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


                       ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT
                         APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2025
_______________________________________________________________________

                                 HEARINGS

                                 BEFORE A

                           SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                       COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                         HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                     ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                              SECOND SESSION

                                ____________
                     
                                          
              SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT,
                          AND RELATED AGENCIES

          CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee, Chairman

  MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
  KEN CALVERT, California
  DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
  GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
  MIKE GARCIA, California
  JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana
  MICHAEL GUEST, Mississippi
  STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma

  MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
  DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
  SUSIE LEE, Nevada
  MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
  JOSEPH D. MORELLE, New York
  DEREK KILMER, Washington

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

                        Laura Cylke, Perry Yates,
                 Richie O'Connell, and Angelina Casimates
                            Subcommittee Staff

                                 _____________

                                  PART 1

                                                                   Page
  Fiscal Year 2025 Request for the 
Department of Energy....................
                                                                      1
  Members' Day..........................
                                                                    101
  Fiscal Year 2025 Request for the Army 
Corps of Engineers (Civil Works) and the 
Bureau of Reclamation...................
                                                                    117                                                                    
                                                                    
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                                                                    

                                  ______________

          Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
          
                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
57-786                      WASHINGTON : 2025                  
          
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------            

                      COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                                ----------                              
                      TOM COLE, Oklahoma, Chairman


  HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky
    Chair Emeritus
  KAY GRANGER, Texas
    Chair Emeritus
  ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
  MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
  JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
  KEN CALVERT, California
  MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
  STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas
  CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN,
    Tennessee
  DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio
  ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
  MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
  DAVID G. VALADAO, California
  DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
  JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
  JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida
  BEN CLINE, Virginia
  GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
  MIKE GARCIA, California
  ASHLEY HINSON, Iowa
  TONY GONZALES, Texas
  JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana
  MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
  MICHAEL GUEST, Mississippi
  RYAN K. ZINKE, Montana
  ANDREW S. CLYDE, Georgia
  JAKE LaTURNER, Kansas
  JERRY L. CARL, Alabama
  STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma
  SCOTT FRANKLIN, Florida
  JAKE ELLZEY, Texas
  JUAN CISCOMANI, Arizona
  CHUCK EDWARDS, North Carolina

  ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
  STENY H. HOYER, Maryland
  MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
  SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
  BARBARA LEE, California
  BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
  C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER,
    Maryland
  DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
  HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
  CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
  MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
  DEREK KILMER, Washington
  MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania
  GRACE MENG, New York
  MARK POCAN, Wisconsin
  PETE AGUILAR, California
  LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
  BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey
  NORMA J. TORRES, California
  ED CASE, Hawaii
  ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
  JOSH HARDER, California
  JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia
  DAVID J. TRONE, Maryland
  LAUREN UNDERWOOD, Illinois
  SUSIE LEE, Nevada
  JOSEPH D. MORELLE, New York

                   Susan Ross, Clerk and Staff Director

                                   (ii)
                                   
                             C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

         FISCAL YEAR 2025 REQUEST FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                                                                   Page
Fleischmann, Hon. Charles J. ``Chuck'', a Representative in 
  Congress from the State of Tennessee, opening statement........     1
Kaptur, Hon. Marcy, a Representative in Congress from the State 
  of Ohio, opening statement.....................................     3

                               Witnesses

Granholm, Hon. Jennifer M., Secretary, Department of Energy......     5
    Prepared statement...........................................     8
    Answers to submitted questions...............................    47

                              MEMBERS' DAY

Fleischmann, Hon. Charles J. ``Chuck'', a Representative in 
  Congress from the State of Tennessee, opening statement........   101
Kaptur, Hon. Marcy, a Representative in Congress from the State 
  of Ohio, opening statement.....................................   101

                               Witnesses

Ciscomani, Hon. Juan, a Representative in Congress from the State 
  of Arizona.....................................................   109
    Prepared statement...........................................   110
Costa, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  California.....................................................   106
    Prepared statement...........................................   108
Garamendi, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the State 
  of California..................................................   112
    Prepared statement...........................................   114
Moylan, Hon James C., a Delegate in Congress from Guam...........   102
    Prepared statement...........................................   103
Mullin, Hon. Kevin, a Representative in Congress from the State 
  of California..................................................   110
    Prepared statement...........................................   111
Stanton, Hon. Greg, a Representative in Congress from the State 
  of Arizona.....................................................   104
    Prepared statement...........................................   105

FISCAL YEAR 2025 REQUEST FOR THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEEERS (CIVIL WORKS) 
                     AND THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

Fleischmann, Hon. Charles J. ``Chuck'', a Representative in 
  Congress from the State of Tennessee, opening statement........   117
Kaptur, Hon. Marcy, a Representative in Congress from the State 
  of Ohio, opening statement.....................................   118

                               Witnesses

Brain, Michael, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Water & 
  Science, U.S. Department of the Interior.......................   150
    Prepared statement...........................................   152

Connor, Hon. Michael L., Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil 
  Works).........................................................   121
    Prepared statement...........................................   123
Spellmon, Lt. General Scott A., Commanding General, U.S. Army 
  Corps of Engineers.............................................   134
    Prepared statement...........................................   136
Touton, Hon. Camille Calimlim, Commissioner, U.S. Bureau of 
  Reclamation....................................................   142
    Prepared statement...........................................   144
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   184


 
 ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 
                                  2025

                              ----------                              

                                         Wednesday, March 20, 2024.

         FISCAL YEAR 2025 REQUEST FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                               WITNESSES

HON. JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
    ENERGY

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN, A 
         REPRESETNATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE

    Mr. Fleischmann. The Energy and Water Development 
Subcommittee hearing is now open. Welcome everyone. I want to 
especially welcome Secretary Jennifer Granholm to the Energy 
and Water Subcommittee this morning to discuss the fiscal year 
2025 budget request for the Department of Energy.
    But before I do that, Madam Secretary, and to my 
distinguished ranking member, Ms. Kaptur, and to the staff, I 
want to thank you for the job that we all did, our 
subcommittee, the Senate, the administration, yourself, to put 
together the fiscal 2024 bill that we just recently passed in a 
tranche of six bills.
    Let's face it, we serve in very arduous times. There are 
very strong ideas on both sides and different avocations. But 
to put together the energy and water bill that we did for the 
people of this great Nation was no small task, and I thank you 
and everyone involved with that.
    Having said that, we move forward with 2025. Madam 
Secretary, thank you again for being here. I want to address 
the 2025 issues. But as you know, one of my strongest 
priorities in Congress has been, for years, nuclear energy, all 
aspects of nuclear energy, the front end of the fuel cycle, the 
back end of the fuel cycle, and all that it entails. And, of 
course, in 2024 we worked very hard to preserve the Generation 
III projects, which was very good with $900 million; HALEU, we 
worked together to get $2.7 billion in the budget so that we 
can have a domestic American HALEU project, which we will need 
for our advanced Gen IV reactors.
    So, again, large areas of agreement in that realm, and we 
got that done. And it is in that spirit that I hope we can 
continue in fiscal 2025.
    The Department of Energy's fiscal 2025 budget request is 
approximately $52 billion. It is an increase of $1.8 billion 
above fiscal 2024. I strongly support many of the programs and 
activities of the Department of Energy. For example, our 
Nation's strategic defense rests on a strong nuclear deterrent. 
So I was pleased to see that the budget request proposes an 
increased funding for the National Nuclear Security 
Administration, the NNSA. The request would continue funding 
the uranium processing facility in my home district in East 
Tennessee, as well as plutonium pit production, ongoing life 
extension programs, the sea-launched cruise missile nuclear, 
and a new variant of the B61 gravity bomb. And I thank you for 
that.
    We will work with the administration today, and over the 
coming weeks, to determine whether the request represents 
sufficient funding and the appropriate prioritization for the 
continued modernization of our nuclear weapons complex.
    Another high priority for me is the Office of Science. I 
worked hard to secure increased funding in fiscal 2024 act, one 
of the few nondefense increases across the department. A strong 
Office of Science is critical, in my view, to America's role as 
the global leader of scientific discovery.
    Madam Secretary, I look forward to discussing with you 
today how the request addresses activities related to fusion 
energy, and isotopes in particular.
    Unfortunately, I also have concerns with some of the Biden 
administration's priorities expressed in the fiscal 2025 budget 
request through other actions of the Department. The Department 
of Energy is sitting on tens of billions of unobligated dollars 
intended to advance a variety of energy technologies. Yet, 
rather than focusing on the effective implementation of those 
existing programs, the budget, again, proposes many new 
programs, including, in my view, disproportionate 
nonsustainable increases for energy efficiency and renewable 
energy activities.
    The administration, again, has highlighted clean energy and 
climate change goals as key drivers of the budget request. 
Nuclear energy, a baseload, carbon-free source of electricity, 
will be, in my view, essential in achieving any climate change 
goals. Yet, the nuclear energy program is one of the only cuts 
proposed in the budget request.
    Especially concerning is that the request includes no 
funding for the two ongoing Advanced Reactor Demonstration 
projects which we feel have gone very well. We know these 
projects will need additional funding, and it would be better 
to continue incremental funding each year for these projects, 
in our view.
    Some of the Department's actions also raise concerns about 
energy security for America and for our allies. Numerous energy 
efficiency standards have been proposed, in my view, at such 
extreme levels as to significantly increase prices for 
consumers and cause supply concerns. I was pleased to see the 
Department backtrack on the gas stoves rule, and I hope to see 
similar adjustment to reality on the distribution transformers 
and manufacturing housing rules.
    As the Secretary knows, I have been a long-term proponent 
of the manufacturing housing industry. This is the beginning of 
the American dream for many lower-income Americans, and we want 
to make sure that is there.
    The Department's recent pause in reviewing pending LNG 
export applications is also a serious concern. I hope we will 
have the chance to discuss some of these actions in more 
detail.
    Once again, Secretary Granholm, I appreciate you being here 
today to explain your budget requests. I look forward to 
working together with you and my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle to move forward a budget that will strengthen our 
national security and advance our energy independence.
    Please ensure for us that the hearing record, questions for 
the record, and any supporting information requested by the 
subcommittee are delivered to us in final form to us no later 
than 4 weeks from the time you receive them. Members who have 
additional questions for the record will have the close of 
business Monday to provide them to the subcommittee office.
    Before I turn to my ranking member, I do want to say this 
again. I thank you, I look forward to working with you. I will 
say this: Right now there are ongoing other subcommittee 
hearings--so members will come and go--defense, labor, 
education, health, and human services. So members are 
actually--will be moving in and out. So I did want to let you 
know that.
    With that, my ranking member, Marcy Kaptur, from the great 
State of Ohio, we have worked together very closely for years. 
We are neighbors in this building. And I would say this for 
those--Ms. Kaptur has the distinction, the high distinction, of 
being the longest-serving female member in the United States 
House in history.
    With that, I yield to my friend, Ranking Member Kaptur, and 
I thank you.

 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARCY KAPTUR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                         FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chair Fleischmann, 
very, very much. It is a pleasure to work with you and with our 
very talented members on both sides of the aisle. We like to 
say that we are kind of a template for how to find the big 
middle and move bills. And I appreciate working with you very, 
very much to develop and pass our bipartisan fiscal year 2024 
bill, and we want to thank the Secretary for all of her efforts 
and that of her department specialists to make that a reality; 
one of the first ones after a very long delay that moved 
forward.
    I truly hope that we can continue in our subcommittee's 
bipartisan, button-down working partnership for fiscal year 
2025 to benefit the people of our Nation and our future.
    Thank you, Secretary Granholm, for joining us today, and we 
are so grateful for your exemplary service and leadership on 
these energy and water issues vital to every region of this 
country and our world. Today we are here to discuss the 
Department of Energy's fiscal year 2025 budget request.
    Energy security is national security. And since World War 
II, America paid a terrible price for its unconscious slide 
into foreign dependency on imported energy. To date, our 
Nation's path toward U.S. energy independence in perpetuity is 
clear, is steady, and successful. But we are not finished yet.
    Putin's unprovoked war against Ukraine clearly highlights 
the importance of energy security. Russian manipulation of oil 
markets and the sharp escalation and geopolitical risk in the 
Middle East has oil markets on edge. Never again should America 
depend on foreign adversaries to fuel our cars and power our 
homes.
    Forty-four years ago, as our Nation's economy tanked due to 
the first Arab oil embargo, President Carter and my predecessor 
in Congress, particularly Thomas Ludlow Ashley of Toledo, 
Ohio--God rest his soul--as a Member of this Congress and 
heading the special committee that was formed back then by 
Speaker Tip O'Neill, they created the U.S. Department of 
Energy. They did it on a bipartisan basis for the benefit of 
the country.
    With their vision and steadfast bipartisan commitment, our 
nation has made progress in attaining energy independence.
    Over the last 40 years--I often feel like we are at a 
mountain and we have just come over the top and we are starting 
to see the sun again; we are starting to see it. Our Nation, 
over the last 40 years, has made remarkable progress. The 
expansion of domestic oil and gas production and developing new 
cheaper clean energy sources, such as biofuels, solar, 
thermalrecovery, pushing into new energy frontiers of fusion, 
advanced hydrogen, and energy storage. And the chair well knows 
how difficult but steady this process has been.
    U.S. petroleum imports peaked in 2005, and for the last 4 
years, the United States was a petroleum net exporter. In fact, 
for the past 6 years in a row, the United States produced more 
crude oil than any nation at any time in history. Natural gas 
exports from the United States reached a record high in the 
first half of 2023.
    Last year marks the third consecutive year in which the 
United States supplied more liquefied natural gas to Europe 
than any other country. Last year, overall, biofuels production 
capacity reached a record level, with fuel ethanol representing 
79 percent of that capacity. That is a win for farmers and for 
having an alternative source of energy, and I can still 
remember when Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa and I produced the 
first legislation to create that market, and the Department of 
Agriculture didn't want it. We said, we have forestry, we have 
fiber, we have farming. What about fuel? And they didn't want 
it. Now you couldn't take it away from them.
    However, for sustained U.S. energy security, our Nation 
must pursue an all-of-the-above energy strategy. We must also 
invest in clean energy to diversify our energy portfolio. Clean 
energy technologies in conservation and thermal-heat recovery, 
we have to embed that in people's thinking. We will lower costs 
for consumers, building materials. New types of building 
materials will make a huge difference, creating good-paying 
jobs and help address the climate crisis.
    We know this approach works. Over the last 12 years, the 
Department of Energy's investments have driven down the cost of 
clean energy. Onshore wind costs have dropped 69 percent. Solar 
photovoltaic costs have dropped 89 percent, and multilayer 
solar technologies become more powerful and advanced every day. 
Energy drives our private sector's ability to flourish in a 
modern economy. Millions of living-wage jobs attend to energy 
production, conservation, and the skills of a workforce working 
24/7 to power our Nation.
    Imaginative energy technologies are being created by 
America's amazing inventors--and I have met many of these 
folks--in building materials, solar, and electrified windows, 
how about that? Biofuels, advanced nuclear, fusion, hydrogen, 
geothermal, and thermal-heat recovery, and offshore wind and 
wave energy, to name a few.
    This year, the movie, ``Oppenheimer,'' won the Academy 
Award, and that is the world in which our subcommittee lives 
and works. Our subcommittee on both sides of the aisle--and I 
know our chairman--knows how important it is that we continue 
to support the Department of Energy's balanced portfolio of 
transformative investments, including energy efficiency, and 
renewable energy to develop clean, affordable, advanced, and 
secure American energy.
    In other parts of the Department of Energy's budget, the 
National Security Administration, which the chair has 
referenced, fully assures our Nation's nuclear security assets, 
including the excellence--and I mean excellence--of our nuclear 
navy around the globe, and they don't get enough credit for all 
they do. They are modern and ready, acting as both a deterrent 
and a safeguard for our Nation's security.
    With Vladimir Putin's recent reckless threats about 
launching nuclear weapons and former President Donald Trump's 
appeasing reaction, we must maintain strategic investments as 
an affirmation of American will to protect and defend our 
people and our allies and assure our Nation's security. 
However, given the evolving nuclear security landscape, I am 
concerned with proposed cuts to nuclear nonproliferation 
programs. These investments are crucial to enhancing our 
nation's ability to prevent adversaries from acquiring nuclear 
weapons and to respond to nuclear or radiological incidents and 
accidents domestically and abroad.
    With that, I will close our remarks and thank our 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their attendance 
today, and I look forward to discussing this request in more 
detail.
    Thank you, Chairman Fleischmann, very much.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you Ranking Member Kaptur.
    Secretary Granholm, thank you again for being here today. 
Without objection, your full written testimony will be entered 
into the record. With that in mind, we would respectfully ask 
that you summarize your opening statement in 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF HON. JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

