[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                    SPENDING ON EMPTY: HOW THE BIDEN
                     ADMINISTRATION'S UNPRECEDENTED
                       SPENDING INCREASED RISK OF
                       WASTE, FRAUD, AND ABUSE AT
                        THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                  SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC GROWTH, ENERGY 
                        POLICY, AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

                                  OF THE

                 COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                             APRIL 18, 2023

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-21

                               __________

  Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability
  
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]  


                       Available on: govinfo.gov,
                         oversight.house.gov or
                             docs.house.gov
                             
                                __________

                                
                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
51-893 PDF                   WASHINGTON : 2023                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                              
                            
               COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

                    JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman

Jim Jordan, Ohio                     Jamie Raskin, Maryland, Ranking 
Mike Turner, Ohio                        Minority Member
Paul Gosar, Arizona                  Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of 
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina            Columbia
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin            Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Gary Palmer, Alabama                 Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
Clay Higgins, Louisiana              Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Pete Sessions, Texas                 Ro Khanna, California
Andy Biggs, Arizona                  Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Nancy Mace, South Carolina           Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Jake LaTurner, Kansas                Katie Porter, California
Pat Fallon, Texas                    Cori Bush, Missouri
Byron Donalds, Florida               Shontel Brown, Ohio
Kelly Armstrong, North Dakota        Jimmy Gomez, California
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania            Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
William Timmons, South Carolina      Robert Garcia, California
Tim Burchett, Tennessee              Maxwell Frost, Florida
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia      Becca Balint, Vermont
Lisa McClain, Michigan               Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Lauren Boebert, Colorado             Greg Casar, Texas
Russell Fry, South Carolina          Jasmine Crockett, Texas
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida           Dan Goldman, New York
Chuck Edwards, North Carolina        Jared Moskowitz, Florida
Nick Langworthy, New York
Eric Burlison, Missouri

                       Mark Marin, Staff Director
       Jessica Donlon, Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel
                          David Ehmen, Counsel
                Jeanne Kuehl, Senior Professional Staff
      Mallory Cogar, Deputy Director of Operations and Chief Clerk

                      Contact Number: 202-225-5074

                  Julie Tagen, Minority Staff Director
                      Contact Number: 202-225-5051

 Subcommittee On Economic Growth, Energy Policy, And Regulatory Affairs

                      Pat Fallon, Texas, Chairman
Byron Donalds, Florida               Cori Bush, Missouri, Ranking 
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania                Minority Member
Lisa McClain, Michigan               Shontel Brown, Ohio
Lauren Boebert, Colorado             Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
Russell Fry, South Carolina          Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of 
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida               Columbia
Chuck Edwards, North Carolina        Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Nick Langworthy, New York            Ro Khanna, California
                         
                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing held on April 18, 2023...................................     1

                               Witnesses

                              ----------                              

The Honorable Teri L. Donaldson, Inspector General, Department of 
  Energy
Oral Statement...................................................     5
Dr. Kathleen Hogan, Principal Deputy Under Secretary for 
  Infrastructure, Department of Energy
Oral Statement...................................................     6

 Opening statements and the prepared statements for the witnesses 
  are available in the U.S. House of Representatives Repository 
  at: docs.house.gov.

                           Index of Documents

                              ----------                              


  * Questions for the Record: to Dr. Hogan; submitted by Rep. 
  Perry.

  * Questions for the Record: to Dr. Hogan; submitted by Rep. 
  Donalds.

  * Questions for the Record: to Hon. Donaldson; submitted by 
  Rep. Perry.


The documents listed above are available at: docs.house.gov.

 
                    SPENDING ON EMPTY: HOW THE BIDEN
                     ADMINISTRATION'S UNPRECEDENTED
                       SPENDING INCREASED RISK OF
                       WASTE, FRAUD, AND ABUSE AT
                        THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                              ----------                              


                    Tuesday, April 18, 2023

                        House of Representatives

               Committee on Oversight and Accountability

                Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Energy

                     Policy, and Regulatory Affairs

                                                   Washington, D.C.

