank you
all.
[Questions and answers submitted for the record follow:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Monday, May 3, 2021.

MEMBERS' DAY

Ms. Kaptur. This hearing will come to order. As this
hearing is fully virtual, we must address a few housekeeping
matters. For today's meeting, the chair, or staff designated by
the chair, may mute participants' microphones when they are not
under recognition for the purposes of eliminating inadvertent
background noise.
Members are responsible for muting and unmuting themselves.
If I notice that you have not unmuted yourself, I will ask you
if you would like the staff to unmute you. If you indicate
approval by nodding, staff will unmute your microphone.
I remind all members that you will have 5 minutes for your
oral testimony, and we welcome you warmly. If there is a
technology issue, we will move to the next member until the
issue is resolved, and you will retain the balance of your
time.
You will notice a clock on your screen that will show how
much time is remaining. At 1 minute remaining, the clock will
turn to yellow. At 30 seconds remaining, I will gently tap the
gavel to remind members that your time is almost expired. And
when your time has expired, the clock will turn red, and I will
begin to recognize the next member. In terms of the speaking
order, we will follow the predetermined order that has been
provided to your offices, beginning with the chair and ranking
members' brief opening remarks. We will then turn to the
Members present at the time the hearing is called to order, who
will be recognized according to the schedule and move forward
from there.
Finally, House rules require me to remind you that we have
set up an email address to which Members can send anything they
wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings or markups,
and that email address has been provided in advance to your
staff.
I now recognize myself for up to 5 minutes for my opening
statement which will not take 5 minutes. The subcommittee will
come to order, as we begin our Member Day hearing. Thank you to
all of our colleagues who will come before us today. We
appreciate the time you have taken to be here today and your
desire to serve your district and Nation.
The purpose of today's hearing is to take testimony from
Members on the fiscal year 2022 budget, and we look forward to
hearing from our attendees about your priorities, including
Federal programs of importance to your districts. There are
several who couldn't be here who have submitted testimony for
the record.
[The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Today we will hear from our colleague in 10-minute blocks,
with two Members scheduled for each time block. Each Member
will have 5 minutes to testify, and with that, I will turn to
our esteemed ranking member, Mr. Simpson of Idaho, for his
opening remarks.
Mr. Simpson. Well, thank you, Chairwoman Kaptur. I
appreciate the opportunity to be here today. I don't really
have an opening statement. I am here to listen to our fellow
colleagues about their priorities in the Energy and Water
Appropriation Committee, and I think it is important that we
hear from them in person.
So I appreciate the opportunity to be here and listen to
them. Mostly what I am going to be doing today is listening
more than asking questions. So thanks for putting this
together. I look forward to working with all of our colleagues
as we get into the 2022, I guess it is, appropriations cycle
this year. Thank you.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. Thank you very much, Ranking Member
Simpson.
And now we would like to invite Representative Frank Mrvan
from the greater Gary, Indiana, region of the country, and then
subsequent to his remarks, we will hear from Representative Kim
Schrier from the State of Washington. We welcome both of you.
---------- --
--------

Monday, May 3, 2021.

WITNESS

HON. FRANK J. MRVAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
INDIANA
Mr. Mrvan. Good afternoon. I would like to thank Chairwoman
Kaptur and Ranking Member Simpson for holding today's Member
Day hearing. I appreciate the opportunity to engage with all
members of this subcommittee and advocate for the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers projects that are essential to strengthening
the economy of northwest Indiana, the entire Midwest, and our
Nation.
I have the great honor and privilege of representing
Indiana's First Congressional District, following in the
footsteps of my mentor and friend, Chairman Pete Visclosky. Our
district is at the center of vital road, rail, air, and port
networks, and home to major manufacturing industries.
This infrastructure, coupled with our incredible workforce
and adjacency to the great city of Chicago, enables our region
to continue to attract new businesses and talent.
Northwest Indiana is proud to have the largest
concentration of steel production, and the largest inland oil
refinery in our country. These industries foster economic
activity and provide good-paying union jobs to thousands of
workers in my district.
From maintaining the Federal navigation depths of our
commercial harbors to ensuring northwest Indiana residents have
clean drinking water, the Chicago district of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers is a true hero and unparalleled,
longstanding partner when it comes to facilitating economic
development and promoting environmental stewardship in
northwest Indiana.
Chairman Visclosky would often state that the U.S. Corps of
Engineers' projects serve as an economic driver in Indiana's
First Congressional District, and I agree wholeheartedly.
I appreciate that Community Project Funding is an important
step in reasserting the constitutional prerogatives of the
legislative branch, and I fully understand the importance of
the subcommittee to thoughtfully scrutinize Member requests.
I believe it is critical that we exercise our
constitutional authority to direct funding to our districts,
and it is incumbent for us to submit scrutinized project
requests that are beyond reproach and focused on the criteria
set forth in this subcommittee.
For the First District of Indiana, I would note, in the
interest of time, that the subcommittee has my written
testimony and additional community supporting material. And
should you need any other information or material, please do
not hesitate to let me know.
But in short, I have asked this subcommittee to appropriate
Community Project Funding to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
construction account for the specific purpose of undertaking
environmental infrastructure projects in the Calumet region,
funding to complete the Corps' construction activities of the
Confined Disposal Facility and assist the Indiana Harbor and
funding for the Corps' operation and maintenance activities in
Burns Waterway Harbor.
In closing, I would like to, again, take a moment to
recognize my predecessor, Chairman Pete Visclosky, who served
on this subcommittee with distinction for many years. Mr.
Visclosky showed myself and northwest Indiana the incredible
value of the House Appropriations Committee and what
responsible Federal investments can do to transform local
communities.
Chairwoman Kaptur, Ranking Member Simpson, and all members
of the subcommittee, I look forward to building on Congressman
Visclosky's most positive legacy in developing a strong
relationship with all of you so that we may work in a
collaborative and productive manner to deliver for northwest
Indiana and all the American people. I thank you once again for
the opportunity to testify today. Thank you.
[The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much. Thank you for your respect
of the time limit as well.
Congresswoman Schrier.
---------- --
--------

Monday, May 3, 2021.