    Secretary Granholm. You bet. Thank you so much, Chairman 
Fleischmann, Ranking Member Kaptur, and members of the 
subcommittee. I am honored to be here with you today to discuss 
President Biden's latest budget request for the Department of 
Energy.
    Three years ago, I joined this administration believing 
that if we came together around a national energy strategy, 
that we could restore manufacturing, we could create jobs, we 
could address the climate crisis, and we could lead the world 
in clean energy. And today, we are doing just that. America is 
back.
    Thanks to Congress's efforts and the President's vision, we 
are executing a focused, deliberate strategy that positions us 
to become energy-independent and energy-secure. This strategy 
positions our businesses to dominate, our workers to compete, 
and our communities to thrive, and it is already working.
    Since the passage of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the 
first of the three bills that really have transformed our 
economic landscape, companies in this clean energy space have 
announced 600 new or expanded manufacturing plants on U.S. 
soil; $200 billion in planned investment for batteries, for 
electric vehicles, for solar, for wind, for nuclear, and more. 
Tens of thousands of jobs being created from Tennessee to 
Toledo, from Nevada to New York, and everywhere in between, 
thanks to the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation 
Reduction Act.
    Sustaining that kind of growth, though, requires us to 
complement the historic funding with durable, long-term 
investments. So let me thank all of you for your work on fiscal 
year 2024 budget. Mr. Chairman, you referenced this, but I 
cannot tell you how much we appreciate the work of you, of this 
committee, for including $2.7 billion for domestic and uranium 
production, as well as the small modular reactors, as well as 
nuclear safety worker training. All of that in that budget, so 
very important.
    So the President's fiscal year 2025 will build upon those 
successes in 2024. Our commercialization tools are giving 
American businesses the confidence to capitalize on this moment 
while deepening our energy security. But deepening energy 
security is an ongoing project, and we need to fund it year 
over year. And that is why the budget calls for significant 
appropriations for our demonstration and deployment programs, 
including our office of manufacturing and energy supply chains, 
and our grid deployment office.
    We are also making sure every community can benefit from 
reliable, affordable energy and efficiency technologies. DOE 
does this, for example, through our Weatherization Assistance 
Program, which Congress granted transformational funding in the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. I have seen firsthand how this 
program changes lives, as well as the overwhelming need for it. 
This budget will bring us closer to meeting that need for 
40,000 additional low-income households.
    It also includes dedicated funding for our interagency 
working group on coal and power plant communities. I have also 
seen firsthand how that program gives communities the gift of 
rebirth, and it instills pride for the workers who have defined 
America's energy past and will help to power its future.
    And it is not just energy workers. After decades of 
disinvestment, we are finally rebuilding our manufacturing 
base, and we are developing the skilled workforce needed to 
power it. We are also planning for the future by doubling down 
on R&D with an $8.6 billion request for basic science research, 
and $3 billion for applied R&D. We are making sure that each 
new generation of energy technologies is more innovative than 
the last, from industrial decarbonization solutions to fusion.
    We are also requesting $2 billion for critical and emerging 
technologies, like AI and quantum. Both are key to economic 
competitiveness and defense, and DOE is uniquely positioned to 
drive them forward. The budget also includes a $25 billion for 
our National Nuclear Security Administration. Russia's 
continued war in Ukraine makes nuclear deterrent paramount to 
our national defense and the security of our allies. The 
President's request would give the NNSA the means to deliver 
and adapt in the face of evolving threats, and would advance 
the NNSA's wider priorities around arms control and 
nonproliferation counterterrorism and the safe use of civil 
nuclear power.
    Thanks to the bipartisan assistance we have received from 
Congress, America is back. We are the envy of the world. We 
can't afford to lose momentum, and that depends on your 
continued support. I look forward to address you today. Thank 
you for the opportunity, and let's answer some questions.
    [The prepared statment of Secretary Granholm follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Secretary. My first 
question is going to be directed to you about the Uranium 
Processing Facility, the UPF, which we did actually the 
groundbreaking for that several years ago in Oak Ridge.
    Madam Secretary, last year I asked you about the schedule 
and costs associated with recapitalization of UPF. As you know, 
the current facility, Y-12, are more than 70 years old dating 
back to the Manhattan Project. Respectfully, we still have not 
seen an updated schedule.
    Three questions, if I may. Can you share an updated 
schedule and cost estimated for UPF? If not, when does the 
Department intend to have a new baseline for UPF?
    Second question, please. Do you anticipate any scope being 
taken out of the UPF project as part of the re-baselining?
    And, thirdly, the fiscal 2025 budget includes $800 million 
for the project. Is the project request, in your view, adequate 
to ensure the project gets back on track?
    Secretary Granholm. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, 
by the way, for the $50 million increase in this particular 
line in 2024.
    So the baseline change proposal for the UPF cost is 
underway. It is nearing completion, but the numbers for the 
cost and the schedule are not yet finalized.
    Scope has not been removed from the baseline change 
proposal. And acknowledging that the Y-12 Building 9212 is old, 
but we also want to keep this on track. So we will continue to 
invest in maintaining the old facilities and pre-producing some 
weapon components in Y-12 to mitigate the risks associated with 
potential delays to UPF. We want to not have that happen.
    So we think we are on track, and those estimates will be 
coming to you soon.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you. Next, I would like to address 
HALEU to the advanced reactors. You alluded to that in your 
opening statement. I thank you. In fiscal 2024 that $2.7 
billion was great.
    We provided in fiscal 2024 significant funding for small-
modulor reactor deployment and the Advanced Reactors 
Demonstration program. I also made sure we funded, again, $2.7 
billion for HALEU needed for a Generation IV advanced reactors. 
I want to make sure that those programs are on a path to 
success, and I would like you to work with me as those programs 
move forward.
    Today, can you please tell us, when can we expect to see a 
detailed resource loaded plan with programmatic milestones for 
domestic uranium enrichment? What is the current budget and 
schedule profile for each of the two Advanced Reactor 
Demonstration projects? What steps will the Department take to 
ensure the projects continue to progress?
    And then, finally, given the Department's expertise and 
long-standing support for SMR, when can we expect the RFP for 
new competition? I thank you.
    Secretary Granholm. Thank you. Well, first of all, again, 
thank you so much for the investment from 2024.
    I will say that the 2024 appropriations bill specifies that 
DOE cannot repurpose the CNC funds, which were used for the 
HALEU until a law is enacted to ban those supplies from Russia, 
and so, I strongly hope and encourage that Congress does that 
so that we can move with alacrity.
    I know this bill just came out 2 weeks ago, so we are 
working on getting you the schedules. I know you have been 
briefed on it, and we will be moving at pace. Hopefully, we can 
get that ban in place in order to unlock the CNC.
    With respect to the ARDP work, we know that those as well 
are being re-baselined. They are over--have come in overbudget, 
and so, we are working with the recipients to--on their re-
baselining and with their schedules with the fundamental goal, 
of course, of ensuring that the program is successful and to be 
able to take advance nuclear to the marketplace. We support 
those projects.
    And with respect to the small modular reactors, you know, 
the demonstration money is going through our Office of Clean 
Energy Demonstrations, which is the big demonstration arm of 
the Department of Energy. We are going to implement a 
competitive process to do this. We are working closely with our 
office of nuclear energy as well to make sure that the funds 
are deployed in a way that is complementary, and we know time 
is of the essence, and we are prepared to move quickly to 
implement that program as well.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Secretary. And one small 
point of order. Appreciate your answers to our questions.
    You accurately reflected what is in the legislation in 
regard to the HALEU, but I also believe part of that law is 
also that administrative action can also be taken, which may 
entail the potential for an executive order to address that.
    Secretary Granholm. That is true. That is possible. We are 
concerned about the enduring nature of it. And so, if Congress 
acts on it, it obviously solidifies it more concretely. So to 
the extent that Congress could do that.
    I know it is in one of the bills that started in-house, and 
hopefully we can see that happen.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you. Ranking Member Kaptur.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, I 
can't thank you enough for stressing the connection between 
energy and job growth and economic opportunity in this country. 
I think you are probably the first Secretary that has ever said 
that. And coming from a part of the country that has had so 
many jobs outsourced, I appreciate that you can see it.
    And I just wanted to mention that in the field of 
controlled environmental agriculture, the bottom line, as we 
return fruit and vegetable production to this country, energy 
becomes the critical factor in these large houses now that are 
being built. Forty percent of the bottom line is energy. We 
simply must solve this scientific challenge to reduce that cost 
to producers, and we will feed the world. So I know you know 
what I am talking about in that regard. It is a technical 
challenge, and we need to be successful in meeting it.
    On the industrial side, Ford Motor brought back heavy truck 
from Mexico many years ago to our region, and I said to the 
CEO, I said, What can I do to keep these jobs here? He said, 
Reduce my energy costs 30 percent. I thought, how am I going to 
do that? So thank you for seeing the connection.
    My first question is, DOE is charged with promulgating 
Congressionally mandated energy efficiency standards for 
appliances and equipment, and I am concerned that your proposed 
rule for distribution transformers will adversely impact 
domestic steel production and our national security.
    Cleveland-Cliffs, which is helping America's steel industry 
rise again under terrible international competition, is our 
country's largest flat-rolled steel producer and only producer 
of grain-oriented electrical steel for power and distribution 
transformers.
    They have indicated they will close their Butler, 
Pennsylvania, and Zanesville, Ohio, electrical and steel 
operations if the rule is finalized as proposed. This would be 
tragic for the over 1,300 union workers and undermine domestic 
supply chains again, not only for a grain-oriented electrical 
steel but for nonoriented electrical steel, which is essential 
for EV production.
    Could you commit today to work with stakeholders to make 
sure the final rule does not adversely impact domestic 
production or goes and knows, as they call them, and preserves 
the use of goes for distribution transformers?
    Secretary Granholm. Thank you. Yes. We have been hearing 
and taking in a lot of feedback working with industry, working 
with UAW, et cetera, who have weighed in on the proposed rule. 
Adjustments have been made.
    The final proposed rule is now in the interagency and will 
come out before June, which is what is required by the consent 
decree that we are under. It is one of the beauties of being 
able to do proposed rules and getting that input. That is our 
feedback loop, and we have heard, and adjustments have been 
made.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Good luck on that. 
Keep pushing.
    Secretary Granholm, the Department of Energy has tremendous 
capability at its research labs to develop new technology to 
address the needs of the agriculture sector. How can the 
Department of Energy partner with other agencies to develop 
sensor technology that will allow for the in situ real-time 
monitoring of nutrients and pollutants that contribute to 
harmful algal blooms, certainly in the western basin of Lake 
Erie, throughout the Great Lakes, the Everglades, and so many 
other places across our country?
    Secretary Granholm. We are happy to work with you on this. 
I know a number of our labs, obviously, are focused on the 
bioeconomy and on ways to enhance agricultural output, 
efficiency, et cetera. So eager to follow-up with you on the 
specifics that you are asking about.
    We have got a whole slew of labs that are focused on making 
sure that they are working with agriculture and the bioeconomy 
to ensure that it continues to produce, produce at home, and 
that it is efficient.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you so very much. I appreciate that 
openness.
    And finally, on this first round, on domestic solar 
manufacturing, in my home State for solar manufacturers thin-
film solar modules, as you well know, and it is the only U.S.-
headquartered company in the world--in the world's top 10 
module producers. In 2024, over 50 percent of new U.S. power 
generation was solar. How about that? And yet, we are ceding 
the market to China.
    Over 1\1/2\ years' worth of solar module demand is 
currently sitting in warehouses according to the International 
Energy Agency, and the market for building new facilities is 
dire. We are at a make-or-break inflection point when it comes 
to reshoring end-to-end solar manufacturing supply chains.
    Is the Department of Energy working with the Department of 
Treasury to ensure that the Inflation Reduction Act policies 
incentivize domestic manufacturing through the solar supply 
chains, and do you have any options to help directly in the 
critical areas of wafer and polysilicon production?
    And then, finally, the Department, through the Federal 
Energy Management Program, recently announced funding for the 
Department of Defense to make improvements to the Pentagon 
campus, including installing solar. Can you commit to ensuring 
that if contractors or third parties install the solar or 
provide the power, they adhere to the highest standards of 
domestic content and labor?
    Secretary Granholm. Thank you for this. The solar story is 
a really great story in the United States. For solar, in 
particular, having backlog now of bookings well into the years 
ahead. That is great. It is all because of the Inflation 
Reduction Act, and the irresistible incentives that have been 
embedded there.
    We had a record year last year of 32.4 gigawatts of solar 
having been installed in the United States. There is four--on 
the demand side, a 30 percent tax credit for homeowners to be 
able to install solar; for developers, a similar 30 percent 
investment tax credit. And there is a per-unit credit, which 
includes polysilicon and wafers.
    This also is a huge story for domestic content because 
developers who get that solar credit get an extra 10 percent, 
so a 40 percent tax credit if they use domestic solar-produced 
panels. And this is one of the reasons why our buildout now of 
solar manufacturing in the United States is so critical.
    You are so right that China had a very strategic plan to be 
able to corner the market on solar, and they did. And so, what 
we are doing, we are not ceding anything. We are fighting back 
to get that manufacturing back in the United States, and it is 
working.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. Much success. We want to help you. 
Thank you, Madam Secretary.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Ms. Kaptur.
    At this time, I would like to recognize my friend Mr. 
Garcia of California for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Madam 
Secretary, for coming in again. Appreciate you outlining fiscal 
year 2025 and hopefully for that process in the year to come in 
the last year.
    I want to go back to the conversation--I want to go back to 
the conversation that we have had at previous hearings not just 
here, but also at SST when you have come and spoke and outlined 
the vision.
    You mentioned in your opening remarks that we are the envy 
of the world right now, and I take issue with that. One, I 
don't want us to be necessarily the envy of the world. I want 
us to be secure. And that is what our voters want, that is what 
our constituents want. They want security.
    And one of the key cornerstones of our Nation's security, 
national security, is the SPR, our Nation's Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve. We are coming up now on the one-year anniversary where 
you came in front of us here at E&W and promised a plan to 
replenish the SPR. And what is concerning about where we are 
right now and what is not enviable or not, frankly, providing 
us security from an energy perspective is that you can see we 
are sitting here at record low SPR levels in our reserves that 
we haven't seen since 1983, which is when we were first 
starting to actually ramp up.
    So it has been a year since you committed to providing a 
plan in this committee hearing. It was 6 months ago that you 
committed to bringing a plan. I have yet to see a plan to 
replenish the SPR. This is not a 401(k) chart. If you saw this 
and this was your 401(k), you would be concerned, and you would 
be acting on it. This is not a brokerage account for the 
Federal Treasury.
    This is, if you want to make a metaphor, it is an insurance 
policy for the United States. If we are not going to achieve 
100 percent energy independence, we need to at least be in a 
position where we have a strong SPR, refill our coffers, and 
for rainy days, be able to draw on that.
    You have sold off, you know, millions of barrels, 150 
million barrels at higher price points. In your last testimony, 
you said you were waiting for the price to come down below $72, 
and there has been about four months where the price of oil has 
been below $72 since you made that testimony, and we have not 
been tapping back into that market to replenish the reserves.
    So I am not going to ask you what the plan is here, because 
I don't think you are going to be able to articulate it here. 
But I think you need to deliver to Congress a plan to replenish 
the SPR. We are dangerously close to not being not only energy 
independent, but not having a backup plan or a safety net when 
it comes to some global crisis around oil.
    In the span of the last year, oil has been as low as $67 
and as high as $93. So I would appreciate if you would treat 
SPR more like an insurance policy that you are trying to just 
renew and make sure that this country has and is whole. It is 
comprehensive, it is going to protect us, rather than an e-
trade account where you are coming in and out of the markets in 
order to either make money or prevent the loss of money, or to 
try to change the price point of a barrel of oil. I will leave 
it at that.
    But I would like to get you on the record to commit to 
coming back in front of us with the plan to buy back and refill 
the SPR.
    Secretary Granholm. We do have a plan, and the plan is that 
we were going to cancel the congressionally mandated sales, 
$140 million worth--140 million barrels' worth that we were 
going to begin to repurchase, and we have. We have now 
repurchased about 30 million barrels back, and that we are 
going to accelerate exchanges.
    So by the end of this year, we will be back to, 
essentially, where we would have been had we not sold during 
the invasion of Ukraine with Putin's weaponization.
    Mr. Garcia. So you are saying by the end of this year, we 
will be back up here?
    Secretary Granholm. To where we would have been. Because 
Congress sold--or was going to sell 140 million barrels to--
budget.
    Mr. Garcia. Right. But we did not. Right.
    Secretary Granholm. Because we--because part of our 
strategy was to come in and cancel those sales. We--that is 
part of our--
    Mr. Garcia. Not to cut you off, but I am getting short on 
time. If you have a plan and you are making commitments for the 
end of the year, what is the number in the SPR that we should 
expect to see in the end of the year?
    Secretary Granholm. It will be what it would have been had 
we----
    Mr. Garcia. What is that number?
    Secretary Granholm. We are at about 350 million barrels 
right now, 358, something like that. I have to look at what the 
exact number would be.
    Mr. Garcia. OK. Maybe staff can help you out while we talk 
to the other question I have around the nuclear energy, if that 
is OK, or we can get the answer for the record.
    We, in fiscal year 2024, made great strides in terms of the 
recycling of nuclear waste. We have seen the waste side of 
nuclear programs be the long pole in the tent in terms of 
viability, in terms of appetite, in terms of popularity with 
the American people, and we have put provisions in for interim 
storage of waste to help mitigate some of those concerns around 
the waste factors.
    What is preventing us from going quicker in terms of, 
rather than doing interim recycling, actually doing more 
permanent recycling? I am seeing technologies out there where 
we actually can take some of the nuclear waste and recycle it 
with great efficiencies and great recycling percentages in a 
permanent fashion.
    And can also the permanent recycling of fuel be included in 
the HALEU buildup conversations as well? Is this something that 
we can maybe get, you know, one plus one equals three in those 
conversations?
    But if we are truly seeking the cleanest source of energy, 
which is nuclear power, small modular reactors, we have to be 
able to deal with the--and mitigate the waste side of this 
equation, and I feel like that technology is there. I just feel 
like the acquisition side and the government support for that 
technology is what is lagging. How do we get better in fiscal 
year 2025?
    Secretary Granholm. You may be aware, we have--at our INL 
National Lab, Idaho National Lab, they are working--they have a 
project where they are working on looking at the recycling and 
doing the research associated to make sure that we do it in a 
way that is responsible and clean and affordable.
    So we are very interested in this solution and hope to see 
some progress and some great progress. There are some private 
sector companies who are working there in a public/private 
partnership at INL to do that. So eager to do that.
    I am not sure about using the HALEU money for that because 
we have a desperate need to get that going, too, for the 
advanced reactors and the SMRs. But nonetheless, there is not 
an opposition to it. We are eager to see this happen.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you. My time is up.
    Mr. Fleischmann. I want to thank Mr. Garcia. And to further 
supplement your answers to that question, we did put 20 million 
for recycling. In my opening remarks we talked about dealing 
with the rear end of the fuel cycle and how important it was.
    The great news, Mr. Garcia, is we have got wonderful 
American companies, some of them are in the room today, like 
Curio and others, some large, some small, that actually have 
American technologies. And I just spoke with Jeff Lyash the 
other day--was in Japan--the head of TVA. So many other nations 
are reprocessing, friends and foes. The Russians have done it 
for years.
    So I could not agree more with your comments and the 
urgency for dealing with this. We have got the technology, and 
we have got the technology to deal with it that deals with the 
nonproliferation issues. So I do thank you for that.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Chair. And thank you for your 
leadership.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Yes, sir. At this time I would like to 
recognize my friend from Illinois, Mr. Quigley, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Quigley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Madam 
Secretary.
    Secretary Granholm. Good morning.
    Mr. Quigley. So I appreciate the success in becoming more 
energy self-sufficient and renewables and everything else we 
are doing to provide energy. But obviously, we have to move it 
around, and that gets to the issues of an already-congested 
electricity grid system.
    The added demand from the electrification of the 
transportation industry, growth in the manufacturing, which is 
a good thing, but all puts additional stress. We are talking 
about having to expand the existing regional transmission 
system by 128 percent to meet these load-growth projections.
    And I see that we have got, in the 2025 budget, proposals 
for planning, inter-regional planning and development, 
increased from $16 million to $17 million and other studies, 
like CTAP. Is this all enough? What else must we do? And what 
are the consequences if we are not going to get there?
    Secretary Granholm. We basically, as you say, have to more 
than double the size of the electric grid in order to take--to 
get to the President's goal of 100 percent clean electricity. 
We have to add all that clean power on.
    But we are also seeing, for the first time, this increase 
in demand, which is extremely disconcerting because we have 
been flat for a good number of years because of the 
efficiencies and the technologies that have been developed, in 
large part, by the Department of Energy.
    But this increase is due to some good news, which is the 
manufacturing facilities that have announced that they are 
coming to the U.S., but also AI and data centers. And so, I 
think we have to think differently, number one, about how we 
power those who are coming with increased demands.
    And so a lot of the tech companies, for example, are 
willing to have this conversation about if they are building a 
data center, maybe they bring the clean power along with it, 
additive power, and not just taking from the existing grid.
    In addition, the Department of Energy, we have, thanks to 
the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction 
Act, about $25 billion in various pockets to address the grid 
issues. And we have put out--now we are in the second round of 
funding for our grid resilience innovation program. We are 
focused on the--yes, planning, important.
    Clearly, we have to know where the transmission lines 
should be going, where the need will be. And so we are in the 
process in that NIETC corridor, the national infrastructure 
corridor for electricity in the United States. People are able 
to now--or entities are able to nominate, which should be part 
of the new corridors. That is happening right now. We are 
taking input on that.
    And in addition, there is all sorts of technology that we 
are incentivizing the funding of. For example, reconductoring 
of wires on the existing grid so that we don't have to wait for 
years for permitting for new, meaning you can get twice the 
power across a transmission line by using advanced conductoring 
materials.
    And part of that is being--we are asking for funding 
opportunity announcement for those who want to come and do 
reconductoring. Grid enhancing technologies, using smart 
technology to move power when it is absolutely--when it is 
necessary. That sort of traffic cop for the grid is another way 
of being more efficient with the existing grid.
    CTAP is a way for us--that is what you just referenced--is 
an administrative effort, executive branch effort to put a 2-
year shot clock on permitting for transmission on public lands. 
And that is something that we are very excited about because 
currently, the transmission timeline for permitting is insanely 
long, unacceptably long. And so, if we can speed up the public 
lands permitting, that, too, is very important.
    In terms of financing, we are grateful that Congress, the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, et cetera, and the Inflation 
Reduction Act gave us the ability to do an innovative financing 
option to partner with those who want to add more power to the 
grid, called the Transmission Facilitation Plan.
    We have all sorts of tools that we are working on right now 
to bust this open, and we are encouraged by what we are seeing.
    Mr. Quigley. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I see my time is 
about up.
    Secretary Granholm. Sorry about that.
    Mr. Quigley. Thank you. That is all right.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Quigley. At this time, I 
would like to recognize my dear friend from the state of 
Washington, Mr. Newhouse, who is the great Hanford Reservation 
and has worked with me for years, as his predecessor did, on 
environmental cleanup. Thank you.
    Mr. Newhouse, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Newhouse. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good 
morning, Madam Secretary.
    Secretary Granholm. Good morning.
    Mr. Newhouse. Pleasure to see you today. And thanks for 
coming to testify on the proposed DOE's 2025 budget. I 
appreciate that very much.
    I look forward to discussing our national energy challenges 
as well, and the energy issues which impact my district. 
Probably no surprise.
    First of all, the subject of the Lower Snake River Dams I 
would like to address. I believe the preservation of the four 
Lower Snake River Dams is absolutely critical and important to 
the State of Washington, in fact, to the entire Pacific 
Northwest. For years, I have worked to combat what I would call 
environmental activists, as well as dam-breaching advocates, in 
an effort to--in their effort to breach the dams.
    So in December, the administration finalized an agreement 
called the Columbia River System Operations litigation. The 
agreement acknowledges that only Congress has the authority to 
authorize breaching the dams, which I appreciate that 
recognition. However, the agreement makes commitments to 
develop energy replacement for the dams, as well as 
recommending spilling operations.
    And a lot of stakeholders have expressed very serious 
reservations about this plan. If it comes to fruition, the 
results will be catastrophic. Adjusting spilling operations 
could make the dams functionally obsolete and useless. Energy 
prices will skyrocket. People who depend on the river system 
will suffer. And I believe the salmon population will be harmed 
as well. It is, in fact, a de facto breaching of the dams.
    So my question, Madam Secretary, are you telling us--are 
you, through this recommendation, admitting that the 
administration is recommending policies that represent de facto 
breaching of the dams in an effort to what, essentially, 
circumvent the congressional authority to make that decision?
    Secretary Granholm. No. No, I am definitely not telling you 
that. I am not here telling you that at all. Congress has--
Congress is the only place that has the authority to do the 
breaching of the dams.
    I think the agreement was a positive step to replenish 
salmon, to be able to address hatcheries, you know, to work 
with the Tribes on additional power, yes, but that is not to 
replace. We need enough power to--there is enough power--there 
is not enough power to go around, and we need all the power we 
can get.
    Mr. Newhouse. I would agree with that statement. We need 
more, not less, power.
    I would like to transition into talking about something 
that we are very proud of in the Northwest, is the Pacific 
Northwest National Laboratory. PNNL is a leading hydropower lab 
conducting innovative research for DOE's waterpower technology 
office.
    The agency professes a clean energy agenda focused on 
efficiency, low-energy cost, and renewable energy. You, in 
fact, even have acknowledged that hydropower's role in 
achieving this. I believe April of last year you testified 
before the Senate committee on commerce in response to a 
question, you said something like hydropower was a renewable 
cheap form of power that should be expanding and not reducing, 
and I couldn't agree with you more.
    Yet, the agency is proposing a $40 million budget cut to 
the waterpower technologies office for fiscal year 2025, which 
I think would cripple PNNL's hydropower efforts, and this seems 
to me a declaration of war on hydropower.
    So if you could respond to that. I agree we need cheap, 
low-cost, clean, reliable energy now more than ever before. So 
why would the agency be proposing this cut?
    Secretary Granholm. First of all, let me just say we are in 
alignment on making sure that we have hydroelectric power in 
this country, and we want to see expansions. In fact, we just 
put out a funding opportunity announcement for more 
hydroelectric power.
    So--and we would love to see, at some point, some 
additional plus-up of those efforts financially. We would love 
to incentivize additional hydroelectric power across the 
country. So the----
    Mr. Newhouse. Not a war declaration.
    Secretary Granholm. Absolutely not.
    Mr. Newhouse. A statement in the reduction----
    Secretary Granholm. Not a statement. I think there was some 
prioritization that had to be done. But believe me, we are very 
much in favor of dam power and would like to see more of it.
    Mr. Newhouse. We will get some clarification as your staff 
scrambles to get those numbers, and we will look forward to 
continuing visiting with you on that.
    Secretary Granholm. Thank you.
    Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Madam. Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Newhouse. At this time, I 
would like to recognize my friend and colleague, Ms. Lee of 
Nevada.
    She is my co-chair, Madam Secretary, for the nuclear 
cleanup caucus, which is one of the largest caucuses in 
Congress. So without further adieu, Ms. Lee of Nevada, you are 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Ranking Member Kaptur, 
and it is great to see you, Secretary Granholm, today.
    And just to reiterate, my partnership with the chair and 
the nuclear cleanup caucus, really happy to hear your 
commitment to recycling technologies. I think that that is 
definitely part of the portfolio.
    And speaking of nuclear waste, I just want to ask you if 
you can quickly confirm on the record what the Department's 
fiscal year 2025 funding request indicates that DOE will not 
seek to license, or otherwise force a nuclear waste repository 
in my home State.
    Secretary Granholm. I can confirm.
    Ms. Lee of Nevada. Thank you. Can you briefly update us on 
the status of DOE's work towards finding an interim storage 
site using the consent base method?
    Secretary Granholm. Yes. I know we have talked about this 
before. We launched an effort and have funded now 12 different 
consortia across the country, modeling somewhat on what has 
been done in other nations in a--to a positive end. We are in 
that first phase of having these conversations, sharing 
information, et cetera.
    We will soon move into a second phase with them and then a 
third phase, which would be planning for. But we are not quite 
at phase 2 yet. We are still proceeding.
    Ms. Lee. Great. Thank you. I want to turn now to geothermal 
energy. Nevada is home to America's first generation geothermal 
plant. Just this week, your Department highlighted just that 
such an enhanced geothermal systems or EGS, can unlock clean, 
reliable round-the-clock geothermal energy nationwide and 
affordably power the equivalent of more than 65 million homes 
by 2015.
    While I am pleased to have helped prevent any funding cuts 
to the DOE's geothermal technology office in fiscal 2024, can 
you briefly highlight how greater resources in fiscal year 2025 
would better enable DOE to fully realize the immense potential 
of EGS?
    Secretary Granholm. Yes. I am so glad you raised this. In 
fact, just last week, we put out a commercial liftoff report 
related to enhanced geothermal, geothermal overall. And it 
demonstrates how companies can take advantage, breaking down 
some of the barriers. As you referenced, Fervo, for example, as 
a geothermal company has, in partnership with what we have done 
at the Department of Energy, including the FORGE geothermal 
site, we have seen in the past 2 years a reduction of 50 
percent of the cost of geothermal because of these efforts and 
new ways to be able to drill.
    So we are extremely bullish about geothermal. Our goal is 
to get 90 gigawatts of geothermal. However, your point, if we 
are able to continue to move on this, there are--there is 
enough geothermal to power the entire country if we were able 
to access all that heat beneath our feet.
    We are very bullish on it. We would love to see more 
resources go toward it. It is a hugely important form of clean 
baseload power, like hydroelectric power is, and we would love 
to see more support for that, too.
    Ms. Lee. Great. Thank you. I am working on legislation on 
my other committee to break down some of the permitting 
barriers. As we know, geothermal has some of the same 
regulatory issues as oil and gas.
    Secretary Granholm. Except----
    Ms. Lee. So hopefully, we can unleash that.
    Secretary Granholm. The great news is that if the oil and 
gas industry were to take advantage of their wells that they 
currently have, they don't have to get new permits. They can 
simply turn it and use their existing permits to do geothermal 
on those wells.
    Ms. Lee. Great. Great. Well, listen, I want to turn now to 
oil and gas leases. Of the 22,000 Federal oil and gas leases 
issued in Nevada since 1953, fewer than 100, or .3 percent, 
have ever produced any energy. However, Nevada is now the 
second largest producer of geothermal electricity in the U.S. 
with many--as you said, many of the technologies are the same.
    So it is fair to say that American energy consumers and 
taxpayers stand to benefit from Federal Government focusing 
more on geothermal, and less on fossil fuels in States like 
mine?
    Secretary Granholm. I agree with you 100 percent, including 
the workforce that is currently in the oil and gas industry. 
Same skills required to be able to do geothermal extraction. 
So, yes. Appreciate your leadership on this.
    Ms. Lee. All right. Thank you very much. And with that, I 
yield.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Ms. Lee.
    At this time I would like to recognize Ms. Letlow of 
Louisiana. And, Ms. Letlow, as you know, your great State is 
very well-represented in this Congress. But I can remember 
vividly and fondly when you came to me about being on this 
committee, and we could not be more pleased that we made this 
selection.
    So with that, Ms. Letlow, I recognize you for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Letlow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you ranking 
member, and thank you, Madam Secretary, for your testimony, for 
being here today.
    I know you know all too well how important liquefied 
natural gas is to Louisiana, my home State. It is responsible 
for over 60 percent of the LNG produced and exported from the 
United States is from Louisiana. So I am here to talk to you 
about that today.
    I have proudly witnessed the growth of Louisiana's energy 
industry as my State has emerged as a global energy leader, as 
well as a top LNG exporter. In 2021 alone, oil and gas 
contributed over $54 billion throughout our State's economy and 
accounted for 21 percent of our gross domestic product.
    However, I echo the concerns my colleagues have shared 
surrounding this administration's catastrophic decision to 
delay consideration of new LNG terminals in the U.S. This 
administration's decision has hampered Louisiana's growth and 
potential, directly hurting Louisianans.
    Furthering these restrictions on growth in our energy 
sector increasingly strains our markets, eliminates Americans' 
jobs, and threatens our national security. As you have heard me 
say in the past, Americans deserve better, Louisianans deserve 
better.
    The administration should embrace the opportunity to turn 
the page on these shortsighted energy policies and begin to 
empower all types of energy projects instead of picking losers 
and winners. It is time to get true energy policy on the table.
    Madam Secretary, I would like to ask you about the new 
studies the Department will undertake on LNG exports as part of 
the pause. You have stated it would take months to conduct new 
studies, but I am concerned that it may take much longer. I 
understand that it took 19 months for the DOE to complete the 
2015 macroeconomic study from DOE's first announcement to its 
publication in the Federal Register.
    Do you stand by your statements that this will take a few 
months, and do I have your commitment that the study will be 
completed and published in the Federal Register this calendar 
year?
    Secretary Granholm. We are moving with alacrity on this 
because it is important to get answers to these questions. We 
are engaging our national labs. It will not take as long as the 
previous studies have taken.
    The questions that have to be considered are complicated. 
Since the last study was done, we were only exporting four Bcf 
of LNG, and we are now exporting 14 Bcf per day, and--with 
another 12 Bcf that is under construction, and another 22 Bcf 
on top of that that has been authorized. So we have 48 Bcf that 
has already been authorized.
    And the questions that we have to consider are, if we were 
exporting the level of authorization, what would that do to 
prices at home? If we were exporting the level of authorization 
or even now, how does that impact our allies? How do we make 
sure that they have the adequate supplies of energy that they 
need? So these questions come on both sides.
    What does it do with respect to the lifecycle analysis of 
these terminals and climate change? Communities on the ground? 
All of these questions. We have gotten letters from all sides 
on this issue.
    So it is important that we do this right because this will 
set up the means for us to evaluate authorizations into the 
future, as we are required to do, under the Natural Gas Act, 
what is in the public interest.
    Ms. Letlow. Are you confident it will happen this calendar 
year?
    Secretary Granholm. I am confident that it will happen 
close to this calendar year.
    Ms. Letlow. OK.
    Secretary Granholm. I don't want to put a hard date on it 
because I don't want to--you know, I want it to be done right.
    Ms. Letlow. OK.
    Secretary Granholm. But it will be done soon.
    Ms. Letlow. Sure. Many Louisianans are hoping for this 
calendar year, so--let me ask you an additional question about 
that study.
    My understanding is the Pacific Northwest Lab will be 
responsible for updating lifecycle analysis of greenhouse gas 
emissions of projected U.S. LNG exports. However, the 2014 and 
2019 reports were conducted by the National Energy Technology 
Lab, as you mentioned.
    Is the Pacific Northwest Lab conducting the lifecycle 
analysis for the updated study, and if so, can you explain why 
National Energy Technology Lab isn't involved when they have 
carried out the previous two studies?
    Secretary Granholm. They are involved.
    Ms. Letlow. OK.
    Secretary Granholm. In fact, NETL is involved, PNL is 
involved, and we may loop in other labs, too, depending on the 
level of complexity of the question. But the National Energy 
Technology Lab is definitely involved.
    Ms. Letlow. OK. Well, that completes my questioning.
    I yield back to the chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Ms. Letlow.
    At this time, I am very thankful that the ranking member of 
the full committee who, as I know, has been working very hard 
in the Labor, Education, Health and Human Services 
Subcommittee--which I am privileged to sit on as well--is with 
us.
    And, Ranking Member DeLauro, thank you for taking the time 
to come to this very important hearing, and I recognize you for 
5 minutes.
    Ms. DeLauro. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I want to 
thank you, and I want to thank Ranking Member Ms. Kaptur as 
well, and just say, welcome to the Secretary.
    Thank you so much for your steadfast leadership of the 
Department. We are so grateful for the great work that you do.
    And I was so pleased to see that the administration is 
proposing continued investments in key programs: hydrogen and 
fuel cell technologies, the Advanced Research Projects Agency, 
ARPA-E, as well as other targeted hydrogen initiatives 
throughout the Department.
    And it is a parochial interest. Connecticut has been named 
a top-three State for fuel cell development, home to two of the 
largest fuel cell manufacturers with promising start-ups.
    And I know there is a balancing act between policy that 
incentivizes newcomers and trying to deal with a level playing 
field as well, but Treasury is responsible for finalizing the 
so-called 45V guidance, a crucial factor impacting the future 
of the domestic hydrogen industry.
    Some concerns were raised that the guidance, as proposed, 
may inadvertently create a disincentive to use clean energy to 
produce hydrogen. We don't want to be in a position where green 
hydrogen protection is more economical overseas taking, you 
know, projects, jobs, and manufacturers with them.
    So this relates to the Tax Code. I know Treasury is in the 
driver's seat, but I want to get your perspective on how DOD is 
supporting Treasury to update the rulings and address some of 
the concerns with the proposal. Can DOE play a larger role to 
ensure that Treasury understands the potential of their ruling 
on the growing domestic hydrogen industry?
    Secretary Granholm. Thank you, Ranking Member DeLauro. It 
is so nice to see you. And thanks for your leadership on this 
as well. We are very bullish on a clean hydrogen economy, as 
you know. We have done these hydrogen hubs. We want them to 
succeed.
    We have also--in respect to the proposed rule, the comment 
period is closed now. We have gotten 30,000 comments on that. 
And so Treasury is very specifically asking for comments on 
these specific issues that you raise and more. They got those 
comments, and they are now evaluating them.
    And so we obviously work with Treasury on this. They 
understand the importance of this--believe me--and I look 
forward to seeing the rule finalized in a way that ensures we 
have a clean hydrogen economy.
    Ms. DeLauro. Yes. Well, it is just so important that there 
really is the cooperation between the two of you on this issue 
because I really think it is so important for the future. And, 
you know, it is just not for my State, but it is really 
nationwide. So thank you.
    Let me move to another area, if I can. I really applaud the 
way in which you have made it a priority to make 
decarbonization funding available to a number of the industrial 
sectors. One sector where there is an opportunity is plastic 
waste, as I understand it. I am no maven on this issue, but it 
is an interesting issue.
    A new way of recycling called biological recycling uses 
advancements in AI and chemistry and biology to break down, you 
know, all kinds of plastic waste, including textiles, and turn 
it back into new plastic material. The technology seems 
promising. It has potential to cut back on plastic waste, even 
in the most contaminated complicated plastics, and turn that 
waste into new materials, all without relying on fossil fuels. 
Most of the companies doing this today are based in Europe, as 
I understand it, and in Australia.
    Again, parochial. I am proud to say that there is one 
company in the U.S. that is doing this at scale. It is a 