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:22 p.m., in 
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Pat Fallon 
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Fallon, Donalds, Perry, Fry, Luna, 
Edwards, Langworthy, Brown, Stansbury, and Norton.
    Mr. Fallon. This hearing on the Subcommittee on Economic 
Growth, Energy Policy, and Regulatory Affairs will come to 
order. We want to welcome everyone.
    Without objection, the Chair may declare a recess at any 
time.
    I recognize myself for the purpose of making an opening 
statement.
    The Biden Administration's rampant spending spree has put 
American taxpayer dollars at even greater risk of waste, fraud, 
and abuse, which obviously none of us want. We just have to 
take a look at the alleged COVID relief spending, hundreds of 
billions of dollars just shoved out the door into the hands of, 
on too many occasions, criminals and fraudsters. This Committee 
has and will continue to conduct oversight over that money. 
That is our job, and that is what we were all elected to do.
    Today's Subcommittee hearing will examine the Department of 
Energy's budget and spending. According to the DOE's Inspector 
General, the Inflation Reduction Act, the Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act, and the CHIPS and Science Act have 
created enormous challenges at the Department. In fact, the 
Inspector General said that these are ``historic and 
unprecedented times'' at the Department in light of the massive 
spending.
    President Biden and congressional Democrats' spending spree 
grew the Department's budget--get this--from $45 billion in 
2022, exactly 45.3 billion, to over $100 billion in just one 
year in 2023. You know, it has doubled, historic and 
unprecedented times, absolutely. Under the Inflation Reduction 
Act, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act alone, 
Democrats directed the Department to distribute $336 billion in 
loans on extremely tight deadlines, and that is critical. Under 
one program alone, the Department will need to distribute 
approximately $32 million per day on average in loans to meet 
the September 30, 2026 deadline. The speed and complexity of 
the review process raises concerns about whether the Department 
can successfully oversee these funds.
    The IG also identified several common risks within the 
Department programs, which will get worse under the new 
spending and loan programs. These risks include, but aren't 
limited to, the inefficient oversight of projects at the 
transaction level, inadequate internal controls at both the 
Federal and recipient levels, potential conflicts of interest 
and undue influence and compliance problems with contract and 
grant terms and conditions. Given these serious challenges, 
Congress must evaluate the safeguards in place at the 
Department to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse of American 
taxpayer dollars.
    In a series of reports, the Inspector General highlighted 
the need to address waste, fraud, and abuse in the Agency's 
Financial Assistance Awards, Clean Energy Demonstration 
Projects, the Loan Programs Office, and the Weatherization 
Assistance Program. Across these programs, the Inspector 
General highlighted insufficient staffing as a chief concern. 
The Department apparently needed to go on a hiring blitz to 
fill vacancies, and new rules are raising questions about the 
qualifications and technical skills of the new hires who are 
brand new to the Department. Some of these programs receiving 
billions of dollars have not been used in decades, meaning 
their oversight personnel are simply not existent. Yet even 
while the Department has been filling these vacancies, it has 
also been distributing funds. Combine this with the hiring 
blitz, with ongoing vacancies and positions intended to oversee 
these funds, and we are looking at high risk of disaster.
    If that wasn't enough cause for concern, reports already 
indicate funds from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act 
are going to, of all places, China. The Department awarded 
Microvast, a lithium battery company, $200 million of taxpayer 
money despite the company's primary operations taking place not 
the United States, not an allied nation, but in China, placing 
it at serious risk by influence of the Chinese Communist Party. 
Congress and the American people must be assured that taxpayer 
dollars are not going to entities, of course, owned, operated, 
or susceptible to control or influence of the CCP.
    Today, we welcome our witnesses from the Department as well 
as the Inspector General and look forward to their testimony 
about how their offices will ensure that the Department of 
Energy can and will be good stewards of taxpayer dollars.
    I now recognize the Ranking Member Stansbury for the 
purpose of making an opening statement.
    Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to 
welcome our witnesses who are here with us today. This last 
Congress, our congressional Democrats made landmark and 
generational investments in infrastructure, clean energy, and 
domestic manufacturing when they enacted the Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act, the Inflation Reduction Act, and the 
CHIPS and Science Act. Our extreme colleagues on the right want 
to cast these laws as wasteful, despite the extraordinary 
benefits they will provide for the American people and the 
planet, in order to curry brownie points with special interests 
and climate deniers. Let me be clear. The investments that we 
are making through these bills will lower costs, create jobs 
for millions of Americans, increase domestic manufacturing and 
energy production, and combat climate change.
    As Democrats, we are committed to championing positive 
investments in domestic energy and manufacturing as well as 
providing good, well-paying jobs for all Americans. In fact, 
the Inflation Reduction Act has already catalyzed more than 
100,000 clean energy jobs and led to increased investment by 
businesses and manufacturing across the United States. This 
includes in the West, in Colorado, where private sector 
company, CS Wind, plans to expand the largest wind turbine 
factory in the world.
    In North Carolina, Toyota has invested $2.5 billion in an 
electric vehicle battery facility, and Wolfspeed has committed 
to building the world's largest carbide materials factory. In 
South Carolina, BMW has announced $1.7 billion to shift to 
electric vehicle manufacturing, and Bosch has announced $260 
million in investment in the production of electric motors. And 
in Texas, where SK Signet announced plans to build an electric 
vehicle charger manufacturing facility, Tesla is investing $770 
million to expand its vehicle factory, and Air Products and AES 
announced a combined $4 billion investment in the future of our 
energy economy.
    As this hearing gavels in just days away from Earth Day, it 
is important for us to talk about why these historic 
investments are so critical to combating climate change and 
moving our economy toward a clean energy future. It is 
absolutely vital that we shift to clean energy sources. Such 
efforts are our best chance at avoiding the most devastating 
impacts of climate change. That is why Democrats' investments 
in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation 
Reduction Act are so significant in helping to pave the way for 
the future.
    I would also like to point out that investing in our 
communities is not a waste. The communities that most need 
these investments are the ones that are most likely to suffer 
from the impacts of climate change. Roughly $1.8 billion out of 
$4.5 billion that is slated for clean energy initiatives in the 
Inflation Reduction Act will go to low-income American homes. 
In addition, the Administration's Justice40 Initiative aims to 
ensure that 40 percent of the benefits achieved through these 
investments in climate action and clean energy will flow to our 
under-served communities.
    We know that the Department of Energy is committed to 
responsibly stewarding these funds and ensuring that these 
historic investments are put to work for the American people 
and help to serve our most vulnerable communities. But as we 
sit here today, Republicans' concerns seem to stem from special 
reports that go back over a decade when the Department of 
Energy has already worked tirelessly to address concerns and to 
administer these investments that are so crucial for our 
climate and clean energy future and our national labs in 
science and technology programs. Our President is committed to 
ensuring that these funds are used appropriately. And, in fact, 
the President's budget for this year includes almost a 55-
percent increase for the Inspector General at DOE.
    When Republicans claim that they are conducting real 
oversight, they are focused on programs and agencies that have 
worked specifically to fortify against fraud, waste, and abuse 
with talking points that literally have very little 
relationship to reality. The Administration has prioritized 
preventing fraud, waste, and abuse across the Federal 
Government and ensuring that the benefits of the Infrastructure 
Law, the Inflation Reduction Act, and the CHIPS Act are no 
exception. And I look very much forward to hearing from our 
witnesses today. And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you. I am pleased to introduce our two 
witnesses today. Teri Donaldson served as an Inspector General 
of the United States Department of Energy, and Dr. Kathleen 
Hogan is the Principal Deputy Under Secretary and Acting Under 
Secretary for Infrastructure at the Department of Energy. I 
look forward to hearing from each of you this morning, or this 
afternoon rather, on this important topic.
    Pursuant to Committee Rule 9(g), the witnesses will please 
stand and raise your right hands.
    Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that you 
are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth, so help you God?
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    Mr. Fallon. Let the record show that the witnesses all 
answered in the affirmative. We appreciate you both being here 
today and look forward to your testimony. Let me remind the 
witnesses that we have read your written statements and they 
will appear in full in the hearing record. Please limit your 
oral statements to five minutes.
    As a reminder, please press the button on the microphone in 
front of you so that it is on, and the Members can hear you. 
When you begin to speak, the light in front of you will turn 
green. After four minutes, the light will turn yellow, and then 
the red light will come on, and that is that time and cue, as 
you may suspect, to wrap it up.
    I recognize Inspector General Donaldson to please begin her 
opening statement.

                 STATEMENT OF HONORABLE TERI DONALDSON

                           INSPECTOR GENERAL

                       U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

    Ms. Donaldson. Thank you, Chairman Fallon and Ranking 
Member Stansbury, for inviting me to testify today and talk a 
little bit about the types of fraud, waste, and abuse that we 
might encounter given some of the risk factors within the 
landscape at the Department of Energy.
    The Chairman mentioned probably the most significant risk 
factor, which is sheer volume of dollars. So, in Fiscal Year 
2022, the budget for the Department was a little over $44 
billion. Underneath IIJA, IRA, CHIPS Act, and the legislation 
giving a billion dollars to Puerto Rico for solar, that number 
is now at $478 billion when you include the loan-related 
dollars, so from $44 to $478 is a really big hop. Also, these 
statutes created 71 brand new programs, which is a staggering 
number.
    This is, by the way, the largest amount of money under all 
of these bills did, in fact, go collectively to the Department 
of Energy, and this is the largest number of new programs 
collectively, so there is a lot going on in Dr. Hogan's world 
right now just with this huge volume of very important issues 
being worked on. New programs do bring particular risks as the 
Chairman mentioned. By definition, you are utilizing newly 
designed and untested internal controls, so that is a big risk 
factor. Also, a lot of the money in this situation will go to 
states, local governments, and tribes, and it is not at all 
clear whether states, local governments, and tribes are ready 
to take it.
    So, there are readiness assessments being done, and there 
are issues associated with that. One of their questions is how 
much of the money are they allowed to use to conduct oversight. 
So, there are many questions being asked there and those are 
very important. You do not, by virtue of granting money to 
others, remove the Federal nature of the money, so the risks 
just travel right along with it.
    I will also comment briefly on the lack of funding for 
Department oversight, you know. As all of you know, the 
Department is the front line of defense. IIJA awarded only 
three percent for administrative costs, a little more 
flexibility under IRA, which I think was really good news but 
administrative costs focused primarily on moving the money out 
the door to its intended use. Oversight is a small part of 
that. Oversight is making sure that the dollars actually landed 
where Congress wanted them to land, some of the important 
projects mentioned by Congresswoman Stansbury, so it is really 
important. It is that look in the rearview mirror to make sure 
the dollars were delivered where they were supposed to go.
    I will also quickly point out one of the most, sort of 
obvious, risk factors in this package was that my shop, the 
Office of the Inspector General, was woefully under-funded in 
all four bills. So, in the CHIPS Act, the Office of the 
Inspector General received zero. The $1 billion appropriation 
for solar in Puerto Rico, my office received zero. In IRA and 
IIJA, we did receive some amount of money, but compared to the 
other inspectors general whose agencies received money, ours 
was the tiniest fraction of that, and this is really important.
    And I appreciate that the President has included a bump up, 
you know, in his proposed budget in recognition of this. It is 
still going to leave a shortfall that is enormous in terms of 
my budget, which allows me to conduct audits, inspections, and 
evaluations. So, I always say there is no substitute. You can 
do a lot of planning, a lot of coordinating with others, but 
there is no substitute for having the people and the technology 
to do those targeted projects that allow you to find where the 
system is breaking or broken, and allow you to work on those 
big fraud cases that we all know are coming just because this 
is a lot of money moving fast. But we are trying to work as 
hard as we can on the front end to minimize that.
    So, quickly, I will mention what I think is the most 
important tool in the tool bag. In addition to people, I 
mentioned technology. Data analytics is a gift to the world of 
inspectors general and a gift to Federal agencies, that if they 
properly utilize it, can be on the front end of oversight and 
prevent a lot of the fraud, waste, and abuse. So, data 
analytics is something that Congress has been heavily endorsing 
since 2015 with the Fraud Reduction and Data Analytics Act; 
again, in 2018, Foundations of Evidence Based Policymaking Act; 
Payment Integrity Act 2019. Those are all very important pieces 
of legislation where the Federal Government has recognized you 
have to acquire and scrub quality data in order to have data 
analytics really work for you.
    I am looking forward to your questions. Thank you very 
much.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Dr. Hogan, 
and please begin your opening statement.