WITNESS

HON. KIM SCHRIER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
WASHINGTON
Ms. Schrier. Thank you, Chairwoman Kaptur and Ranking
Member Simpson, for allowing me this opportunity to testify
today about my priorities as Representative of Washington's
Eighth Congressional District.
The Eighth District is vast, stretching from the suburbs of
Seattle in the west, over the hayfields of Kittitas County, and
onto the sun-drenched banks of the Columbia River in the east.
Washington State is the Nation's largest producer of
hydroelectric power, and much of that is generated by publicly
owned utilities in my district.
But water doesn't just power our cities. Water flowing
through an innovative network of reservoirs and canals has
allowed abundant orchards and our grain fields to flourish in
the dry central Washington climate, and the food grown here
feeds the world and supports rural communities at home.
So today I ask the committee to support programs that help
my constituents make use of water in efficient, environmentally
sound, and productive ways. So I am submitting a longer letter
to address all of these priorities in some detail, but I would
like to highlight just a few for you today. First, I urge the
committee to continue its support for Yakima Basin Integrated
Plan. This plan was developed by State, local, and Tribal
authorities, as well as irrigators and environmental advocates.
And the goal is ambitious--to provide enough water for fish,
farmers, and the Yakima Basin communities to thrive well into
the future in the face of a changing climate.
The first phase of the plan built on the Bureau of
Reclamation's Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Program was
authorized by Congress in 2019. The State of Washington has
spent $244 million since 2013 on projects related to the plan.
The State and the Yakima River Basin water users contribute
a minimum 50 percent of the overall cost to implement the plan.
So more Federal investment is needed to balance this local
commitment.
We do not yet know the President's budget request for the
Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project and whether
critical priority projects are included in that request, but it
is my hope that this committee will work with the President and
local stakeholders to ensure these efforts are fully funded. I
also ask this committee to support full funding for two
important hydropower incentive programs within the U.S.
Department of Energy's Water Power Technologies Office and
established through the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
Section 242 created a hydropower production incentive
program to spur new development on existing infrastructure, for
example, adding power generation to already existing nonpowered
dams and conduits. I urge the committee to provide $10 million
in annual appropriations for the purposes of section 242.
Section 243 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 created a
program to encourage efficiency improvements at existing
hydropower facilities by providing incentive payments of up to
10 percent of the cost of capital improvement, up to $750,000
for a single facility.
The public utility districts in Washington State are
constantly working to improve productivity and efficiency, and
I have heard from them about how much the section 243 program
would help them continue those efforts. However, despite being
reauthorized on a bipartisan basis last year as part of the
Energy Act of 2020, the section 243 program has never received
appropriations. So I urge the committee to provide $10 million
in annual appropriations for that section. I also ask your
support for the Army Corps of Engineers section 2106 program.
This program will help maintain competitive ports in the
Pacific Northwest by allowing a harbor maintenance tax donor
ports, like Seattle and Takoma, to receive better return on the
revenue that they generate.
Section 2106 will allow shippers utilizing our ports to
receive payments to help offset our HMT cost disadvantage and
help them compete with Canadian harbors that directly target
U.S.-bound cargo. Strong domestic ports are critical.
Now, finally, I want to share my support for the Bureau of
Reclamation's WaterSMART program which improves water
reliability for communities while increasing resilience to the
impacts of climate change.
Several projects in my district have made excellent use of
WaterSMART funds in recent years, and I would urge this
committee to continue its commitment to fully funding the
program.
So thank you for your leadership during this process, and I
yield back the 12 seconds of my time. Thank you.
Ms. Kaptur. [inaudible]
Ms. Schrier. And you are muted. I will mute myself. Thank
you.
[The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Ms. Kaptur. And I will claim those 12 seconds just to thank
you, Congresswoman Schrier.
And also, Congressman Mrvan, we couldn't have two different
districts represented on this first panel which makes our job
so interesting. I am sure Congressman Simpson agrees with that.
But while I have got both of you, I wanted to just comment
that for Congressman Mrvan's district, the uniqueness of his
harbor being able to ship commodities through the Great Lakes-
Saint Lawrence Seaway out toward the Atlantic and then down the
inland waterway system to the Gulf is pretty amazing. So it is
a very interesting part of the country.
In terms of your efforts in the State of Washington, I am
jealous of the thinking that has gone in, in the State of
Washington on hydropower. I am trying to get anybody to think
about hydropower in Ohio at the basin of the largest inland
seas in the world, and it is very hard to get any attention to
hydropower. So you have a lot to teach us in other parts of the
country.
But I wanted to ask each of you very quickly, what, in
terms of climate change, have you seen in your area that might
tell us that conditions are changing in the environment? Is
there something unique that would be beneficial for the Nation
to understand if any of you wish to comment? And then we will
move to the next set of witnesses.
Ms. Schrier. I will comment quickly that what we are seeing
is less snowpack and heavier rains, which is making for an
earlier growing season and a shorter growing season. And
because we don't have snowpack, it means that really carefully
using those water sources, water storage, and then water
allocation through the rest of the year becomes more important.
So projects, then, like the Yakima Basin plan, which has
reservoirs and systems to make sure that the water is there all
year become even more critical with this changing climate.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much.
I don't know if Congressman Mrvan is still at a microphone.
If not, Ranking Member Simpson, did you wish to comment or
ask a question?
Mr. Simpson. No. Just want to thank them for their
testimony, and we will certainly take these things under
consideration as we try to develop this bill for the next year,
but thank you for taking the time to be here and explain your
priorities for us.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. Thank you so much. We are now going
to move on to our next set of witnesses.
I am told that Representative Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas
is prepared to testify, and I am not quite sure who is the
second panelist. I believe it is Representative H. Morgan
Griffith as well. So if we could bring those witnesses forward.
Thank you. There we go.
Congresswoman Jackson Lee, the time is yours.
---------- --
--------

Monday, May 3, 2021.

WITNESS

HON. SHEILA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
TEXAS
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman and
to our Ranking Member Simpson,and the distinguished members of
the subcommittee. As a senior member of committee on Judiciary
and on Homeland Security, let me offer my appreciation and
thanks to Chairwoman Kaptur and Ranking Member Simpson for the
difficult work and choices that must be made to produce a truly
bipartisan energy and water spending bill, for their commitment
to producing a bill that fairly reflects the interests and
priorities of the American people.
Count me as a teammate. Although I am not on the committee,
I have to offer to you, both of you and your subcommittee,
heartfelt appreciation. When we were in the despair of
Hurricane Harvey, your committee could not have been--
Chairwoman Kaptur, you could not have been more thoughtful,
more generous, more caring when 51 trillion gallons of water
came on our community.
Interestingly enough, we just had rain just over the past
weekend--it was not a hurricane--and we have streets and roads
that are covered. We now have a whole segment near my
congressional district, near Jacinto City, that are without
water and are now on a boil-water need.
This is right here in the 21st century, right here in
Houston, Texas, and the surrounding areas where families are
suffering. So, again, I will remain forever appreciative of
your cooperation working with me to ensure that the victims of
Hurricane Harvey receive the assistance and resources needed to
recover from one of the greatest water catastrophes in recent
history.
I look forward to working with on you some language dealing
with making sure that those dollars are continuing to be
funneled through to the local communities. I understand that my
entire statement will be made part of the record. I will keep
my remarks brief, but I had to get my thank yous in.
In the few minutes allotted to highlight the energy water
and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers programs which warrant the
committee's continuing attention and support, I would like to
acknowledge I support $1.59 billion for Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund.
The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund is so necessary. It is
collected to ensure reliable maintenance and operations in our
Nation's ports. I strongly support full utilization of the
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and urge the committee to fund
harbor maintenance activities at the highest possible level.
And I think that I will allow myself to say that the
Houston port, one of the largest tonnage ports, and maybe
number one, is desperate in need of dredging because it is a
man-made port.
I support $275 million for weatherization assistance. WAP
helps low-income families, seniors, veterans, and individuals
with disabilities improve the energy efficiency of their homes,
freeing up limited resources for other essentials like food and
medicine.
I support $6.0 million for U.S.-Israel energy cooperation,
and that is to provide $6 million for the implementation of the
U.S.-Israel Energy Cooperative Agreement.
This funding will be utilized to further implement section
917 of the Energy Independence and Security Act and the May
2008 agreement between the U.S. and Israel on energy
cooperation. The funding will provide for ongoing,
collaborative U.S. and Israeli research and development of
efforts in the fields of energy technologies and increase
energy efficiency.
I support $130 million for DOE's Wind Energy Program. The
Wind Energy Program is very important to Texas, as many other
States, improves our Nation's renewable energy goals by
furthering advancement in wind energy research and
technologies, including wind energy project design optimization
testing.
The program also conducts important research to increase
capacity for distributed wind, which has the ability to harness
the full potential of rural America to play a major role to
lower the cost for consumers.
During our freeze here in the southern region in the early
part of the year, wind did suffer, but it certainly was a major
component in helping us to get wind. So we are very much in
need, and we thank you.
I support $2.7 billion for energy efficiency and renewable
energy, the DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, its critical programs, to partner with the Federal
Government on industry, academia, research, and our
universities.
I support $7.0 billion for DOE Office of Science--that is
so crucial--to request funds, activities, that, in close
coordination with the NIH and the Presidential BRAIN
Initiative, will develop next-generation tools and
technologies. It also has the ability to interact with the
Department of Education where many of our schools, inner-city
schools, do not have access to the important issues of science.
This would be a very important program.
I support $75 million for State energy programs. Funding
will allow States to take on energy efficiency, renewable
energy projects, and grid modernization projects. I can assure
you that we have the importance of those projects here for
Texas.
Quickly, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, $185 million for
the Army Corps of Engineers to continue their projects.
I support $80 million for continuing authorities funding
for USACE Civil Works Program, which includes Emergency Steam
Bank, section 103 Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction, $4
million, a number of other programs that I will comment on if
there are questions.
And I support $5.7 million for U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers' water operation, $7.5 million for the coastal and
ocean data system.
And, concluding, I am eager to have considered my community
project, which is the Port of Houston Army Corps dredging and
sediment study project. We are most interested in making sure
we make a dent there, and we are gratified for the committee's
kind consideration and your knowledge of what goes on in
Houston, Texas. You know it well. And the State of Texas and
the rural areas, you know it very well, and we thank you so
very much because you have been very, very helpful.
Had to go through fast, but you have a lot of vital,
important programs for the Nation. We thank you so very much.
With that, I yield and wait for questions. Thank you so
very much.
[The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Congresswoman, for your very
thorough set of suggestions and proposals for our subcommittee
to consider. I can't think of a community that has been
hammered as much as Houston has, and we thank you for your
leadership and keeping people positive and rebuilding with all
that you have had to endure there.
We have been informed that we will have to take a brief
recess now because we are having technical issues, and we are
going to just be briefly recessing for a second here, let them
address those, and we will be back very quickly. Sorry to do
this. This hasn't happened before, but it is a new age. So give
us a couple moments.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I will wait.
[Recess.]
Ms. Kaptur. Representative Griffith, can you hear me?
Mr. Griffith. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Kaptur. All right. Very good. Sorry for that break
there. They had to fix the livestreaming. It wasn't working. So
I think all is repaired now, and we welcome Representative
Morgan Griffith from the great State of Virginia to testify
this morning. Thank you very much.
---------- --
--------