company called Protein Evolution. It is based in New Haven, 
Connecticut. If you haven't seen it, I want you to come see it.
    Can you speak a bit about the Department's approach to 
plastic recycling? What types of investments and commitments 
have--can you make or DOE can make to support these new 
technologies like biological recycling?
    Secretary Granholm. Great. Thank you for raising this, too.
    This plastics piece of things is something we need to focus 
a bit more on. We have got a strategy for plastics innovation, 
which is under our Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 
Office, and that strategy identifies three or four prongs that 
they are focused on. One is, of course, recycling, including 
the mechanics of recycling plastics. Whether you can have, you 
know, technology do a lot of that work so that it can be done 
more efficiently. Recycling by design, meaning building 
recyclable products into the system rather than discarding 
them. Upcycling, as you referred to, meaning use the plastics 
to create more high-value products.
    And then research is being done on deconstruction of 
plastics. How do you--whether it is the pathways on thermal 
deconstruction or on chemical or biological deconstruction. So 
we have an initiative on this, but it is something that we 
should work on together to foster because I think it is an 
economic opportunity as well for the United States to get their 
oar in the water and lead on this.
    Ms. DeLauro. I am so glad to hear you say that. I am at the 
beginning of knowledge about this, and I am excited about it 
and would love to work with you on that. And I have visited 
this company in New Haven, and again, I welcome you to come, 
you know, to see this and as well as what we are doing in fuel 
cell and hydrogen technology.
    But it just seems that these are new avenues and efforts 
for us at this time with this technology to be able to grasp 
these efforts, deal with, you know, the resources or what is 
necessary in order to pursue them. So, again, I am looking 
forward to being able to work together with you on that.
    I am going to dash back to Labor-HHS where I am the ranking 
member.
    Secretary Granholm. Thank you.
    Ms. DeLauro. But thank you so, so much for being here, and 
thank you for taking advantage of all of the opportunities for 
moving forward of--you know, seizing the moment in terms of 
what are the new technologies and how we can use that to our 
advantage here. Thank you so much. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you, Ranking Member.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Ms. DeLauro.
    At this time, I would like to recognize my friend from the 
great State of New York, Mr. Morelle, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Morelle. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman and Ms. 
Kaptur, and certainly to you, Madam Secretary, for your service 
and for being here today.
    I wanted to start by talking a little bit about NNSA and 
the mission of the Stockpile Stewardship Program, which each 
day is increasing in importance and complexity. I am very 
pleased the Department of Energy and NNSA--it is quite a 
mouthful--have committed to funding necessary sustainment at 
the premier ICF and high-energy density science facilities 
Lawrence Livermore, Sandia, and the University of Rochester 
LLE, which is--I am proud to have in my district.
    In addition to sustainment, though, it is critical we have 
a plan for longer term innovation to meet our stockpile 
stewardship needs. I wonder if you could just briefly describe 
sort of what your vision is or your strategy to work with the 
scientific community at the labs and at research universities 
to make sure that we have the right stuff both in terms of 
experimental facilities and workforce development to meet the 
sort of modernization needs.
    Secretary Granholm. Yes. We have the most amazing tools in 
the world to ensure that our stockpile is safe, secure, and 
effective, that we are doing life extension work in the most 
efficient way possible and responsive to the Department of 
Defense's needs.
    I am pleased to say that we have delivered over 200--this 
year, it has been an incredibly effective period of time for 
NNSA, and I am really proud of the work that they are doing 
using both the tools that we have and even as they are building 
all of these facilities to ensure that we continually upgrade. 
So we will continue apace.
    Mr. Morelle. Terrific. Thank you.
    I did want to talk, too, about NIF regarding fusion. NIF is 
now regularly able to reach ignition. Just recently, it 
achieved a target gain greater than two, which is vitally 
important.
    And I am also proud, as I said, about the University of 
Rochester LLE and the role it plays in the national program to 
advancing the science diffusion. I know NIF uses lasers for 
fusion, as does the LLE. Others use--and there are others who 
use large magnetic systems. But they all share common 
technological challenges, including power extraction, first 
wall materials, and tritium handling, that must be overcome to 
get to the day where we develop a plant and ultimately realize 
fusion in terms of commercial use.
    In your mind, how high a priority is getting to the 
commercial fusion energy for the Department, and could you just 
talk a little bit about that?
    Secretary Granholm. Yes. Thank you so much. Thank you so 
much for your leadership in this as well. It is very exciting.
    First, actually, NIF has now achieved over 5 megajoule 
outputs. So it is really a great--they continue to see an 
increase in power out.
    Our budget request has $844 million for fusion and energy 
science, and we are excited about that, including funding the 
milestone effort which, of course, is in partnership with 
commercial fusion developers. You know, we have also 
contributed as well to ITER this year also. But all of this is 
in furtherance of the President's bold decadal vision for 
commercial fusion within a decade.
    And we will--you know, our offices both on the NNSA side as 
well as on the civil side are eager to continue to push in this 
regard, and we are lucky that we have got amazing examples at 
NIF and amazing partnerships in the private sector to make this 
happen.
    Mr. Morelle. Well, thank you. I am grateful for that.
    Secretary Granholm. As well as the University of Rochester, 
of course.
    Mr. Morelle. Thank you. Thank you for mentioning that. They 
will be happy to hear that.
    I want to go from the really big picture to sort of the 
last mile and follow up on Mr. Quigley's question related to 
deployment of clean energy and the need on transmission and 
distribution.
    Just to share a story, in my home district, we have had a 
number of projects--housing projects, new manufactures--that 
have really struggled to get access to the grid, not in terms 
of generation--we seem to have adequate generation--but 
transformers, which I am told take 3 to 4 years to build and 
install.
    And it seems to me, in any system, if you have, you know, a 
bottleneck, it really limits your ability to grow. So, from an 
economic point of view, it has really been a challenge, and we 
have been surprised at the number of projects that have been 
held up.
    I wonder if you have given any thought to ways the 
Department might accelerate the development of transformers, 
new industrial facilities to build and construct. And I know 
they are all customized, but if you just could say a word.
    And I apologize, Mr. Chair. If we could allow her to 
answer. And I exceeded my time. I apologize for that.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Quite all right.
    Mr. Morelle. I will yield.
    Secretary Granholm. OK. I will be quick.
    We absolutely have given thought to this and have met with 
industry and all sorts of stakeholders to identify what the 
roadblocks are. There are three main drivers of the supply 
chain issues. One is labor availability and training. One is 
materials--which is access to GOES, as Ms. Kaptur was referring 
to--and the other is manufacturing capacity.
    However, we now have started to see manufacturers expand in 
the United States to meet that demand. Eaton, a GE affiliate--
Siemens--have all announced that they are expanding, whether it 
is distribution transformers or big-power transformers. So we 
are encouraged by that, but more needs to be done clearly. And 
one would think that the demand out there would create the 
opportunity for more supply, and we are working with them on 
that.
    Mr. Morelle. Well, I would love to work with you, Madam 
Secretary, and you, Mr. Chairman. Any way that we can help 
assist in increasing that output, it would really be a big 
addition, I think, for our economic as well as our energy 
needs.
    So I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Morelle. I appreciate your 
line of questioning.
    At this point, I am going to begin a second round of 
questions, Madam Secretary. I am going to begin with my strong 
support of isotopes. I would like to better understand the 
Department's funding approach for the Office of Science 
Isotopes Research & Development and Production program.
    To put it simply, isotopes, in my view, should not become a 
high priority only during supplemental requests. While I 
appreciate that the fiscal year 2025 budget request includes 
nominal increases for facilities construction and production 
research, so much more, in my view, can be done.
    Madam Secretary, between building new facilities and 
providing new resources for current producers, what do you 
believe is the right balance that will help us create--will 
help us more quickly meet demand and create supply chain 
independence?
    And my second question in this regard is, how will the 
Department ensure isotopes production research results are 
shared with our allies while also protecting this research from 
falling into the hands of other foreign suppliers? I thank you.
    Secretary Granholm. Great. Thank you so much.
    As you know, the Isotope R&D and Production program in 2025 
is $183 million, which is a 41-percent increase from the 2024 
enacted. The SIPRC in Oak Ridge, the Stable Isotope Production 
and Research Center, is one of the Department's top priorities. 
I know it is a top priority of yours as well. That, too, got an 
increase--a 56-percent increase--and our priority is to 
complete that facility as soon as possible.
    Argonne National Lab also has an isotopes research 
component, which we are funding as well. We strongly believe 
that isotope production in the United States is critical for 
our national security and certainly for the health benefits of 
us being able to use those isotopes for cancer cures, et 
cetera.
    So I agree with you on this and look forward to continuing 
to work to support the isotope production in the U.S.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you.
    I would like to address the issue of nuclear energy. Of 
course, in my opening statement, I talked about how this is my 
priority and my avocation, my number one issue in Congress, and 
has been for quite some time.
    Madam Secretary, nuclear energy is carbon-free and can be 
deployed on a large scale to supply the United States and the 
world with clean, reliable electricity. Yet, again in fiscal 
2025, the budget cuts nuclear energy this time by nearly 6 
percent. The largest cuts are to the two ongoing Advanced 
Reactor Demonstration Projects and the National Reactor 
Innovation Center. But almost every energy--every program in 
the Office of Nuclear Energy is reduced.
    If you could kindly explain the reasoning for such a large 
reduction, especially considering the increases to energy 
efficiency and renewable energy activities. Thank you.
    Secretary Granholm. Thank you so much for giving me a 
chance to clarify.
    The funding for the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program 
simply was moved to the Office of Clean Energy demonstrations 
where the big demonstration projects are. It is not a reduction 
in the effort on that.
    And the other reduction, as I know you are aware, was to 
the clean power--Carbon Free Power Project. And so that 
obviously went by the wayside, and we have rightfully done some 
good work with what was left of that and repurposed some of 
that for SMRs. Thank you so much for your leadership on that.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you. I am going to be a little bit 
parochial now. Back to the Oak Ridge reservation on the lithium 
processing facility.
    Madam Secretary, the fiscal 2025 budget justification 
identifies a delay of 2 years in completing construction of the 
lithium processing facility--which, of course, as you know, is 
kind of part and parcel, though it is separate to the UPF--and 
a $700 million cost increase. It also discusses an ongoing 
reevaluation of the project to determine cost savings options 
and if they exist.
    To what extent has NNSA determined the impacts to this 
program of record from the delay in completing this facility? I 
thank you.
    Secretary Granholm. Yes. No impacts to the program of 
record are expected from the delay from the planned schedule. 
So we are good for that. I think we are asking for 260 million 
in fiscal year 2025 for the LPF.
    Can I just make one clarification?
    Mr. Fleischmann. Yes, please.
    Secretary Granholm. I said that we repurposed funding from 
the Carbon Free Power Project for SMRs. That is not true. We 
repurposed money from the Civil Nuclear Credit, and I didn't 
want to make a misstatement on the record.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Understood. Thank you. And I appreciate 
that clarification.
    At this time, I am going to yield the round 2 to Ranking 
Member Kaptur.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you, Madam Secretary, for your endurance this 
morning and to all of our Members.
    We had a great turnout today, Mr. Chair, a credit to your 
leadership.
    And I just wanted to move to page 2 of your testimony where 
you reference the work of the Department. $1.6 billion to 
support the clean energy workforce and infrastructure projects, 
including $385 million for weatherizing and retrofitting homes 
of low-income Americans.
    I can't make you do anything, Madam Secretary, but I would 
strongly urge the Department to consider an interagency effort 
to address the housing shortage more effectively by working 
together, perhaps, in teams in certain areas to test the 
following.
    If you look at the funding you have, if you look at the 
funding that HUD has for housing, the community action program 
that comes out of the--not this subcommittee, but another 
subcommittee--and also rural housing at the Department of 
Agriculture--and create a little working group in cooperation 
with outside groups like Habitat for Humanity, I think we would 
be very surprised to see how much more effective that kind of 
interagency, intergroup effort might work and set some models 
up for the country to have even more impact with the funding--
$385 million is not insignificant, but it isn't enough to meet 
the huge demand of the country--and with the Department of 
Labor for workforce development because one of the problems of 
housing deterioration in low-income communities is there aren't 
the skills to build.
    And so there are many creative things that can be done. You 
don't have to provide a long answer to this, but I am just 
encouraging you to look across agency to make the maximum use 
of the dollars you have.
    And, with the incentives we have in the energy bill to 
create offsite power feeds into neighborhoods, you could 
actually create models around the country of how to reduce 
energy bills--right--for an entire neighborhood, not just a 
house.
    So I am urging you to think creatively. And I know you have 
the capacity to do this and your staff does, but I just wanted 
to mention that as we proceed in this hearing.
    Secretary Granholm. I look forward to--I mean, you are 
always so creative and always thinking big picture, and I 
totally appreciate that. I mean, we do work, for example, with 
the Department of Labor on doing workforce development on 
battery--for example, a battery workforce development 
initiative.
    But your point about working more closely in a holistic way 
on all of these things for low-income folks is a really great 
point, and point taken.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you for 
listening.
    I wanted to also say, based on a situation you are well 
aware of, I have had the burden of representing the most 
corrupt nuclear commercial plant in the history of the country, 
and we are just lucky we are still sitting around the table 
here.
    I really would urge you to create a standard of excellence 
somehow in the Department. If everything fails in terms of 
corporate leadership, that somehow a standard of excellence is 
something the Department is able to promote for the highly 
trained workforce that I can guarantee you, in my area, saved 
our necks, and if, in fact, any other commercial nuclear 
carrier descends to criminality, that there be something in the 
Department. You are not the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. You 
are not FERC. They failed us. But maybe there is something the 
Department of Energy could do to take what we know from the 
Nuclear Navy and create a standard of excellence to mitigate 
against failure because, in fact, it was the workers that saved 
us more than once.
    But something is missing. Something is missing. You say, 
``Well, don't regulate the commercial carriers.'' Wrong. Create 
a standard of excellence that is fail-safe. I don't know quite 
how to do that. I am not the Secretary of Energy. But I know 
that it was the workers. It was the plumbers and pipe fitters, 
the boilermakers, and the electricians that saved our necks. 
How do we respect them? How do we create a Nuclear Navy 
standard of excellence in the workforce despite what management 
might be doing?
    I think some set of people in your Department should be 
thinking about this and look at the former Davis-Besse plant as 
the worst--not the workforce--the management. They failed us 
time and time again. And the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
arrived always too late and a dollar short. FERC didn't pay any 
attention. And there we sit. And the commercial industry knew 
it was the worst plant in their brotherhood. They did nothing. 
They knew it, and they did nothing.
    So I am just saying I think there is something else that 
can happen. I would urge your Department, now that we have new 
management that has taken over, to dig us out of this hole. I 
think you could really do something there that would be 
transformational for the future.
    Secretary Granholm. And, in fact, you all provided the 
means for us to do nuclear safety training, and this is 
something that we can embed into training that next generation 
of nuclear workforce. So thank you for that.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Thank you for 
seeing this.
    I think I am over time, but hopefully we will go to another 
round. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Fleischmann. At this time, I would like--oh, thank you, 
Ms. Kaptur.
    At this time, I would like to recognize Mr. Newhouse of 
Washington for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Secretary Granholm. I found the answer.
    Mr. Newhouse. So a couple things I wanted to--I hope we can 
get through this really quickly in 5 minutes where we both have 
time to say what we need to.
    Secretary Granholm. Yep.
    Mr. Newhouse. Hanford. I want to talk about that just a 
little bit.
    You know, I have always been and will continue to advocate 
for adequate cleanup funding for Hanford. Certainly, it is the 
largest environmental cleanup site in the country. We have got 
a lot of accomplishments that we can point to. The heating up 
of the first large melter and now the second. Making great 
progress there. And, as you know, funding has got to continue 
to grow as the vitrification process moves forward. But, with 
that said, I know there is also cleanup projects around the 
country--other cleanup projects.
    So, in light of that, within the context of the Energy 
Department's budget proposal--and I notice that there is a 
decrease in the overall EM budget, which is slightly 
concerning.
    How does DOE plan to ensure that there is going to be 
enough funding to go around as we move forward?
    Secretary Granholm. Well, this is something we want to 
continue to work, obviously, with Congress on. I know that 
Hanford--there still is a significant budget there, $3 billion, 
but we also recognize some projects move off, and so there may 
be decreases in the EM budget related to that. But Hanford is 
just such a big priority, and thank you for your leadership. 
And I look forward to working to make sure that EM--you are 
going to be going to the Clean-Up Caucus tonight--EM is 
supported all the way through.
    Mr. Newhouse. So, on that Hanford site, the agency 
announced the Cleanup to Clean Energy Initiative--which is 
great--to utilize underutilized properties. You also announced 
the issuance of requests for qualifications offering 18,000 
acres for development, which is all good stuff.
    But the Tri-Cities area has expressed--the community has 
expressed some concerns about the trajectory of this 
initiative, alleging that DOE has been unwilling to transfer 
land back to the community and has been favoring short-term 
solar projects that disincentivize investors who are looking 
for longer term investments in things such as nuclear or 
hydrogen development. So I am hopeful that the agency will 
listen to the concerns of the community and take their concerns 
into consideration.
    And could you give me some assurances that the Department 
of Energy will work with the Tri-Cities community to 
incorporate their requests and their concerns into these land-
use decisions and truly fairly assess all clean energy 
applications related to this initiative--make sure they are 
considered equally?
    Secretary Granholm. Absolutely. I hadn't heard that there 
were concerns about it, but we obviously have to work hand-in-
glove with the Tri-Cities area. I know that Ike White, the head 
of environmental management, is there all the time. And our 
team is there listening and working, and to the extent that we 
need to follow up with you on that, we are eager to do that.
    Mr. Newhouse. I appreciate that. I am sorry. I am going 
real fast here.
    But also concerning Hanford is the Office of River 
Protection. It is expected to sunset soon and will combine with 
the Richland Operations Office. So, as you know, the Office of 
River Protection was created to ensure that Hanford's tank 
waste operations got adequate appropriate attention.
    How can we make sure that that attention will continue and 
that their work will not be ignored as we move forward with 
both offices getting the equal attention they deserve?
    Secretary Granholm. Yes. It is just a top priority. We 
cannot allow that part of the mission to be subsumed in any 
way, shape, or form. Obviously, it affects the region outside 
of just Hanford. It is very, very critical. So it will not be 
subsumed. It will not be deprioritized.
    Mr. Newhouse. Great. Great. I can tell you, you have 
educated yourself a lot in the last 3 years. I appreciate that 
very much on Hanford.
    And then if I could just return really quickly to the lower 
State river dams. You stated that you are not advocating 
breaching, even in a de facto manner. So could I ask you to 
reconcile that statement with what seems to be very clear from 
the administration that the plan is in fact breaching the 
damns?
    Secretary Granholm. The agreement itself, you know, is a 
10-year stop on considering anything like that, right? It 
basically holds in place while we build up the capability for 
the salmon, for fisheries, for hatcheries, and for the Tribes 
to develop their own additional power.
    This is what I can tell you. That is what is in the 
agreement, and we are--we need power. And I know there is a 
study that is embedded with this. So there is no de facto or 
subterfuge here. It is an agreement that gets us a 10-year 
ability to evaluate.
    Mr. Newhouse. Well, again, from your last response earlier, 
I would agree with you 100 percent that we need to add power 
and capability, not take away. So thank you very much, Madam 
Secretary.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Fleischmann. And I thank you, Mr. Newhouse.
    At this time, I recognize your colleague and our colleague 
from the great State of Washington, Mr. Kilmer, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Kilmer. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
    And thanks, Madam Secretary, for being with us, and thanks 
for visiting my district a few years back to the Pacific 
Northwest National Lab in Sequim, Washington. You are the 
first, I think--not just Department of Energy Secretary but, I 
think, Cabinet Secretary to visit Sequim, Washington.
    Secretary Granholm. Wow, what an honor.
    Mr. Kilmer. While there, you got to see the Department's 
only marine and coastal research lab, which is really important 
to our local economy and really important to the community. As 
you may remember from the business and Tribal roundtable we 
did, it is very supported by the community.
    And, you know, I appreciated the conversation about some of 
the lab's unique capabilities and the importance it brings to 
developing marine energy, you know, that support some of DOE's 
water power priorities for a decarbonized energy system.
    I also want to discuss the role of collaboration across DOE 
with other agencies to leverage our oceans for clean energy. 
Congressman Newhouse and I just reintroduced a bill, called the 
Blue Ocean Energy Innovation Act, which would supercharge some 
of the work that is happening at PNNL and the Sequim Lab to 
develop blue energy, to help provide clean power to coastal 
communities, to drive some economic development in those areas, 
and to create good jobs. And our hope here is that it will 
advance some of the DOE's ongoing work to develop a 
crosscutting program for aquatic decarbonization.
    So I guess my first question is, how is that going?
    Secretary Granholm. Well, we are supportive of what you 
guys have introduced, and we are supportive, obviously, of the 
Water Power Technologies Office.
    And this answers the question that you had as well, which 
is the reduction in funding for hydropower demonstration in 
irrigation modernization, low-impact hydropower, and hybrids 
because 2024 funded these activities, and we just got that. We 
didn't need an additional amount in 2025. The demonstrations 
that are underway are going to inform the future pathways.
    And then there was a cut for the marine energy 
infrastructure, the coastal laboratory and PacWaves. PacWaves 
is expected complete in the summer of 2024--their construction. 
And, again, some of that was one-time funding.
    So I just want you to know, this is not a statement of 
deprioritizing our commitment to water power overall. And I am 
excited to work with you in whatever ways to be able to ensure 
that we can get that clean, base load, and safe power.
    Mr. Kilmer. Do you want to share any thoughts about the 
agency's work in terms of crosscutting programs for aquatic 
decarbonization?
    Secretary Granholm. Well, I do know that there is--you 
know, we want to work with your team on it.
    Let's see. I know that we did--oh, right. You guys--we 
provided a briefing recently to your office, and I know we are 
going to be getting back to you shortly on some of the 
questions that you were asking.
    We are, you know, eager to focus on this, and we are eager 
to work with you on it, and we appreciate your leadership and 
your support in the area, and let's see if we can make some 
momentum here.
    Mr. Kilmer. With the time I have left, you know, I know 
everybody is eager to do what we can to reduce energy costs. 
How can Congress and DOE work together to support programs like 
weatherization assistance to ensure folks can afford to heat 
and cool their homes?
    And, you know, one thing we heard back home is just ongoing 
challenges recruiting workers to fill some of these jobs. Is 
that something you are facing, and are there plans to help, and 
do you need anything from Congress to remove some of those 
potential barriers so that, when we provide funding for 
weatherization assistance--that the projects can happen?
    Secretary Granholm. Yes. We are focused on working on 
weatherization and training on the local levels as we fund the 
community action agencies in the States.
    We really appreciate the money that came to the Department 
to really plus-up weatherization from the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law, which gives us the ability to fund an 
initial 500,000 weatherization. We are asking for more--to do 
another 40,000 because there are 33 million homes in America 
that would qualify.
    Some of the barriers that we are seeing are we need to make 
sure that homes are weatherization-ready, and that means having 
to make sure they have got the structural capacity to take on 
the infrastructure necessary,you know, the insulation, et 
cetera, in part--so we have carved out a piece of 
weatherization funding to be able to support that. More is 
needed to be able to do that as well.
    So, with the Department of Labor and ourselves, we are 
really focused on the training associated with doing those 
weatherization projects on the ground, in community, across the 
country. But the need is great, and the resources don't cover 
the full need.
    Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, again. And we would love to invite 
you back to Washington to see us. You know, as the IRA and the 
Infrastructure Law dollars get released, there is some good 
stuff happening in our region. We would love to invite you.
    Secretary Granholm. Yep. I agree. Thank you.
    Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Kilmer.
    At this time, I would like to recognize my friend, Ms. 
Wasserman Schultz, of Florida.
    And, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, thank you for coming back. I 
know there are a lot of committees and subcommittees meeting 
today, so thank you for being here.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You are welcome. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman. And I am going to hop back next door to resume my 
ranking member role on the other subcommittee.
    But, Madam Secretary, I didn't want to miss the opportunity 
to engage with you on this. I want to focus on a new program 
that President Biden proposed in his budget request: An Extreme 
Heat Program at $100 million.
    Being from Florida, you are probably not going to be 
surprised that I am focused more on, you know, how hot it gets 
rather than how cold people are. We care about both. But this 
demonstration program would facilitate community-scale energy 
solutions to address the impacts of extreme heat on low-income 
and disadvantaged communities.
    So, as temperatures continue to rise, the impacts of 
climate change are exacerbating existing environmental 
injustices. It is especially true in my home State of Florida 
because we are particularly susceptible to the impacts of 
climate change. I always say that, in south Florida, climate 
change is not a someday thing. It is a right now thing.
    And I have seen environmental injustice issues in my own 
congressional district. For example, Miami Dade County, a 
county that I represented for 18 of the years that I have been 
here but no longer do--I still love them, but they are 
potentially going to do the wrong thing here because they are 
considering building a new mass burn facility right on the west 
border of the city of Miramar, which is in Broward County, a 
city in my district whose population is 50 percent African 
American. And this burn facility is less than eight-tenths of a 
mile from a very large residential community.
    These burn facilities have been known to emit pollutants 
that cause cancer, respiratory problems, and reproductive 
health risks, potentially exposing hundreds of families in 
Miramar. And we have seen, you know, decades later--long before 
we had the technology to actually know what the dangers of 
these kinds of facilities were--the cleanup necessary and the 
cancer clusters and all of the, you know, lead poisoning and 
all of the things that too many families go through when they 
are near facilities like this. And that is just one of the many 
burdens that minority communities face every single day 
exacerbated by climate change.
    Climate change worsens air quality, and it can 
disproportionately affect communities near industrial sites or 
highways where low-income and minority populations more likely 
reside. We have scorching temperatures that we see now from 
climate change. That can exacerbate health issues, heat-related 
illnesses, and those disproportionately affect vulnerable 
communities.
    So can you talk about this new Extreme Heat Program that 
President Biden proposed, and how will our local communities 
benefit from it? Long preamble, short question.
    Secretary Granholm. No, no. It is really important. Really 
important. And there are other ways than--I assume these burn 
facilities relate to municipal solid waste?
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Yes.
    Secretary Granholm. Yes. There are other ways to deal with 
it, including, you know, sustainable aviation fuel, et cetera, 
to deal with municipal solid waste.
    However, the extreme heat proposal, 70 million of that will 
go through our Office of Clean Energy demonstrations, and 
really, it is going to be focused on solutions that are 
community-driven. So 70 million is there, and 30 million is 
with our State and community energy programs to be able to 
build a solution with community about what works. Borrowing 
from best practices.
    For example, it might be district cooling. It might be 
community adaptation to reduced heat islands, et cetera, 
resilience approaches, greening the area. I mean, there are all 
sorts of ways that other nations and other cities have taken 
this on. So we are excited to be able to do that, especially as 
climate change progresses and things get hotter and hotter.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
    I also wanted to ask, in early January, Senator Ernst and I 
revisited Israel and the region post-October 7, and our sole 
focus was galvanizing a multinational effort to secure the 
release of all of the hostages. And I will be continuing our 
work by leading a delegation of women Members to Israel at the 
end of this month--in just a few days--to ensure that more 
Members of Congress understand what Israel is facing in her 
hour of need.
    So President Biden has shown time and time again, both 
through his actions and in his budget requests, that he stands 
firmly with Israel and our relationship. One program in your 
Department is funding for the U.S.-Israel Energy Cooperative 
Agreement, and that funding facilitates joint research and 
development efforts in the fields of alternative power and 
energy efficiency. It is a pivotal program that provides grants 
to U.S. and Israeli small businesses and academic institutions 
that enable them to develop alternative energy, renewable 
energy, and energy efficiency technologies.
    Can you explain the importance of this program and some 
funding success stories from it?
    Secretary Granholm. Yes. And particularly through the 
Binational Industrial Research and Development Foundation, 
BIRD, which has--we have a $2 million request in the budget. It 
is located--it is a partnership between the University of Tel 
Aviv and the University of Maryland to be able to put forward 
clean energy technologies in partnership with businesses 
offering micro-grants to businesses and collaboration between 
our two countries.
    And then there is the U.S.-Israel Energy Center, which is a 
$4 million request that we have in the budget, again, to create 
consortia that work together on some of the most difficult 
energy solutions.
    Israel, you know, as a startup nation, et cetera, has got a 
lot of technology that they can share. Water technologies, et 
cetera, battery technologies. I mean, Israel has been very 
advanced in their research and development, as have we. And so 
to be able to share common areas of research is what we have 
been doing, and we appreciate Congress' support and your 
leadership in making sure that partnership exists.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, the synergies of the expertise in our two 
countries is so important to continue to perpetuate, and I am 
hopeful that we can seriously consider the President's budget 
proposals in this area.
    Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, again, I strongly 
thank you for your strong support of Israel and with this 
endeavor, and thank you for leading an all-female delegation 
over to Israel at a time like this. I really appreciate that.
    At this time, I think I am going to, in the interest of 
time--oh, I forgot my good friend from New York. My apologies.
    I am going to recognize my Mr. Morelle of New York for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Morelle. No apologies necessary, Mr. Chairman. Thank 
you for your leadership.
    I wanted to--Madam Secretary, I appreciate your comments on 
hydrogen. And, although Rochester, New York, was not selected 
for the Regional Clean Hydrogen Hub--and I will insert my sad 
face here--nonetheless, I am really grateful for your 
leadership in this space.
    And, in fact, thank you. The Department of Energy was kind 
enough to announce two companies in my district. Plug and 
Ionomer would be receiving $86 million in capacity grants for 
their work in electrolyzers and other ways of expanding 
capacity.
    So it brings up an interesting point, and I think you 
mentioned it briefly, but I just would be curious as to your 
thoughts on the state of workforce in the hydrogen sector and 
what--if we need to do more--and I suspect we do--more about 
workforce development in the hydrogen sector and what thoughts 
you have about that.
    Secretary Granholm. Yes. I mean, part of--thank you for the 
question because it is an important issue. It is a new industry 
that we are creating, so we need new skill sets, although a lot 
of skills that traditional oil and gas, electrical workers have 
can easily be translated.
    Each of the hydrogen hubs, for example, require a community 
benefits plan where they describe how they are going to be 
training the local workforce to be able to take on the skills 
associated with these hubs. These hubs are complex. There are a 
lot of offtakers that have one type of industry. There are 
producers, electrolyzers--there are all sorts of skills that 
are required.
    And so the community benefits plan requires a comprehensive 
pathway for workers in partnership with local community 
colleges, local universities, et cetera. That building up of 
that workforce is absolutely critical if these hydrogen hubs 
are going to be successful, and that is where we are really 
focused on it in the community benefits plans, which are 
required as part of the hubs.
    Mr. Morelle. Very good. Thank you.
    Just to shift gears for a moment, I want to take a moment 
to highlight the work of the Loan Programs Office in your 
Department. Over the past year, I have had the opportunity to 
work closely with Director Shah. I greatly appreciate that he 
has consistently made himself and his whole team available to 
my office.
    Under his leadership, the LPO has seen enormous growth. I 
know you know this. At the end of 2023, I think they had over 
202 applications, totaling over $214 billion in requested loans 
for renewable energy, advanced nuclear, hydrogen, and critical 
minerals projects, and we have seen those investments in our 
region in Rochester, which I am grateful for and continue to 
work with his team.
    But I wonder if you have any thoughts on how to catalyze 
additional private sector investment of these critical projects 
and how you work with the private sector to make those 
investments a reality.
    Secretary Granholm. Yes. The Loan Programs Office is 
extremely effective in doing outreach. Particularly, we need to 
make sure that there is match when there is a loan or a 
financial partner when there is a loan. And so the outreach 
that they have done to those banking and financial 
institutions, private sector investors, et cetera, has been 
really critical.
    The reputation of the Loan Programs Office under Director 
Shah has been stellar. They have had--people know that when you 
go into the Loan Programs Office, you have to go through a 
series of steps in order to be vetted and to ensure you have 
got not just the right technology but the right business plan. 
But, when they come out on the other side, it is a stamp of 
approval for the companies that are able to get it.
    We have a lot of loan capacity that is still left, and the 
favorable rates that the Loan Programs Office offers ensures 
that there is a huge amount of companies knocking at the door.
    So we are excited by the interest that we are seeing, and 
we are going to continue to do that outreach to the private 
sector to make sure the Loan Programs Office is fully taken 
advantage of.
    Mr. Morelle. And I would, just in my closing seconds, just 
thank you again for the program. I think the interesting thing 
about it is, you know, when you are doing innovative projects--
and I know it involves government money--but it is not always 
possible to know with certainty how it is going to work. There 
is a degree of risk. And, if we are going to really invest in 
innovation, we are going to have to be aware of that risk and 
be able to tell taxpayers that they are going to share some of 
that risk.
    But one of the great things about the program which I just 
want to note is, it is really investing in technologies. So, 
even if companies struggle, and we have seen challenges by some 
companies, it is really important that we continue to invest in 
the technologies that will improve innovation and allow us to 
meet all the pretty extensive and expansive goals that we have 
for this country.
    So I just want to thank you, again, for your leadership and 
look forward to continuing to work with you.
    Secretary Granholm. Thank you.
    Mr. Morelle. And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Morelle.
    Madam Secretary, in the interest of time, I am going to be 
yielding to the ranking member for a few more questions, but I 
do want to reaffirm our strong commitment to fusion. I know 
yours as well. We spoke together at the White House years ago--
I think probably about 3 years ago--and it has really grown.
    I can't go a day without having a new fusion company come 
to see me. They are excited about our mutual bipartisan/
bicameral support and administration support for fusion. So I 
thank you for that endeavor, and I think that will certainly 
continue.
    With that, I am going to yield to the ranking member, Ms. 
Kaptur.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman, and also just 
to say that this is the way Congress should work, along with 
the executive branch.
    And, Mr. Chairman, I just hope a lot of Americans see this. 
On a bipartisan basis, a committee where Members came from 
every region of the country expressing their concerns, 
expressing their interests, and to have very intelligent, 
interested citizens in the audience today. We probably won't 
get a lot of publicity, but this is America's system of 
government at work.
    And, Madam Secretary, we thank you so very, very much. This 
is the way it should work.
    I just wanted to mention a few issues. One, in terms of the 
changing nature of the energy sector, one of the segments of 
our society, I think, that has been somewhat wounded is the 
Boilermakers Union, and I would urge the proper people at the 
Department of Energy to sit down with their national and 
regional leadership. These are highly skilled people, but with 
the change in the coal industry, for example, they have lost a 
great deal of their jobs.
    And I truly believe that these individuals are precious to 
our country, and there can be other segments of the energy 
industry that they can transition into. I would urge your 
attention to this segment. And Ohio is one of the impacted 
States, and I know there are others.
    Number 2, again, I would urge you to work with Secretary 
Vilsack in every way that you can to look at energy in both 
your Departments and what this means for the future. In my home 
counties--and I have seven that are rural--40 percent of the 
crop goes to ethanol and biodiesel, and the Department of 
Energy, sort of against its own initial reaction, has been 
drawn into energy in a way that they never imagined initially. 
I think there needs to be closer cooperation with the 
Department of Energy to maximize their achievements there.
    Thirdly, I wanted to ask your help with the Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act and parts of the country that are 
struggling to recover from job outsourcing. That has impacted 
us for many decades. I would urge your Department to ensure 
that communities that have been impacted, both large and small, 
are able to use the resources of the Infrastructure Investment 
and Jobs Act. Engaging them in a way that they can see what is 
happening in other parts of the country that may have benefited 
already, how people put projects together, what they are using 
those funds for--I think that that kind of sharing could be 
very, very important.
    And the lower down a region falls in terms of median 
income, the harder it is for them to access the Federal 
programs that are there. So I wanted to put that on the record.
    And, finally, Madam Secretary, I just thought it would be 
interesting to hear from you--and I am sure you have had a 
thousand such experiences. But in your experience as 
secretary--and you have been such an effective voice for the 
energy sector--what are one or two experiences you had where 
you saw something and you said, ``I have seen the future, I 
know I have seen the future''--and that you have been a part of 
helping to create it?
    Could you give us just one or two examples of something 
that has happened in your position now that it was--you know, 
it was awesome? Something happened, and you knew you were part 
of building the future? Thank you for being with us today.
    Secretary Granholm. Thank you so much. I mean, the first 
thing that comes to mind when you ask that question--and, 
again, it is not me. It is the team--is the fact that we 
achieved fusion. I mean, that was obviously the future: The 
National Ignition Facility. And, if we can commercialize that, 
it is just, you know, Katy bar the door in terms of our ability 
to power our Nation. So huge. So important.
    I appreciate what you are saying about communities on the 
ground, especially smaller communities that may not have the 
means to apply for DOE grants, et cetera. It is why we have 
beefed up our State and Community Energy Program to offer that 
technical assistance to communities on the ground.
    I mean, one of the good pieces of news is that the 
Inflation Reduction Act does a little bit of that work for us 
because, if you put a project in a disadvantaged community, in 
a rural community, in a community that is poor, you get an 
additional tax credit. And so we are seeing a lot of investment 
going to communities that you might not suspect because of the 
way the tax structure--thank you very much for voting on that--
is. And so a lot of that work being done, I think, is 
addressing it.
    But the grant side of things, to your point, is very 
important. That is why we have built up this ability through 
the State and Community Energy Program where, as you would say, 
DOE meets the street.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much.
    And, again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for your leadership and 
the great turnout at our subcommittee this morning and for your 
bipartisan spirit.
    Mr. Fleischmann. I thank the ranking member for her kind 
comments and great questions and for the great cooperation from 
both sides.
    With that, I would, again, like to thank you, Madam 
Secretary, for being here today before us.
    And, with that, the subcommittee stands adjourned.

