Hearings to examine proposed budget estimates for fiscal year 2026 for the Small Business Administration.

1[Senate Hearing 119-64]2[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]34                                                         S. Hrg. 119-6456                       ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT7                    APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 202689=======================================================================1011                                HEARINGS1213                                before a1415                          SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE1617            COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE1819                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS2021                             FIRST SESSION2223                                   ON2425                               H.R. 69382627     AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT28       FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2026, AND FOR29       OTHER PURPOSES3031                               __________3233                      Department of Defense--Civil34                          Department of Energy35                       Department of the Interior36                               __________3738         Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations3940                 [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]4142        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov43                               __________4445                U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE464760-258 PDF                WASHINGTON : 20264849                      COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS5051                     SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine, Chair5253MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky            PATTY MURRAY, Washington, Vice54LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska                   Chair55LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina       RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois56JERRY MORAN, Kansas                  JACK REED, Rhode Island57JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota            JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire58JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas               JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon59SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware60JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana              BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii61CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi        TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin62BILL HAGERTY, Tennessee              CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut63KATIE BOYD BRITT, Alabama            CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland64MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma           MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico65DEB FISCHER, Nebraska                GARY C. PETERS, Michigan66MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota            KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York67SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine, (ex         JON OSSOFF, Georgia68    officio)6970                  Elizabeth McDonnell, Staff Director71                  Evan Schatz, Minority Staff Director7273                                 ------7475              Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development7677                     JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana, Chair7879MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky            PATTY MURRAY, Washington Ranking80LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska               RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois81LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina       JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon82JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota            CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware83CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi        TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin84BILL HAGERTY, Tennessee              MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico85KATIE BOYD BRITT, Alabama            GARY C. PETERS, Michigan86MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota            JON OSSOFF, Georgia8788                           Professional Staff8990                            Melissa Burnison91                             Bill McNavage92                           Kathleen Williams93                        Aaron Golner (Minority)94                        Laura Powell (Minority)95                     Amanda Wyma-Bradley (Minority)96                       Maria Calderon (Minority)9798                         Administrative Support99100                              Cole Spiller101102                            C O N T E N T S103104                              ----------105106                                HEARINGS107                        Wednesday, May 21, 2025108109                                                                   Page110111Department of Energy: Office of the Secretary....................     1112113                        Wednesday, June 11, 2025114115Department of Defense--Civil: Department of the Army; Corps of116  Engineers--Civil...............................................    71117Department of the Interior: Bureau of Reclamation................    80118119                              ----------120121                              BACK MATTER122123List of Witnesses, Communications, and Prepared Statements.......   105124125Subject Index....................................................   107126    Department of Defense--Civil.................................   107127        Department of the Army...................................   107128        Corps of Engineers--Civil................................   107129130    Department of Energy.........................................   107131        Office of the Secretary..................................   