Monday, May 3, 2021.

WITNESS

HON. H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
VIRGINIA
Mr. Griffith. Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member
Simpson. I appreciate the opportunity to highlight matters of
great importance to my district, the country and, I would
argue, to the rest of the world as well.
As you all move forward in your appropriations process, I
would like to address the importance of research and
development, R&D funding, at the Department of Energy in
general and specifically at the Office of Fossil Energy.
I believe there needs to be research parity between
renewable fuels and research on ways to better utilize fossil
fuels. As we examine our global climate, it is imperative that
any effective plan to counter climate change include our
Nation's vast supply of natural resources and our talent for
technological innovation.
China is anticipated to increase its emissions over the
next decade and is currently the largest consumer of coal. This
does not take into account the large number of coal-fired power
plants China is financing in Africa and other countries with
emerging economies.
We know the rest of the world will continue to use fossil
fuels for decades to come because for them more energy means
less poverty. In India, coal still accounts for nearly three-
fourths of the country's annual power output.
Though they have recently set a target to install renewable
energy in the coming years, hundreds of thousands of rural
Indians still do not have access to reliable, around-the-clock
electricity in their homes. Their government will want to
resolve that problem and will likely use coal in that effort.
India will use renewables, but to lift the poorest citizens
out of the 19th century conditions, they must use coal.
Many other countries are in the same situation. They can
use mid-20th century coal-burning technology, or they can use
21st century American cleaner coal-burning technology.
Accordingly, I believe a role for American ingenuity is to
produce and export better, cleaner, more efficient technology
for the world.
The Northern Hemisphere shares its air. While cleaning up
the air in the United States is helpful in order to stop
climate change and eliminate environmental hazards, we must
also work to clean the air in coal-rich Kazakhstan and in the
Uttar Pradesh state in northern India.
The Department of Energy plays an important role in this
R&D, but it can do more for exploration and innovation in the
energy space with the right support. I would like to highlight
a team of experts at Virginia Tech who are developing a process
to extract rare earth elements from coal byproducts.
A consortium of universities, including Virginia Tech, has
won grants from DOE to test a hydrophobic-hydrophilic
separation process to produce clean coal and specialty carbon
products from discarded coal waste.
As a result of this research, they have found ways to
improve the quality of coal burned at steel plants. They are
licensing this technology to steel mills in India, which will
reduce the mills' carbon footprint. This serves as just one--an
example of how DOE R&D funding can be used, in conjunction with
our national labs and research universities, to get projects
like this off the ground.
Another example I would like to share today involves
innovative small business in Pulaski, Virginia. MOVA
Technologies has developed filtration bed equipment to remove
pollutants from flue gas streams and recycle them for other
uses.
The technology can be applied to a number of industries,
including energy generation, cargo ships, manufacturing
processes, livestock farm air control systems, or direct carbon
capture.
This type of creative thinking and design will help us
solve the environmental and economic challenges we and the
world face. I am not advocating to reduce research for
renewable fuels. I think that is important as well. And what I
am advocating is there should be parity between the two types
of energy: the fossil fuels and the renewables, particularly
with the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
Last year hearing testimony in the Select Committee on
Climate, both Democratic and Republican witnesses thought
research parity was desirable. A comprehensive, all-of-the-
above energy policy must include robust funding for research
and development at the Federal level.
These funds will continue to shorten the timeline to ready
many clean energy technologies for commercial use, both here
and abroad.
I appreciate your consideration of this request, and I look
forward to answering any questions that you may have.
[The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much, Congressman Griffith, and
we heard you loud and clear. We know research is our friend,
and it is too bad research didn't keep up with reality in the
past. Though we have plussed up that budget consistently. And
so thank you for reminding our subcommittee.
I wanted to ask both you and Congresswoman Sheila Jackson
Lee what I asked the earlier witnesses today, and that is, in
terms of the changing environment--I am sitting in a very wet
Ohio right now, and our Great Lakes are at an all-time high,
obviously with what has happened in Houston consistently, but I
am not sure about Virginia. I know more about coastal Virginia
compared to interior Virginia--if you have noted changes that
are of significance impacting energy and water systems that you
have to contain and manage in your respective States. Could you
just briefly give us a little bird's-eye view of your regions
in climate change.
Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Madam Chairwoman, thank you for the
opportunity. It is good to be here with my colleague as well. I
think we both show a great enthusiasm for this Appropriations
Subcommittee.
First I would like to say that the eagerness and the
attentiveness to the idea of climate change, I have seen a
rising interest, even beyond governmental entities, research
institutions, really in day-to-day people. They are very
cognizant.
We live not only coastal--I am 58 miles in from the Gulf,
and at any moment, I can be overrun by the Gulf in terms of
that is what the combination was to Hurricane Harvey. We were
sort of squeezed in between the waters rising in the Gulf and
the actual 51 trillion that we actually--it hit us with.
But we have bayous, and our bayous are very susceptible
with the rising tide concept because waters run through
Houston, literally run through our neighborhoods, and we have
had to create bayous to contain those waters.
And so whenever we have this climate circumstance, we can
have rain that creates rising waters in what I call naked
bayous, meaning that they are not sufficiently restored or
sufficiently girded. They don't have the moneys from the Army
Corps of Engineers. And we create a very disastrous set of
circumstances.
We have experienced, in our community or in our area,
droughts where we have had a long period of time of great
heat--that was like two summers ago--great, great heat and, of
course, little water. And that is very strange to those of us
here.
And then, of course, we have had something, a phenomenon
that happened--we are still speechless--and that was the
freeze. There is nothing that we can even comprehend in this
region on the freeze.
We had at least 20-plus people die in their bed, including
an 11-year-old. We were on boiled water for weeks. We had
broken pipes that were extensive because, in construction, our
pipes are not placed underground. Those broken pipes destroyed
homes and particularly those in low-income.
So we have seen--and the temperature at that time was
single digit, and for single digit in Houston or in the region,
it kills.
And then we were able to see the fright of not having a
grid that could confront these tragedies.
The answer was a little long, but I wanted you to see that
we are warm country people, and so any disruption in that, and
any spiking of that which we have seen over the last couple
years, does generate concern.
But I will conclude by saying as I started, the interest in
working on climate change responsibly has exponentially grown.
And our mayor, Mayor Sylvester Turner, is now chair of the U.S.
Conference of Mayors Subcommittee on Climate. This is a Texas
mayor in an energy-focused community that focused for very long
years on fossil fuel.
We are opening our eyes to renewables and wind and many
others that we can work with in order to meet this new day of
climate change.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much, Congresswoman Jackson Lee.
I think these statements of Members are extremely important to
our record and to the American people. Thank you for walking us
through that history over the last few years. It really is
dramatic. Thank you for your strength. Congressman Griffith,
would you wish to reply to that in any way?
Mr. Griffith. Yes, ma'am. I mean, she obviously--great
respect for Congresswoman Jackson Lee. She obviously has a very
different district than mine, but they are both related to
fossil fuel industries, and it is one of the reasons why I
think we have to work on climate change by working on research
and development, as I said in my statement because we are not
going to get rid of the fossil fuels, as much as some may wish
for that, in the near future.
To go to a total renewable system as one of the witnesses,
Ms. Silverstein, said in front of Energy and Commerce a few
weeks back, we have to build a lot of high-powered electric
lines across the country in order to carry the electricity from
these new sources of energy, whether it be wind, solar, or
other renewables.
That is going to take, her estimate--I gave her a number;
would it be more than 20 to 30 years? She said yes. So we have
to keep that in mind, and when we look at the rest of the
world, obviously, other parts of the world are not ready to go
in that direction anywhere near as much as we are.
So that is why I am a big believer that we must do more
research, and I thank you for that opportunity to say that yet
again. And I don't think that is in disagreement with what
Congresswoman Jackson Lee was saying. It is just maybe a
slightly different look at it, but it is the same idea.
And I will tell you in my district--and I have had one of
those rare opportunities that come around sometimes in life--I
have lived in the same community for more than 60 years. And
during that time, we have had some warmer winters than others.
I would say, on general rule, over the last 10 or 15 years, it
is a little bit warmer. Being in the mountains of Virginia, not
the coastal area, but in the mountains of Virginia, we have
always been subject to flooding, and, you know, it is in my
high school yearbooks when there were big floods.
And we still have some flooding, but I don't see any really
large increase in that amount of flooding. It is just that we
have it, depends on the year, depends on the part of my
district because it is a district the size of the State of New
Jersey, a little bit bigger. And so sometimes we will get
flooding in one part and not in other parts of the district.
I would say that, my sense is that our spring migration of
birds--I am a birder, and so I pay attention to those things--
seems to come a little bit earlier. So we are seeing some
effects but nothing nearly to the catastrophic level that Texas
has seen or some of our lower areas and some of our warmer
areas have seen already.
And so, obviously, we will have to try to figure out how we
manage that, manage those changes in the environment, at the
same time trying to reduce our carbon footprint by all means
necessary.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much. What excellent witnesses.
Congressman Simpson, do you have any questions?
Mr. Simpson. No, no questions. I thank the witnesses for
their time.
Ms. Kaptur. I reiterate that. Thank you both very, very
much. We will now move on to Congresswoman Jenniffer----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you for having me.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you both. I would now like to--there,
okay, I think we can be heard.
I have Congressman Greg Stanton on the witness list and
also Congresswoman Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon as our next
witnesses. Congressman Stanton is from the great State of
Arizona, and Congresswoman Gonzalez-Colon is from Puerto Rico.
----------