                      STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN HOGAN

                  PRINCIPAL DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY AND

               ACTING UNDER SECRETARY FOR INFRASTRUCTURE

                       U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

    Ms. Hogan. Chairman Fallon and distinguished Members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to provide an 
update on the Department of Energy's efforts to safeguard 
taxpayer dollars in the implementation of the Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act, known 
as IIJA and IRA.
    So, IIJA and IRA really are truly historic investments in 
renewing American infrastructure and supporting American energy 
security for decades to come. And we at the Department are 
working hard to swiftly implement these laws so we can get 
these resources out to communities, in your districts, and in 
every corner of the country as quickly as possible. We also 
acknowledge and respect that when Congress appropriated these 
resources, you entrusted the Department with investments using 
taxpayer dollars, and we take this responsibility incredibly 
seriously. And every day, our team of experts and professionals 
are working hard to ensure that taxpayer dollars provided to us 
by Congress are being spent effectively, efficiently, and 
responsibly.
    Through the implementation of IIJA and IRA, we are striving 
to lower energy bills for American households, improve energy 
reliability and security, and ensure that America is positioned 
to lead the world in manufacturing the energy technologies of 
the future. And the Department appreciates the passion and 
interest of Members on both sides of the aisle in your efforts 
to make sure these investments reach your districts. We at the 
Department are happy to continue to work with Congress and 
provide information and updates as we continue to implement 
these laws thoughtfully and responsibly.
    You know, beginning in January 2022, very shortly after the 
IIJA was signed into law, our team began engaging with the DOE 
Office of Inspector General on behalf of and in coordination 
with the program offices responsible for implementing IIJA. We 
sought then, as we do now, to better understand how DOE can 
proactively improve its oversight of this funding. And over the 
past 15 months, the Office of the Under Secretary has 
coordinated 27 meetings with the OIG and DOE program officials 
to discuss program design and implementation. These meetings 
are designed to provide the opportunity for an engaged, open, 
and transparent conversation about program design, risk 
mitigation strategies, best practices, and lessons learned. 
And, you know, the topics of discussion have ranged from DOE's 
approach to Build America Buy America requirements to how 
specific provisions are being implemented.
    From the very start, the Office of the Under Secretary for 
Infrastructure and program officials across the Department have 
demonstrated a thorough transparency with our Inspector General 
with regard to our plans and activities. In turn, the Office of 
the Under Secretary has really gained substantial insights from 
our OIG on what trends are now being seen with respect to 
recent investigations and reports, the latest scams and methods 
that criminals are using to defraud the Government, and common 
mistakes that funding recipients make. And with this knowledge, 
we are better positioned to maximize the impact of this funding 
and reduce fraud, waste, and abuse. We have also shared with 
the OIG the critical process improvements the Department has 
made over the last decade across multiple program offices to 
strengthen our protections and mitigate risks associated with 
our financial assistance and loan guarantee programs.
    The Department truly appreciates the OIG's perspective 
considerations for the implementation of the IIJA, which did 
come in the form of a number of special reports last year. 
While these are not the end products of the typical audit 
process, they contain and collect helpful historical context 
and guidance on best practices. You know, one example, one key 
concern the Inspector General has highlighted in the 2022 
reports is about adequate staffing at the Department and the 
need to provide the necessary oversight of funding programs and 
projects. You know, we have been focused on hiring a sufficient 
staff from day one with a particular focus on project and 
program oversight specialists, grant management and contracting 
specialists, and financial and audit oversight staff to 
responsibly oversee the significant investment Congress has 
made. And as we continue to do this work, we remain steadfast 
in our commitment to be responsible stewards of taxpayer 
dollars and will continue to take proactive steps as necessary 
to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse as we really work to deliver 
the benefits that this money can do for the future of the 
country.
    And we really look forward to continue our work with you 
and thank you for the opportunity to be here, and we look 
forward to your questions.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you. I now recognize myself for five 
minutes of questions.
    IG Donaldson, in your report titled, ``Management 
Challenges at the Department of Energy, Fiscal Year 2023,'' you 
warned about a greatly increased risk of fraud, waste, and 
mismanagement given the massive spending flowing through the 
Department. So, you posed critical questions in your report, 
one of which you asked `do these spending bills allow the 
Department to create an appropriately sized oversight 
infrastructure to ensure that these funds are delivered as 
Congress intended.' Can you expound on that?
    Ms. Donaldson. I can. So, historically, the Department--
well, it has always been probably the leanest Federal agency. 
So, over 90 percent of its dollars historically pass through 
and end up with its contractors. So, when I came on board in 
this position, now four years and change ago, I inherited a lot 
of reports noting that there were problems during the audits, 
and the Department would even acknowledge they were under-
resourced for oversight. So, there would be a set of 
requirements. Only some of them were being met or followed. 
They simply didn't have the people, so that was a real theme 
that I inherited in this job.
    So, when the new bills came along, that was, I think, the 
very first question we had talked to the Department of Energy 
about is, are you going to be able to make up some of that 
shortfall with the allocations in those earmarks for 
administrative cost? What amount of that will you actually be 
able to use for auditors and oversight? And I think they are 
still working through those issues.
    Mr. Fallon. So, what you are saying is even when they were 
at a budget of $46 billion, there were concerns about their 
oversight capability?
    Ms. Donaldson. Noted by my predecessors----
    Mr. Fallon. OK.
    Ms. Donaldson [continuing]. And GAO.
    Mr. Fallon. Now, with double that kind of budget that now 
explodes, fair enough to say that that concern would be greatly 
increased?
    Ms. Donaldson. They will need to dedicate a lot more 
resources to oversight. That is correct, sir.
    Mr. Fallon. Dr. Hogan, what has the Agency's response been 
to this critical question? Are you satisfied with the response?
    Ms. Hogan. I mean, we are working hard to bring the staff 
on that can provide the necessary oversight for these projects. 
I think, as we have talked about, many of these programs are 
new. That is interesting in that it gives us the opportunity to 
bring people on to participate in the design of these programs 
really before we get into the project management with the 
dollars on the street, which means we can be hiring for where 
we need to be sort of six months ahead and bring people on and 
train them up, which is something we have been focused on----
    Mr. Fallon. OK.
    Ms. Hogan [continuing]. Across the board.
    Mr. Fallon. And a second question was asked in the report, 
do these massive spending bills allow the Department's OIG to 
execute its statutory obligations to protect these funds. And 
can you expound on that, IG Donaldson?
    Ms. Donaldson. Yes, I can. The funding issues I mentioned a 
moment ago are really quite remarkable. As I said, without 
funding, you simply can't cover that portfolio. So, even now, 
we are shifting some from our existing portfolio, which is 
hugely important work--environmental liabilities, pit 
production--and trying to sort of squeeze in some resources to 
have all of these meetings with Dr. Hogan's shop and prepare. 
But that doesn't mean that we automatically will have the 
resources to do audits, inspections, and investigations. We 
won't, right? So, we are trying to do the planning to where 
when additional money arrives, we will be able to do that. But 
right now, we are in a bad situation funding-wise.
    Mr. Fallon. Yes. Dr. Hogan, on March 22d, Chairman Comer 
and myself wrote to Secretary Granholm seeking documents and 
information related to IG Donaldson's report and the DOE 
funding announcements. Yesterday, DOE submitted some of these 
documents. In one email from May 9, 2022, a staff member in the 
OIG's office stated, ``We believe administrative remedies, such 
as suspension and debarment, should be considered by the loan 
programs offices and instances, such as Solyndra, where company 
officials provide misleading information or provide false 