    [Answers to submitted questions follow:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                         Wednesday, April 10, 2024.

                              MEMBERS' DAY

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN, A 
         REPRESETNATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE

    Mr. Fleischmann. The hearing will come to order. Good 
morning, everyone. I would like to welcome everyone to the 
Energy and Water Member Day Hearing. Today, our fellow members 
will testify on the issues under the jurisdiction of the 
subcommittee that are important to them. Each witness will have 
5 minutes to present their testimony. Members of the 
subcommittee will have the opportunity to ask questions if they 
like. I know everyone has a busy schedule today, so I will 
forego any extended remarks. I look forward to learning more 
from our colleagues on the priorities for this bill.
    But before I go to our members, I would like to thank our 
distinguished ranking member, Ms. Kaptur of Ohio, for a few 
words. She is my friend. We have worked together. She has 
chaired this subcommittee in the past. I am chairing it now. 
And we have worked very well together, and I want all the 
members to know that.
    And with that, I would like to yield to Ms. Kaptur. Thank 
you.

 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARCY KAPTUR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                         FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much for your 
leadership and your collegiality. I have to say I am so proud 
to serve on this particular subcommittee. We welcome our guests 
today. This subcommittee is an example of how to move bills, 
how to work on a bipartisan basis. The chairman is a great 
leader. We don't always agree with all of our members, but we 
managed to move bills and we were among the first to move to 
the floor after an extended delay, not due to the subcommittee.
    And so, we just want to thank those who have taken time to 
be here today. We are looking at Guam, we are looking at 
Arizona and other States that will follow you. But what you say 
to us is really important, and we appreciate the time you have 
taken to be here. I look forward to hearing from all of our 
attendees about your regional priorities, because all of these 
building blocks help us to do our job better and how to improve 
the Federal programs we have that are of importance to you and 
your districts. And I hope you tell us a little bit about what 
is happening in your districts environmentally, and then how 
your project fits into that architecture. Thank you so very 
much, and Mr. Chairman, thank you for the acknowledgement, and 
to all the staff and those who are helping us record what is 
said here today. I yield back.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Again, thank you, Ranking Member Kaptur. 
We will now turn to our witnesses. First up, I would like to 
welcome distinguished Congressman James Moylan, the delegate of 
Guam. Mr. Moylan, you are recognized for 5 minutes, sir.
                                ------                                

                                         Wednesday, April 10, 2024.

                                WITNESS

  STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES C. MOYLAN, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM GUAM

    Mr. Moylan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ranking member, for 
holding this hearing and for the work you do in support 
necessary agencies like the Department of Energy and the U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers, especially. And I also like to thank 
the Guam Water Works Authority and the Guam Power Authority for 
their timeless efforts in leading our submitted Water Resource 
Development Act for this cycle.
    So, to start, I would like to emphasize the importance of 
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers work mission in Guam. Between 
the ongoing work that they do for their Water Resource 
Development Act, study, proposals I submitted in January, it is 
clear that the Army Corps of Engineers are a vital part of our 
community in Guam. Now, despite this, the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers projects on and off the island are severely 
underfunded, unfortunately. And with Guam and the Northern 
Mariana Islands directly in what is known as Typhoon Alley, 
both territories must have a dedicated U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers task force to respond to extreme weather recovery. 
Now, while natural disasters are not exclusive to Guam by any 
means, we experience them at a higher rate than any State in 
the lower 48.
    So, Mr. Chairman, I request an appropriation of dedicated 
funding for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Task Force--Task 
Force, related to construction projects in Guam and the 
Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas. This task force would 
operate similarly to the recent task force, VIPR. VIPR, which 
stands for those Task Force in the U.S. Virgin Islands and 
Puerto Rico. It exists. The task force, like VIPR, are a 
critical step in the right direction for disaster recovery 
efforts in the areas affected by extreme weather, both in the 
Atlantic and the Pacific.
    Throughout my time in Congress, I repeatedly advocated for 
more streamlined cooperation between the Department of Defense 
and civilians and Infrastructure Development. Now, the 
government of Guam agencies refer to this as a One Guam 
approach. This requires shared utilities and resources, both 
inside and outside defense, allowing for more resilient and 
redundant power grid. Typhoons and other extreme weather events 
have put Guam's power grid at serious risk. The Guam Power 
Authority is in desperate need of Federal funding to prevent 
future disasters and mitigate damages.
    I am working with the Federal partners to develop an 
interagency plan for undergrounding power lines across the 
island. This plan can only--only allows for a more resilient 
way of disrupting power--distributing power to all parts of the 
island, but also makes it more reliable for both civilians and 
the island--on the island and Department of Defense. We share 
the resources on Guam. INDOPACOM areas is relying on Guam and 
the North Marianas. We have one resource. We share the water. 
We share the power. It is extremely important for us to keep 
this going continuously because of our situation in INDOPACOM. 
And in accordance with my letter I sent to the Department of 
Energy in March of this year, I respectfully request an 
increase in funding for Department of Energy to be directed 
towards the One Guam projects.
    Mr. Chairman, Guam is in desperate need of Federal 
assistance for its energy and water infrastructure. Between the 
ever growing Water Resource Development Act project list, our 
vulnerable power grid, and an increasing deterioration of cyber 
infrastructure, our weaknesses are obvious. We need to address 
this. We had some deadlines. We understand our situation. For 
the defense of our Nation, the defense of the homeland of Guam. 
And I hope that we can work together to deliver Guam its first 
successful Water Resource Development Act project in many 
years. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    [The prepared statement follows:]

               PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES C. MOYLAN

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing and for 
all the work you do in supporting necessary agencies like the 
Department of Energy and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. I'd 
also like to thank the Guam Waterworks Authority and the Guam 
Power Authority for their tireless efforts leading to our 
submitted Water Resource Development Act projects for this 
cycle.
    To start, I'd like to emphasize the importance of the US 
Army Corps of Engineers' work mission in Guam. Between the 
ongoing work they do and the WRDA study proposals I submitted 
in January, it is clear that the US Army Corps of Engineers are 
a vital part of our community. Despite this, USACE projects on 
and off the island are severely underfunded. With Guam and the 
Northern Mariana Islands directly placed in ``Typhoon Alley'', 
both territories must have a dedicated USACE task force to 
respond to extreme weather recovery. While natural disasters 
are not exclusive to Guam by any means, we experience them at a 
higher rate than any State in the lower 48. I request an 
appropriation of dedicated funding for a USACE task force for 
disaster related construction projects in Guam and the CNMI. 
This task force would operate similarly to the recently created 
Task Force VIPR in the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. 
Task forces like VIPR are a critical step in the right 
direction for disaster recovery efforts in areas affected by 
extreme weather, both in the Atlantic and Pacific.
    Throughout my time in Congress, I have repeatedly advocated 
for more streamlined cooperation between DOD and civilians in 
infrastructure development. Gov-Guam agencies refer to this as 
the ``One Guam'' approach. This requires shared utilities and 
resources both inside and outside the fence, allowing for a 
more resilient and redundant power grid. Typhoons and other 
extreme weather events have put Guam's power grid at serious 
risk. Guam Power Authority is in desperate need of federal 
funding to prevent future disasters and mitigate damages. I am 
working with federal partners to develop an interagency plan 
for undergrounding power lines across the island. This plan not 
only allows for a more resilient way of distributing power to 
all parts of the island but also makes it more reliable for 
both civilians on the island and DOD. In accordance with a 
letter I sent to the Department of Energy in March of this 
year, I respectfully request an increase in funding for DOE to 
be directed towards ``One Guam'' projects.
    Mr. Chairman, Guam is in desperate need of Federal 
assistance for its energy and water infrastructure. Between an 
ever-growing Water Resource Development Act project list, our 
vulnerable power grid, and the increasing deterioration of 
cyber infrastructure, our weaknesses are obvious. I hope that 
we can work together to deliver Guam its first successful WRDA 
project m many years.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Moylan. I now welcome 
Congressman Greg Stanton from the State of Arizona. Mr. 
Stanton, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
                                ------                                

                                         Wednesday, April 10, 2024.

                                WITNESS

 STATEMENT OF HON. GREG STANTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 
                            STATE OF ARIZONA

    Mr. Stanton. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Chairman 
Fleischmann and Ranking Member Kaptur, thank you for your 
strong bipartisan example of leadership in this congress. Thank 
you for the opportunity to testify on the importance of Federal 
investments to meet Arizona's water resource needs. The 
Colorado River Basin has experienced the driest conditions in 
more than 1,200 years. An increasing loss of snowpack in the 
Rocky Mountains has led to low water levels at Lake Powell. As 
a result, hydropower generation at Glen Canyon Dam is under 
serious threat. Lake Mead water levels are also at historic 
lows.
    Arizona's future, and the future of the American Southwest, 
depends on how we respond to this mega drought. We are moving 
in the right direction, but there is so much more work to be 
done. Last year, the Colorado River Basin was in a Tier 2a 
shortage which substantially cut Arizona's share of Colorado 
River water. It reduced the Central Arizona project's normal 
supply by 34 percent and Arizona's total Colorado River 
allocation by 21 percent. In addition to these cuts, Arizona 
and the other lower basin States have agreed to conserve an 
additional 3 million acre feet of Colorado River water through 
2026.
    I appreciate the past support of this subcommittee in 
directing resources to the Bureau of Reclamation to meet its 
obligation under the Drought Contingency Plan to conserve 
100,000 acre feet of water each year in the Colorado River 
system. And I urge you and the members of this committee to 
continue to make sure the bureau has sufficient resources, in 
fiscal year 2025, to continue these critical conservation 
efforts.
    Arizona's Tribal Nations and rural communities also need 
help, and we must make direct investments to support their 
drinking water and wastewater infrastructure during this time 
of drought. 4 years ago, the Water Resources Development Act 
included my legislation to add Arizona to the section 595 
Environmental Infrastructure Program to make these critical 
investments. With your help, it was approved, and in the time 
since, more Arizona communities are getting the help they need 
to better protect their water supply.
    New water lines for the city of Maricopa and Pascua Yaqui 
tribe. Infrastructure that helps Yavapai-Apache Nation and the 
city of Tempe manage their reclaimed water. Mitigating flood 
risk in the city of Flagstaff. Restoring the Queen Creek in the 
town of Superior. The list goes on and on. And I appreciate 
this subcommittee's support for this authority this fiscal year 
and ask that you--that you continue strong funding for this 
environmental infrastructure program in fiscal year 2025.
    Although Arizona is a dry climate, when it does rain, it 
can rain a lot and we experience dangerous flash floods. There 
are two projects that we can support to safeguard against those 
floods. The Rio Salado Oeste Ecosystem Restoration Project 
would improve the river channel through Phoenix by restoring 
nearly 1,500 acres of riparian and floodplain habitat. I hope 
this subcommittee will support this critical project.
    Second, the Cave Buttes Dam in Maricopa County provides 
flood protection for more than a million people in the Phoenix 
metro area and 15 billion in residential and commercial 
property. Seepage in the dam has sounded the alarm. To reduce 
its risk of failure, we must begin a new feasibility study for 
Cave Buttes Dam so the Corps can evaluate flood risk management 
needs and safety modifications. Finally, I ask for increased 
funds for sections 205 and 206 under the Continuing Authorities 
Program, which is currently overextended and underfunded. 
Arizona has several projects in the cities of Globe and 
Douglas, as well as the Salt River Pima Indian community and 
the Aachen Indian community, so you can utilize this program 
for important flood control projects.
    Thank you so much for the opportunity to testify today and 
for your great support of our Nation's water infrastructure. 
Thank you.
    [The prepared statement follows:]

                PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GREG STANTON

    Chairman Fleischmann, Ranking Member Kaptur, and members of 
the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify 
today on Arizona's water resource needs and the importance of 
federal investments through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
and the Bureau of Reclamation.
    Arizona has long been a leader in the United States when it 
comes to effectively managing water supplies--it's how we have 
managed to flourish in a desert for so long.
    Climate change, though, presents us with significant 
challenges: temperatures rising even higher, less predictable 
and consistent rain cycles, and more. These changes have left 
us in a prolonged drought in the Southwest. It's created more 
wildfires that threaten the entire State. The extreme heat 
wears on our water infrastructure and alters our watersheds. 
And heavy, intense rains combined with dry, hard ground makes 
many parts of our urban areas more prone to dangerous, life- 
and property-threatening flash floods.
    We know the kind of infrastructure we need to adapt to 
these changes, but it requires federal investment--and your 
leadership. I've worked with community leaders-from small, 
rural, and tribal communities, as well as our major metro 
areas-to identify Arizona's highest priority projects to help 
us prepare for the challenges ahead. These projects address our 
water supply challenges, environmental infrastructure needs, 
and flood protection.
    Securing our water future in Arizona depends on our ability 
to respond to the mega drought in the Colorado River Basin 
where we are experiencing the driest conditions in more than 
1,200 years. Last year, the Lower Colorado River Basin was in a 
Tier 2a shortage, which resulted in a 592,000-acre-foot 
reduction to Arizona's Colorado River supply, constituting 34 
percent of Central Arizona Project's normal supply and 21 
percent of our Colorado River supply. In 2024, the Basin is in 
a Tier 1 shortage, representing a 512,000-acre-foot reduction 
to Arizona's Colorado River water supply. In addition to these 
cuts, Arizona and other Lower Basin states have agreed to 
conserve an additional 3-million-acre feet of Colorado River 
water through 2026. I appreciate subcommittee's past support 
for directing resources to help us implement the Drought 
Contingency Plan, which directs the Secretary of the Interior 
to create or conserve 100,000 acre-feet per year or more of 
water in the Colorado River system to contribute to the 
conservation of water in Lake Mead. The Colorado River is the 
lifeblood of the Lower Basin States, providing water that is 
vital for drinking water in major urban areas including Phoenix 
and Tucson as well as a significant resource for tribes, 
agriculture, and industry. Historic dry conditions combined 
with the current prolonged drought and future effects of 
climate change will likely continue to contribute to 
significant economic, environmental, and other impacts 
throughout the basin. I urge the subcommittee to provide the 
Bureau with $100 million in fiscal year 2025 to fulfill its 
obligations under the Drought Contingency Plan.
    Over the next two decades, Arizona will also need more than 
$15 billion in drinking water and wastewater infrastructure 
needs, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers. To 
begin to address these needs and the fiscal constraints of our 
small, rural, and tribal communities to make these investments, 
the 2020 Water Resources Development Act included my 
legislation to expand the existing section 595 environmental 
infrastructure program to include the State of Arizona. Since 
this authority was authorized, more than two dozen communities 
and tribal nations have received assistance to address their 
water infrastructure needs. That means new water lines for the 
city of Maricopa and the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, infrastructure 
that helps the Yavapai Apache Nation and the city of Tempe use 
reclaimed water more efficiently and flood risk management in 
the city of Flagstaff. I appreciate the subcommittee's support 
for this authority this fiscal year and urge you to continue 
strong funding for environmental infrastructure in fiscal year 
2025 so more communities and tribes in Arizona can get the 
assistance they need.
    Although Arizona is a desert State, it is no stranger to 
flooding. There are several projects in need of investment to 
protect Arizona communities from major flood events.
    First, the Cave Buttes Dam in Maricopa County provides 
flood protection for more than a million residents within 
unincorporated parts of the county as well as the cities of 
Phoenix, Glendale, Peoria, Tolleson, and Avondale in an area 
with $15 billion in residential and commercial property. 
Unfortunately, floodwater seepage in the dam has sounded the 
alarm for us to reduce the dam's risk of failure. We must begin 
a new feasibility study so the Corps of Engineers can 
investigate flood risk management needs as well as potential 
modifications to improve the dam's safety so we can strengthen 
flood risk protection for the region.
    The second project is Rio Salado Oeste, an ecosystem 
restoration project that is part of Rio Reimagined. Rio Salado 
Oeste would restore nearly 1,500 acres of riparian and flood 
plain habitat while connecting two existing projects to create 
a contiguous 19-mile corridor along the Salt River through 
Phoenix. I appreciate your support for this project in this 
year's bill and ask that you provide the remaining funds 
necessary in fiscal year 2025 to complete the general re-
evaluation report.
    And finally, the Continuing Authorities Program (CAP), 
which is authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1948, provides 
the Corps of Engineers the authority to solve water-resource, 
flood-risk mitigation and environmental restoration challenges 
in partnership with local sponsors without the need to obtain 
specific Congressional authorization. By cutting the amount of 
time required to budget, develop, and approve a potential 
project for construction, this program helps the Corps more 
efficiently plan and build projects that are smaller, less 
complex, and less costly. Arizona has several of these 
projects, including McCormick Wash in the city of Globe, Rose 
and Palm Garden washes in the city of Douglas, Va Shly'AY 
Akimel on the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community and the 
Ak-Chin levee in Pinal County. I am particularly interested in 
section 205 for small flood risk management projects and 
section 206 for aquatic ecosystem restoration projects. Right 
now, though, the CAP program is overextended and underfunded. 
For example, section 205 received only $12 million this fiscal 
year but is authorized for up to $69.3 million and section 206 
was funded at $8 million and is authorized for $63 million. I'm 
hopeful that the subcommittee can increase the size of these 
CAP programs to help these smaller projects.
    Chairman Fleischmann and Ranking Member Kaptur, thank you 
for the opportunity to testify today and for your support for 
critical investment in our Nation's water infrastructure.

    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Stanton. Good morning, Mr. 
Costa. I would now like to recognize gentlemen Mr. Costa, 
congressman from California, for 5 minutes. Thank you, sir.
                                ------                                

                                         Wednesday, April 10, 2024.

                                WITNESS

  STATEMENT OF HON. JIM COSTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 
                          STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Chairman Fleischmann and 
Ranking Member Kaptur, for the opportunity to testify for the 
subcommittee. Mr. Chairman, with your own experience over the 
years with the Tennessee Valley Authority, and Ms. Kaptur, with 
your own experience as well, on Federal projects that provide 
necessary funding to support our water infrastructure needs, 
the two of you both understand the importance of this 
partnership.
    Let me outline a couple of areas where the partnership in 
California is very important. Water Operations Technical 
Support, otherwise known as the WOTS program, provides support 
for drought and flood extremes. And it seems with climate 
change and other factors that it is either feast or famine. We 
have extreme dry periods or we get more atmospheric rivers that 
bring water at very short periods of time. We need to better, 
with the Army Corps of Engineers, and I would add, extend to 
the Bureau of Reclamation, the latest in weather and seasonal 
forecasting observations, so that we can improve reservoir 
operations so that we can save and conserve all that water that 
comes.
    The capabilities to predict atmospheric rivers several days 
before landfall has become more promising, and the importance 
of tools like the Water Operations Technical Support, otherwise 
known as WOTS, and the Forecast Informed Reservoir Operations, 
otherwise known as FIRO program, cannot be overstated. W We 
have seen in recent years the implementation of that technology 
allows us to better operate the existing reservoirs and 
management in terms of ensuring, in the West, that means we can 
track, monitor, and respond to major precipitation events, from 
flooding to drought conditions. This is important. During dry 
years, water managers must be empowered to retain water that 
otherwise would needlessly be released, and during these 
excessive water years we can have a more reliable water supply. 
And so I request that the committee fund the Water Operations 
Technical Support, WOTS, and the FIRO program, the Forecast to 
Inform Reservoir Operations, and I think we should extend it 
beyond the Army Corps of Engineers to the Bureau of Reclamation 
because they have dams and reservoirs that they could benefit 
from the management of this technical advice.
    WIIN Act is piece of legislation--these are bipartisan 
effort, by the way. In 2023, storms helped ease some of the 
impacts of the prolonged drought, but further investment is 
needed in aging water infrastructure to improve drought 
resiliency. Both funding a level that we plushed up in the 
Bureau of Reclamations budget and the Army Corps budget 
provides additional support. Western States must have the 
surface and groundwater storage capacity to capture water 
during wet years so that we can use it in dry years. I thank 
the committee for the $134 million in funding for the Water 
Infrastructure Investments, otherwise known as the WIIN Act, in 
fiscal year 2024. I urge the committee to continue to fully 
support these projects in fiscal year 2025. The climate change 
has continued to cause unprecedented levels of drought, and 
these are critical funds for increasing water supply in 17 
Reclamation projects in western states.
    Also, there is report language for the repair of the 
bureau. Canals in California, the Friant-Kern Canal, Delta-
Mendota Canal, and the California Aqueduct, have all been 
seriously damaged by subsidence. These defects seriously 
jeopardize the ability of the Bureau of Reclamation to convey 
water. Water, we say, is the lifeblood in the West. As you all 
know, where water flows, food grows. To address the inequity 
and feed the Nation, we need to meet our climate goals and 
further funds must be allocated to upgrade these crucial 
infrastructure projects. I urge the committee to support the 
report language that provides up to $30 million for the repair 
in Reclamation canals for fiscal year 2025 and advance these 
important ongoing projects.
    And in addition, projects that protect the San Joaquin 
River Restoration Program. This is a contentious issue that was 
settled out of court back in 2006. The committee, to avoid 
partisan poison bill writers, such as efforts to eliminate the 
restoration program, which is moving along. The goals of the 
program are to restore and maintain endangered fish populations 
on the San Joaquin River and to reduce the adverse water supply 
impact on the Friant Division contractors. The Friant Diversion 
contractors signed on to the agreement. They very much want to 
maintain this project as we go along. It is moving forward and 
certainly we would like to continue that funding for the 
restoration of the river. There are other projects that you 
have in front of you, the Sacramento River anadromous fish 
screens. It is very important.
    But I will close and thank the subcommittee for your focus 
and your support for these important projects.
    [The prepared statement follows:]

                  PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JIM COSTA

     LThank you, Chairman Fleishmann and Ranking Member 
Kaptur for the opportunity to share my priorities for the FY 
2025 Energy & Water appropriations bill.
     LI look forward to working with the subcommittee 
on shared goals including advancing Western water storage 
projects, repairing aging water infrastructure, providing 
reservoir managers the tools necessary to accurately forecast 
for extreme atmospheric river and drought events, and deploying 
technology to better care for our environment and wildlife.

           Water Operations Technical Support (WOTS) Program

     LDrought and flood extremes in the West over this 
decade highlight the need for the Army Corps to incorporate the 
latest weather and seasonal forecasting observations to improve 
reservoir operations.
     LAs capabilities to predict Atmospheric Rivers 
several days before landfall become more promising, the 
importance of tools like the Water Operations Technical Support 
(WOTS) and the Forecast-Informed Reservoir Operations (FIRO) 
programs cannot be overstated.
     LThese tools provide Western reservoirs with the 
means to track, monitor, and respond to major precipitation 
events from flooding to drought conditions.
     LDuring dry years, water managers must be 
empowered to retain water that would be otherwise needlessly 
released.
     LTo have a more reliable water supply, I request 
that the Committee fund the WOTS program at $19 million for FY 
25, including $15 million for FIRO.

                         WIIN Act Water Storage

     LThe 2023 storms helped ease some of the impacts 
of prolonged drought, but further investment is needed in aging 
water infrastructure to improve drought resiliency.
     LWestern states must have the surface and 
groundwater storage capacity to capture water in wet years for 
use in dry years.
     LI thank the Committee for providing $134 million 
in funding for Water Infrastructure Investments for the Nation 
(WIIN) Act projects in FY 24 and I urge the Committee to 
continue to fully fund these projects in FY 25.
     LAs climate change continues to cause 
unprecedented levels of drought, these funds are critical for 
increasing water storage across the 17 Western Reclamation 
States.