107132133    Department of the Interior...................................   108134        Bureau of Reclamation....................................   108135136                       ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT137                    APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026138                              ----------139140                        WEDNESDAY, MAY 21, 2025141142                                       U.S. Senate,143           Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,144                                                    Washington, DC.145    The subcommittee met at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-124, Dirksen146Senate Office Building, Hon. John Kennedy (chairman) presiding.147    Present: Senators Kennedy, Murkowski, Hoeven, Hagerty,148Britt, Murray, Merkley, Coons, Baldwin, Peters, and Ossoff.149150                          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY151152                        Office of the Secretary153154STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER WRIGHT, SECRETARY155156               opening statement of senator john kennedy157158    Senator Kennedy. All right. Let us get started, folks. I am159going to call the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development160of the Appropriations Committee to order.161    With us today is Secretary Chris Wright, who is going to162talk to us about the proposed Trump's ``skinny budget,'' if you163will.164    I am just going to have a couple of preliminary comments,165and then I am going to turn to the Vice Chair of the entire166committee and the Ranking Member of the subcommittee to make167remarks.168    Look, we all know about the portfolio of the Department of169Energy. It is a smorgasbord, everything from nuclear weapon170stockpiles, to research, to supercomputing, to artificial171intelligence. There are two things, Mr. Secretary I want to172point out in my opening statement that got my attention.173    The spending at your Department is not your fault, but it174is unsustainable. It is simply unsustainable. If you take a175look and compare the current budget of the Department of176Energy, just go back a few years to fiscal year 2021. In fiscal177year 2021, the Department's budget was roughly $61 billion.178Today, it is roughly $160 billion. That is a what, 161 percent179increase? That is pretty dramatic, and I know your proposed180skinny budget is addressing some of that.181    I hope we can address the spending with a scalpel, not a182meat axe, but we are going to have to address it. I will also183point out, let us see that other chart, the Inspector General,184as you have probably read the report, Chris, the report came185out in November of 2024. The Inspector General identified $1186billion in what it called wasteful spending, unsupportive187spending, or fraudulent spending. That is a lot of taxpayer188money.189    So, I am looking forward to this today. I am pretty much an190all-of-the-above energy type guy. I will support any form of191energy that is affordable, that is efficient, that is192accessible. That includes renewables. In my judgment, President193Biden's administration concentrated too exclusively, almost194exclusively, I should say--on renewables. We have spent a lot195of money, I don't see that we have gotten the results. The196average electricity bill in America for the average American197family over the past 4 years is up 28 percent. That is the198first thing they care about. We have got to address it.199    And I hope we can today, Mr. Secretary, talk very200specifically about what programs are working and what programs201aren't. Because what has happened in the past, since I have202been on this committee, is we get together as a subcommittee,203we get our topline numbers, our staffs go off, the Democratic204staffs and the Republican staffs, go off and negotiate. And at205least on my side of the aisle, the staff comes back and says:206Good news, spending is only going to go up 6 percent.207    Well, those days are gone, as far as I am concerned. That208is just not acceptable to me, not when you have had a 161209percent increase.210    And with that, I will turn to the Vice Chair of the211Appropriations Committee and the Ranking Member of the Energy212and Water Development Subcommittee, my good friend Senator213Patty Murray.214215                   statement of senator patty murray216217    Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Senator Kennedy.218Looking forward to working with you on this committee.219    Senator Kennedy. Same here.220    Senator Murray. I am pleased to serve as the Ranking Member221of this important subcommittee, and I do hope we can continue222our track record of writing bipartisan spending bills that make223the crucial investments in our communities that we need.224    You know, DOE's (Department of Energy) work is really far-225reaching. It has major implications for how much families spend226on energy bills, on the reliability of our energy grid, whether227we lead the world in clean energy, AI, quantum computing, and228our national security, and our nuclear waste cleanup program.229    In my home State of Washington, as you know, we see all of230this firsthand, at the Bonneville Power Administration, which231provides power to families across our region; at the Pacific232Northwest National Lab, which is pioneering cutting-edge233research; and at Hanford, where we have the biggest nuclear234cleanup site in the country, and a moral and legal obligation235that we can never shortchange.236    So, we must give the programs DOE manages their due in237terms of funding and in terms of oversight necessary to make238sure that funding actually gets to our communities. But I239believe those goals are in jeopardy because of some of your240actions over the last few months, like a truly sweeping funding241freeze, unprecedented contract cancellations, mass staffing242reductions, and uncertainty that is hurting communities across243our country.244    Now, Secretary Wright, my colleagues and I have been245pressing you for information, on staffing, on funds signed into246law you are holding up, or straight up cancelling, and more,247and I have only received two responses so far, both of them248yesterday, clearly to get ahead of today's hearing. And249response, I have to say, is being