statements.'' Has the DOE implemented this recommendation?
    Ms. Hogan. We implement a full set of mitigation strategies 
across the portfolios that we run.
    Mr. Fallon. But respectfully, have you implemented this 
particular recommendation?
    Ms. Hogan. The Federal Government and DOE have disbarred 
entities from being able to participate in Federal business if 
they cross certain lines, yes.
    Mr. Fallon. So, you are implementing this recommendation? 
That is what you are saying? Yes? Yes?
    Ms. Hogan. Yes.
    Mr. Fallon. OK. Great. OK. So, you know, as we all know, 
Solyndra is the same company that in 2009 received half a 
billion dollars from the Energy Department, despite having 
submitted a misleading application, laid off its employees, 
shutdown, and filed bankruptcy two years after receiving the 
funds. The last question, can the Department commit to 
producing the rest of the documents that we requested by the 
end of this week?
    Ms. Hogan. We are working through the document requests 
that you have, and we will----
    Mr. Fallon. Can you commit to it, though?
    Ms. Hogan. We will get to you as many documents as we can 
get as quickly as we can.
    Mr. Fallon. We would really appreciate that. It is a pretty 
simple request, and that is it. Considering the money involved, 
I think it would help us do our oversight job. Thank you very 
much. The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Ohio, Ms. Brown.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you very much. The 117th Congress was one 
of the most productive in our Nation's history. Congressional 
Democrats, with the help of some Senate Republicans, sent 
groundbreaking legislation to President Biden's desk, like the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the CHIPS and Science Act. In 
addition, Democrats unilaterally passed what will go down as 
one of the most important pieces of legislation in American 
history: the Inflation Reduction Act.
    These bills make up part of the most expansive, forward 
thinking, and restorative agendas in modern history. Democrats 
are taking steps to propel our Nation's infrastructure decades 
into the future, promoting our strategic and national security 
interests, as well as passing the largest-ever investment in 
our climate. That means clean jobs and investment. The 
Inflation Reduction Act has already led to the creation of 
100,000 jobs and, as my colleague pointed out, billions of 
dollars in investment by domestic manufacturing companies since 
its passage last year. Meanwhile, the plan from my colleagues 
on the other side includes proposing the cut from the 
lifesaving programs, like Medicaid, while holding the payment 
of our Nation's debt hostage. That right there is backward, 
catastrophic, and the Republican agenda.
    Now, let us talk about how the Biden Administration is 
responsibly stewarding taxpayer dollars. In June 2022, the 
Department of Energy's Office of Inspector General issued a 
report on preventing fraud, waste, and abuse in the Loan 
Programs Office. Dr. Hogan, can you tell us how much of the 
Department's budget has actually increased per year because of 
IIJA and the IRA?
    Ms. Hogan. Yes. I mean, our budget is substantially larger 
because of the IIJA and the Inflation Reduction Act, with $68 
billion coming in through the IIJA and additional $30-plus 
million coming in through the Inflation Reduction Act. At the 
same time, we know that this is a historic investment in our 
future for the purpose of, you know, improving the economic 
opportunity for our communities and building jobs. And we don't 
view this as a one-year appropriation-type opportunity. It 
really is a many, many year effort to move out and help our 
communities improve their economic opportunity.
    So, you know, say it is a 10-year-ish-type opportunity. You 
can take the $100 billion that is coming into the Department of 
Energy divided by 10. So, it is sort of like a $10 billion 
average increase in the budget to the Department. That is not a 
perfect way to do it because there are different timelines 
associated with different provisions. But that is what we are 
looking to do, is build the capacity to work with our 
applicants and with our communities over the next decade to 
truly make the difference that these dollars can make that 
Congress has trusted us with.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you so much. Back to the report. Dr. 
Hogan, has the Loan Programs Office taken steps to remedy the 
areas identified in the special report, and if so when were 
those reforms implemented?
    Ms. Hogan. Yes, the Loan Programs Office is a very 
different office today than what it was so many years ago. It 
has been able to stand up a number--expanded staff, but not 
just expand its headcount. It has been able to invest and build 
out new capabilities to assess, in a due diligence way, 
technical risk and business risk or the program for the 
projects that it is reviewing, as well as we have been able to 
build out any number of additional review capabilities within 
the Agency and across agencies, bringing in the capabilities of 
our Treasury Department, as an example. So, it is a very 
different program today.
    Ms. Brown. And, Dr. Hogan, what are the most significant 
changes that you anticipate at the Department of Energy as a 
result of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation 
Reduction Act?
    Ms. Hogan. I am sorry. What is that?
    Ms. Brown. Most significant changes you anticipate at the 
Department of Energy?
    Ms. Hogan. You know, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and 
IRA really have brought to the Department the opportunity to 
work with our communities and build out manufacturing, and help 
just capitalize on what is going to be a major opportunity to 
build jobs and be global leaders in the manufacturing that will 
go with a clean energy economy. So, I think----
    Mr. Fallon. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes gentleman 
from South Carolina, Mr. Fry.
    Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing 
today, and thank you to both of our witnesses for being here.
    Thanks to President Biden's tremendous spending spree, the 
DOE has seen a massive budget growth just this year alone. I 
think my biggest concern and what we echoed, Inspector General, 
is that, is the Department ready to handle that? The 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Inflation 
Reduction Act gave the Department of Energy $100 billion in 
appropriated funds, $336 billion in loan authorizations, and 
$30 billion from the CHIPS and Sciences Act. Let us take a 
closer look at what these chunks of money do.
    And the Inflation Reduction Act included $9 billion for 
home energy rebates and appliance upgrades, meaning the Federal 
Government will pay you $840 just to install an electric stove 
and up to $14,000 for high efficiency electric home rebates. 
The Infrastructure Investments and Jobs Act sets up an 
additional, as we talked about, dozens of programs. The CHIPS 
Act includes $250 million for a new carbon material science. 
This money doesn't grow on trees. It is coming straight from 
the pockets of hardworking Americans.
    So, Dr. Hogan, I want to turn to you. Given the speed at 
which this was passed and given the OIG report, do DOE 
employees face significant pressure from this Administration to 
exhaust the funds now available under the IIJA and the IRA?
    Ms. Hogan. We are working hard to balance the urgency that 
we think it is important to get these resources out on the 
street and benefit people. At the same time, we are balancing 
that with what we think we need to do to do it right. So, do we 
feel urgency? Yes, but we are doing it, we believe, with a 
balance to think through effective design, think through 
effective controls, and to engage many of the so-called co-
implementers for these provisions in what it will take to do it 
well.
    Mr. Fry. Again, I want to turn to permitting real quick. 
How does slowdowns in permitting affect your ability to 
properly distribute the funds that expires in just a few short 
years?
    Ms. Hogan. As you know, permitting is a huge issue, and 
figuring out how to make permitting happen as efficiently and 
as effectively and smoothly is something that we are all 
interested in doing. At the same time, what we have been doing 
at the Department is engaging with our sister agencies to 
streamline whatever it is we have the opportunity to do. And 
Congress did give us some additional dollars in the Inflation 
Reduction Act to bring more resources to bear, so there don't 
have to be bottlenecks where we can just move things through it 
quickly.
    Mr. Fry. Do you anticipate permitting delays because of 
existing laws? Is that correct?
    Ms. Hogan. Permitting is an important part of what we need 
to do, again, to do project review. So, absolutely, permitting 
is something that is part of many of the projects that we will 
be undertaking.
    Mr. Fry. Real quick, Dr. Hogan--I am crunched for time a 
little bit--but how do permitting delays impact the U.S. 
ability to utilize energy sources in general?
    Ms. Hogan. I mean, that is a complex problem, and we would 
be happy to engage with you. I mean, there are certain 
provisions and ways to move forward on Federal lands, and there 
are certain provisions, you know, on other properties. So, we 
are doing what we can to streamline and move efficiently where 
we can. And again, we would really appreciate a fulsome 