     Report Language for the Repair of Bureau of Reclamation Canals

     LIn California, The Friant-Kern Canal, Delta 
Mendota Canal, and California Aqueduct have all been seriously 
impaired by factors including land subsidence. These defects 
seriously jeopardize the Bureau of Reclamation's ability to 
meet water delivery obligations in the San Joaquin Valley.
     LWater is the lifeblood of the West. To address 
inequality, feed the nation, and meet our climate goals, funds 
must be allocated to upgrade this crucial infrastructure,
     LI urge the Committee to support report language 
to provide up to $30 million to repair Reclamation Canals in FY 
25 and advance these important, ongoing projects.

           Protect the San Joaquin River Restoration Program

     LI urge the Committee to avoid partisan poison 
pill riders, such as efforts to eliminate the San Joaquin River 
Restoration Program.
     LThe goals of the Program are to restore and 
maintain endangered fish populations on the San Joaquin River 
and reduce adverse water supply impact to Friant Division 
Contractors.
     LWhile the program is not as far along as we would 
all like, it is moving forward, and to eliminate it entirely 
would throw water management of the San Joaquin River into 
chaos, uncertainty, and subject to the whims of litigation.

                Sacramento River Anadromous Fish Screens

     LFinally, I request that the Committee provide 
$7.8 million to complete the last anadromous fish screen 
projects on the Sacramento River and provide sufficient 
resources to meet other high priority fish passage and fish 
screen projects in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, the San 
Joaquin River Basin, and Westwide.
     L95 percent of the water diverted from the 
Sacramento River will pass through these fish screens. These 
projects support the environment and local wildlife, including 
salmon, steelhead, and sturgeon all of whom are considered 
threatened or endangered by State or Federal agencies.

    Mr. Fleischmann. Mr. Costa, thank you. Thank you for your 
testimony today.
    Mr. Costa. OK, and thank you for your good work.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Good morning.
    Mr. Ciscomani. Good morning.
    Mr. Fleischmann. At this time, I would like to recognize 
Representative Juan Ciscomani, from the great State of Arizona, 
for 5 minutes.
                                ------                                

                                         Wednesday, April 10, 2024.

                                WITNESS

STATEMENT OF HON. JUAN CISCOMANI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 
                            STATE OF ARIZONA


    Mr. Ciscomani. Thank you, Chairman Fleischmann, and thank 
you, Ranking Member Kaptur, for allowing me to testify today. I 
want to speak in support of a program that is crucial, crucial 
to my State and every other Western State that relies on the 
Colorado River for water.
    As you may know, Arizona is facing an unprecedented drought 
and desperately needs the Federal Government's support for its 
water conservation needs. The Cooperative Watershed Management 
Program, CWMP, is a unique Federal resource that provides 
critical funding to local stakeholders for the development, 
planning, and design of watershed management programs. In 
Arizona, dozens of water projects have been made possible by 
this program. These projects bring together a variety of local 
stakeholders and improve water quantity and quality in areas 
that need water security the most.
    While the program has been incredibly successful so far, 
the demand for capacity-building water projects is immense, and 
with its current funding levels, many worthy projects are, 
unfortunately, left unfunded. The CWMP is authorized at about 
20--will add 20 million annually, but has never received the 
regular appropriations close to that level. With the West 
current water shortage, I believe it is high time that we 
invest in this program and other drought related programs 
before the situation becomes even more dire.
    Further, Mr. Chairman, as you and your staff work hard to 
form this year's Energy and Water Appropriations Bill, I would 
urge you to put drought resiliency efforts on your priority 
list. In Arizona and other broader--and in the broader West, 
water is the most important and threatened resource, and we 
need the support of Congress in fighting this drought and 
securing a strong water future for all. Thank you, and with 
that, I yield back.
    [The prepared statement follows:]

               PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JUAN CISCOMANI

    As you may know, Arizona is facing an unprecedented drought 
and desperately needs the federal government's support for its 
water conservation needs. The Cooperative Watershed Management 
Program (CWMP) is a unique federal resource that provides 
critical funding to local stakeholders for the development, 
planning, and design of watershed management programs.
    In Arizona, dozens of water projects have been made 
possible by this program; these projects bring together a 
variety of local stakeholders and improve water quantity and 
quality in areas that need water security the most. While the 
program has been incredibly successful so far, the demand for 
capacity-building water projects is immense and with its 
current funding levels, many worthy projects are left unfunded.
    The CWMP is authorized at $20 million annually but has 
never received regular appropriations close to that level. With 
the West's current water shortage, I believe it is high time 
that we invest in this program and other drought-related 
programs before the situation becomes even more dire.
    Further, Mr. Chairman, as you and your staff work hard to 
form this year's Energy and Water appropriations bill, I would 
urge you to put drought resiliency efforts on your priority 
list. In Arizona and the broader West, water is our most 
important and threatened resource and we need the support of 
Congress in fighting this drought and securing a strong water 
future for all. Thank you and I yield back.

    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Ciscomani. I appreciate 
your testimony, sir.
                                ------                                

                                         Wednesday, April 10, 2024.

                                WITNESS

 STATEMENT OF HON. KEVIN MULLIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 
                          STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    Mr. Mullin. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and ranking 
member, and committee members. Kevin Mullin from California, 
15. Climate change is causing extreme weather events in every 
region of the world. It does not matter if you are in a blue 
State or a red State. The impacts of climate change are costing 
billions of dollars in damage. It has been well documented by 
rigorous scientific studies that carbon emissions from fossil 
fuels are driving the climate crisis. Carbon capture, carbon 
removal technology, can be a tool to address this crisis, but 
it will require further investments from the Federal Government 
to make it more viable. To date, many Federal investments have 
focused on capturing carbon dioxide at the point source of 
pollution, like smokestacks. However, this tactic only prolongs 
our dependence on fossil fuels and does not address the carbon 
emissions that have already been put into the atmosphere. So, I 
am advocating today for carbon removal technologies that 
permanently pull carbon out of the atmosphere.
    Today, companies in my district, and across the country, 
are developing technology to do just that. So far, large scale 
investments in this technology have been held back by a lack of 
standards and clear market value. This is where the Federal 
Government must play an important role. By purchasing carbon 
removals and setting standards for those removals, Federal 
investment would send a signal to the private sector that 
carbon removal systems can be trusted to curb climate change. 
To that end, I am requesting that the subcommittee include in 
this year's appropriations bill $15 million for the carbon 
dioxide removal, monitoring, reporting, and verification 
account at the National Labs in the Department of Energy. I am 
also requesting that report language be included that directs 
DOE, the DOE's Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management, 
to accelerate the commercialization of carbon dioxide removal 
technologies through advancements in MRV and encourages FECM to 
continue this work in partnership with the National 
Laboratories and the Office of Technology Transitions 
Technology Commercialization Fund. That is a mouthful.
    Further, I request that the subcommittee include in the 
bill $35 million for the carbon dioxide removal purchasing 
account at DOE, along with report language that directs the 
Secretary of Energy to follow through on the competitive 
purchasing pilot program that the secretary was directed to 
establish in the FY 2023 Energy and Water joint statement, for 
the purchase of carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere.
    Thank you again for allowing me to speak this morning, and 
I thank the chair and ranking member and their staff for all 
the work they will put into preparing this year's bill. Thank 
you, sir.
    [The prepared statement follows:]

                PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. KEVIN MULLIN

    Thank you, Chairman Fleischmann, Ranking Member Kaptur, and 
Members of the Committee for this opportunity.
    Climate change is causing extreme weather events in every 
region of the world. Domestically, it does not matter if you 
are in a blue state or a red state, the impacts of climate 
change are costing billions of dollars in damage. My California 
congressional district sits on the San Francisco Peninsula, 
where we see sea level rise all around us. It has been well 
documented in the scientific community that carbon emissions 
from fossil fuels are driving this climate crisis. America has 
the responsibility and the technological capability to lead the 
world's transition to a renewableenergy economy by reducing 
emissions.
    However, although reducing emissions should continue to 
remain the primary focus of our global efforts, it will not be 
enough. According to recent reports by the Intergovernmental 
Panel on Climate Change and the National Academies, we must 
also actively remove carbon from the atmosphere to mitigate the 
worst impacts of climate change.
    Carbon removal technology can be another tool in our tool 
belt address this crisis, but it will require even more 
investment from the federal government to make it viable.
    To date, most Federal investments have focused on capturing 
carbon dioxide at the point source of pollution, like 
smokestacks. However, this prolongs our dependence on fossil 
fuels. Reduced carbon emissions are still carbon emissions. 
Moreover, carbon that has already been emitted is not affected 
with this approach.
    In contrast, I am advocating today for carbon removal: 
technologies that permanently pull carbon out of the 
atmosphere. Today, there are a number of companies in my 
district and across the country that are developing technology 
to do just that. So far, much of the funding to develop and 
deploy carbon removal technology has relied on private sector 
investments. Large scale investment in this technology has been 
held back by a lack of standards and clear market value. This 
is where the Federal Government must play an important role.
    By purchasing carbon removals and setting standards for 
those removals, federal investment would send a signal to the 
private sector that carbon removal systems can be trusted and 
ultimately mitigate the impacts of climate change.
    To that end I am requesting that the subcommittee include 
in this year's Appropriations bill $15,000,000 for the Carbon 
Dioxide Removal MRV account at the National Labs in the 
Department of Energy. I am also requesting that report language 
be included that directs the Department of Energy Office of 
Fossil Energy and Carbon Management (FECM) to accelerate the 
commercialization of carbon dioxide removal technologies 
through advancements in monitoring, reporting, and verification 
(MRV), and encourages FECM to continue this work in partnership 
with the National Laboratories and the Office of Technology 
Transitions Technology Commercialization Fund.
    Further, I request that the subcommittee include in the 
bill $35,000,000 for the Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) 
Purchasing account at the Department of Energy. along with 
report language that directs the Secretary of Energy to follow 
through on the competitive purchasing pilot program that the 
Secretary was directed to establish in the FY 2023 Energy and 
Water joint explanatory statement for the purchase of carbon 
dioxide removed from the atmosphere or upper hydrosphere.
    I want to reiterate that I am advocating for funding for 
these programs in addition to those that reduce carbon 
emissions overall, including speeding our transition to clean 
energy and away from fossil fuels. However, given the magnitude 
of the crisis we face, we must bring every innovation to bear 
in addressing it and I believe carbon removal is worth 
pursuing.
    Thank you again for allowing me to speak this morning. And 
I thank the Chair and Ranking Member and their staff for all 
the work they will put into preparing this year's bill.

    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Congressman Mullin. Appreciate 
your testimony, sir. At this time, I would like to recognize 
the congressman from California, Mr. John Garamendi, for 5 
minutes. Thank you, sir.
                                ------                                

                                         Wednesday, April 10, 2024.

                                WITNESS

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN GARAMENDI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 
                          STATE OF CALIFORNIA


    Mr.  Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 
Kaptur. Thank you very much. How much can we spend on the 
nuclear enterprise? Apparently, an awful lot of money. The 
Sentinel program, which is the replacement of the Minuteman 
III, is at least $130 billion over the next decade to 15 years. 
A significant part of that is in the control of your 
appropriations. The NNSA--in fact, the $130 billion does not 
include the NNSA activities. The Department of Energy has 
requesting--some feedback here--the Department of Energy is 
requesting $19.8 billion for weapons activity. That is a $2.7 
billion increase over the 2023 agnatic levels. These ever 
growing costs, just in the Energy Department, are a significant 
but small portion of the total cost of replacing the Minuteman 
III missile with the new Sentinel system.
    Perhaps one of the most illustrative examples is the 
modernization of the plutonium pit production. Something the 
NNSA said would have to do 80 pits per year. Why 80? Because 
Congress told them to produce 80 without any justification for 
the 80 other than they may be needed someday in the future. 
That is one example, but it's not all. It does not include the 
$3 billion that the Department of Energy, NNSA's requested for 
plutonium pit production. Modernization is only a small part. 
There is $1.4 billion requested for stockpile sustainment--that 
is the existing bombs--and $1.1 billion for the W87-1 warhead, 
which is supposed to go on the Sentinel. When will the Sentinel 
rocket actually be deployed? Well, not for a long time.
    So, what I am really wanting to bring to your attention is 
that we are probably looking at, just within the NNSA, $6 
billion when you put all of the pieces together, and I want you 
to take a very, very close look at this. The Minuteman III was 
determined a decade ago to not be sustainable. The actual 
analysis said that it could not be sustained for 70 years, and 
that is accurate. But the Minuteman III can actually be 
sustained for at least a decade. And in fact, in the 
replacement of the Minuteman III with the Sentinel, the 
Minuteman III will be maintained for at least 15 years, because 
as a Sentinel comes in, a Minuteman III goes out. Apparently, 
we have to have 400 of these, and so we are not going to have 
400 Sentinel rockets day one. They will come in a few a year, 
maybe a dozen or two a year, and the Minuteman III will 
continue to provide the requisite number of missiles, ICBMs.
    I really am pleading with you, and your committee, to take 
a hard look at the role of the NNSA, the Department of Energy, 
in this Sentinel program. The bottom line of it is that the 
Sentinel program is way beyond budget. It now is Nunn-McCurdy, 
meaning that it has a full stop under the law and a full 
review. Part of that review is the weapon and your domain, your 
responsibilities. The military will come back with an analysis. 
All of us owe to the American people a very careful analysis, 
by us, of the military's analysis. We have to force them to 
answer the five questions that the law requires in full.
    The critical piece of that is the nuclear weapon itself. 
The plutonium modernization was originally designed and argued 
to build a new bomb, the 87-1, for the Sentinel. The Sentinel 
is going to be delayed. Minuteman III will continue to be 
refurbished. We are talking $130 billion. If you are concerned 
about deterrence, we need to make a choice here. $130 billion 
will build perhaps five to seven Columbia-class submarines and 
all of the missiles and bombs that would go with those, 
providing even greater significant deterrence than the missiles 
sitting in a silo in the upper Midwest.
    So we are going to make some critical choices here. We are 
fortunate to have the Nunn-McCurdy breach give us an 
opportunity--in fact, give us the requirement that we carefully 
analyze this entire Sentinel program and whether there are 
other things we should spend the money on. I was listening to 
my colleague, Mr. Mullin, talk about a few tens of billions--
millions of dollars for climate change issues. We are going to 
make some very, very important choices.
    I will leave you with my written statement here. But my 
plea to you as the key members of a critical element in the 
Sentinel program, the plutonium pit production, do we really 
need to have both a new facility at Savannah River, which is 
going to be billions of dollars, and another facility in New 
Mexico? Do we really need 80 pits a year for the Sentinel? If 
the sentinel would go forward, we do not need 80 pits a year. 
The math is actually fifth grade math. The number of pits that 
can be produced at Los Alamos are quite sufficient over time to 
provide the necessary pits for the 87-1 that would then go onto 
the Sentinel. So we have some choices to make here. We are 
going to--we must demand, at the very minimum, we must demand 
that the Department of Defense do an honest and thorough 
analysis, as required by the Nunn-McCurdy breach.
    You have been very, very generous with my time. I 
appreciate that. This is really an important question. Nuclear 
deterrence is critical. What is the best way to achieve it? A 
new rocket, ICBM, in silos, which we know exactly where they 
are, or five new Columbia-class submarines somewhere out in the 
ocean, where our opponents have no idea where they are? So if 
it is deterrence, what is the best way to achieve it? What is 
the best way to spend $130 billion over the next decade to 15 
years? On the sentinel? I think not.
    I thank you for your wisdom. I thank you for your attention 
and your time. Thank you. Any questions you have, I would be 
happy to go back.
    [The prepared statement follows:]

               Prepared Statement of Hon. John Garamendi

    I join you today to call the committee's attention to the 
billions of dollars being spent on our nuclear weapons programs 
and raise significant' concerns that momentum is leading us in 
a dangerous direction. We in Congress have a duty to allocate 
the taxpayer dollars on programs in a responsible manner that 
avoids unnecessary and excessive expenses, but instead we're 
spending billions on wasteful weapons programs.
    This year's Department of Energy budget request includes 
$19.8 billion for ``Weapons Activities'', a $2.7 billion 
increase from the FY 2023 enacted levels. These ever-growing 
costs reflect the irrationality which has seized our nuclear 
policy. In the name of ``modernization'', we've taken on 
billions of dollars of additional spending and every time we're 
asked for more, we keep growing the accounts without question 
or scrutiny. Even if we accept the need to preserve a ``safe, 
secure, and effective deterrent'' as long as nuclear weapons 
exist, current modernization plans are not necessary to 
maintain a capable deterrent for the foreseeable future.
    Perhaps the most illustrative example of this theme is the 
modernization of plutonium production. ``Plutonium pits'', the 
hollow plutonium shell in nuclear triggers of nuclear weapons, 
are only one of the many components necessary to build nuclear 
weapons. But this year Department of Energy/NNSA requested 
nearly $3 billion for plutonium pit modernization. This number 
is incredibly high but doesn't even include the $1.1 billion 
requested for the W87-1 warhead, the $1.4 billion for stockpile 
sustainment, the $1.2 billion for the W80-4 warhead or the 
costs of approximately five other warheads and bombs.
    Even for those who believe that we need to modernize our 
nuclear program these costs should be concerning. For anyone 
who claims that we should cut Government funding, particularly 
when it is not justified by need or clear planning, our weapons 
programs should be a clear place to demand savings. A January 
2023 GAO report, for example, found that NNSA has not developed 
a comprehensive schedule or cost estimate that meets GAO best 
practices. It has not identified all of the activities or 
milestones necessary to achieve an 80-pit-per-year production 
capability and senior officials have admitted they will not 
meet those deadlines.
    In addition, it is not clear that the production levels are 
grounded in any true need, since America already has more than 
4,000 plutonium pits and we lack scientific data to determine 
whether or when the pits need to be replaced. This excessive 
requirement will cost taxpayers $18-$24 billion according to 
GAO estimates, of which of Savannah River construction will be 
$7-$11 billion, nearly triple the original estimate of $3.6 
billion
    In House Armed Services Committee, I've been closely 
following a similar example in the $118 billion dollar Sentinel 
Program which has such an egregious overrun that it triggered a 
review under a portion of statute known as 'Nunn-McCurdy'. The 
recent Nunn-Mccurdy breach was triggered by an over 37 percent 
cost overrun for the $118 billion Sentinel program, almost 260 
percent higher than the Air Force's first cost estimate in 
2015. These costs are incredibly concerning and it demands 
carefully scrutiny of whether the program's continuation in its 
current form is necessary or possible.
    Although portions of that program are outside of this 
subcommittee's jurisdiction, the nuclear enterprise is seeing 
drastic cost overruns in the lines of effort that support the 
program in Energy and Water. For example, the budget request 
for development at Livermore National Lab of the warhead for 
the Sentinel, the W87-1, is up 63 percent in the FY 2025 
budget, and according to the recent Performance Evaluation 
Report (PER) for the lab, ``only met a portion of the 
deliverables for the W87-1, with some baseline schedule 
deliverables missed.''
    Likewise, in Sandia's PER, it is said to have, ``missed key 
intermediate deliverables for the W87-1 program and experienced 
technical challenges in component develop1nent, resulting in a 
missed FY 2023 Program Milestone and increased schedule risk.'' 
Together, these ``schedule'' problems are likely to lead to 
program delays and likely major cost overruns for the W87-1.
    These costs are unsustainable and, I fear, reflective of 
misaligned priorities. When 80 percent ofNNSA's budget request 
is going to these modernization programs and only 20 percent to 
nonproliferation, we should pause and think hard about where we 
should spend our resources.
    Inevitably, we must reconcile our infinite desires with our 
limited means. That means making hard decisions about how and 
where to spend taxpayer dollars. Billions of dollars and at 
least a decade has been spent justifying weapons programs, 
instead of the energy programs that improve taxpayers' lives. 
This must stop. Rather than pouring money into pits, let's 
spend our Energy and Water appropriations on renewable energy 
and clean water.

    Mr. Fleischmann. Mr. Garamendi, I wanted to thank you for 
your testimony and your time today, sir.
    Mr.  Garamendi. Thank you.
    Mr. Fleischmann. At this time, I would like to thank all of 
our colleagues for being here today and participating in our 
member day. Unless there are anything else from our 
distinguished ranking member, the subcommittee will stand 
adjourned.

                                         Wednesday, April 17, 2024.

FISCAL YEAR 2025 REQUEST FOR THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (CIVIL WORKS) 
                     AND THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

                               WITNESSES

HON. MICHAEL L. CONNOR, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (CIVIL WORKS)
LIEUTENANT GENERAL SCOTT A. SPELLMON, CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, COMMANDING 
    GENERAL, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
HON. CAMILLE CALIMLIM TOUTON, COMMISSIONER, U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
MICHAEL BRAIN, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, WATER & SCIENCE, 
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN, A 
         REPRESETNATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE

    Mr. Fleischmann. The hearing will come to order.
    Good morning, everyone. It is my pleasure to welcome 
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, Mr. Michael 
Connor; and the Commanding General and Chief of Engineers, 
Lieutenant General Scott Spellmon--General, sir--to discuss the 
fiscal 2025 budget request for the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers; and Commissioner Camille Touton to discuss the 
request for the Bureau of Reclamation.
    In addition, I am also pleased that we are joined by an 
alumnus of this subcommittee, Principal Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Water and Science, Mr. Michael Brain, from the 
Interior Department to discuss the request for Western Water.
    Mike, welcome back to the committee, sir.
    A key focus of this subcommittee is making the necessary 
investments to manage and develop America's water resources. We 
have once again demonstrated our bipartisan commitment to this 
goal by passing a strong fiscal 2024 bill that made robust 
investments in these projects critical to public safety and our 
Nation's economic competitiveness.
    I was particularly proud of the funding to advance and 
complete several ongoing inland waterway construction projects, 
including the Chickamauga Lock in my district.
    The inland waterways system is vital to the American 
economy, moving approximately 600 million tons of cargo 
annually and supporting billions of dollars in economic 
activity. I struggle to understand why the fiscal 2025 budget 
request once again proposes no funding for these projects.
    Beyond the inland system, the fiscal 2025 budget, 
President's budget, continues a trend of proposed reductions to 
both the Corps and Reclamation. The request for the Corps 
totals $7.2 billion, 17 percent below the enacted level, with 
the largest cuts proposed for the Mississippi River and 
tributaries and operation and maintenance.
    In addition, the budget proposes $1.7 billion for Harbor 
Maintenance Trust Fund activities, consistent with recent 
budgets, and a reduction of nearly 38 percent from the enacted 
level.
    The request fails to take advantage of the tools Congress 
provided to promote robust investment in our Nation's ports and 
harbors, falling nearly $1.4 billion short of the maximum 
offset allowed by law.
    Similarly, I am disappointed by the proposed reductions for 
activities critical for drought preparedness and response, 
water supply, and project operations throughout the West. The 
President's budget proposes $1.6 billion for the Bureau of 
Reclamation and Central Utah Project Completion Account, a 
reduction of 16 percent. The request proposes only $17 million 
for the Central Utah Project, 26 percent below enacted level, 
continuing a downward trend.
    For Reclamation, the Water and Related Resources account 
would see a reduction of $308 million from fiscal 2024 levels. 
While I do not represent a reclamation State, I understand the 
importance of Reclamation's mission in the West, and I believe 
we must do more in fiscal 2025 to support Western communities 
and farmers who rely on Reclamation projects for water and 
power.
    I appreciate all of our witnesses for being here today to 
explain your budget requests. I look forward to working 
together with you and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
to move forward a bill that will enhance public safety and 
maximize economic benefit of America's water resources.
    Please ensure that the hearing record, questions for the 
record, and any supporting information requested by the 
subcommittee are delivered to us in final form no later than 4 
weeks from the time that you receive them. Members who have 
additional questions for the record will have until the close 
of business Monday to provide them to the subcommittee office.
    With that, I will turn to my distinguished ranking member 
and friend, Ms. Kaptur, for her opening statement.

 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARCY KAPTUR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                         FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank 
you for the collegiality with which you lead this committee. I 
am proud to say that last year and sort of running into this 
year, our bill was one of the first to clear the floor. That is 
a credit to every member of this committee and to all the fine 
Americans and the professional staff that come before us from 
the various departments and agencies, and we appreciate all of 
you.
    We are here today to discuss the fiscal year 2025 budget 
request for the Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of 
Reclamation. Thank you to our witnesses. Welcome back to many 
of you today. Your agencies play a critical role in developing 
the resources of our land, mindful of future generations.
    Your projects strengthen our economy, sustain life on our 
corner of Mother Earth and ensure public safety against the now 
constant onslaught of both natural- and human-caused disasters 
across our country.
    When I arrived home last weekend, I was shocked, actually, 
because it had rained for 4 days and one of the rivers that 
flows very close to where I live called the Ottawa River, I 
have never seen it that high.
    So we all are experiencing these changes in the 
environment. And the recent collapse of the Francis Scott Key 
Bridge was a national tragedy, though not a natural disaster, 
but does impact all Americans, because it is one of the sixth 
largest ports in the country. We salute the Corps. I really do 
salute you for the bravery of many of your members and some of 
the private companies that you have hired under very dangerous 
circumstances to clear the channel and work to return port 
operations to their full capacity.
    This incident is another reminder of the importance of 
maritime infrastructure, including the major Port of Baltimore 
and, as I have mentioned, one of the busiest in the Nation. I 
will continue working with my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to provide the resources necessary to rebuild and recover 
this major artery of our commerce and sustainment.
    Investments in the critical water infrastructure of our 
Nation allow these two agencies to support their significant 
missions across our country. To maintain and upgrade the over 
25,000 miles--25,000 miles--of navigable waters, allowing goods 
to be transported throughout our Nation, even with the added 
challenges of climate change.
    Flood management, to reduce the risk and impacts of natural 
disasters; water supply that serves 130 million people--and our 
population now is about 320 million--and provides 10 trillion 
gallons of water for municipal, rural, residential and 
industrial uses; hydropower production--I wish we could do more 
of that--that powers 10 million homes; and emergency response 
functions.
    Across our Nation, municipal utilities are having to manage 
growing fresh water and wastewater loads for which they were 
not engineered. And the cost of doing so is bearing down very 
heavily on some of the poorest people in our country and cities 
as well as rural areas. We simply have to find a better way to 
finance these, working with other agents and instrumentalities 
across this government.
    Farmers are losing crops because of changing rainfall. I 
have got pictures on my iPhone. I went and took pictures of the 
fields this weekend, just because they were so full of water. 
And we have an inability to manage excess water in the fields, 
and drainage tiles and ditch systems that were built for a 
bygone era. It is a big issue.
    In 2023, there were 28 confirmed weather and climate 
disaster events, with losses exceeding a billion dollars each, 
including drought, flooding, severe storms and wildfires. 
Everybody's insurance is going up.
    These events cost over $90 billion in economic effects on 
the impacted areas, and it is undeniable that we are witnessing 
growing weather events stemming from climate change occurring 
in real time before our very eyes.
    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers--and thank you very much, 
General, for being here--and Bureau of Reclamation are needed 
now more than ever to devise new innovative approaches to 
changing water flows, whether it is down the Mississippi, in 
the Great Lakes and central Chicago, or the dry irrigated West.
    With this new normal, it is imperative for agencies like 
the Corps and Reclamation to plan and implement solutions to 
make our communities more resilient. Both agencies, along with 
the Departments of Agriculture and Housing and Urban 
Development, must hire additional urban and regional land 
planners, environmental engineers, and water, climate, and 
conservation specialists. We must understand our sub-watersheds 
much more intimately and deal with that reality.
    In the Great Lakes region, projects like Soo Locks are a 
prime example of investments that will turbocharge our economy 
and assure the resiliency and efficiency of our maritime 
transportation system.
    Similarly, the Brandon Road Project is aimed at arresting 
the economic and environmental damage unleashed by invasive 
carp species that will exterminate local and regional native 
fish and aquatic species, and we simply have to find a way to 
work with our brethren in Illinois in order to find the perfect 
solution.
    I hope we can continue to work together to maintain support 
for Ohio's ports. They not only play a vital role to support 
continued economic development in vital industries, like steel 
and overground transportation, including with our Nation's 
largest free trade partner, Canada. They also serve as a source 
of dredge material that can be used to increase shoreline 
resilience to the increasing impacts of climate change.
    As we begin our discussion on fiscal year 2025, I must say 
I am disappointed by the proposed reductions of $1.5 billion 
for the Corps of Engineers and $307 million for Reclamation. I 
join our chairman in that concern.
    And while historic investments were made through the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and Inflation Reduction 
Act, in both of your agencies we have significant work to do to 
better protect Americans against severe drought, flooding, and 
storms.
    We must restore the physical infrastructure that sustains 
life in communities large and small across our Nation, and 
there is bipartisan support in Congress for the work that all 
your agencies nobly perform and undertake on behalf of the 
American people.
    Thank you for being here. We all look forward to your 
testimony. And, with that, I will close my remarks and look 
forward to discussing this request in more detail.
    Thank you very much, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Ranking Member Kaptur.
    And, again, once again, thank you to our witnesses for 
being here today. Without objection, your full written 
testimonies will be entered into the record. With that in mind, 
we would respectfully ask that you please summarize your 
opening statement in 5 minutes.
    Secretary Connor, you are now recognized for your opening 
statement. Thank you.