Monday, May 3, 2021.

WITNESS

HON. GREG STANTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
ARIZONA
Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Kaptur and
also Ranking Member Simpson and members of the subcommittee,
and I want to say thank you for opportunity to testify on the
importance of Federal investments to meet Arizona's water
resource needs.
Arizona has long been a leader when it comes to effectively
managing water supplies. It is how we have managed to flourish
in a desert climate for so long.
Climate change, though, presents us with many challenges--
rising temperatures and less predictable rain cycles. These
changes have left the Southwest in a prolonged drought. Extreme
heat wears on our infrastructure and alters our watersheds. And
heavy intense rains, combined with dry hard ground make our
urban areas more prone to flash floods.
The kind of infrastructure we need to adapt requires
Federal investment, and I have worked with community leaders
from small, rural, and Tribal communities, as well as our major
metropolitan areas to identify Arizona's priority projects to
prepare us for the challenges ahead. These projects address our
environmental infrastructure needs, flood protection, and water
supply preservation.
Arizona will have more than $15 billion in drinking water
and wastewater infrastructure needs over the next two decades.
To begin to address these needs and the fiscal constraints for
our communities to make these investments, the 2020 Water
Resources Development Act included my legislation to add
Arizona to the section 595 Environmental Infrastructure
Program.
Earlier this year, the first project was funded, and many
communities across our State our eager to participate in the
program. I urge this subcommittee to provide strong funding for
the Environmental Infrastructure Program.
Although Arizona is a desert State, it is no stranger to
flooding, and there are several projects in need of investment.
The first project is Tres Rios, an ecosystem restoration effort
along the Salt and Gila River corridors in Phoenix.
This project is partially complete. However, construction
has been halted since it reached its 902 limit. As a result,
funds are needed for a post-authorization change report.
Completing Tres Rios would improve flow conveyance and support
Native riparian habitat, remove invasive species like the salt
cedar and improve wildlife habitat.
Second, the Cave Buttes Dam in Maricopa County provides
flood protection for more than a million residents and $15
billion in residential and commercial property. Unfortunately,
seepage in the dam has sounded the alarm for us to reduce its
risk of failure.
Similarly, thousands of residents and hundreds of critical
facilities, including Luke Air Force Base, depend on the Agua
Fria River Trilby Wash or McMicken Dam for flood protection.
But because of dam safety deficiencies, land subsidence, Earth
fissuring, and urbanization, its level of protection is
questionable at best. We must begin new feasibility studies for
both Cave Buttes Dam and the McMicken Dam to allow the Corps to
evaluate flood risk management needs and safety modifications.
Third, I urge this subcommittee to provide new construction
starts, so projects like the Little Colorado River at Winslow
can proceed. This project would protect the city of Winslow and
part of Navajo County, including the communities' critical
public facilities.
And, fourth, I request increased funding for section 205
and 206 under the Continuing Authorities Program, which is
currently overextended and underfunded. Arizona has at least
four projects seeking to utilize this program.
To secure Arizona's water future, we must respond to the
ongoing drought in the Colorado River Basin. The 2019 Drought
Contingency Plan directs the Interior Secretary to create or
conserve a hundred thousand acre feet per year. I urge the
subcommittee to provide the Bureau the resources necessary to
fulfill this critical commitment.
Finally, we need to ensure the continued reliability of the
water provided by the Salt River Project to the Phoenix
metropolitan area. Colorado River shortages exacerbate the need
for central Arizona to have reliable alternative surface water
supplies.
Unfortunately, natural sediment accumulation in the Verde
River Basin has impacted the water storage capacity of the
Horseshoe Reservoir, one of the federally owned reservoirs of
the Salt River Project.
The Bureau of Reclamation is conducting an appraisal study
to evaluate options to restore storage capacity, and I urge the
subcommittee to include funding for the next phase of this
critical effort.
Thank you so much for the opportunity and for your support
of our Nation's water infrastructure.
[The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Congressman Stanton for excellent
testimony. We want to hear a little more about Arizona in a
second, and thank you for your recommendations. And now
Congresswoman Gonzalez-Colon.
---------- --
--------

Monday, May 3, 2021.