conversation about how to do permitting effectively so that we 
can get the benefits for what these dollars offer this country 
around manufacturing jobs, et cetera.
    Mr. Fry. Dr. Hogan, which DOE programs are most vulnerable 
to those permitting delays?
    Ms. Hogan. You know, there are a number of demonstration 
projects. There are transmission projects. And the way 
permitting intersects with these projects will be different 
based on where they are and where they will be constructed.
    Mr. Fry. In a briefing with Committee staff, DOE mentioned 
interagency conversations with the Department of Interior, as 
an example, to address these permitting issues. In your 
opinion, which areas of the permitting process are in most need 
of reform, and has DOI been receptive to DOE's permitting 
concerns?
    Ms. Hogan. We are having very good conversations with our 
sister agencies about what it is we can do to streamline 
permitting, and, again, we would love to come up and talk with 
you further about where we see opportunities to improve these.
    Mr. Fry. In your opinion, just right now, what do you think 
is in most need of reform from a permitting perspective?
    Ms. Hogan. It is a deeper conversation, so again, we would 
love the opportunity to come up and have a deep conversation 
with you.
    Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you. The Chair recognizes the gentlelady 
from Washington, D.C., Ms. Holmes Norton.
    Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Hogan, in 2022, 
the Department of Energy Office of Inspector General issued 
four special reports. These were prospective reports 
anticipating potential areas of risk rather than identifying 
new risk areas. They serve to highlight for the Agency and for 
Congress various areas identified in previous DOE OIG reports. 
So, Dr. Hogan, how did the Department engage with OIG on these 
reports?
    Ms. Hogan. Yes. So, as you stated, these are reports that 
our Inspector General wrote from really pulling together a lot 
of information from past audits that had been developed. So, we 
did not participate in the same way we would with a deep audit 
where they would be engaging with us and getting information 
because the information body more or less existed.
    But what I will say is, we are just so appreciative of the 
Inspector General producing these reports for us, and engaging 
in conversations around the findings that they have, and the 
trends and patterns that they pulled out from these reports. 
They are really so helpful to help us get organized around 
where to look as a sort of foundational approach to the 
controls and systems that we will be building into our work 
going forward.
    Ms. Norton. Well, Dr. Hogan, three of four special reports 
identified insufficient staffing as a risk to the 
administration of funds and performance of oversight functions. 
What steps has the DOE taken to address this concern and 
increase staffing?
    Ms. Hogan. So, we are working hard right now to buildup the 
staff that we need to deploy so that we can manage the funding 
through these two laws and minimize fraud, waste, and abuse. 
You know, again, many of the programs that were provided to the 
Department by Congress are new programs, which means they need 
a fair amount of design work up front, stakeholder engagement 
work through requests for information. So, we are bringing the 
teams on to do that work, and then simultaneously hiring for 
the project management staff we will ultimately need when we 
get to the point of project management. So, really, we are 
moving out on all fronts from a hiring perspective.
    Ms. Norton. Well, Dr. Hogan, how is the DOE addressing 
cybersecurity threats related to implementation of the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Inflation 
Reduction Act?
    Ms. Hogan. Another really important question. That is 
something that is also part and parcel of our daily work. I 
mean, we have gone through the bill and IRA provision so that 
we understand where we believe the greatest cyber risks are. 
And then we are engaging in the design of these programs and 
what will be required by the applicants to develop 
cybersecurity plans, that will be again necessary as part of 
the whole project. We call that sort of designing cybersecurity 
in from the get-go as opposed to trying to bolt it in at the 
back end.
    Again, we are bringing forth our cyber experts through our 
Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency 
Response, as well as our cyber capabilities from our 
information officer, our chief information officer, and are 
working to bring the best of what we can to these projects.
    Ms. Norton. Well, is it true, Dr. Hogan, that DOE was aware 
of these risks described in the special reports prior to their 
issuance in 2022 and had already been instituting the OIG's 
recommended reforms in a proactive manner?
    Ms. Hogan. Yes. What is nice about what the OIG brought 
forth, is really going back and looking at the many types of 
issues that have happened over time and pulling them together 
in one place. But some of the, you know, information that was 
there, like around the weatherization program, as an example, 
was from the era of 2012 and from the Loan Programs Office, you 
know, maybe up to 2015, 2016. So, the Department was aware of 
these things, and the Department has been actively putting 
controls in place or building out capabilities as necessary to 
address these issues for many years. But, so, from those 
programs perspective----
    Mr. Fallon. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    Ms. Hogan. Sorry.
    Mr. Fallon. The Chair recognizes gentleman from North 
Carolina, Mr. Edwards.
    Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chair. On October 19, 2022, the 
Department of Energy announced the availability of $2.8 billion 
under the law for manufacturing of batteries for electric 
vehicles and the electric grid. Reports later indicated that 
the Department of Energy awarded Microvast, a lithium battery 
company, $200 million of American taxpayer dollars despite the 
company's primary operations taking place in China. I have a 
bit of an interest in China this afternoon. Dr. Hogan, are you 
aware of funds under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs 
Act, the Inflation Reduction Act, or the CHIPS and Science Act 
going to China, Chinese companies, or companies susceptible to 
control or influence by the Chinese Communist Party?
    Ms. Hogan. We are not aware of any dollars going to 
companies as you describe.
    Mr. Edwards. What are you doing to prevent the transfer of 
funds to other adversarial companies, entities, or nations?
    Ms. Hogan. We at the Department have a history of doing due 
diligence around any potential applicant for these types of 
solicitations. We do vetting, leveraging information we get 
through our intelligence and counterintelligence experts at the 
Department. We, based on the times that we now have and the 
magnitude of dollars that we are now talking about, are amping 
up the efforts that we have had to date. We have established a 
new vetting center to coalesce this type of information and 
expertise so that we can double down on the types of 
assessments you are discussing, you are bringing up.
    Mr. Edwards. And, so, are you assuring this Committee that 
these dollars could not and will not be distributed to Chinese 
entities?
    Ms. Hogan. These dollars will not go to Chinese entities.
    Mr. Edwards. Is that in policy or in law? What would be the 
prohibitive source to ensure that those dollars don't go to 
Chinese entities?
    Ms. Hogan. I think it is both, but I will find that answer 
for you.
    Mr. Edwards. All right. Inspector General Donaldson, does 
the OIG recommends safeguards to prevent American taxpayer 
dollars from going to entities owned, operated, or susceptible 
to control or influenced by the Chinese Communist Party?
    Ms. Donaldson. Yes, sir, without a doubt.
    Mr. Edwards. What about other adversarial entities or 
nations?
    Ms. Donaldson. We feel exactly the same about all the 
nations of concern.
    Mr. Edwards. And what are those safeguards?
    Ms. Donaldson. Well, the Department has been working on 
this for years, and thankfully working with involving the 
Office of the Inspector General on the area that we refer to as 
research security. So, there are several ways that you can try 
to combat this. I think the U.S. General Accounting Office is 
about to launch an audit of the Department on technology 
transfers. But when technology is leaving our facilities, 
technology that the taxpayers have paid for, that is a very 
important issue, and we all know that a lot has already flown 
the coop.
    So, you do that through a series of careful disclosures in 
connection with grants and other sorts of financial assistance 
tools, and then if those disclosures are inaccurate, you have 
to prosecute those people. It is very important that you have a 
strong message of deterrence in connection with those 
disclosures. That is your basic grant fraud.
    Mr. Edwards. And, so, for either of you, I started my 
comment with some background information that $200 million of 
American taxpayer dollars were used for companies doing 
operations in China. In spite of the safeguards, how did that 
happen?
    Ms. Hogan. Well, let me first sort of correct the record 
there. So, the company that was selected for negotiation for an 
award, Microvast, is a U.S. company. That said, that company 
has not yet received any money. It was selected for a 