  STATEMENT OF MICHAEL L. CONNER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR 
                              CIVIL WORKS

    Secretary Connor. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Kaptur, 
distinguished members, thank you for the opportunity to discuss 
the President's 2025 budget request for the Army Civil Works 
Program. I have submitted my full statement for the record and 
I will quickly summarize.
    The 2025 budget request includes over $7.2 billion for the 
Civil Works Program, with a focus on investments to facilitate 
waterborne transportation, reduce coastal and inland flood 
risks, and restore significant aquatic ecosystems. These 
investments reinforce President Biden's ongoing commitment to 
protect, restore, and improve the Nation's water resources to 
strengthen our economy, protect people and property, and 
improve the environment.
    The water resources challenges of today and tomorrow are 
not like yesterday's. Weather extremes are increasingly the 
norm, creating risk to communities, the economy, and natural 
systems. As a result, understanding vulnerabilities and 
increasing our preparedness is of paramount importance.
    This budget will spur innovation by investing in research 
and development and help ensure we improve our capabilities to 
assess risk and aggressively confront these challenges. And our 
infrastructure investments through this budget will support 
community resilience to better address these extremes while 
tackling climate change and promoting equity for underserved 
and overburdened communities and Tribal Nations.
    With a focus on modernization and innovation, the budget 
continues to prioritize the highest performing work within the 
three main missions of the Civil Works Program: Commercial 
navigation, thereby supporting the Nation's supply chains; 
flood and storm damage reduction, protecting communities and 
building resilience; and aquatic ecosystem restoration.
    And now, with the enacted 2024 appropriations bill with 
generally robust funding, which we are greatly appreciative of, 
I want to address a serious need that was ignored in our 2024 
budget and, therefore, critically important in fiscal year 
2025.
    The fiscal year 2025 budget includes $6.4 million for the 
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. 
Since 2009, my office has never received an appropriation 
larger than $5 million, in some years less.
    However, our costs, salaries, services and rent have all 
continued to rise over the past 15 years. Using the latest CPI 
data the $5 million my office received in 2009 equates to over 
$7.2 million in today's dollars. Nonetheless, funding remains 
flat even as our responsibilities grow.
    Full funding is critical to provide effective oversight of 
the Army Civil Works Program and to help us support timely 
actions in response to your requests. It is also critical to 
address the many new responsibilities added to the Civil Works 
portfolio through numerous statutory provisions enacted in five 
Water Resources Development Acts since 2009.
    With my remaining time, I would like to highlight the Corps 
of Engineers' responsibilities in disaster and emergency 
response. Six weeks ago, I met with the incident command team 
in Maui responding to 2023's devastating wildfires. And last 
week, I visited the incident command center in Baltimore 
Harbor, working the recovery and response efforts to the 
Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse disaster.
    In both situations, the Corps is just one of several 
agencies charged with critical responsibilities. In Maui, we 
have operated within the FEMA disaster framework and their 
available resources. Nonetheless, our responsibilities for 
emergency power, debris removal, and building critical 
infrastructure requires us to be prepared and maintain the 
skills and the contracts necessary to carry out the mission.
    With these items in place, the Corps is removing debris and 
setting the stage for rebuilding on 1,600-plus properties 
devastated by wildfire. It also constructed a temporary but 
complete elementary school in 95 days to turn over to the local 
school district.
    In Baltimore, we are not working within a FEMA framework 
but using our own resources to quickly deploy and begin work in 
clearing the Federal navigation channel to restore full 
operations to the Port of Baltimore, even as we are sensitive 
in supporting the recovery efforts associated with the loss of 
life caused by this disaster.
    One of our smaller accounts, the National Emergency 
Preparedness Program, was key to developing the existing 
contractual arrangement with Navy supervisory salvage that 
enabled the Corps to immediately post disaster begin planning 
the actions necessary to clear the navigation channel.
    Moreover, and thankfully, we received full year 2024 
funding in March for Baltimore Harbor O&M funds, since that has 
provided the resources to date to carry out the channel 
clearing operations. Once that mission is complete, these 
funds, along with any others used, will need to be restored to 
carry out other critical operations.
    The Corps of Engineers is at its best when called upon to 
work with others within the Nation's emergency and disaster 
response frameworks. The resources that you, as appropriators, 
provide us on a timely basis are key to our and, thus, the 
Nation's success in responding in times of crisis.
    Thank you for the time. I look forward to your questions.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Secretary Connor.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Conner follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Fleischmann. At this time, General Spellmon, you are 
now recognized for 5 minutes for your opening statement, sir.

   STATEMENT OF LT. GENERAL SCOTT A. SPELLMON, USA, CHIEF OF 
            ENGINEERS, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

    General Spellmon. Good morning, Chairman Fleischmann, 
Ranking Member Kaptur, and distinguished members of the 
subcommittee. I am honored to testify before you today, and 
thank you for the opportunity to discuss the fiscal year 2025 
budget of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Program.
    But before I begin my prepared remarks, I do want to thank 
Congress for the ongoing support related to the Francis Scott 
Key Bridge response. Foremost, our thoughts are with those who 
were impacted by the collapse of this bridge, and our 
condolences go out to those families who are still missing 
loved ones.
    We, along with our partners, are working to remove the 
wreckage in an expedition and safe manner, and we are going to 
ultimately restore this navigation channel to the Port of 
Baltimore.
    Today, I look forward to discussing that status of 
important Corps projects and programs as well answer any 
questions the committee may have regarding our fiscal year 2025 
budget request.
    We greatly appreciate Congress' continued support for the 
Corps' Civil Works Program. Recent appropriations have enabled 
significant investments in water resource projects around the 
Nation. And just as important, those appropriations allowed us 
to further develop innovative approaches to address our most 
pressing challenges through focused research and development.
    The fiscal year 2025 budget reflects a targeted approach to 
continue investing in our water resource infrastructure while 
incorporating climate resilience efforts into our commercial 
navigation, flood and storm damage reduction, and aquatic 
ecosystem restoration missions.
    The budget also supports Assistant Secretary Connor's 
priorities for the Corps by strengthening the supply chain, 
increasing ecosystem resilience, promoting environmental 
justice in underserved communities and Tribal Nations, 
investing in R&D and, finally, sustaining and improving our 
relationships with our many partners across the country.
    The budget reflects an emphasis on work that provides the 
highest economic, environmental, and public safety returns to 
the Nation. We continue to strive for bold and innovative 
actions to improve our performance and engineer solutions for 
our Nation's toughest challenges.
    We are transforming our organization and decision-making 
process to deliver quality projects more consistently, safely, 
on time and within budget. Our teams are hard at work seeking 
out new and better ways to mitigate risk so that we can further 
strengthen the safety and security of communities across our 
country and its territories.
    By evolving our policies, programs, and operations and by 
placing an increased emphasis on research and development, we 
are working to overcome impacts from challenges such as sea 
level rise or changes in precipitation patterns and hydrology 
and other effects of climate change, including improvements to 
the resilience of our own Corps-owned and operated 
infrastructure.
    I will conclude by saying that the Corps does not 
accomplish anything on its own. Delivering successful Civil 
Works projects is a shared responsibility. It is very much a 
team sport. We draw from our 249 years of engineering expertise 
and build upon our relationships with our non-Federal partners, 
project stakeholders, and Congress to enable us to succeed.
    I look forward to continuing to work with this committee, 
with Congress, and the administration to address the Nation's 
critical water resource infrastructure needs.
    And thank you again, Chairman Fleischmann, Ranking Member 
Kaptur, and members of the committee. I look forward to 
answering any questions you may have.
    [The prepared statement of Lt. General Spellmon follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, General, for your testimony.
    At this time, thank you, Commissioner Touton. You are 
recognized now for 5 minutes.

  STATEMENT OF CAMILLE CALIMLIM TOUTON, COMMISSIONER, U.S. BUREAU OF 
                              RECLAMATION

    Ms. Touton. Good morning. My name is Camille Calimlim 
Touton. I am the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation.
    Thank you, Chairman Fleischmann, Ranking Member Kaptur, 
members of the subcommittee, Congressman Newhouse, for the 
opportunity to discuss the President's budget request for the 
Bureau of Reclamation. We are grateful for your support and for 
our working relationship with the subcommittee.
    The Bureau of Reclamation is the largest deliverer and 
manager of water in the Nation and the second largest producer 
of hydropower. We have 189 projects across the American West 
and help to feed the Nation and the world through 10 million 
acres of irrigated agriculture, provide water to millions of 
Americans and meet our trust responsibility to sovereign 
nations and sustain ecosystems across the Western landscape.
    The need to secure, maintain, and modernize our Nation's 
water infrastructure is an administration priority. And we have 
a once-in-a-generation opportunity to utilize our fiscal year 
2025 $1.6 billion budget request with that of the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act.
    The cyclical nature of Western hydrology, as we saw from 
the last 3 years, highlights the need for immediate actions as 
well as thoughtful planning and on-the-ground work to make both 
our infrastructure and operational decisions more resilient to 
withstand future water resource scarcity and variability.
    Our fiscal year 2025 budget priorities reflect a commitment 
to drought planning and response activities to promote water 
security in short and long term. This approach is illustrated 
in the Colorado River Basin, where last month Reclamation 
announced a significant milestone in the release of the final 
environmental impact statement in our efforts to protect the 
stability of the system.
    With historic water conservation of 3 million acre-feet, in 
collaboration from our partners, made possible by the 
President's Investing in America Agenda, we staved off the 
immediate threat and stabilized the system to protects water 
deliveries, the ecosystem, and power production.
    Our focus is now on the future. For the entire Colorado 
River System we are guided by the best available science and 
engineering to make informed decisions together as a basin. The 
stability of our infrastructure and our commitment to 
transparency remains our highest priority.
    Across the West, Reclamation must plan for the future of 
its infrastructure. Reclamation's dams and reservoirs, water 
conveyance systems and power-generating facilities serve as the 
water and power infrastructure backbone of the American West.
    However, as with all infrastructure, these features are 
aging and in need of critical maintenance. Our fiscal year 2025 
budget includes $74.8 million for extraordinary maintenance, 
combined with our BIL investments of $670 million in our fiscal 
year 2025 spend plan for aging infrastructure.
    This includes projects like the West Canal replacement in 
Washington State, where we are investing $4 million to replace 
approximately 1,500 feet of canal to conserve water, protect 
homes downstream from damage, and ensure uninterrupted water 
delivery to farmers.
    We are continuing with construction of our largest dam 
safety modification at the B.F. Sisk Dam in California, 
supported by our fiscal year 2025 Dam Safety program request of 
$211.2 million. At B.F. Sisk, we are also undertaking a dam 
raise, which will provide increased water storage in 
California.
    Since 2021, Reclamation has invested $695 million in water 
storage projects in California alone. We must also address our 
infrastructure needs while considering economic inequities and 
the needs of rural and underserved communities.
    Reclamation is establishing and rebuilding water 
infrastructure for underserved populations by ensuring that 
clean drinking water is provided to communities.
    Our request includes $58.5 million for a rural water 
program and leverages $1 billion in our Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law funding to accelerate the completion of 
these long-needed projects, of which we have selected $806 
million.
    And as PDAS Brain will highlight further, our budget 
includes additional funding to support Reclamation's Native 
American Affairs Program and Indian Water Rights Settlements 
implementation.
    Reclamation will continue to manage our operations in real 
time and plan for the future, with a focus on people, 
partnerships, and investments. We are committed to working with 
Congress and the subcommittee and our partners and stakeholders 
across the West in carrying out our mission, and our fiscal 
year 2025 budget supports these actions.
    Again, I thank the subcommittee. I am happy to answer if 
there are any questions. Thank you.
    Mr. Fleischmann. And I thank you, Commissioner Touton.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Touton follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr.Fleischmann. And now, Mr. Brain, you are now recognized 
for 5 minutes for your opening statement. Thank you.

         STATEMENT OF MICHAEL BRAIN, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT
          SECRETARY FOR WATER AND SCIENCE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 
                              THE INTERIOR