WITNESS

HON. JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON, RESIDENT COMMISSIONER OF PUERTO RICO
Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman Kaptur and
Ranking Member Simpson for hosting these opportunities for
members and allowing me the opportunity to testify from Puerto
Rico.
While I have multiple requests submitted for your
consideration as you prepare the energy and water development
appropriations bill for the next fiscal year, I would just
focus my remarks on my requests in support of the Cano Martin
Pena Channel Ecosystem Restoration Project.
As you may know, the eastern half of the Martin Pena
Channel in San Juan is currently clogged with sediment, debris,
trash, and water polluted with human waste.
In 2017, the Hurricane Cecil exacerbated the poor
environmental conditions and persistent flooding that are still
experienced today. The detrimental conditions of the channel
have been present for decades, currently challenging the health
and well-being of approximately 26,000 residents across eight
communities' economic development of the area and critical
infrastructure, like the Luis Munoz Marin International
Airport, which is our main venue for people coming in and out.
The Cano Martin Pena Channel was authorized by Section 5127
of the 2007 Water Resources Development Act, and since then,
the government of Puerto Rico, which is the non-Federal
sponsor, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have collaborated
to develop this project throughout different phases leading to
construction.
However, construction has not commenced, and neither have
the dredging efforts that will provide relief and safety to the
communities and establish--reestablish, actually, the natural
tide exchange between the San Jose Lagoon and the San Juan Bay,
two bodies of water that are of great significance for native
species and the ecosystem function.
The construction phase must start to restore the channel
and its surrounding habitat and improve the current conditions
that affect my constituents. This is why I have selected the
Cano Martin Pena Project as my first request for Community
Project Funding for fiscal year 2022.
Specifically, my request consists of $32 million in
construction funds to initiate the construction phase, which is
divided in three distinct contracts. If you look at the second
slide on the screen, the first construction contract is
highlighted in red.
Receiving funding for construction will allow the Corps of
Engineers to work with the non-Federal sponsor, ENLACE, to
initiate the work on the first contract, which prepare main
disposal sites and including dredging of the San Jose Lagoon up
to the Barbosa Bridge, which will excavate more than 140,000
cubic yards of material. This contract is shovel-ready, and the
non-Federal sponsor has already met the real estate
requirements.
I think communities at the channel are ready to see some
real progress in what is one of the most densely populated
areas on the island, and I do believe that Congress has a
remarkable opportunity to support this project throughout the
Community Project Funding process available for the next fiscal
year.
I respectfully request you fully consider this request and
the benefits it will bring to our ecosystems, our communities,
our flood mitigation, our preparedness capabilities on the
island, and, of course, the health of these residents who have
been waiting for a long time.
So, having said that, thank you, all of you, and I yield
back.
[The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much, Congresswoman Gonzalez-
Colon, and I wanted to ask both you and Congressman Stanton
what I have asked every other witness this morning. As we look
at what is happening environmentally across our world, some
places have felt the brunt of change more greatly than others.
As you look at Puerto Rico and Arizona, these are two
places that have really reeled from the environment being a
little inclement at times. So, in Puerto Rico, I was just
stunned at the devastation that the oceans can yield, and in
Arizona, I read where last year, your people endured in the
State 100 days over 100 degrees. That is really--that would be
hard.
And I wanted to get your comments about how you have seen
your region change relative to climate and some of the
challenges you face now compared to prior decades.
Mr. Stanton. Okay. I can jump in first, Chairwoman, if that
is okay.
Ms. Kaptur. Fine.
Mr. Stanton. Okay. So, Chairwoman, look, climate change is
discussed on the issue of rising water levels on the coastal
areas, but I would argue that climate change has been as
devastating in Arizona as anywhere else.
And there are three major areas of devastating impact in
Arizona as a result of climate change. Extreme heat. The
temperature is going up dramatically, and the issue of the
livability of our community if that extreme heat continues is
really questionable. And, sadly, we see many people, many
residents dying as a result of this extreme heat. So extreme
heat. Record number of 100-plus days, et cetera, is a huge
impact directly related to climate change.
Second, drought. We are now 20 years into drought
conditions in the State of Arizona. The Colorado River, which
provides water for not only Maricopa County but also southern
California. Tens of millions of people rely on the Colorado
River.
We had to declare shortage on the river for the first time
ever, and people are now talking about, if we don't take strong
action, the possible collapse of the Colorado River as a water
source for millions and millions of people. So the drought
conditions in Arizona are a direct result of climate change.
And the increase in the number of forest fires. Each year,
we see almost a new record in the number of forest fires in
Arizona, and elsewhere in the western part of the United
States. Again, a direct result of climate change.
So I would quietly argue that the impact of climate change
is as devastating on the people of Arizona as anywhere else in
America.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Congressman. I had read where for
several days airplanes could not take off in Arizona. They were
grounded because of the very high temperatures last year. Is my
understanding correct?
Mr. Stanton. Yes and no. It has to do--and I am not an
expert on this, but it has to do with the weight of the
airplane. So certain airplanes at certain weight levels weren't
able to take off, but it didn't completely shut down our
airports.
But, yes, the extreme heat does have an impact on the
ability to provide aviation services, which obviously has a
massive impact on our local community.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much.
Congresswoman Gonzalez-Colon.
Miss Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I will tell you this. You know, I have been living in
Puerto Rico since I was born. So, as an island that lays in the
Caribbean, we are used to hurricanes. I mean, all life
hurricanes have been there.
And they will not go away. So we must prepare and have the
resiliency to deal with this natural phenomena when they occur.
We met earthquakes 2 years ago. We are still dealing with that.
The hundred-year wave got a big impact on the island as well.
Floodings, droughts, fires, now coastal erosion, but I think,
yes, it could be changes in the climate. Those things happened
before. So we are not talking about anything that is different.
Just now with more development in many areas, we are facing
those issues, and their cost much money to deal with them, like
the flooding areas in the metropolitan areas.
I think the mitigation is a big issue, and how we met with
those situation, I think the Army Corps of Engineers has been
working in Puerto Rico, and we appreciate Congress stepping in
2017 and the next years for allocation of funds for many of
these areas.
Right now, we are dealing with coastal erosion in the whole
island. That is a big issue, and the Army Corps is doing a
study in that regard.
Hurricanes, again, we are going to be facing hurricane
season now in May again until November. So we are just praying
not to have any strong hurricane, but we are used to storms, we
are used to these.
Thank God, we don't have volcanoes on Puerto Rico, but we
do have in the Caribbean as well. So the ashes from different
islands, when they got eruptions, they come all the way through
the Caribbean.
So I know this is happening also in California with the
fires and many others. It is just how we can learn to recover
fast and resilient from these experiences.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you both very, very much.
Congressman Simpson, any comments or questions?
Mr. Simpson. No. No questions. I appreciate the testimony
of the witnesses.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. Thank you very much, and we will do
what we can to help as we proceed forward. We want to thank our
witnesses, Congressman Stanton and Congresswoman Gonzalez-
Colon.
Now we will go to the next two witnesses. We are doing
pretty well this morning. Congressman Bill Foster of the great
State of Illinois, and Congressman John Moolenaar from the
State of Michigan.
----------

Monday, May 3, 2021.