negotiation and is in that process where we are continuing to 
do the type of due diligence we are discussing.
    Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I see my time has 
expired.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes the 
gentlelady from New Mexico, Ms. Stansbury.
    Ms. Stansbury. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and 
again, welcome to our witnesses today. It is a pleasure to have 
you here, and we appreciate the work that you do.
    You know, I want to just say at the outset here that I have 
been proud to be part of one of the most productive Congresses 
ever in the history of the United States. In fact, this last 
Congress, we passed more generational legislation than has 
passed in decades in this country that includes the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Bill. It includes the Inflation Reduction Act, 
which not only makes the largest investment in Department of 
Energy Programs, it makes the largest investment in clean 
energy and climate programs ever in the history of this country 
and in the history of any country on the planet ever. It is 
massive. It is a huge investment. And the reason why we made 
that investment is to tackle the global climate crisis so that 
our planet does not cross a global tipping point as we are 
pursuing a clean energy future.
    And in addition to that, we passed the CHIPS Act to address 
our national security issues around the manufacturing of CHIPS 
to help modernize our national labs, which the Department of 
Energy oversees, to update our science and innovation around 
all of our clean energy issues, and to ensure that we are 
repatriating technologies that actually make us vulnerable to 
these foreign influences that actually we have been discussing 
here today.
    So, taken as a collective, these pieces of legislation, 
which this Congress passed with the support of our President, 
were really designed to tackle three crises that the United 
States was facing: rebuilding our economy in the wake of 
disastrous manufacturing policies for decades, which off-shored 
millions of American jobs to other countries, and which, of 
course, made our country vulnerable in the wake of a global 
pandemic and affected us with global supply chain shortages and 
inflation, which we are still experiencing today. It threatened 
our national security as so much of our actual infrastructure 
and technologies that we use for our national security are now 
manufactured overseas, and, of course, the global climate 
challenge.
    And of course, the Department of Energy, Dr. Hogan and 
Honorable Donaldson, are really at the forefront of tackling 
these challenges across all three of those crises. So, I am 
delighted to have the opportunity to talk to you about them 
here today. And for me, these really touch close to home 
because I represent New Mexico's 1st congressional District, 
which is also home to Sandia National Laboratories, whose core 
mission is actually to address all three of those crises--the 
global climate crisis, our energy security, our national 
security--and to help stimulate manufacturing and repatriate 
American manufacturing back home.
    So, we have heard a lot of strange claims today about the 
purpose of these bills and how the funds will be used. But I 
just want to make sure that we are completely clear on this one 
piece, which I think keeps coming up over and over here, which 
is about the national security implications of these bills.
    So, Dr. Hogan, you know, let us turn to the CHIPS Act 
first. Is not the reason that we passed the CHIPS Act 
primarily, the big push this last year in addition to all of 
the science and technology and labs, things that we included, 
was actually to address our national security risks from China 
and chip manufacturing overseas?
    Ms. Hogan. I believe that is why we passed that, 
absolutely.
    Ms. Stansbury. And, in fact, in addition to that, these 
investments that we are making in major energy infrastructure, 
you know, the kinds of investments that we are talking about, 
these private sector companies and these public private 
partnerships, will help to build that clean energy 
infrastructure that will make us not only energy secure in this 
country, but more competitive internationally. Is that true?
    Ms. Hogan. Yes. There is a huge investment wave ahead of us 
as we seek to have a global clean energy economy and a huge 
opportunity for new manufacturing and quality jobs that go with 
that.
    Ms. Stansbury. And, you know, I want to just end on this 
note, which is that I know, Dr. Hogan, you have been involved 
with the IPCC for many years and, in fact, have been honored 
nationally, including in association with the Nobel Prize in 
the IPCC's work. We know that global climate change is already 
happening. The impacts are already being felt here at home. Is 
it not true that the reason we passed the Inflation Reduction 
Act is that it will help us reduce our climate emissions if we 
are effective in implementing it by 30 percent or 40 percent by 
2030?
    Ms. Hogan. Yes. These two laws together are really powerful 
in bringing together the climate protection that you are 
speaking to as well as the economic opportunity and, really, 
economic opportunities for communities in every corner of every 
state.
    Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Ms. Hogan, and that is exactly 
why we passed these bills, and we are grateful for your 
implementation and vision.
    Mr. Fallon. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, Mr. Perry.
    Mr. Perry. I thank the Chairman. Thank you, ladies for 
being here. I am going to start right with what I would 
consider kind of the fox guarding the hen house. As you know, 
many of us know Secretary Granholm sat on the board of 
Proterra, which is an electric vehicle company, from 2017 to 
2021. Now, she sold her shares in Proterra, but we know that 
she also promoted, in November 2021 at the JFK Airport, where 
she stood in front of Proterra-made business buses, Proterra-
connected vehicles to advertise the SuperTruck 3, and for other 
government funding programs. Just to give you some numbers in 
case you are not aware, over $76 million of the $200 million in 
funding announced in the event went to heavy vehicle 
manufacturers associated with Proterra, including Daimler 
Trucks, Ford Motor Company, and General Motors.
    My concern is there is a trend at the Department of Energy 
of money going to politically favored entities. As you know, 
during the Obama Administration that was Solyndra, A123 
systems, Fisker, et cetera, and ironically, Secretary Granholm 
provided funding to A123 and Fisker, both having operations in 
Michigan, as the Governor of Michigan. And as you are likely 
aware, these two entities were sold for pennies on the dollar 
to the Chinese.
    To both our witnesses, in your respective roles, how are 
you going to safeguard the hundreds of billions of dollars 
literally at your fingertips when the head of the Agency 
continues to promote projects for her former employer? Ms. 
Donaldson?
    Ms. Donaldson. Well, as you know, Congressman, there are a 
set of laws that control conflicts of interest. That is a 
project that is of great interest to me and probably one of the 
projects we will be launching in the next few weeks in 
connection with the new funds. So, it is very important that 
you gather information about those conflicts, that there be 
prohibitions, those sorts of things. It is a challenging area, 
especially when you realize how all the new staffing you are 
ramping up and you are hiring all these people, it presents an 
opportunity for people to sort of sneak in that, candidly, 
might intend to go back to----
    Mr. Perry. And we are going to get into that, and I 
appreciate your response. Dr. Hogan, anything from your end on 
this?
    Ms. Hogan. You know, we are putting solicitations on the 
street, we are getting applications in, and we are reviewing 
those applications with subject matter experts from within the 
Department and externally in a way that is totally separate 
from the political core in the Department, so----
    Mr. Perry. So, we are making sure that the application 
process, that the money just doesn't end up in the pockets to 
Democrat donors and Chinese Communist Party-backed entities. 
The application process is what we are relying on. I just want 
to confirm what you just said.
    Ms. Hogan. Yes.
    Mr. Perry. OK.
    Ms. Hogan. It is a merit-based, risk-based application 
process.
    Mr. Perry. All right. And to the IG, Ms. Donaldson, do all 
the FERC Commissioners honor the ethics commitments, since we 
are on the subject? I mean, do you feel that they do?
    Ms. Donaldson. Well, the commissioners are bound by those--
--
    Mr. Perry. Well, yes, I know we are bound by--we take an 
oath around here, but I wonder if half the people have read the 
Constitution. Have there been any concerns raised to your 
office about the independence, integrity, or conflicts of FERC 
commissioners?
    Ms. Donaldson. We have had allegations in the past 
pertaining to FERC. I don't think we have any open matters 
pending to----
    Mr. Perry. So, for example, is there one on the FERC 
Commissioner Allison Clements regarding outstanding ethics 
issues because she has not updated her ethics agreement to 
account for her husband's work in the industry, the very 
industry that she regulates? Moreover, there are reports that 
the commissioner has briefed funders of far-left organizations 