    Mr. Brain. Thank you, Chairman Fleischmann, Ranking Member 
Kaptur, and members of the subcommittee for the welcome and for 
the opportunity to discuss with you the President's fiscal year 
2025 budget request for the Department of the Interior's Bureau 
of Reclamation and Central Utah Project Completion Act Office.
    I am Mike Brain, Interior's Principal Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Water and Science, and it really is an honor to 
be here today.
    The President's budget request maintains the 
administration's commitments to deliver jobs and economic 
growth, build up America's infrastructure in a resilient 
manner, and strengthen our relationship with Tribal Nations.
    The request includes $1.6 billion for the Bureau of 
Reclamation, which will help ensure Western communities have 
access to a reliable water supply by investing in rural water 
projects, water conservation, development of desalination 
technologies, and water recycling and reuse projects.
    It complements the nearly $8.3 billion provided for Western 
Water infrastructure through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law 
as well as the nearly $4.6 billion provided by the Inflation 
Reduction Act.
    The severe drought that has recently afflicted the United 
States is the latest manifestation of climate change on 
American communities, and Reclamation's request continues the 
Biden-Harris administration's comprehensive approach to 
furthering climate resiliency.
    As the Commissioner highlighted, the funding requested at 
the B.F. Sisk Dam raise and reservoir expansion project is 
emblematic of this approach and the Department's commitment to 
modernize our water infrastructure.
    Reclamation's request further addresses climate change 
across the Western United States through the WaterSMART 
program, efforts to address fish and wildlife habitat needs, 
and funding to provide sound climate science and clean energy.
    Reclamation proposes to fund WaterSMART at nearly $66 
million. Once complete, projects funded through WaterSMART 
since 2010, including WaterSMART grants and Title 16 projects, 
are expected to save more than 1.8 million acre-feet of water 
each year.
    The Department is also focused on the need to continue to 
unleash the science, further developing and deploying science-
based drought and aridification adaptation strategies. 
Reclamation's WaterSMART and science and technology programs 
directly contribute to these priorities, including $22.5 
million for research and development.
    Additionally, the Department remains committed to upholding 
our trust responsibilities to Tribal Nations. Over the past 3 
years, Interior has allocated $2.43 billion available through 
the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to address Indian Water 
Rights Settlements.
    In addition to these investments, the request for 
Reclamation includes $181 million to support the White Mountain 
Apache Tribe's water settlement agreement.
    The budget also includes $45 million in the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs to support the Hualapai Tribe Water Rights 
Settlement Act of 2022.
    The administration also proposes legislation to expand the 
Indian Water Rights Settlement Completion Fund, a proposal that 
will provide $2.8 billion and mandatory funding over 10 years 
to help ensure commitments are honored as well as funding for 
operations and maintenance costs.
    To promote racial and economic justice, the request 
includes $29.5 million for Reclamation's Native American 
Affairs Program to increase opportunities for Indian tribes to 
develop, manage, and protect their water and related resources.
    The Department's 2025 CUPCA budget of $17 million continues 
progress and supports construction of the Utah Lake Drainage 
Basin Water Delivery System. The completion of the ULS 
pipelines will deliver 60,000 acre-feet of municipal and 
industrial water to provide increased water security and help 
communities increase their resiliency to changing climate 
conditions.
    The request includes funding for the Central Utah Water 
Conservancy District to administer planning and project 
construction as well as for water conservation and fish and 
wildlife conservation activities.
    Lastly, the request also includes $4 million for mitigation 
and conservation activities funded through the Utah 
Reclamation, Mitigation, and Conservation Commission.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am happy 
to answer any questions you may have.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Brain follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Brain.
    We are now going to begin with questions, starting with my 
own.
    General Spellmon, sir, I am going to talk about Chickamauga 
Lock. As you know, the Chickamauga Lock is very important to my 
district. We have faced a number of challenges over the years, 
and you and the national team have been helpful and responsive 
in keeping the project moving. The fiscal 2024 bill provided 
what we expect to be the funding necessary to complete the 
project.
    What is the timeline, sir, for execution of these fiscal 
2024 funds? When does the Corps expect the lock to be 
operational, and when will the project be completed, sir?
    General Spellmon. Yes, sir. First, I want to thank you for 
your leadership on this project and giving us the resources to 
finish this job.
    Sir, we expect to award the final contract. That is going 
to be the upstream approach wall. We have about 10 percent of 
the concrete left to place, the site restoration, and we are 
going to decommission the existing lock with the funds you have 
given us. We are going to award that final contract in 
September. The team is working through the plans and specs now. 
And that will give us--we will be passing traffic, we will have 
an operational lock in November of 2026.
    Sir, you remember the concrete placement challenges that we 
were having from our last visit and some of the safety--that is 
behind us. So we feel we have very good momentum.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, sir.
    Commissioner Touton, I appreciate the discussion on Indian 
water rights settlements in your testimony. You noted that 
Reclamation expects $142 million to be available from existing 
funding resources or there is $181 million in the request for a 
particular settlement.
    Between existing funding sources and the amount in the 
budget request, does Reclamation have the funds necessary to 
cover fiscal year 2025 needs, and when does Reclamation expect 
the $142 million to be allocated to specific settlements? Thank 
you.
    Ms. Touton. Thank you for that question, Mr. Chairman.
    And we are committed to moving forward on these 
settlements. In fiscal year 2025, our budget reflects what we 
need, using the funds that we have as well as the discretionary 
funding requested for White Mountain Apache.
    We can follow up for the record on the expenditures moving 
forward, but for our budget, it reflects our ability to meet 
those settlements.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you.
    Ms. Touton. Thank you.
    Mr. Fleischmann. General Spellmon, I think I am going to 
come back to you, sir, on the topic of the invasive carp. This 
is an issue that is of increasing importance to Tennessee. I 
hear from my constituents almost weekly about this, if the 
spread of the invasive carp species beyond their current range.
    As you know, WRDA in 2020 authorized the Corps to carry out 
projects to prevent the spread of invasive carp further into 
Tennessee watersheds. Congress has provided the funding 
necessary to initiate this program, but I am concerned, sir, 
with the delays in implementation.
    Can you kindly provide a status update on finalizing the 
program management plan for the section 509 Program. Thank you.
    General Spellmon. Chairman Fleischmann, a very important 
program that has our full attention. So we took the $500,000 
that was given to us, appropriated to the Corps in 2023 
funding. And what we did is we did a programmatic assessment 
and a program management plan to scope this particular problem.
    If we are offered a work plan in the 2025 budget in 
environmental infrastructure, we will express the capability of 
$10.5 million. And what that will do is we will initiate 
designs for barriers at Barkley, at Kentucky, and then one 
barrier on the Tennessee-Tombigbee waterway.
    And then, sir, that is also going to give us time to line 
up the non-Federal sponsors we need to implement this program. 
But we are moving forward.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, sir.
    The next question is for Secretary Connor and perhaps 
General Spellmon, if you would like to address this.
    Congress has offset appropriations from the Harbor 
Maintenance Trust Fund up to a certain level each year. I am 
concerned that the Corps is not adjusting quickly enough to 
this new reality, both in terms of executing the funds and 
fully capturing the work necessary to bring our Nation's ports 
and harbors to authorized dimensions.
    The first question, what is the Corps doing to improve 
execution of HMTF funds? And the other question, sir, is, the 
Fiscal 2024 Act provided funding specifically to assist in 
assessing what it would take to get and maintain authorized 
widths and depths so that we can be confident that the 
capability reflects the true need for HMTF eligible work. How 
is the Corps implementing this directive?
    Secretary Connor. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman.
    I think your two-part question is actually the answer there 
with respect to the ongoing process of identifying our dredging 
needs and prioritizing those needs and ensuring that we 
facilitate commerce flowing in all of our waterways, whether 
they be ports or the inland waterway system.
    So with respect to that ongoing process, now we have added 
in the report that was authorized in WRDA 2022, which is now 
funded through the 2024 appropriations process. We will do a 
deeper dive and focus, identify and prioritize the resources 
that we need in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. And we will 
continue to identify that as part of the budget process, 
recognizing the 2020 WRDA authorized an offset for these 
programs.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you.
    General Spellmon. Chairman Fleischmann, I would say you are 
correct. We are not responding quick enough. We have received 
generous appropriations for the Harbor Maintenance Trust Funds 
to get after a lot of longstanding O&M issues in the 577 
Federal navigation channels that we are responsible for.
    So we thank you for the appropriations here. The $350,000 
this year, that is going to allow us to come back to you with a 
set of recommendations on how we can do this better.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you very much. At this time, I would 
like to recognize Ranking Member Kaptur for her questions.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And, again, thank you all for your testimony this morning. 
I want to step back from individual projects for a second and 
turn to the Bureau of Reclamation first.
    Give us a spatial sense of what is really happening in the 
West. We read stories about 2 years ago that the Colorado River 
was being diverted for the first time in recorded history, I 
guess. I don't know. But it was pretty serious.
    And then many of our Members from California came up to us 
and told us that the reservoirs were running dry. We have read 
stories about the--we have read stories about agricultural 
production land in California being cut off, and I am curious 
how one decides who you cut off.
    But spatially, can you give us a sense of--and then we read 
about this historic atmospheric rivers happening. What I don't 
have is a complete sense of what is happening regionally, and I 
am wondering who does.
    And so give me a sense, give us a sense, give our listeners 
a sense of what is really happening in the so-called dry West. 
As we sit here today, is it still dry or do you have too much 
water and you don't know what to do with it? People are leaving 
California for Texas. What does that mean? Are they leaving 
because housing is too high or because our utilities are 
costing too much?
    Do any of you feel comfortable in kind of giving us a sense 
of where to look to get an answer to that question?
    Ms. Touton. Good morning, Ranking Member. I am happy to 
answer that question.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much. I appreciate that, 
Commissioner.
    Ms. Touton. What we have seen across the West over the last 
3 years is hydrologic variability. I will use the Colorado 
River System. When we walked into the door, the Biden-Harris 
administration, we were at 25 percent of capacity. And we were 
reaching levels that we had never seen before since the filling 
of those reservoirs.
    Over the last 3 years, working with the States, working 
with the country of Mexico and the sovereign nations, we have 
been able to stabilize that system and have levels at Lake Mead 
now at the highest since they have been since May of 2021.
    Ms. Kaptur. Excuse me. I am glad you mentioned Lake Mead. I 
almost forgot about that. And, again, it was like every 
newspaper had a story about the water going down, down.
    So please proceed.
    Ms. Touton. That was due to us saving rain from a rainy day 
that we received last year, but also historic conservation 
efforts by all sectors. And the Colorado River is just one of 
the many basins we see. What we are seeing across the West 
generally is, again, a change in hydrologic variability. Our 
largest reservoir is snow pack. And so when the snow is at 
higher elevations, it melts sooner. The soils are dry and, 
therefore, they go into the ground and don't end up in the 
reservoirs. You have an issue with your water supply.
    And so we are committed to deploying the resources that you 
all have given us, whether it is water recycling, new storage, 
small storage, desalination, efficiencies, to be able to bring 
all these tools to the communities across the West. And we will 
continue to meet our mission of 120 years.
    Ms. Kaptur. So then do we take from this that Lake Mead has 
risen?
    Ms. Touton. Yes.
    Ms. Kaptur. That the Colorado River will not have to be 
diverted in the way it was 2 years ago or 2 and a half years 
ago?
    Ms. Touton. We are able now to focus on the future as a 
basin, to figure out how to operate the system in light of 
changing hydraulic patterns and to meet all of the needs in the 
West. And I am confident, with our partners, we can get to an 
operating paradigm for the future.
    Ms. Kaptur. And in that regard, then you must have a map 
that shows the various basins and how they interconnect.
    Ms. Touton. We do.
    Ms. Kaptur. OK. Could you provide something to the members 
of the committee so they can gain a regional sense of what is 
happening? I think that would be very helpful rather than 
individual projects.
    Ms. Touton. I am happy to do so, Ranking Member. Thank you.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. Thank you very much.
    Secretary Connor. Ranking member, can I add real quickly on 
this particular point that you mentioned?
    So feast or famine, that is the story of water in the West 
these days. And I think from that standpoint, every flood 
control project has to be a water supply project and vice 
versa.
    An example of how we are tying to integrate ourselves with 
Bureau of Reclamation and the atmospheric scientists is how we 
operate our facilities, such as Prado Dam, such as Whittier 
Dam, Narrows Dam.
    We had a situation last year with atmospheric rivers. 
Hurricane Hilary came in. We were prepping ourselves from flood 
control. Fortunately, it was more of a tropical storm, so we 
pivoted and we stored water, metered it out to water agencies 
in the area so that they could do managed aquifer recharge.
    That is an example. We have got to operate differently. We 
have got to understand in the moment how we--are they storing 
water, providing flood protection, or storing it for release to 
our water suppliers? And we have got to do that across the 
West.
    Ms. Kaptur. Is this really a new page in American history?
    Secretary Connor. I believe so, absolutely. We are not in 
stovepipes anymore. We have got to be integrated across our 
responsibilities.
    Ms. Touton. And if I may, Ranking Member. And us working 
together so closely is critical to our success.
    Ms. Kaptur. I am really glad to hear that.
    I have one question that is related in our region if I can 
find it here. Well, I can't find the question, but I know what 
I want to ask.
    In the western basin of--we are going to move to the Great 
Lakes now. I represent the largest watershed in the entire 
Great Lakes. One of our problems is, again, project by project, 
harbor by harbor, farm by farm, maybe we do something in one 
community.
    What we don't have and what you are involved in the Western 
basin partnership, General Spellmon, is attempting to find ways 
to deal with this increased rainfall in the most tiled part of 
the United States of America from an agricultural standpoint.
    Millions of dollars have been put into this watershed not 
just by the Corps, but predominantly by the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, with a new farm bill upcoming.
    Can you think of ways across agencies that we could work to 
better handle this engineering problem, which is fundamental to 
continuing to be able to produce in the region, and to 
integrate the knowledge of different Federal departments, 
again, in the largest watershed?
    If we can get it right there, we can get it right 
everywhere. But the problem is we are not getting it right. And 
so we have, you know, farmers complaining about, you know, the 
cost of repairing fields that have been overcome with water. 
The ditches aren't properly maintained by some of the counties.
    And we really need an engineering solution if we are going 
to continue to produce. You deal with shortages. We deal with 
plenty in terms of fresh water. It is the same problem. It is 
an engineering problem.
    General Spellmon. Ma'am, I would say Congress is helping 
and we are doing something about this. In my opening statement 
I talked about the power of research and development. On this 
very issue we have a number of programs ongoing today in the 
State of Florida, and we also have some out in this particular 
basin, one in Defiance, Ohio, which I think you have been 
there.
    But, ma'am, it is not just us. It is our labs. Certainly, 
we are working with EPA and we are also working with academia 
in both corners of the country where we are seeing this problem 
most acute, and look forward to finishing this work and coming 
back to you with our report and recommendations.
    Ms. Kaptur. We would really appreciate your being able to 
work with the other two agencies along with the Great Lakes 
Restoration Initiative that EPA handles out of the Chicago 
office to come to us with some clarity over this watershed, 
because we need the bigger picture in order to make progress in 
this region.
    And I thank you very much and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Ms. Kaptur.
    At this time, I recognize Mr. Newhouse of Washington for 5 
minutes for questions, sir.
    Mr. Newhouse. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 
the chance to ask questions today about the Bureau of 
Reclamation as well as the Army Corps' fiscal year 2025 budget.
    Like the chairman and also Ranking Member Kaptur, I want to 
thank you for all the work that you do, and please relay that 
to everyone that works with you. And I also want to thank Ms. 
Kaptur for her interest in the arid West. As one who lives the 
roller coaster of feast and famine, a great analogy. There is a 
lot that has been done but certainly a lot more that we can do 
to prepare for the vagaries of our weather. So I look forward 
to working with you on that.
    I would like to talk and ask questions two things 
particularly, one the lower Snake River Dams, and also a little 
bit about the Columbia River Treaty.
    First of all, General Spellmon--and, again, thank you for 
being here--in the last year or so a lot has changed regarding 
the Columbia River System Operation litigation process, as you 
know.
    The administration and sovereign nations have come to an 
agreement, and that is currently beginning to be implemented. 
Your budget proposes over $75 million for the Columbia River 
Fish Mitigation Program. As part of the agreement, the Corps is 
conducting spillage operations on the Snake River. The purpose 
of those operations is to minimize the time it takes for salmon 
to move through the dams, to ensure a healthy and abundant 
salmon population.
    General Spellmon, are you aware that there is scientific 
and peer-reviewed research which confirms spilling operations 
can negatively impact water quality downstream by increasing 
total gas dissolution, which can be very harmful, in fact, 
could be fatal for salmon.
    General Spellmon. Yes, Congressman, yes, I am aware of that 
research.
    Mr. Newhouse. So if the outcome of expanded spillage 
operations were to be a surge in salmon mortality, wouldn't 
that defeat the obvious purpose of this bill?
    General Spellmon. Congressman Newhouse, we would adjust our 
operations if it were becoming lethal to the juvenile salmon 
that you are referencing.
    Mr. Newhouse. So that is being monitored.
    General Spellmon. That is correct.
    Mr. Newhouse. OK, appreciate that.
    Mr. Connor, I would like to discuss with you the same 
issue. Currently, a large dam removal project is happening 
along the Klamath River, dam-breaching advocates tout it as an 
effort to improve the salmon population there.
    However, recently, I believe approximately 830,000 salmon 
were killed when the dams were breached. It is believed that 
the fish died due to this same issue, the gas bubble disease, 
when they were passing through the tunnels.
    So you are aware of this, I am assuming.
    Secretary Connor. I am not aware of the mortality 
statistics that you just referenced, but I am aware of the dam 
removal project.
    Mr. Newhouse. It has been reported in several news 
organizations over the past short period of time.
    Given all this, if there were a point where the lower Snake 
River dams were to be physically breached, isn't it possible 
that salmon mortality could increase there as well?
    Secretary Connor. Thank you for the question, Congressman 
Newhouse. I think in any dam removal scenario, one of the 
analyses that is most preeminent is, what are the short-term 
immediate impacts of dam removal. And certain sediment flows or 
other aspects of dam removal are part of the analysis that 
certainly was occurring in the Klamath River Basin.
    So absolutely. We have to understand how the system will 
operate when there is a breach of a system, as is ongoing in 
the Klamath River system now. We have to understand the 
sediment behind those facilities and understand any 
contaminants.
    So it is a rigorous analysis. And the Snake River, quite 
frankly, is multiple times more complicated than the Klamath 
River system.
    Mr. Newhouse. Always keeping in mind healthy and abundant. 
That is two words that are very important.
    Another reservation I have with spillage operations is that 
spilling water will decrease the amount of potential 
hydroelectric power that could be generated.
    Being part of this arid West, Washington also struggles 
with weather like droughts and shrinking snow pack. In fact, we 
are experiencing that this year with junior water rights 
districts being rationed. We need a robust hydropower system 
more than ever.
    So will spillage operations, in your estimation, decrease 
the amount of hydroelectricity that the dams are able to 
produce?
    Secretary Connor. There are certainly potential impacts to 
hydroelectric generation. I think, in developing the agreements 
between the four Tribes, the two States, Washington and Oregon, 
as well as the Federal agencies, we have looked at the science 
to try and have an operational regime that will facilitate more 
fish passage, that will take into account what hydropower 
production needs are.
    And we are incrementally moving to a system that we hope 
improves the capacity to restore those healthy and abundant 
fisheries. And there are tradeoffs in the system, and so we are 
trying to manage all those tradeoffs in different operations.
    Mr. Newhouse. I understand that. It truly is a tradeoff or 
a balancing situation. But if spillage operations make it so 
that not enough hydroelectricity is generated for the dams to 
operate, wouldn't they be functionally breached at that point?
    Secretary Connor. I don't think we are going to reach the 
functionally breached aspect in our operational regime that are 
currently being talked about for the lower Snake River dams. 
And there is integration of other energy sources into the mix 
there, but I think we are far from functionally breaching right 
now.
    Mr. Newhouse. I appreciate your answers. And I see my time 
is expired, but thank you very much. I look forward to further 
questions.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Newhouse.
    At this time, I recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. 
Quigley, for 5 minutes for questions.
    Mr. Quigley. Thank you, Chairman.
    General, it is invasive carp day here at E&W. And, as you 
well know, the risk in the Great Lakes to the ecosystems and 
the economies is at stake here.
    And I understand that we don't have a project partnership 
agreement signed yet, but the Corps is still moving forward to 
the extent it can. How long will that last and at what point do 
we absolutely have to have an agreement for you to continue to 
move forward?
    General Spellmon. Congressman Quigley, we have enough funds 
currently to--we will continue with our design efforts through 
the month of June. And at June, if we don't have a project 
partnership agreement, we could again rely on advance funding 
from our partners, but we have enough funding now to take us 
through the month of June.
    Mr. Quigley. And once there is an agreement, how much 
longer till--I mean, how long will the construction take and 
have the barrier fully operational?
    General Spellmon. That is a great question, sir. So six to 
8 years for total construction. After the PPA is signed, within 
the first 12 months we are going to issue our first two 
increments of work. And we will get started on the outer 
barriers for the electrical, initial electrical barrier and the 
initial CO2 curtain. And we will also award the rock removal 
contract, which is a big part of this project. But that would 
be our first set of contracts.
    Mr. Quigley. And your sense of how the discussions are 
going with the State of Illinois to come to this agreement and 
others? Anyone?
    Secretary Connor. Congressman, I have been involved in 
those discussions. So I think we have got a productive path 
forward, certainly engaging not just with ourselves and the 
State of Illinois but the State of Michigan also.
    The Governor, Governor Pritzker sent me a letter several 
weeks back, which he is due a response. So we are currently 
trying to schedule a discussion with the Governor so I can talk 
to him directly about it before I send a response.
    I think overall, the Governor has laid out concerns about 
cost increases, concerns about the perpetual O&M issues. We can 
work through that. We are going to have a productive 
relationship with both States who are contributing to the 
project.
    So it is my hope that we can respond, we can, you know, 
clarify some of the issues that he raised in his letter, and we 
can move forward to address the timeline that the General laid 
out and trying to get a full PPA in place by June so we can 
address the cost increases by moving forward as quickly as we 
can, coordinating the initial construction activity with other 
works in the Illinois waterway system.
    That is how we are going to contain costs and move forward 
exponentially. But I think the dialogue is good and productive. 
I look forward to talking to Governor Pritzker.
    Mr. Quigley. Thank you. September 2020, the Corps approved 
a dredged material management plan on a different topic here 
that identified vertical expansion of an existing confined 
disposal facility.
    The Corps shared that this plan was developed because it 
believed it was the lowest cost environmentally acceptable 
alternative for managing dredge sediment for the next 20 years.
    Stakeholders and community members have stated that this 
land was originally slated in 1995 to become a parkland at the 
mouth of the Calumet River once the site was filled. Obviously, 
they have heard from community members who are concerned about 
the impact of the dredged material plan.
    What is the need for the expanded facility for dredged 
material in the area and its purpose? And can you speak about 
the findings of the plan and the alternatives that were 
explored prior to the approval?
    General Spellmon. Congressman, I will start with the 
latter. When we did this work, we looked at 61 sites across the 
area and we evaluated those 61 sites against nine criteria. We 
narrowed that down to six, primarily because of real estate 
costs to our non-Federal sponsor and the presence of hazardous 
waste in those sites.
    Because we did not have, did not see tangible plans for the 
recreation area on top of the current dredged material 
facility, that was the lowest cost and least environmentally 
damaging alternative, and that is why we had that proposal go 
forward.
    I understand we are now in litigation. We don't have the 
State permit. We are going back now to look if we missed 
anything on our evaluation of those other 61 sites, because we 
know we have to dredge this channel again next year. So time is 
short for us.
    Mr. Quigley. Once a site like that has dredged material, 
what are the prospects for it becoming some sort of community 
park?
    General Spellmon. Yes, sir. I mean, it has the ability. The 
city could certainly convert this land use to a community park. 
The material would support that is in there. We have seen that 
happen in other places as well.
    Mr. Quigley. Very well.
    Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Fleischmann. I thank you, Mr. Quigley.
    At this time, I would like to recognize Ms. Letlow of 
Louisiana for 5 minutes for questions.
    Ms. Letlow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    General Spellmon, thank you for being here today. Last 
year, I emphasized to you the importance of inland waterways 
and the impact it has on the communities that I represent. 
Specifically, how critical it is to provide full funding for 
construction projects under the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
    While I was pleased with your response last year, I am now 
concerned that this is becoming a reoccurring issue with the 
administration. Like last year, White House supporting 
documents say, quote, "The budget continues support for 
modernizing America's port and waterway infrastructure 
initiated under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, helping 
further address cost pressures."
    However, it is difficult for me to believe this is a 
priority when reviewing your budget request. Can you please 
explain to our committee how providing zero dollars in fiscal 
year 2025 for construction activities is supporting the 
modernization of our locks and dams within our inland 
waterways, specifically in light of the number of projects 
awaiting construction?
    General Spellmon. Congresswoman, you are referring to the 
Inland Waterway Trust Fund?
    Ms. Letlow. Yes.
    General Spellmon. Yes, ma'am. I will tell you we have a lot 
of work out there. We will continue to make our best technical 
recommendations to advance these projects.
    Ms. Letlow. That is incredibly concerning to me with zero 
dollars. How do you plan on doing that with zero dollars?
    Secretary Connor. If I could----
    Ms. Letlow. Please.
    Secretary Connor [continuing]. jump in here. One, we 
appreciate greatly the $500 million that was contained in the 
2024 appropriations bill. That is going to greatly advance, 
allow us to do project completions and move forward on other 
projects.
    Two, part of that $500 million is $113 million that we had 
remaining in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law resources. We 
had been waiting to understand the 2024 appropriations bill so 
that we could make allocations when we laid out the 2025 
budget.
    So I just mention that. I have no disputes with the taking 
of that money and putting it in the 2024 budget. You are making 
good investments, and I appreciate that. That was our plan to 
continue funding construction work on the inland waterway 
system.
    Overall, absolutely agree. This is a strategic important 
resource for our supply chains. So just know that was our plan. 
Our plan got altered once the 2024 appropriations bill came 
out.
    Ms. Letlow. OK. Thank you for your response. It is hopeful 
that there will be dollars allocated there.
    To Secretary Connor and General Spellmon, I would like to 
take a second and talk with you about an issue I have been 
hearing from many of my constituents. I am sure you are aware 
that it is an ongoing issue with communication between the 
Regulatory Division and Civil Works.
    It is my understanding that this lack of communication has 
been the root cause of many permitting delays. For example, a 
port in my district, the Vidalia Port Commission, has been 
awaiting a permit decision on a slag water slip project for 
nearly 4 years. They submitted their paperwork in June of 2020 
and were just informed that they were 120 days out from a 
decision.
    I believe this could have been a much simpler process. If 
Regulatory and Civil Works communicated and worked together on 
the same timeline, this would not have taken an extra 14 to 15 
months.
    As you know, regulations and things change year to year. 
And Civil Works took so long on this, by the time they 
finished, the Regulatory Division had to update the file again, 
causing even a further delay.
    Do you acknowledge that this is an ongoing issue with the 
Army Corps of Engineers, and what can we do to ensure examples 
like this don't continue to happen again and again?
    General Spellmon. Congresswoman, let me start. First of 
all, last year we did 44,000 permit actions in the Corps. I 
will run this one down. I am not familiar with the specifics of 
this one.
    Last year, also, we hit our metrics 74 percent of the time. 
That is not good enough. This year to date, we have done about 
20,000 permits. We are just under 80 percent. We are working 
hard to get better, but I will take on this communication 
challenge that you mentioned.
    Ms. Letlow. Thank you. I hear from my constituents about 
it. We can get you other examples as well. So I appreciate you 
looking into it.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Fleischmann. And I thank you, Ms. Letlow.
    At this time, I recognize Ms. Wasserman Schultz from 
Florida for 5 minutes for questions.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, before I begin, I just want to note with 
sadness the passing of our former governor--two-term governor 
and multiterm U.S. Senator Bob Graham. It is appropriate to 
mention him and his life and legacy in this committee given 
that, in 1983, when he was governor, he set off the chain of 
four decades of legislation that enables us to have--really be 
well on our way to restoring the River of Grass. So may his 
memory be for a blessing.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, thank you very much 
for notifying of this, and we honor his legacy. And we thank 
you for making us abreast of that and for your service to your 
great State.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. He was 87 and lived a long and 
wonderful life.
    Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence, people in Broward, Palm 
Beach, and Miami-Dade Counties all depend on a functioning 
flood system--flood control system, and that system was first 
designed, as you all know, back in the 1940s before the effects 
of climate change accelerated to historic levels, and it is 
under substantial stress due to increased rainfall intensity 
and rising sea levels.
    A 2009 study by the South Florida Water Management District 
identified 18 water control structures in Miami-Dade and 
Broward that are within 6 inches of failure, and experts expect 
another 3 inches of sea level rise to occur within the next 
decade.
    So flood control, global warming, climate change, sea level 
rise not a someday thing in south Florida. They are a right now 
thing.
    Communities across south Florida have been sounding the 
alarm. In WRDA 2022, as you know, Congress authorized a 
comprehensive restudy of the entire flood control system in 
south Florida.
    Secretary Connor, last year, I asked you whether the Army 
Corps--Secretary Connor, last year, I asked you whether the 
Army Corps had the capability to implement the comprehensive 
restudy in fiscal year 2024 if it was funded by Congress. And 
you said no but that you hoped that that would change next 
year, which we are in now.
    Since that time, Fort Lauderdale experienced a historic 
flash flood event that dumped more than 25 inches of rain in 24 
hours. We need to start the comprehensive study--restudy now 
before it is too late. Thankfully, the Jacksonville District 
for the Army Corps recently told us that they do have the 
capability to implement this funding in fiscal year 2025.
    So we look forward to submitting this as a community 
project funding request this cycle and will be working with you 
on this, and I hope that is--that we are all on the same page 
in that regard.
    And in the interim, we are waiting on Corps headquarter 
approval of a memo that outlines a hybrid approach for the more 
limited section 216 restudy. So can you provide us with an 
update on when you expect final approval for that 216 restudy?
    General Spellmon. Yes, ma'am. So, first of all, on the 
comprehensive, we are ready to express a capability of 500K to 
get that started.
    OK. I was just down to visit with the Broward County 
resilience staff South Florida Water Management District and 
our Jacksonville District, and the district--you are correct. 
They have a memo in my headquarters that I am not going to 
forward to Secretary Connor asking for many more years and many 
more million dollars to evaluate the entirety of this section 
216.
    We don't need more time and money. What we need is speed 
because you are right. I had a chance to see these structures, 
and they are loaded. So we want to apply some fresh thought to 
how we go about this to get started.
    So I have gone back to Jacksonville District and the team 
and asked them to think about a narrower set of projects that 
would have the highest impact that we can get started on now.
    And so, ma'am, we have talked about an authority following 
the devastating floods in 2019 on the Missouri River that 
helped us do spin-off studies on a larger basin that you are 
describing here and then get right to construction. That is an 
idea that we are working through.
    And we are also working through a novel idea with the 
Chief's Report. Maybe I could get a Chief's Report turned in 
sooner that deals with a subset, and then I turn in chapter two 
and three as we work to expand this out. We have to get started 
on this now. I agree with you.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you very much.
    I will accept his answer unless you have something else.
    Secretary Connor. Just I wholly endorse that approach. We 
have got to meet the moment and manage risk and move quicker 
and parse out these planning processes.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Cue me throwing a party up here.
    OK. And my next question is about Port Everglades and the 
deepening and widening project that we have--I have been 
working on since I came to Congress two decades ago.
    And so we can now finally see the finish line with the 
Corps expected to provide a biological assessment to NOAA 
Fisheries in late May to allow the project to move to 
construction.
    The potential economic impacts to south Florida cannot be 
understated, but it is more than just an infrastructure 
project. As you know, it is also an environmental restoration 
project. More than half of the $1.35 billion project cost is 
now earmarked for environmental proportions of the project. It 
would be the largest coral restoration project ever undertaken 
in the history of the United States. But we still have 
outstanding issues that threaten the viability of the entire 
project.
    I spoke with Assistant Administrator Janet Coit--who you 
may know--about how NOAA Fisheries can work with the Corps on 
these outstanding issues. Administrator Coit agreed that a 
meeting between her and Assistant Secretary Connor would be 
ideal to help work through the remaining issues before the May 
deadline.
    So, Mr. Secretary, are you willing to meet with 
Administrator Coit so that--in these next few weeks so we can 
work out those outstanding issues? And do you still anticipate 
being able to issue a favorable biological assessment in May, 
and what is the biggest hurdle to that now?
    Secretary Connor. Absolutely willing to meet with Janet 
Coit.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Great.
    Secretary Connor. We talked in a meeting in the aftermath 
of your meeting with her with respect to the BA.
    I will leave it to the general.
    General Spellmon. Ma'am, I would just add to your list.
    This is also--this project is also important for maritime 
safety, which is on the forefront of everyone's mind. I mean, 
those pilots are good, the tug operators are good, but there is 
little room for error, and that is why this project is also 
important.
    Yes, ma'am, we are on track to issue our biological 
assessment at the end of May.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Phenomenal.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
    At this time, I would like to recognize Mrs. Bice of 
Oklahoma for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Bice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I thank the witnesses for being here this morning.
    I do have one thing before I get to questions that I find a 
little troubling, and I want to point this out. In the 
memorandum that was provided to us, the Army Corps of Engineers 
overview, it is stated that the assistant secretary, Mr. 
Connor, for Civil Works cited three key objectives in 
developing the budget, and the second one of those is promoting 
environmental justice in underserved and marginalized 
communities and Tribal nations in line with the Justice 40 
initiative and creating good-paying jobs that provide the free 
and fair chance to join a union and collective bargaining. I 
have concerns that that is a priority for your organization. I 
feel like we should be more focused on how we ensure that our 
waterways are being taken care of. So I just want that to be 
for the record.
    Let me start by saying that you all are aware that I am 
from Oklahoma, and MKARNS is incredibly important to our State. 
It is a multibeneficiary system and it is crucial for 
transportation of goods, aiding in flood control, energy 
contributions through the hydroplanes that are at GRDA.
    In 2024, the Energy and Water appropriations bill had 
$24.97 million providing for O&M backlogs to address multiple 
areas of concern. Could you provide some additional details on 
the ongoing work to address these needs and the timeline as to 
when they expect to be completed?
    General Spellmon. Yes, ma'am. I will do my best to give you 
a quick summary.
    First of all, we are drawing from a large amount of 
appropriations that you have given us. $463 million in 2022 and 
2023, operations and maintenance. We're in this President's 
budget for $112 million, and we will express another in the 
2025 budget for $82 million.
    So, ma'am, we are trying to modernize and fix 225 Tainter 
gates, 36 miter gates, 12 110-foot stoplog conversions, in 
addition to numerous valve repairs associated with each one of 
those gates. I had Colonel Hudson and the team walk me through 
their program from 2024 all the way to 2031 by gate, and I am 
happy to share that with you.
    Mrs. Bice. I think I have just concerns that you are 
working on the Three Rivers Project to prevent the rivers from 
converging, and there has been some funds that have been moved 
away from MKARNS for the 12-Foot Channel project to increase 
that channel depth, and I want to make sure that we are 
continuing to focus on that.
    General Spellmon. Yes, ma'am. We have all the funding we 
need this year to continue our NEPA work and our design work 
for the 12-Foot Channel.
    Mrs. Bice. Fantastic. Thank you for that.
    And then, to follow up, how have--this is sort of specific 
to my district.
    How has the Army Corps worked with the city of Jones to 
mitigate the bank erosion in the North Canadian River? I think 
we flagged for you that this may be a topic of conversation. It 
has been something that my office has been very mindful of over 
the last couple of years, and, you know, I would love to see if 
you have any additional insight on that.
    General Spellmon. Ma'am, I don't. I will follow up with you 
and get the details and answer your questions.
    Mrs. Bice. Thank you. I just want to--sorry.
    General Spellmon. I am sorry. I am not tracking this 
particular issue.
    Mrs. Bice. Thank you. Well, I just want to make sure I 
raise awareness on the issue. The North Canadian River in 
Jones, Oklahoma, which is a suburb community--a bedroom 
community of Oklahoma City--there is significant erosion with 
the riverbanks that has led to bridge closures, including the 
bridge at Triple X Road, and it drastically impacts local 
areas. So if I could work with you on this issue, I would love 
to see it get addressed.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield.
    Mr. Fleischmann. And I thank you, Mrs. Bice.
    At this point in time, I would like to recognize Mr. Kilmer 
of Washington for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Chairman.
    And thanks to all of our witnesses for being with us.
    I want to start by highlighting one of my top priorities in 
WRDA 2024, which is the Ediz Hook Beach Erosion Control Project 
near Port Angeles, Washington where I grew up. It was 
originally authorized in WRDA 1974, the year I was born, and it 
supports our national security goals by helping maintain access 
to our Coast Guard station there in Port Angeles and also 
protecting Port Angeles Harbor from erosion.
    I was pleased when we passed the Bipartisan Infrastructure 
Law that we included $1.5 million in funding for revetment and 
repair, which is important.
    While the funding is exciting, we have also learned that 
this project is the only navigation project overseen by the 
Seattle District without a 100 percent Federal cost share for 
these purposes.
    And Port Angeles isn't a super well-off community, and, you 
know, there is important national security concerns for getting 
this done since we have a Coast Guard station there. So, you 
know, my priority request will be, you know, bringing the 
Federal cost share for Ediz Hook into line with the other O&M 
navigation projects.
    Assistant Secretary Connor, can you just give any updates 
on this project from the perspective of the Corps?
    Secretary Connor. I think design work and all preparations 
to move forward with the project between nourishment and 
revetment are moving forward but for the cost share issue. That 
is where we have gotten hung up.
    So I appreciate--I wasn't aware that this was the only one 
the Seattle District was working on that is not 100 percent 
Federal cost share, so we will certainly take a look at that in 
conjunction with your office.
    Mr. Kilmer. I appreciate that. And, again, we really 
support the project. We want to see it get done.
    Again, Assistant Secretary Connor, my next question is for 
you. The State of Washington is hard at work on increasing the 
pace and scale of beneficial restoration projects. We have 
streamlined State and local permitting for restoration 
projects, still taking into account community impacts, 
environmental impacts.
    I would like to just hear more about what the Corps can do 
to streamline permitting processes and dedicate some capacity 
for regulators to permit those restoration projects 
responsibly, and is there anything that Congress can do to 
help?
    Secretary Connor. Absolutely. General Spellmon and I have 
many, many discussions about this, and the Corps has 
implemented a terrific strategy using resources from the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. So the combination of actions, 
hiring more regulators--certainly, we get, you know, hung up on 
the ability of our human resources to work on these issues.
    We have a regulatory intake system now that is online. What 
that will help is provide the information needed to make sure 
applications are complete. And we get hung up and lose months 
in processing with incomplete applications.
    And then we have a regulatory viewer system now that the 
Corps has moved forward implementing, ensuring that we are not 
starting from ground zero in each permit with respect to 
technical data that we have.
    So I think the combination of those actions plus 
coordination with other agencies involved in the permitting 
process, that is where we are really going to have to implement 
all those aspects to make, you know, processing these permit 
applications much quicker.
    Mr. Kilmer. And do you need anything from us?
    Secretary Connor. I think, at this point in time, I 
certainly support the President's budget. We have been trying 
to keep robust levels for our regulatory program, and as long 
as those resources keep flowing, we will be in pretty good 
shape.
    Mr. Kilmer. I know the chairman asked about the Harbor 
Maintenance Trust Fund and the donor and energy transfer port 
issue.
    You know, the deep and efficient ports like the Port of 
Tacoma and Seattle are really important for America's supply 
chains. They also generate about half of the--these donor ports 
generate about half of the harbor maintenance tax revenues each 
year. These ports only receive about 3 percent of 
appropriations out of the Harbor Trust Fund--Harbor Maintenance 
Trust Fund.
    You know, I want to see that figure rise, hopefully to the 
12 percent figure that was authorized in WRDA 2020. Earlier 
this week, I sent a letter to OMB and to the Corps with some of 
my colleagues from across the Hill just requesting that.
    Are you able to provide any additional information in terms 
of how WRDA set this goal for how much of the Harbor 
Maintenance Trust Fund funding should be allocated to donor and 
energy transfer ports, and are there any legal or policy 
impediments into reaching that 12 percent level that was laid 
out in WRDA?
    Secretary Connor. Well, as always, Congressman, resources. 
The amount of resources are an issue. And we understand, you 
know, consistent with the discussion we had with the chairman 
earlier, that we haven't kept pace completely with the 
projected HMTF resources that were set out in 2020.
    We have generally kept consistent with the formula that was 
made. We haven't with respect to the expanded uses for donor 
and energy ports. We did, in the 2025 budget, have our first-
ever request for resources for expanded uses in the donor and 
energy ports and hearing loud and clear--from your letter and 
from other Members--the resources provided in the 2024 Work 
Plan so that we can execute at a higher level with the Harbor 
Maintenance Trust Fund's resources and meet that 12 percent 
commitment. That is certainly part of our discussions in 
finalizing the work plan.
    Mr. Kilmer. Thank you for that.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Fleischmann. And I thank you, Mr. Kilmer.
    At this time, I recognize my dear friend, Mr. Simpson, from 
Idaho for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you for being here. Sorry I missed your opening 
statement, but I will read it.
    As you know, this is--the Army Corps of Engineers is one of 
my favorite agencies. As the ranking member is fond of saying, 
this is the biggest construction company in the world, and they 
do a lot for this country and moving it forward, and I 
appreciate all that you do.
    A couple of questions that ought to be fairly simple, I 
hope. A long-time priority of mine in Congress has been to 
secure funding for the rehabilitation of the river walls on the 
Gooding Canal in Gooding, Idaho. The walls are failing due to 
age and material used and are a present flood risk to the 
surrounding areas.
    I first recommended funding--I first secured funding for 
this progeny in fiscal year 2023 to begin planning and design 
phases, and the fiscal year 2024 energy and water bill 
contained over $33.5 million for this project, which should 
fund the rest of the design and construction. I was glad to see 
the city of Gooding and the Army Corps sign their project 
partnership agreement in late March of this year.
    Lieutenant General Spellmon and Assistant Secretary Connor, 
at this hearing last year, I asked if the Army Corps could 
commit to completing the Little Wood River Project in a timely 
fashion if funds for the project were delivered as part of the 
fiscal year 2024 budget process. You both said yes.
    Now that this funding has been signed into law, do I still 
have both of your commitments that this project is a priority 
for the Corps and you will see this through to completion?
    General Spellmon.Yes, sir. You have our commitment to 
finish this project.
    Secretary Connor. He spoke for me.
    Mr. Simpson. OK. I hope so because I have often said, you 
know, I am going to stay in Congress--unless my constituents 
have a different view--but I am going to stay in Congress until 
I get this damn thing done. It has been 25 years we have been 
working on this. So I appreciate all the hard work we have put 
into it and the questions it has brought up.
    The Stibnite Mine. The Stibnite Mine Project in Idaho is 
positioned to be the United States' only domestic source for 
mineral antimony, which is critical for our national security. 
Without a domestic supply from the Department of Defense, we 
are beholden to imports from China and Russia.
    This administration has made the Stibnite project a 
priority, as made clear through announcements of the Department 
of Defense, funding of up to $70 million, and a recent letter 
of interest from the Export-Import Bank for $1.8 billion in 
loan authority to develop the mine should the NEPA process be 
completed.
    As you know, the Army Corps is involved in permitting the 
Stibnite project through the section 404 authority. Federal 
permitting has now been underway for nearly 8 years, and the 
Forest Service is committed to getting the record of decision 
in 2024.
    Is the Army Corps of Engineers coordinating with the Forest 
Service on--are you on track to meet that deadline?
    General Spellmon. Yes, sir. So you are correct. We are a 
cooperating agency underneath the Fish and Wildlife Service 
here. September 24 is when we will have the EIS complete.
    The impact of wetlands for the 404 is about 145 acres. We 
have a couple of Tribal objections to the project. We are going 
to work our way through that and address their concerns.
    Mr. Simpson. Thank you. One last question.
    Lucky Peak Reservoir in the State park--and State park are 
just outside of Boise as one of three facilities that the Idaho 
Parks and Recreation lease from the Army Corps.
    Just recently, Idaho Parks and Recreation was informed 
that, to replace the Turner Gulch boat ramp, the Army Corps was 
planning to draw down Lucky Peak Reservoir after--or about a 
month early. This decision affects public recreation in the 
area as well as irrigators on farm lands and downstream. Idaho 
Parks and Recreation has told me that the Corps did not 
communicate with them when making this decision and that even 
the local Army Corps personnel did not know.
    What was the communication strategy from the highest levels 
of the Army Corps to both the local Army Corps employees at 
Lucky Peak and the Idaho Parks and Recreation when this early 
drawdown was being considered? How much did the Corps weigh the 
impacts to recreation and irrigation this drawdown could cause 
when making this decision? And is it really necessary to draw 
down early for the Corps to complete the boat ramp replacement 
instead of just waiting a month longer?
    General Spellmon. Sir, I will follow up on the 
communication gaps. I was not aware of that.
    I have been on this boat ramp. It is unsafe. It needs to be 
repaired. There would be no impacts to irrigation. We are going 
to meter this water out just under a normal irrigation 
schedule.
    We are doing this in the fall to actually minimize the 
impacts of recreation. If we were to do this in the spring, we 
would not be able to do as much water capture, and we might 
have flood risk management problems. If we did it in the 
summer, we would certainly have an impact to recreation.
    There is not a perfect time to do this work. It needs to be 
done. But we thought this timeline--drawing it down in July. We 
are going to award the contract in September, get it done, and 
then we will return to normal in the spring. There was not a 
perfect time to do this. This one had the least impacts.
    Mr. Simpson. OK. Thank you. I have got 10 seconds left.
    Let me just ask, what does the water outlook look like in 
Idaho right now?
    Ms. Touton. Congressman, some parts of the basin are 
looking better than others. Some parts of the region are 
hugging average.
    So, unfortunately, as the congressman from Washington State 
mentioned, the Pacific Northwest is at a dryer place because of 
this El Nino pattern.
    Mr. Simpson. OK. I appreciate that.
    If you had asked me 3 months ago, I would have said, we are 
going to have a severe drought. And now, all of a sudden, snow 
and rain and everything else came in March and early April and 
stuff. So it has kind of changed the outlook a little bit.
    Ms. Kaptur. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Simpson. I appreciate it.
    I would be happy to if I--I don't have any time left.
    Ms. Kaptur. I am so glad to hear your voice this morning. 
We welcome you to the subcommittee that is your home.
    Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
    Ms. Kaptur. And I just wanted to say to the gentleman that, 
earlier today, when it was my turn, I was asking all of our 
esteemed witnesses if they couldn't do a job to present a more 
regional focus on what is actually happening in different 
watersheds in the West.
    So rather than project by project, we look at region by 
region or subwatershed by subwatershed, however you want to 
frame it. I think that would be so interesting to Members in 
different regions of the country, certainly in the West, which 
has such a different engineering system than those of us who 
are east of the Mississippi River.
    So Idaho would be extremely interesting and the adjoining 
States for what I was trying to reference earlier, so we get a 
sense of the whole rather than just the parts.
    Mr. Simpson. Yes. It is very different in the West than the 
East. I have always said, in the East, you try to get rid of 
water. In the West, we try to preserve every drop of water. So, 
I mean, it is different. The laws are different and everything 
else.
    You can ask Congresswoman Lee about what is going to happen 
down in southern Nevada.
    Ms. Lee of Nevada. I have a few questions about that.
    Mr. Simpson. Anyway, I appreciate that.
    Thank you, Chairman.
    Mr. Fleischmann. My pleasure. Thank you, Mr. Simpson.
    At this time, I recognize Ms. Lee of Nevada for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Lee of Nevada. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Ranking 
Member.
    I associate myself completely with your suggestion. I think 
that is an excellent suggestion because even the water in Idaho 
impacts the water in the Lower Basin.
    So, Commissioner Touton, I am sure you know this all too 
well. I was really pleased to welcome you to our mutual home of 
southern Nevada back in December when we announced the $20 
million investment from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to 
continue to restore the Las Vegas Wash, which carries 200 
million gallons of water to Lake Mead each and every day.
    I have also been working to direct crucial Federal 
resources to Lake Mead in the WASH program throughout my time 
on this committee, including the $3.5 million in community 
project funding that I was able to secure in fiscal year 2024.
    And I think this sort of goes into what was being discussed 
earlier. Could you describe the erosion control efforts that 
Reclamation is advancing at the wash side by side with the 
Southern Nevada Water Authority and why these efforts are 
essential, not just to Nevada, but to all of the States within 
the Colorado River Basin that depend on Lake Mead?
    Ms. Touton. Thank you, Congresswoman.
    It was great to be out there with you in December to 
announce $20 million as part of the Aquatic Ecosystem Program, 
and this will allow us to help construction with the Southern 
Nevada Authority which you called the erosion control for Weir 
5.
    The Las Vegas Wash is a critical length between the Las 
Vegas watershed and how water gets into Lake Mead. It provides 
an ability through actually, you know, engineering with nature, 
providing water quality benefits. The water gets cleaned as it 
goes through the Wash.
    It provides habitats for certain species. It provides 
recreation opportunities for the community. But most 
importantly, it is part of the plumbing of the system that 
allows Las Vegas to move its water back into Lake Mead.
    Ms. Lee of Nevada. And thank you for that.
    The Reclamation's fiscal year 2025 request for the WASH 
program is, unfortunately, significantly limited by the fact 
that the program has an outdated funding cap of $40 million in 
place.
    Is it accurate for me to underscore to my colleagues who 
are here today, Commissioner, that successfully completing the 
collaborative efforts you just described will require more 
resources than the current appropriations ceiling allows?
    Ms. Touton. Our fiscal year 2025 request includes $598,000 
for these efforts, which is at the ceiling of the program. 
Should we be provided more resources, we can do more work.
    Ms. Lee of Nevada. Great. And please know that I am leading 
a bicameral legislation with Senator Cortez Masto that would 
immediately authorize an additional $25 million for the WASH 
program. So we are working to get that done as soon as 
possible.
    I want to turn now--how much time do I have left?
    General Spellmon, when you testified before this committee 
last year, you noted that the managed aquifer recharge study 
and working group provision that I helped secure in WRDA 2022 
was being reviewed by the Department of Defense, which was 
looking at any Federal Advisory Committee Act requirements that 
would be relevant to the provision's implementation and related 
budgetary needs.
    I appreciated your shared enthusiasm for this initiative, 
which you emphasized was at the forefront of the Corps' 
research and development program.
    Can you tell us what progress has been made over the past 
year towards implementation and what is in store for fiscal 
year 2025?
    General Spellmon. Yes, ma'am. So I believe the charter is 
still at OSD for review. That is the charter.
    I think we saw the value of this whole concept with the 
incredible atmospheric rivers, everything that was flowing 
through California in 2023. We actually employed this.
    So, ma'am, what I am saying is we don't need a report--we 
don't need a charter to get started. We need a dam--which we 
have in Nevada--that has a water supply or water conservation 
purpose. We need a downstream retention basin, which is 
typically built and operated by a non-Federal sponsor, and the 
most important thing we need is the water to put in it.
    So, ma'am, we can move out on this by identifying those 
areas that are most in need in the State. We are doing this in 
other areas while we work on the broader strategy and the 
study.
    Ms. Lee of Nevada. Yes.
    Secretary Connor. Can I just quickly add?
    To add on to what General Spellmon said, we are in the 
water availability business. And so we are looking at 
reoperation of our facilities so that we can work with water 
providers to facilitate their managed aquifer recharge.
    I am aware of at least four projects right now that we are 
funding into construction through our Environmental 
Infrastructure Program that are desalination, water reclamation 
projects that are going into managed aquifer recharge systems.
    So we need to get the charter complete. We need to get the 
working group up and running. We need resources to do that. But 
we are not waiting around for that to support managed aquifer 
recharge out west.
    Ms. Lee of Nevada. Great. Thank you.
    And I am over my time. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Fleischmann. And thank you, Ms. Lee.
    At this time, I would like to, first of all, thank the 
witnesses. We are going to engage in a second round of 
questions.
    And to the witnesses and really to those in the audience 
watching this, I think you can tell by watching us work and 
interact with you the tremendous cordial relationship we have 
on both sides of the dais and our commitment to this Energy and 
Water Committee. It is a privilege to chair this and to work 
with Ms. Kaptur and our Members.
    With that, I am going to begin with a second round of 
questions, if I may.
    Commissioner Touton and Mr. Brain, we have seen cost 
escalations across the construction sector, and water projects 
are no exception. What impacts has Reclamation seen for ongoing 
projects with a focus on dam safety, rural water, and Indian 
water rights settlements?
    Ms. Touton. Thank you for that question, Mr. Chairman.
    We have seen what many across the Nation have seen, is 
rising costs in material and other factors, but what we are 
doing now and working with the committee is refining our cost 
estimation process to better understand what those costs would 
be and to be able to talk to our constituency and our 
stakeholders to ensure that we are aligning as far as project 
dates and completions.
    And so step one for us is recognizing that we need to look 
at some of those costs given what the environment is currently 
holding and then communicate with you and our partners on what 
we see.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you.
    Mr. Brain.
    Mr. Brain. Mr. Chairman, I would just add that, you know, I 
am very well aware of the importance of those cost estimates 
for multiple different purposes. So I would be happy to talk to 
the subcommittee and talk to your about some of the various 
efforts underway at Reclamation to get ahold of those.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, sir.
    Commissioner Touton, we have heard a great deal about the 
long-term drought in the Colorado River Basin, and I know it 
has been a major focus for you personally.
    Given the promising snow pack and hydrology this year, can 
you provide the subcommittee an update on expected operations 
for this water year? And, in that regard, what is the status of 
negotiations among the basin States on the future of the river? 
If you will, please.
    Ms. Touton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The focus for the Bureau of Reclamation and Department of 
the Interior is on the future, what the operations post-2026 
will be. And so we are currently in the alternative development 
stage within our environmental impact statement process, 
working with the basin States and the Tribes on what 
operational parameters will be for those alternatives.
    As we are looking at operations this year, our ability to 
operate in the short term is good. We have been able to stave 
off the immediate crisis that was there when we walked in the 
door. And so we fully expect to make our deliveries across the 
basin.
    Mr. Fleischmann. And I thank you.
    One final question. Secretary Connor and General Spellmon, 
please.
    As you both know, while recent supplementals require the 
Corps to complete certain projects and studies using those 
funds, it became apparent that executive branch decisions 
greatly oversubscribed available funding. However, those 
projects are important to support public safety and America's 
economic competitiveness.
    Now that these projects are eligible for other sources of 
funding, what steps are being taken to integrate them into the 
regular program?
    Secretary Connor. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for 
that authority and for clarifying--giving us flexibility. 
Whether it is in the investigations or whether it is 
construction activity, we have experienced cost increases, and 
so we needed that flexibility to move forward with these 
projects. So they are being integrated. I think that is the 
answer to your question.
    Now, they are able to compete for budgeted dollars as well 
as work plan dollars. So we are taking that into consideration 
as we develop, most immediate, the 2024 Work Plan and then as 
we put together future budgets. So thank you very much.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    General, any further comments?
    General Spellmon. I would just add, sir, this was huge for 
the Corps. We were stuck programmatically on a number of 
projects, and this authority is--we have given guidance to the 
field, and as Mr. Connor said, we will start expressing these 
capabilities in our work plan and our future budget development 
process. So thank you.
    Mr. Fleischmann. I thank you both.
    At this time, I would like to recognize Ms. Kaptur for her 
second round of questions for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to associate 
myself with your remarks.
    All of our Members came this morning. This is a working 
committee. This is how Congress should work. I am so very proud 
of both sides of the aisle. And this is what we are hired to do 
by the American people, not waste time.
    So I wanted to ask General Spellmon, several of our 
defense-related departments--Army, Navy--have programs that 
focus on workforce development.
    So, for example, in the Navy, we have the STARBASE program. 
And if you go to the Department of Interior, there are certain 
Conservation Corps that are being formed. Even the Department 
of Energy has a small Conservation Corps now.
    Does the Army Corps of Engineers have any similar program 
where we look to STEAM--the sciences, engineering, math, and I 
always put in the arts because you have to have a little 
creativity to do engineering beyond the math.
    Do you have a program like that in the Corps? Is that 
something that I am maybe unaware of where we attract younger 
people, we create relationships with high schools? Do you have 
anything like that?
    General Spellmon. We do, but we have more work to do on it. 
So we have 42 districts in major cities across the country, and 
then we have a matrix where we have a relationship for a 
district with a specific set of universities.
    And we do get out to talk to those students. I do quite a 
bit of this myself because, for the engineering field, you have 
to start--as you know, you have to start early to light that 
fire. But it is something we would want to--certainly, we could 
get better at.
    Ms. Kaptur. Well, I would be very interested in pursuing 
this with our Members to see what we might form because, I am 
telling you, with what happened over in Baltimore in the 
harbor, all of America was focused on that. And it is tangible. 
And young people can identify with that. We have to do 
workforce development in the STEAM fields.
    And I think the Corps is--because you are in every corner 
of the country, I think you have unmet potential to inspire. 
And I would love to work with my colleagues on that and, you 
know, attract young people who could be involved in rebuilding 
this Nation piece by piece, subwatershed by subwatershed. The 
engineering, the city and regional planning that goes into 
that, the water resource management--these are exciting fields, 
and they are real, and we can educate to it.
    I would like to have a further conversation with you and 
talk with our chairman about that, also, but I don't see the 
Corps visible on that as I do some other Federal 
instrumentalities. So thank you for the work that you are 
doing.
    General Spellmon. Ms. Kaptur--yes, ma'am. I would just 
humbly add that we are at our highest workforce in the past two 
decades. We don't have a hiring problem. We are breaking talent 
on board each and every day, and I can't hire fast enough.
    But the Secretary of the Army has given us a number of 
direct hire authorities. Where it typically takes months to 
bring someone into Federal service, we are doing that in days.
    Ms. Kaptur. Well, that is a good sign that you can be 
successful.
    All right. I would like to talk more about that, but I want 
to turn to the--and I have asked my staff to hand out a picture 
of the Great Lakes. I know you all know where it is.
    But, particularly, the Lake Erie issues that deal with our 
navigation system and the waterborne transportation network, 
that stretches 2,400 miles through all five Great Lakes 
reaching deep into the continent to provide benefits to the 
entire region as well as the Nation.
    And one critical issue--across the lakes, but certainly to 
Ohio and the region I represent--is the beneficial use of 
dredge materials. And I appreciate your establishment of the 
goal of 70 percent use of dredge material for beneficial use by 
2030.
    I have been working on that for over four decades. So we 
have made an inch of progress. And I keep hearing about 
challenges for increased beneficial use in Lake Erie and other 
areas, particularly regulatory delays and cost-sharing 
disparities.
    What concrete steps are you taking to address lengthy 
permitting timelines for beneficial use in the Great Lakes? And 
when do you anticipate executing cost-sharing agreements for 
Cedar Point Causeway beneficial use sites and for the Cleveland 
Harbor Eastern Embayment Resilience site, and will those sites 
be included in the Federal standard for Sandusky Harbor and 
Cleveland Harbor respectively?
    General Spellmon. Yes, ma'am. I will just take that one at 
a time.
    So, first, we are making progress on our goal to get to 70 
percent beneficial use by 2030. We were at 30. Today, we are 
about 40. We are updating our policies, we are investing more 
in R&D, and frankly, we are learning from the State of Ohio and 
we are learning from the Port of Baltimore who do this very, 
very well. So we are making progress.
    On the regulatory issue, we are bringing on additional 
staff members. And so thanks for the additional funding in the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. We wanted to hire an additional 
200 regulators for the enterprise. We are at 165, and we are 
working hard on hiring the remaining 35.
    We are employing new tools. Mr. Connor mentioned the 
regulatory requests system. So this is now a portal where an 
applicant can go in and get information on the Clean Water Act. 
They can submit an application online, and they can get an 
updated status on that application from that portal.
    And then we have a regulatory viewer. So think of just a 
tablet that our regulators are taking to them with the field. 
It is a walking encyclopedia, ma'am, for them where they can do 
a lot of their technical work from this tablet--from this 
portal--without having to return to the office.
    Buffalo District, on the regulatory, they have improved 
from last year six percentage points. That doesn't sound like 
much on individual permits--I am sorry--general permits and 12 
percentage points on individual permits. So I think the tools 
and the additional hiring is helping them. We are not where we 
want to be.
    Ma'am, you asked about the cautionary agreements for the 
Cedar Point Causeway and the Cleveland Harbor Eastern Embayment 
Resilience site. I am going to have to follow up with you on 
the specific timeline. I know both of these were alternatives 
in the dredge material management plans. They are in there.
    If they are selected as the plan--the tentatively selected 
plan--that is the point in time when we would enter into a 
cost-sharing agreement. But let me get an update on where we 
are in that timeline in that planning process, and I will 
follow up with your team.
    Ms. Kaptur. We are over a minute over time here, but I must 
say, with the new farm bill coming up, even though that isn't 
your jurisdiction, I would urge you to work with the Department 
because of the interest in farmers across our country in 
regenerative soils and what has been happening to our arable 
lands across the Nation. I think there is a confluence there 
that your staff should pay attention to.
    I thank you and will yield back for another round.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Ms. Kaptur.
    And I now recognize the gentleman, Mr. Newhouse of 
Washington, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Connor, if we could continue our conversation. As you 
know, the Pacific Northwest Delegation--I should say and our 
constituents--have concerns over the state of the 
administration's negotiations with Canada over the Columbia 
River Treaty.
    The bottom line is we don't have an agreement yet, and the 
treaty has got to be changed to have a balance of payments to 
Canada for storage and also develop a suitable agreement for 
preplanned flood control. As you know, it has been 5 years 
since negotiations began, and I have got to tell you, impacted 
stakeholders--this is the biggest question I get the most 
often. They are concerned about the flood risk impacts. The 
budget request includes $4 million for treaty negotiations, but 
I didn't see anything for the flood control payments to Canada.
    So could you tell me what the Corps will be doing to handle 
flood risk management with respect to domestic measures and 
relations with Canada in the interim, and how does the Corps 
plan to coordinate with the Mid-Columbia Public Utility 
Districts on the future river operations?
    Secretary Connor. Yes, absolutely. Great questions.
    I want to be cautious with respect to talking about the 
treaty negotiations. And the fact is, you know, as you noted, 
we don't yet have an agreement in principle, and that is being 
addressed at the highest levels of government.
    I am concerned that we don't have an operating plan right 
now for 2025, and that creates uncertainty. So I think the goal 
has been, with respect to 2025, to have that framework deal and 
work with Congress on the parameters of that deal with respect 
to funding needs in 2025.
    So we still now have to be working with you to look at--we 
have some resources in hand, but if we have a significant water 
year and we need to, you know, result to operate in an ad hoc 
storage type of situation in our discussions with Canada to 
ensure that we have got flood risk management in place with the 
expiration of the treaty, we are going to have to work very 
closely with all of you in Congress and keep you apprised of 
what those needs are with respect to funding in 2025.
    Mr. Newhouse. I would admonish as well that the public 
utility districts have to be partners in this.
    Secretary Connor. Absolutely.
    Mr. Newhouse. They have to be able to plan.
    Secretary Connor. So we are moving forward to look at our 
operations and how we would need to work in 2025. We will have 
a public process here that will be rolling out here very soon 
to work with all the stakeholders in the region.
    Mr. Newhouse. I appreciate that.
    Commissioner Touton, great to see you.
    Mr. Brain as well.
    Commissioner Touton, thank you very much for mentioning the 
West Canal.
    He is not here anymore, but I wanted to also thank Mr. 
Simpson for his help on the Urban Canal Modernization Act, 
which addresses not only a capacity issue but truly a safety 
issue for the public. So thank you for your work there.
    I also wanted to thank you for your budget request for the 
Yakima River Basin Enhancement Project, which is in my part of 
the world and very--this project is certainly vital to central 
Washington for our water supply and for irrigation.
    And let me just say that we are facing some of our junior 
water districts perhaps only receiving half of their normal 
water that they would in a normal year. So it could be a 
challenging year.
    But, right now, I would like to talk a little bit about the 
Lower Snake River Dams, if I could. In your testimony, you 
referenced a request for $500,000 for the WaterSMART program. 
Through that program, BOR can fund dam removal, but you said 
dam removal would only be done if the projects are supported by 
a broad multi-stakeholder group.
    Those stakeholders, though not directly involved with the 
litigation, they still have to deal with the consequences, and 
they have complained about a lack of outreach by the 
administration.
    So, Commissioner, since dam breaching is being considered, 
what, if any, outreach has BOR done with these stakeholders to 
help them understand the impact of dam removal and what it 
would have on Washingtonians?
    Ms. Touton. Thank you for that question, Congressman.
    And, first, one, you mentioned the Yakima Project. For the 
committee, the Yakima Project is the model for the West on how 
we deal with changing hydrology and balancing the needs of a 
vibrant agricultural community, and sovereign nations, are the 
ecosystem. And so I look forward, as we have a more detailed 
discussion on the successes that we have learned, to working 
with you there.
    On your question, we are engaged from a regional 
perspective as well as in DC with our stakeholders, and I 
commit to you, Congressman, to going out there and having those 
conversations in more detail.
    I am happy to also turn it over to PDAS Brain for more 
information.
    Mr. Brain. Certainly. I would be more than willing to join 
in that conversation to further it. It is a critically 
important issue, so I think it deserves the time to make the 
trip out there.
    Mr. Newhouse. I appreciate that. And thank you. I think 
that openness and transparency is vitally important.
    Mr. Chairman, do I have time for one more small question?
    Mr. Fleischmann. Sure.
    Mr. Newhouse. OK. I will make it--
    Mr. Fleischmann. And then we are going to go to the ranking 
member for one more question, and then we will wrap up.
    Mr. Newhouse. Thank you for your indulgence.
    You also included 2.8 billion for the Indian water rights 
settlements as well as 34 million for the requirements of the 
CRSO agreement. The purpose of the Indian water rights 
settlements is to help Tribes secure historical water and land. 
While the CRSO agreement never explicitly calls for dam 
breaching, it does commit to funding for studies, projects, and 
operations if Congress approves dam breaching.
    So I want to ask, why would the Bureau be proposing such a 
large financial set-aside for water rights settlements unless, 
along with the administration, the Bureau is anticipating and 
has already predetermined that a dam breaching is going to be 
the ultimate outcome?
    Mr. Brain. Congressman, if I may take a chance in answering 
that question.
    Really, the purpose of the legislative proposal--and I 
appreciate the opportunity to highlight it here--is to 
replenish the completion fund which was created by the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and is nearing exhaustion. It is 
one that is of the utmost importance to the administration, and 
I would be happy to work with the subcommittee staff and 
Members as well as yourself on the mechanisms and means of that 
proposal. I am happy to provide more information.
    Mr. Newhouse. But is that in anticipation of dam breaching?
    Mr. Brain. It would be funding the existing water rights 
settlements, sir, that are currently legislatively authorized 
by Congress.
    Mr. Newhouse. Anything to add, Commissioner?
    Ms. Touton. No, Congressman. Thank you.
    Mr. Newhouse. All right.
    Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence.
    Mr. Fleischmann. And I thank you, Mr. Newhouse.
    At this time, I would like to recognize the ranking member 
for an additional question.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    I have asked my staff to give each of you a map that has 
the watershed of the Great Lakes outlined in green. If you go 
to Ohio, you'll see a number nine. That is the district I 
represent, the largest watershed in the Great Lakes. Of course, 
the Great Lakes are critical to millions and millions and 
millions of people in two countries.
    And, General Spellmon and Commissioner--Secretary Connor, 
the Corps is one of three Federal agencies cochairing the 
Western Lake Erie Basin Partnership, which, in recent years, 
has focused on nutrient reduction and algal blooms.
    General Spellmon, I am going to ask for your advice. Are 
there opportunities to apply the already substantial amount of 
Federal funding in investments in this watershed across 
agencies in a manner that more effectively addresses the 
nutrient-loading problem, including the detection of dissolved 
reactive phosphorus? I have a map I am going to give each of 
you afterwards that is even more detailed about the watershed.
    Mr. Connor, does the Corps require additional authority and 
direction from Congress to utilize your expansive research and 
development capabilities and funding streams to develop, test, 
and apply two technologies: One, Insitu sensor technology to 
monitor and detect dissolved reactive phosphorus and, No. 2, 
telecommunications infrastructure and technology to support the 
internet of things related to direct detection, monitoring, and 
tracking of contaminants and conditions affecting water quality 
so we can better pinpoint where this is coming from, where it 
is a big problem--thousands of acres, thousands of square miles 
of land.
    But if we don't--Lake Erie and Ontario are the two most 
impacted Great Lakes. If we don't fix this, they are going to 
turn into swamps. And this is the first year in our part of the 
country where the Great Lakes haven't frozen over. This is 
unprecedented. And so we have to deal with the runoff in a much 
more intelligent manner.
    So I am asking you about Insitu sensor technologies and 
telecommunications infrastructure where you could detect the 
ingredients of the components that cause the problem and to 
support the internet of things related to detection.
    Secretary Connor. I am going to give you a high-level 
response to your question and then, because it is so detailed, 
I want to follow up.
    But with respect to the overarching question, do we need 
authority? You know, several WRDAs, including 2022--I think it 
was 8160--gave us broad R&D authority that we now have, and I 
think we are well positioned to use that expansive authority to 
participate in the initiatives that you describe.
    We also participate with the Great Lakes Restoration 
Initiative and receive funding through that mechanism to carry 
out some of the pilot projects.
    So it is a resources issue. The chief and I have been 
completely in sync with respect to our approach on R&D. We have 
had an R&D initiative in the 2024 budget that--a lot of that 
was represented in the final appropriations bill. So thank you 
for that. We have another $79-80 million R&D initiative. Algal 
blooms, new technologies--those are a part of our initiatives 
with respect to R & D.
    So we are trying to fund these efforts and not just rely on 
Congress, although we will take your assistance anytime, Madam.
    General Spellmon. Yes, ma'am.
    And just on your nutrient-loading question, the answer is 
yes. Those opportunities absolutely exist. And I also want to 
thank the committee for the significant increase we have seen 
in our R&D budget. It is absolutely helping.
    We do have GLRI funding for a phosphorus reduction project, 
and that is ongoing. The one I mentioned earlier, it is in 
Defiance, Ohio. I think you have been there, ma'am. But this is 
one that we are working not only with the State and the 
district but also with EPA on this particular project and the 
local partners. We are going to learn a lot here that we can 
take to the broader basin map that you described.
    And I just want to add, we are also learning a lot in 
Florida that is going to apply elsewhere in the country as 
well. These are very, very important R&D programs.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you for spending time with us this morning. I 
wish all the American people could hear the quality that we 
have today.
    Mr. Fleischmann. I thank the ranking member for her 
questions and participation and sentiments.
    To all the witnesses, thank you. We have learned a lot. I 
hope we have helped you all. And it has been a wonderful 
hearing, and I so appreciate each and every one of you all.
    And, with that, the subcommittee stands adjourned.