WITNESSES

HON. BILL FOSTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
ILLINOIS
Mr. Foster. Thank you. Am I on and visible here?
Ms. Kaptur. You are not real--you are a little cloudy. I
don't know for Mike Simpson. Do you see the same thing, a
little bit----
Mr. Simpson. No.
Ms. Kaptur. You are visible but not----
Mr. Foster. Okay. Well, it is mostly----
Mr. Simpson. Yeah. I can see him fine.
Mr. Foster. Okay. I am just going for adequate here.
Anyway, well, good afternoon. Thank you, Chairwoman Kaptur and
Ranking Member Simpson, and the members of the subcommittee for
holding this Members Day and for allowing me to testify.
I would like to first thank you for your past support of
the Department of Energy Office of Science and urge you to
continue to prioritize and expand its investments in science.
For decades, investments at the DOE Office of Science have
resulted in important discoveries and fundamental science and
emerging technologies, many of which have recently played a
critical role in our Nation's response to COVID-19.
In recent months, we have seen bipartisan and bicameral
proposals to double or even triple the R&D budgets of our
country, if for no other reason, to keep pace with comparable
R&D investments from China.
You have an opportunity to get an early start on this
consensus to ramp up research funding with a strong
appropriations mark for the DOE Office of Science.
I would also like to highlight the Brandon Road Lock and
Dam Project. Now, the Brandon Road Project is the last line of
defense to prevent the spread of Asian carp and other aquatic
nuisance species from getting into the Great Lakes. And this
project is urgent in order to prevent these nuisance species
from passing freely into the Great Lakes and every tributary
connected to the Great Lakes.
This would be a body blow to the economies of all the
States which border the Great Lakes. So I urge you to implement
report language to encourage the aggressive continuation of
this project.
Another specific project that I would like to bring your
attention to is the Advanced Photon Source upgrade at Argonne
National Lab. This facility has played a foundational role in
the Nation's response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Researchers from across the Nation have used X-rays from
the APS to determine the protein structure of the viruses,
which are then used to design techniques, drugs, and vaccines
that fight the virus more effectively.
The upgrade will enhance the capabilities of the APS,
ensuring the U.S. remains at the forefront of X-ray technology
and is able to respond to future national emergencies, which is
why I am requesting $101.2 million in funding for this upgrade.
I would also like to express my support for $225 million
for the Department of Energy's Long-Baseline Neutrino Facility,
the LBNF/DUNE Project that is in Illinois and South Dakota.
Neutrinos are among the most abundant and mysterious
particles in the universe, and understanding 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 this funding is particularly important for DUNE to
complete its underground construction and to overcome the
impacts that it has felt from international collaborators
delaying their contributions due to COVID-19. So it has
received sort of a double whammy from COVID-19, and full
funding for this is very important.
Our national laboratories, like Argonne National Lab, are
also national leaders in other fields, and the work they are
doing is crucial to the United States to remain a global
science leader.
For example, in Illinois, the Chicago Quantum Exchange is a
group of researchers with a common goal of advancing the
science and engineering of quantum information. Based at the
University of Chicago, the Chicago Quantum Exchange is anchored
by Argonne National Lab, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory,
and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Quantum information science is a revolutionary technology
that will allow us to achieve groundbreaking advances in a
variety of fields. Similarly, the Argonne Leadership Computing
Facility, ALCF, at the Argonne National Laboratory, enables
breakthroughs in science and engineering by providing
supercomputing resources and expertise to the research
community.
The ALCF will be home to one of the Nation's exascale
computers when Aurora arrives in 2022. Exascale computing
researchers have already shown work that models 3D printing
processes with metals that could have major implications for
the manufacturing sector. It is your emphasis on science
funding which drives programs like these.
And, finally, I would like to request your continued
support for low-enriched uranium naval fuel research and
development, for the pressurized water reactors, for propulsion
of aircraft carriers and submarines.
High-enriched uranium, or HEU, can be used to make nuclear
weapons whereas low-enriched uranium cannot. This makes HEU
fuel vulnerable to theft by terrorists during manufacturing and
transportation from civilian sites and very dangerous for other
countries to have around in large quantity because of the
proliferation risk.
Using LEU has the potential to reduce security costs and
support naval reactor research and development at the cutting
edge of nuclear science, which is why I urge you to provide an
additional $20 million for naval LEU research and development.
Thank you again, and I yield back the balance of my time.
[The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Monday, May 3, 2021.

WITNESS

HON. JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
MICHIGAN
Mr. Moolenaar. Well, good afternoon, Chairwoman Kaptur and
Ranking Member Simpson and members of the committee. I am very
grateful for the opportunity to speak with you about the
importance of the Army Corps of Engineers and the vital work it
does for Michigan and the Great Lakes.
The President's budget proposes an annual budget cut of $1
billion below what Congress appropriated last year for the Army
Corps, and I hope the committee will reverse that cut and fund
the Army Corps at or above last year's level.
The Army Corps plays a vital role in Michigan, maintaining
water levels on the Great Lakes and engineering navigable
waterways that are crucial to shipping, manufacturing, and the
hardworking men and women who make things here in America.
The Soo Locks in the Upper Peninsula keep our country
moving. The iron ore and taconite that pass through the locks
is used in agriculture, steel, household products, and a whole
lot more.
Right now, there is only one lock that can be used by all
the freighters on the Great Lakes to move iron ore from the
upper Midwest to the other ports on the Great Lakes.
With the support of this committee and Chairwoman Kaptur,
who I am very grateful went to the Soo Locks with me in 2019,
construction has begun on a new lock. And I urge the committee
to support $483 million in next year's budget for the continued
construction of this new lock that will keep our country moving
and support American manufacturing.
The Army Corps is also working on stopping invasive species
in the Great Lakes, and as Congressman Foster mentioned, the
Brandon Road Lock and Dam Project is necessary to prevent Asian
carp from entering Lake Michigan and jeopardizing the health of
the Great Lakes.
Asian carp would also harm the billions of dollars and
thousands of jobs in the Midwest that rely on fishing, tourism,
and boating on the Great Lakes. I urge the committee to improve
$5 million for this project in the coming year. Finally, I want
to mention flooding that struck my hometown last year. Two dams
failed, causing destruction downstream to homes and businesses.
I hope the committee will approve language I have submitted
that urges the Army Corps of Engineers to participate in future
flood mitigation efforts with State, local, and Tribal
Governments, as well as business and nonprofits within
Tittabawassee River Watershed. This will help prevent future
disaster and help communities in my home district as they plan
for the future.
I hope this committee will continue to support investment
in the Army Corps of Engineers and the infrastructure of our
Nation.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back.
[The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Ms. Kaptur. [inaudible] State and that said by a Buckeye,
so that is pretty good. I just also have to say this has been
the most wonderful set of witnesses this morning. And what is
going through my mind as I am listening to all these Members is
the impression the public may have of Congress when they don't
really see it at work. And if any American wonders about how,
on a bipartisan basis, we can move the country forward, I
invite them to take a look at this committee hearing this
morning. It has just been--it is from all over the country,
Members from all over the country, and Representatives,
obviously, from Gulf and Atlantic regions. In addition to that,
a very diverse panel on any level you want to measure it,
regionally for sure. And the depth of your testimony. We are
about serious business. And I just think sometimes some Members
of Congress get short shrift because they are actually in the
boiler room doing the work. And that is the way the institution
should work. So I am proud of all of you. I just had to state
that.
I wanted to also move to questioning very briefly. For
Congressman Foster, you are well-known for your work with the
labs and the impact that you have had. I don't know if he is
still on the line or not, but I am hoping to be able to work
with him on targeting a very organized approach to see what the
labs might be able to offer to help us deal with one of the
most serious health problems we have in this country, and that
is an answer to mental illness, using some of that
supercomputing capacity, some of the quantum capabilities that
are available, some of the light imaging that is done. But I
just want to say for the record that in most county jails in
Ohio, upwards of 30 to 40 percent of their inmates have mental
illness in some forms, sometimes co-occurring with substance
abuse and certainly in our Federal prisons. This is the wrong
answer to try to help very ill people. And I haven't seen the
labs come forward, to my knowledge, with anything very
astounding in this arena, but I just wanted to put this on the
table.
Mr. Foster. Chair Kaptur, I am in fact on. And I just would
like to point out that Argonne National Lab has supercomputers.
We are very important players in the BRAIN initiative, which
are trying to make a real three-dimensional map of all the
inter--neuron interconnections in the human brain, which will
be transformative to understanding at a deep level how the
brain actually works. And the technology and the computing
power necessary for that are--they are going to be a challenge,
but I think one that all of the national labs working together
can rise to meet.
Ms. Kaptur. Well, Congressman Foster, I am going to ask
your help in helping me think through how to squeeze from each
of the labs something along with the brain banks that we have--
and several other Members of Congress are interested in this. I
am not the only one--but to really yield more from our labs
collectively across this country. We simply can't let this
suffering go on unaddressed. And if we can't do better in our
lifetime, shame on us. And you are one of our great leaders in
this area. So I thank you for staying for the entire hearing.
Mr. Foster. The laboratory work is also very important in
dealing with the fundamental basis of addiction. The actual
advance photon source at Argonne Lab was used to directly image
these molecules, very complicated molecules, called G-protein
coupled receptors. When the opioid hits the brain, they are the
things that get triggered, and they were able to take pictures
of them in action. And so, when you have a deep understanding
of exactly how the addiction works at a molecular level, you
have the possibility of designing treatments which reverse that
effect.
Ms. Kaptur. Well, I think what you are saying is extremely
important. And we know dopamine, and serotonin, and other
substances that the body has inside of it sometimes being
handled in an orderly way and sometimes in a very disorderly
way.
I think the labs can really help us partner with NIH, NIMH,
and other places in our country, our defense research labs. I
would like to elevate this as an area of heightened inquiry for
the country. So just be aware of that. And I thank you very
much for responding.
And I ask you, as well as Congressman Moolenaar, any
evidence in your part of the United States where you see
changes in the environment compared to when you were maybe in
school, high school or college, what have you seen happen in
your area that is worthy of note in terms of climate change?
Mr. Foster. One thing I can mention, as you recall, the
lake in Madison, Wisconsin, would freeze hard for many months.
And it is barely freezing at all these days.
Ms. Kaptur. I couldn't believe--I am a graduate of the
University of Wisconsin.
Mr. Foster. Right.
Ms. Kaptur. And when I went back there for my reunion, I
could not believe how high the lake was and the degree of
rainfall that--this was about a year ago--that Madison had
endured. That was really a wake-up call because I haven't been
back there in quite a while. So thank you for mentioning that.
And I wanted to ask Congressman Moolenaar if he had any
comment on that point relative to Michigan.
Mr. Moolenaar. Well, I would just say, as you know,
Chairwoman Kaptur, the Great Lakes are at a very high level
right now. They tend to be cyclical, as you know. And I can
remember the first decade of 21st century where we were very
concerned about the need for dredging and just the lower
levels. And we were concerned about water withdrawal. And so we
ended up passing legislation to make sure there was a
consistent policy on water withdrawals in the Great Lakes. So,
anecdotally, I can certainly see changes and cycles. But I do
think this is an area where our agriculture leaders need to be
monitoring this because, as you know, different crops grow
better in certain types of weather. And they are monitoring any
changes as we go forward.
So I think we are very fortunate, as you know, to have the
Great Lakes. And we will continue to see how that works out
this year. It seems like they are down a little bit this year
from where they were last year, but I guess we will know more
in the weeks and months ahead.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much. I can guarantee you, on
the agriculture front, and our district is located a bit south
of Congressman Moolenaar's, the seed packets that you buy to
plant actually--the climatic zones have moved one zone north.
So we are actually planting Tennessee tomatoes in Ohio now. It
is just interesting. So that is a change that I have noted. And
I want to thank both of you for testifying.
Before you shut off your video, I wanted to ask Congressman
Simpson if he has any questions or comments.
Mr. Simpson. No questions. But I would like to say thank
you to Congressman Foster for his work on the importance of
research at our national laboratories all across the country.
They are truly the research gems of this country. And I want to
work with you on making sure that they have the resources to do
the job we expect them to do.
Secondly, Congressman Moolenaar, I would just say that
every administration, whether it is Republican or Democrat,
always comes back with a budget request for the Army Corps of
Engineers that is below the level of the year before. This
committee has always been very cognizant of that fact. It made
sure that that didn't happened. And I suspect that is going to
be the case again this year, but thank you for recognizing
that.
Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Congressman Simpson, very much. You
are a bright light for the country.
Now, I want to thank you and bring up the final panelists,
Representative Joe Wilson and Representative Jefferson Van
Drew. Thank you both for desiring to testify this morning. And
we look forward to your testimony as our hearing has gone a bit
into the afternoon.
Congressman Joe Wilson.
---------- --
--------