on FERC priorities. Are you aware of these things? Can you 
enlighten us on these occurrences?
    Ms. Donaldson. I don't believe we have an open matter 
fitting that description, sir.
    Mr. Perry. So, are you saying that the matter has been 
resolved?
    Ms. Donaldson. I don't think we have ever opened one. If 
you give me one moment, I will confirm that, but I don't think 
we have ever opened a matter of fitting that description. Yes, 
I don't think so.
    Mr. Perry. So, are you saying that there is no matter open 
and at this point you are unaware? Are you unaware of this 
circumstance where a husband works for the industry?
    Ms. Donaldson. I will say that I am unaware of it. It is 
possible. We have a pretty, you know, big apparatus for taking 
in new matters. It is possible it is coming through, and I just 
haven't been briefed on it yet.
    Mr. Perry. Could you----
    Ms. Donaldson. But I could get back to you on that, sir.
    Mr. Perry. I would appreciate that.
    Mr. Perry. I would appreciate your report to the Committee 
regarding any information in that regard, and I thank the 
Chairman. I yield.
    Ms. Donaldson. Sure.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes the 
gentlelady from Florida, Mrs. Luna.
    Mrs. Luna. To follow up on some questions asked by Mr. 
Edwards earlier, what is the DOE's process to catch the 
taxpayer dollars that were going to Chinese-affiliated 
companies? Like, do you have an oversight that looks into 
people before you award contracts? The reason I ask that is 
because, obviously, the CCP has been known for corporate 
espionage. And obviously, with you guys, I am sure that there 
needs to be probably a bigger set of oversight and security for 
that before you guys are awarding government contracts.
    Ms. Hogan. Yes, and again, thanks for this question. We 
know it is a big issue, a big concern to you and to us. So, you 
know, we do due diligence on every applicant that we are 
thinking is in the zone of being meritorious for an award. So, 
we do due diligence around ownership issues with countries of 
greatest concern, and we are doubling down on our capability to 
do that. So, we have always done that in what we call a pre-
selection phase, and by ``selection,'' I mean it is a 
meritorious project. And we would like to select and then 
actually enter into a deeper negotiation to get to the point 
where you actually award money, a lot of standard terms and 
conditions that companies need to agree to, to get a government 
award. And during that whole post-selection process, we do even 
more due diligence around these types of foreign concerns.
    Mrs. Luna. Are you guys doing anything currently to promote 
domestic energy production?
    Ms. Hogan. We are doing a lot to promote domestic energy 
production and utilization of domestic supply chain.
    Mrs. Luna. So, one of the biggest issues that I am 
currently seeing exists in Congress is a lot of people will 
talk about clean energy, but it is not really clean, 
especially, when it is tied to China or Chinese productions, 
for example, windmill manufacturers, right? So, I guess what I 
am trying to say is, instead of facing a global climate crisis, 
we are facing the global China crisis. And I am that you would 
agree--kind of ``yes'' or ``no'' real quickly, do you agree 
that China is one of the biggest threats to our climate as a 
whole?
    Ms. Hogan. China is a big emitter of greenhouse gases, 
correct.
    Mrs. Luna. And those greenhouse gases do not stay contained 
in the China region, correct?
    Ms. Hogan. Right. It is a global----
    Mrs. Luna. OK.
    Ms. Hogan [continuing]. Pollutant, right.
    Mrs. Luna. Yes. How about you, Honorable Donaldson?
    Ms. Donaldson. That is a little out of the lane for an 
inspector general.
    Mrs. Luna. No, I mean, it is just your opinion. I would 
like to know because you guys are obviously in important 
positions, and I want to see your view and perspective on that.
    Ms. Donaldson. That is certainly what is reported.
    Mrs. Luna. OK. So, I think that if there is any way that 
you guys can help kind of tailor that and make sure that we are 
not doing anything to really enable these companies and 
corporations, I think that that would be the best thing.
    I guess my last question for you would be, we are currently 
seeing that China has an insanely big monopoly on critical 
minerals that we need to produce some of these things for 
electric vehicles. What would you say would be the best way 
that we here in the United States could handle that instead of 
outsourcing some of these operations to other countries like 
China, for example, the domestic harvesting production?
    Ms. Hogan. We are very interested in building out the 
critical mineral material supply chain in the United States to 
the extent that the United States will embrace this in 
different ways. You know, it is in many parts of that 
landscape. In addition, I think we are very engaged with a 
number of international allies so that we can have strategic 
alliances----
    Mrs. Luna. Real quickly. Sorry.
    Ms. Hogan [continuing]. Where we can work together.
    Mrs. Luna. What allies are those, just so I know?
    Ms. Hogan. Like Canada, Australia. There is a list of 
countries that also have resources that we work with around 
opportunities for critical minerals and materials.
    Mrs. Luna. Do you know if anyone has ties to BRICS, any of 
the BRICS countries?
    Ms. Hogan. We can get back to you on that.
    Mrs. Luna. OK. The reason I ask is because BRICS is 
currently working to undermine the U.S. dollar as a whole by 
forming an alliance in their debt with China, so I just want to 
make sure. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I yield my time.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes the 
gentleman from Florida, Mr. Donalds.
    Mr. Donalds. Thank you, Chairman. Inspector General, hello. 
How are you? Dr. Hogan, hi. A couple of things. Quick question. 
The Department of Energy has considered TRISO fuel--T-r-i-s-o--
as the most robust nuclear fuel on Earth. However, the United 
States does not have a domestic supply of Halo or other small 
amounts at DOE and must currently rely on Russia to fuel our 
Nation's innovative advanced reactors. In your opinion, what 
level of investments should Congress provide to establish and 
build out America's Halo-producing capability?
    Ms. Hogan. We are very interested in the United States 
having a strong nuclear industry. We are very happy to come 
back and talk with you about what that takes. As you know, it 
is complicated, and the war in Ukraine and the position that 
Ukraine and Russia are now in has made something that we need a 
different strategy on.
    Mr. Donalds. Dr. Hogan, do you think the American people 
understand that we get most of our uranium from Russia?
    Ms. Hogan. Yes. I don't know what the average citizen 
thinks about that, but certainly we are at a point now with the 
war in Ukraine and with Russia that we need another strategy in 
this country.
    Mr. Donalds. Let me ask you this question. The Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, do you think they have the capability 
and the wherewithal to actually permit new commercial reactors 
in the United States for use, not for study?
    Ms. Hogan. I think they have the capability to permit 
reactors, yes.
    Mr. Donalds. So, what is the problem? What is the holdup? 
They haven't created a new one. All right. Let me rephrase 
that. They have not allowed a commercial reactor for use since 
they were created. So, what is the holdup?
    Ms. Hogan. I don't know, but again, I am happy to have a 
broader conversation with you. We have got amazing nuclear 
energy experts at the Department of Energy and happy to come up 
and talk with you about what we see as the strategies for this 
country for the future.
    Mr. Donalds. When you say the strategies for the future, I 
mean, you got to help me understand. Is the Department of 
Energy even processing this stuff right now? Like, do not get 
me wrong--I get it. The line of question on nuclear fuels and 
nuclear reactors is probably not something you guys prepped for 
over at DOE coming over here today. I understand that. But is 
there any discussion going on at the Department of Energy for 
actually creating sustainable base-load power for America 
because if it is the position of the Biden Administration and, 
frankly, Secretary Granholm that every American should buy an 
electric vehicle to the tune of $61,000 a year when most 
Americans can't afford spending $61,000 for the car, they can't 
afford to buy that.
    If that is her position, is she aware that by doubling the 
size of the electric vehicle market in the United States, we 
don't have enough electricity on the grid? Does she realize 
this? And what is the plan in the DOE to prevent the grid from 
going essentially dark?
    Ms. Hogan. There are a few questions in there. One, we are 
very supportive of a nuclear industry in this country. The 
Department of Energy has had a nuclear energy research program 
for a number of years. We are advancing a number of 
demonstration reactors, and those are linked, as you probably 
know, to the need for the Halo fuel supply. So, we are very 
interested in figuring out that roadmap going forward. At the 
same time, we understand that electric vehicles take more 
electricity than the alternative. And there has been a lot of 
work to figure out what a modernized grid should look like and 
what we can do to invest in the electric grid in this country 