    [Answers to submitted questions follow:]

                        QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD

      Questions for Commissioner Touton form Ranking Member Kaptur

    According to a U.S. Geological Survey study, quagga and 
zebra mussels are estimated to cause $1 billion dollars per 
year in damages to water infrastructure and industries.

    These invasive mussels were introduced into the Great Lakes 
in the late 1980's through water discharges from transoceanic 
ships, so we are aware of the catastrophic impacts they have on 
our water infrastructure, such as clogging water intake 
structures for water treatment and power plants.

    The FY 2025 budget request for the Bureau of Reclamation 
includes funding to manage, protect, and control mussels at 
Reclamation facilities and reservoirs, as well as conduct 
research focused on combatting these invasive species.

     What specific research projects will be conducted in 
fiscal year 2025 on these mussels?

    In FY 2024 the Science and Technology Program is funding 12 
invasive mussel research projects (listed below) that will 
continue into FY 2025. The 12 research projects that are 
already approved and anticipated to continue into FY 2025 fall 
into three categories: optimizing early detection and 
monitoring methods (5 projects), developing methods to control 
mussel fouling at hydropower facilities (5 projects), and 
development of innovative methods for control of mussel 
populations in reservoirs (2 projects). Four additional 
invasive mussel research project proposals were received for 
funding consideration in FY 2025. The Science and Technology 
Program will announce projects selected for funding at the 
beginning of FY 2025.
    Reclamation's Prize Competition Program is also developing 
a prize competition to identify innovative watercraft 
decontamination procedures to prevent the spread of invasive 
mussels.
    In addition to the Science and Technology Program, 
Reclamation's Mussels Spend Plan through the Mission Assurance 
and Protection Office (MAPO) provides funding for research 
projects and other mussel project activities. Projects include 
development of autonomous water samplers, enhance eDNA analysis 
techniques, and new detection methods. Project proposals are 
submitted for review to MAPO and are ranked by a selection 
panel. Anticipated selection of FY 2025 projects is expected 
during the first quarter of the fiscal year. The FY 2024 
invasive mussel research projects selected for funding are:

           Optimizing early detection and monitoring methods

     LInferring the Provenance of Invasive Dreissenid 
Mussel Veliger Shells Through Trace Element Analysis
     LOptimization of Sample Analysis Methods for the 
Early Detection of Invasive Dreissenid Mussels in Reclamation 
Reservoirs
     LDevelopment of Environmental RNA (eRNA) as A Tool 
for Dreissenid Mussel Detection and Assessment of invasive 
Mussel Populations
     LInvestigation of Remote Sensing Tools for Harmful 
Algal Blooms, Invasive Mussels, and Invasive Aquatic Vegetation
     LFactors Limiting Invasive Mussel Establishment at 
Salt River Project Reservoirs

 Developing methods to control mussel fouling at hydropower facilities

     LSelf-Cleaning Strainers and Filtration to 
Mitigate Mussel Impacts
     LPilot Scale Carbon Dioxide Treatment for 
Dreissinids
     LDetermining the Lowest Effective Liquid Copper 
Concentration to Prevent Invasive Mussel Fouling at Hydropower 
Plants
     LAssessment of Invasive Mussel and Hydroid 
Biofouling in the Glen Canyon Forebay to Inform a Fish and 
Thermal Barrier Design
     LNext Generation Coatings for Mussel Mitigation on 
Infrastructure

Development of innovative methods for control of mussel populations in 
                               reservoirs

     LAnalysis of the Quagga Mussel Genome for 
Development ofBiocontrols
     LSurvey of ``Cousin'' Dreissenid Species in 
Eurasia for Potential Biocontrol Agents to Control Invasive 
Quagga and Zebra Mussels in North America

     How does Reclamation work with other federal agencies such 
as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or other bureaus in the 
Department of the Interior to leverage research dollars on 
these invasive species?

     Reclamation's Science and Technology Program has a charter 
with the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to promote 
collaboration on research projects. The charter has facilitated 
many successful collaborative invasive mussel projects that 
have leveraged both agency's funding and expertise. Reclamation 
participates in national invasive mussel working groups where 
research efforts are presented and collaborative efforts are 
initiated, including Western Regional Panel on Aquatic Invasive 
Species, Invasive Mussel Collaborative, and the Department of 
the Interior's (DOI) Invasive Mussel Team. Reclamation and the 
US Geological Survey have also initiated a yearly invasive 
mussel research symposium to share results and facilitate 
collaboration. Reclamation is currently funding 15 invasive 
mussel research projects, of which 5 include a USACE partner 
and another 5 include a partner from another DOI agency.

                                  [all]