Monday, May 3, 2021.

WITNESS

HON. JOE WILSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH
CAROLINA
Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. Thank you. And good afternoon
top Chairman Marcy Kaptur and Ranking Member Mike Simpson.
Thank you for your determined leadership on the committee.
I am here today representing the Second District of South
Carolina, where I am grateful that we are the home of the
Savannah River Site, which is so supported by our communities
of South Carolina and Georgia. The Savannah River Site was
constructed during the 1950s to support our national defense
programs for victory in the Cold War. The site maintains that
responsibility 70 years later through its national laboratory,
NNSA missions, and environmental cleanup.
I ask the committee to consider the following for the site.
One, $30 million for the Tritium Finishing Facility. The site
is home to the Savannah River Tritium Enterprise, which
prepares the Nation's only tritium supply for international
defense. This new facility will replace an aging facility
constructed in the 1950s that is necessary to maintain a
nuclear deterrent.
Second, $495 million for the Savannah River Plutonium
Processing Facility and $200 million for the Savannah River
Plutonium Operations. As part of a two-site solution to
plutonium pit production, this facility will provide the
capability of producing no fewer than 80 plutonium pits by
2030, reinforcing again America's nuclear deterrent.
Third, $115 million for the surplus Plutonium Disposition
Project. This project at the site will safely dispose of 24
metric tons of surplus plutonium through the dilute and dispose
process.
Fourth, $11,549,000 for the Savannah River site community
and regulatory support. This request secures payments in lieu
of taxes for Aiken, Barnwell, and Allendale Counties, which I
represent with Congressman Jim Clyburn, which provide for the
vast acreage of the site.
This funding request matches what has been appropriated
previous years to support the local school districts, emergency
services, and county operations.
Fifth, $543,784,000 for the Savannah River risk management
operations. This request will allow critical missions like H-
Canyon at the SRS to proceed to continue processing spent
nuclear fuel. These funds will also maintain operations aligned
with the liquid waste lifecycle program.
Six, $1,046,000,000 for the Savannah River radioactive
liquid tank waste stabilization and disposition. This request
includes continuation of hot operations of the Salt Waste
Processing Facility, SWPF, the defense waste processing
facility, as well as the continued construction of saltstone
disposal units to accommodate for the increased amount of waste
being processed.
Seventh and finally, $80 million for the Savannah River
National Laboratory RAD facilities. The Savannah River National
Laboratory operates a suite of radiological facilities that
provide for critical, technical, and operational support to the
EM and NNSA missions. Effective June 2021, the lab will become
a separate management and operations contract. To cover the
high cost of operating and maintaining radiological facilities,
the lab overhead rate would increase significantly. By
increasing a controlled point for the lab, it will allow the
SRNL to safely operate.
Thank you again for your time and your great service on the
committee and in Congress for each of you. And I appreciate
your consideration for these requests.
I yield back.
[The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Congressman Wilson, very much.
Where in South Carolina do you actually reside? What is the
largest town or give us a sense?
Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. Chairwoman, I am adjacent to
the city of Columbia.
Ms. Kaptur. Columbia----
Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. --Aiken, the I-20 corridor,
and so it is the central part of South Carolina.
Ms. Kaptur. The central part of South Carolina. If you had
to mention a facility or a college or a place that other
Americans might know, what would you pick?
Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. The University of South
Carolina, Gamecocks. I am adjacent to that, of course. And the
real USC. Okay? And we are happy, hey, we are also happy to
claim next door the Augusta National Golf Course, and so the
Masters brings worldwide attention to the communities I
represent.
Ms. Kaptur. All right. Well, thank you for ringing in hard
for the southeastern part of our country. We appreciate your
testimony today.
And now we are going to move to another coastal State on
the East Coast, obviously, Representative Jefferson Van Drew.
Thank you so much for testifying today.
---------- --
--------

Monday, May 3, 2021.