to serve the needs of electric vehicles while also maintaining 
reliable resilient electricity supply.
    Mr. Donalds. Well, I will say for the record, I am not 
sitting here in favor of mass expansion of electric vehicles in 
the United States because the component pieces actually are 
dirtier than the internal combustion engine if you take into 
account the mining of cobalt, lithium, rare earth, et cetera, 
and then when you have to actually dispose of the batteries. 
But in that interim piece when Americans have to use it, if 
what the EPA has done, which is basically going to force 
Americans to buy electric cars even though they do not want 
them, it is not really clear to me that Secretary Granholm and 
the Biden Administration have a plan for actually putting 
enough electricity on the grid to support America's needs. I am 
out of time. I will yield back to the Chairman.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you. All right. The Chair now recognizes 
the gentlelady from New Mexico, Ms. Stansbury, for a closing 
statement.
    Ms. Stansbury. All right. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, 
and, again, thank you to our wonderful witnesses. I want to 
just say, Mr. Chairman, what a difference leadership makes. I 
think we see before us two women leaders who are serving our 
Nation in the Department of Energy and serving under a female 
Secretary of Energy. And in a world that has long been 
dominated for countless generations by men, I am personally, as 
a woman in STEM, very grateful to have you here and for your 
leadership in the Agency.
    You know, my thoughts on this hearing as I was sitting here 
listening to my friends across the aisle sort of beat the same 
drum over and over again about foreign influence, it actually 
made me think of the movie Mean Girls and the quote ``stop 
trying to make fetch happen,'' sort of as if we just say and 
will this narrative into being and say it over and over again, 
somehow it will be what is actually occurring.
    I think we have heard here today, the Department has been 
clear, the Administration has been clear. The Department has 
undertaken significant reforms to ensure that there are 
appropriate controls, that there is appropriate due diligence 
whenever contracting and grant making occurs, to ensure that we 
are standing up programs in a way that not only meets the 
requirements of the law, but is informed by the communities 
that will be impacted by them. And these new programs will be 
stood up quickly with appropriate staffing to get the dollars 
on the ground to make the impact that they were designed to.
    And, you know, I think sometimes we get lost in the 
arguments about why these bills were actually passed. So, I 
just want to take a moment to return to that, which is that we 
passed these three bills that we are talking about here today: 
one, to make a huge generational investment in the crumbling 
infrastructure this Nation, to repatriate our manufacturing 
back to American shores to create American jobs, and rebuild 
our economy and our supply chains; two, to address the 
significant national security risk that was faced by our 
country, that is faced by our country in the manufacturing of 
CHIPS overseas; and three, and probably most significantly, to 
address our national security and global environmental security 
issues around the global climate crisis.
    And together, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the CHIPS 
Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act literally represent the 
largest investment ever in the history of this country in clean 
energy and climate change. And I am proud to stand with the 
Administration, to stand with our President and my Democratic 
colleagues, who helped to make it possible to pass these bills. 
And I will note my friends across the aisle, who voted against 
all of these bills that will lower costs, that will create 
millions of jobs over the coming decades, that will rebuild our 
economy and make sure that it is a clean energy economy, and 
that will help our families.
    And I want to say on a personal note, I grew up in a low-
income family. The weatherization programs that we are talking 
about here today, these are not just, you know, putting in new 
windows, which they are for families. We are talking about 
people who are living in trailers and in rural areas and tribal 
communities across our country, who are going to have the 
opportunity to get new appliances, to get new windows, and to 
significantly lower their monthly costs. And all of that money 
that they will be saving through that will be able to be put 
toward putting food on the table, a roof over their head, and 
helping their kids go to school. That is what these bills are 
all about.
    And, so, when we talk about the administration of these 
funds, when we talk about what DOE and the amazing staff who 
are standing behind you, sitting behind you, in the Department 
do every day, they are going to be administering these funds so 
that we can put our country on a clean energy path. We can put 
our planet on a global climate resilient path, and we can put 
our families on a path to economic security.
    So, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you holding this hearing. I 
appreciate our witnesses for being here today, and I appreciate 
the service of every single one of our Federal employees who is 
out there working every day to get these dollars on the ground. 
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you. You know, the purpose of the hearing 
was not to re-debate the need or lack thereof of legislation 
that was passed last year. The purpose of this hearing was to 
talk about the oversight mechanisms when massive amounts of 
money is being spent and are loaned out and to prevent fraud, 
waste, and abuse, which should be an absolutely bipartisan 
mission because not one person is helped when there is a 
fraudster taking money away, when that money is abused, or it 
is wasted.
    And I, you know, heard terms like ``climate deniers'' and 
``fluoride'' and ``don't do anything to combat climate change'' 
in the 117th Congress. Well, one thing that they did was create 
historic deficits, and that is something that we are going to 
have to talk about when our entire budget will be gobbled up by 
interest payments on our debt.
    And I like what one of my colleagues said from Florida 
about talking about global climate crisis. What about the China 
crisis? Let's be very clear here that the United States, and I 
am very proud of the fact, that we have reduced our emissions 
in this country because we are responsible. And we have reduced 
them, I believe, by about 20 percent over the last 20 years. 
But let us look at China. They have increased their carbon 
footprint by 300 percent over the last 20 years.
    And I would love to see the American left talking more 
about that because if you really do care about the climate, the 
No. 1 thing we should be talking about is China's emissions and 
having them follow the EU and the United States lead and being 
responsible global partners. The United States is not a planet. 
We all live and share on this one little blue marble, so 
talking about fraud, waste, and abuse and trying to be 
preventative is healthy.
    I was actually thinking about this this morning about what 
my Democratic friends would talk about because I thought this 
was going to be rather bipartisan hearing because this is just 
about ensuring that money that has already been allocated, 
whether you voted ``yes'' or ``no'' on it, is the Inspector 
General, do they have the mechanisms in place to ensure that it 
is spent properly. Because, you know, to use the IG's words and 
not mine, there are an increased risks with new programs. Well, 
there are 71 new programs, which mean there is a lot more 
increased risk, and when an Agency goes from $45 billion to 
$100 billion in one year, that is a dramatic increase. And, 
again, using the IG's words, that is a lot of money moving 
fast, and I think that, you know, nobody wants another 
Solyndra.
    I think that we can all agree on that, because not one 
person that was in need got any help from that $500 million. 
Not one environmentalist would say that was money well spent, 
because it didn't work. And it was, you know, we were 
defrauded. And I also was--I grew up in a home that cost my 
parents $13,000, so I would say by any definition that was 
humble beginnings. And that is why we live in the greatest 
country history has ever known because with a lot of effort and 
work, you can improve your lot in life. In a lot of countries, 
unfortunately, you don't have that opportunity.
    And that is why, again, I just wanted to be real focused on 
why we had this hearing was to just prevent that fraud, waste, 
and abuse. It did seem like while they say that they are going 
to undertake reforms, some of them have not been made yet, but 
money is going out the door. That is a dangerous cocktail.
    So, in closing, I would like to thank our panelists once 
again for their important insightful testimony, and with that 
and without objection, all Members will have five legislative 
days within which to submit materials and to submit additional 
written questions for the witnesses, which will be forwarded to 
the witnesses for their response.
    Mr. Fallon. If there is no further business, without 
objection, the Subcommittee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 3:39 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                 [all]