WITNESS

HON. JEFFERSON VAN DREW, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
NEW JERSEY
Mr. Van Drew. Madam Chair, thank you. Thank you for having
these hearings and as well to the ranking member. I truly
appreciate it.
I am here to advocate for a long overdue and much-needed
Army Corps of Engineers project. The dredging of the mouth of
the Maurice River on the Delaware Bay Shore in New Jersey.
This project will generate high economic operational and
environmental returns in a cost-effective and innovative
manner. The Maurice River has been federally authorized for
dredging for over 1 century. Maintenance dredging should be
done every 5 to 8 years, but it has been nearly 25 years since
the Maurice River was last serviced.
As it stands, vessels must idle and wait until high tide to
access the river channel. The neglect of the Maurice River
Channel has limited the ability of local industry, mostly small
businesses to flourish and expand. It has cost them large
contracts.
There is also increased cost for government agencies,
including the U.S. Army, the United States Coast Guard, the
Army Corps, and the New Jersey State Police, which all rely on
this channel. Government vessels that would otherwise be
serviced at Maurice River now must instead travel to Rhode
Island or Virginia or other areas, which increases the time and
the monetary cost of the operation to all these different
agencies. The proposed dredging will open the channel to larger
vessels and more frequent navigation, which is what we want.
And it will increase the capacity for commerce across the Mid-
Atlantic to facilitate the interstate commerce by keeping the
Nation's waterways open and safe is one of the Army Corps'
original and most vital missions.
This project has outstanding community support. It has
received letters of support from the surrounding
municipalities, the county, the State legislative delegation,
and the entire local business community. The local and regional
community is totally united in support for this project.
Most notably, this project has received a very rare letter
of capability from the Army Corps of Engineers, which I have
submitted to the committee. The Army Corps has an innovative
beneficial-use plan to execute this project in a cost-effective
manner and amplify the benefits of the project and utilize the
dredge spoils for environmental resilience, which is what is so
wonderful about this particular project.
This project, if funded, will open a new world of
opportunity for the Delaware Bay Shore community. This is a
community that is near and dear to my heart and, sadly, one
that is too often left behind. We can truly make a positive
impact on this community. I urge you to grant this request for
$4,010,000 in community project funding to the Army Corps of
Engineers in the Philadelphia district and to conduct this
literally one-of-a-kind project.
Thank you so much for your time, and I yield back.
[The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Congressman Van Drew.
And you are our last panel. But I did want to comment to
both of you that, and our able ranking member earlier stated,
generally administrations submit a budget to us and underfund
the Corps because they know how popular the Corps is and
Congress will fix it. Well, shame on them.
We have tens of billions of dollars of backlog Corps
projects all over the country. The most important
infrastructure bill we could write would put those projects up
at the top of the list because the Corps could move them. They
are restrained somewhat internally by not having enough staff
to process, but, nonetheless, you know, when we are serious
about something, America can get it done. So I view their unmet
backlog as one of our key elements for the upcoming
infrastructure bill. And I hope we can get it done.
I am very happy to hear your emphasis, Congressman Van
Drew, on environmental restoration. And one of our challenges
with the Corps--I couldn't figure out why it has been so slow
for them to do environmental restoration. And I asked them for
a list of which engineers they hire and how many are civil
engineers, environmental engineers. They have almost no
environmental engineers. So, when you talk about reuse and
recovery of material, it isn't that they are not talented; they
are very talented. They just don't think in that category. They
don't have the staff to do it. So it is a problem for us all
over the country.
I want----
Mr. Van Drew. Madam Chairman, this would be a brave new
start because it is something that would help the environment,
the wetlands, and so forth in the area, and at the same time
reduce costs, which usually doesn't always go together. So we
are really proud of this project, and it has tremendous
potential. And, again, as I said before, the Army Corps is on
the same page with this. It is one of those rare projects,
which, as you know, doesn't happen that often, where
environmentalists are happy, where the Corps is happy, where
all these other agencies are happy as well. So it is not the
largest price tag project in the world for sure, but it is a
very, very important one to people whose safety and literally
their way of life depends upon it.
Ms. Kaptur. I wanted to ask Congressman Wilson and
yourself, in terms of what is happening to our environment, you
both are coastal Representatives. You are further north,
obviously, but New Jersey's coast has been battered. Obviously,
South Carolina, Florida, North Carolina, Louisiana. I mean, I
wondered if could you reflect on what you have seen happening
in your regions compared to maybe 40 years ago when you were in
school or starting your careers. Do you have any comments you
could make to us on changes that you have seen in the ecosystem
in your areas?
Mr. Van Drew. It certainly does seem a bit warmer, and that
is something that I think anecdotally a lot of people feel.
Interestingly enough, we have a tremendous amount of fishing.
The port of Cape May, if you are familiar with Cape May, is in
the top five on the whole East Coast. And the fishing, the type
of fish that they are catching, the type of fish that they are
seeing is a little bit different because of the change of the
temperature of the water. So that also has been a very
interesting change. And we had Superstorm Sandy, which was a
huge storm. But at the same time, you know, we have had storms
like that before, unfortunately, or almost like that. We don't
have them nearly as regularly as say Puerto Rico or even the
Carolinas, but we do. So we don't know what the cause of that
particular thing is.
And I would say this one thing, as we go forward--and I was
glad to hear we were talking about--I always see this as a
basket of ideas. So I believe that wind has a use. I believe
that solar has a use. Fossil fuels are still going to be there
for a while. I believe that nuclear could have a use, without
question. One of the issues that is a real challenge for the
coast of New Jersey and our area is there are a great number of
wind turbines that are slated to go up. And it is creating a
real difference of opinion between commercial fishermen and
recreational fishermen and the people who want to do the
windmills because it is going to profoundly--they are a 1,000
feet high, and on top of that 1,000 feet, they have a light, so
they are as high as the Statue of Liberty. And so people do
worry about the birds, literally the birds and the bees and the
bats. And people are also worried about we don't want to
replace one industry for another, that there be enough room for
navigation for the commercial fishing boats and the
recreational fishing boats because, in Europe, where they do
have these wind turbines to a much greater degree, they don't
have fishing, other than in the U.K., right around them. So
they are worried about the cold pool. The cold pool is a rich
area, an abundant area environmentally species-wise and for the
fishermen as well. They are worried about the floor, literally
the floor of the ocean. So I think, as we go through with this,
we all have to have open minds and see what the best is to do
in a particular situation. This isn't going to be one easy,
quick answer in my mind, that it is just going to be wind or it
is just going to be solar or it is just going to be nuclear, or
it is just going to be--certainly, you know, a mixture, I
think. And I just wanted to put that in because it is quite a
thing that we are going through right now.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much for those comments.
Congressman Wilson.
Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. Chairwoman, first of all, I
want to thank you for your tribute to the Corps of Engineers.
My youngest son is a graduate of Fort Leonard Wood as an
engineer and has served for a year in Afghanistan. And so I am
really grateful for his service. And then, indeed, I actually
represent of interior part of South Carolina, but we
obviously--I grew up in the very historic coastal city of
Charleston, South Carolina. And so every year, Chairwoman, we
would have the threat of a hurricane coming straight toward us.
And then, fortunately, only one time, 1959, with Hurricane
Gracie, did it actually hit Charleston. But due to the Gulf
Stream, it normally directs a hurricane--and I don't want to
hurt the feelings of people in Outer Banks of North Carolina,
but it directs it straight to the Outer Banks of North Carolina
like a catcher's mitt. And so we have been very fortunate. We
did have in 1989 Hurricane Hugo. But the hurricanes fortunately
along our coast, sadly for our adjacent States, go north. Like
Hurricane Sandy to New Jersey, where Congressman Van Drew found
out the consequence. But bottom line, we have a temperate
climate. And so that is why South Carolina is one of the
fastest growing States in the United States.
Ms. Kaptur. Very interesting. Well, thank you both
Congressmen.
Congressman Simpson, would you like to ask any questions or
make final comments?
Mr. Simpson. No questions. Thank you both for testifying. I
always look forward to working with Joe on the issues dealing
with the nuclear facility in South Carolina and how we get this
dilute disposed moving forward and where we are going to
dispose after we dilute. That is always--that is the challenge
right now. So I look forward to working with you on that.
Thank you both for testifying and being here today.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you.
And, for the record, I would just say following Congressman
Simpson's comments that we are looking very seriously at
interim storage of spent nuclear waste. And we are trying to
figure out a way to get that moving for the sake of the Nation.
So all ideas on that front are welcome.
I want to thank Congressman and Ranking Member Simpson for
his steadfast engagement.
And this concludes today's hearing.
But I would like to thank all of our colleagues for joining
us today. I think this was a great hearing, learning from our
Members and hearing their ideas and their experiences.
Members who would like to submit written testimony have
until the close of business today to provide this information
to the subcommittee office. And this hearing is adjourned with
thanks to all.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]