charitable, because you did250not really provide any answers in those.251    Last week, you told the House you have ignored basic252inquiries from lawmakers because you are too busy, and you253mentioned you don't want to spend time on false premises. So, I254thought we could save some time today by debunking a few of255those false premises.256    It is false for you to say less than 1,000 people have left257since you took over. We know over 3,500 DOE employees have258taken the so-called buyout that you offered, and we know you259fired 500 more. It is false for you to say no contracts have260been cancelled, when you have plainly cancelled electric261vehicle and low-income energy assistance grants in Colorado,262one example. And it is false for you to say there are no unpaid263invoices, when we have heard from organizations still waiting264on payments, including hydrogen hubs, which have unpaid265invoices.266    Now, in addition to ignoring requests from Congress, your267fiscal year 2025 spend plan, required by law, is completely268inadequate. That is really critical, Mr. Secretary. It is a269critical document for us to understand how you are spending, or270how you are blocking, or cancelling billions of dollars271Congress, all of us, provided for critical projects across the272country.273    I have heard you say you are merely conducting a review, as274if that somehow makes it okay. Call it whatever you want. The275bottom line is the money is not moving. And as a former276businessman, you know perfectly well that uncertainty alone has277a massive cost. Jobs are being lost because of your actions.278Private investment in critical energy projects is being279cancelled, delayed, threatened to the tune of $71 billion so280far this year.281    And as electric prices hit record highs, you are halting282progress on investments that would lower people's bills.283Meanwhile, you are letting thousands of critical staff go,284encouraging folks to leave, with no regard for if they do their285work well, or if their work is important. I still don't know286how you could do something as crazy as try to fire Bonneville287Power Administration workers in the name of efficiency. Those288are literally people who keep the lights on, and they are not289even paid by taxpayer dollars.290    Now, I know that eventually you reversed those firings, but291the fact that they happened at all was, really, to me, a first292in a parade of red flags.293    Now, we are here today to talk about another red flag. That294is your budget that completely guts the non-defense half of295your mission. Overall, you want to slash $20 billion from DOE's296science and energy programs. Your budget proposes ripping 75297percent out of the energy efficiency and renewable energy298program and shuttering important clean energy and manufacturing299programs. I don't know who is telling you people want to pay300higher electric bills.301    Your budget slashes $1.1 billion from the Office of302Science. Who is telling you that we should cede ground to China303in the race for innovation, and lay off scientists at our304national labs?305    Your budget cuts $15 billion from programs we created in306the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, hydrogen hubs, battery307storage, advanced manufacturing, supply chains, and other308programs to lower our energy costs. Who told you we don't want309those manufacturing jobs? Who told you we don't want to310strengthen our energy protection and reduce our dependence on311foreign oil?312    Well, here is what I will tell you. If we were to follow313through with this disastrous budget, the only energy that we314would save is from the lights that go out at factories across315the country. Those lights are going to go off as China swoops316in to take the lead in the technologies that will define the31721st century.318    I don't see any efficiency in this budget, but I do see a319heavy cost. And that is the cost you are going to pass on to320our constituents in the form of higher electric bills, gas321bills, and more power outages. Not to mention the cost when322manufacturing moves elsewhere and we have to pay Trump's absurd323tariffs for technology we could and should be making right324here, or the cost to our country: discoveries we could be325making here, jobs we could be creating right here, goods we326could be making here and selling across the world.327    Instead, it feels like you want to gift-wrap the future and328hand it to China. Your budget also, by the way, flat funds the329Hanford cleanup. That has serious repercussions, they recently330finalized milestones they have to meet on the high-level waste331mission. Flat funding means the only way to hit those targets332is to pull funding from other priorities, which would have333ripple effects for workers carrying out critical projects334across the site and ultimately would delay remediation along335the Columbia River. That is unacceptable. We can't rob Peter to336pay Paul.337    Mr. Secretary, I know you talk about energy abundance, but338talk is cheap. Doing that work actually takes real investments.339I think you know that. Investments you are now ripping to340shreds. So, I personally want to see less talk and more money341getting out the door the way Congress wrote and intended.342    You know, there is common ground in this space. I know we343found it before. The very last bill Chair Kennedy and I wrote344together passed out of this committee unanimously, and I want345to see us do it again, because this is genuinely important346work.347    Now, before I conclude, I would be remiss if I did not348address the outrageously corrupt news we got last week on the349Army Corps Work Plan. This administration is ripping away350hundreds of millions of dollars from projects that were in the351House bill and in the Senate Energy and Water fiscal year 2025352bills, and funding other projects with that money that were not353funded in any bill that we approved. This includes scrapping354funds for the Howard Hanson Dam in Washington State. This is a355vital project. It has to get done.356    I want you to know, I am going to keep working with you,357Mr. Chairman, to get that done, because this committee and the358subcommittee have come a long way together to fund these vital359projects to communities across our country. And I know no360member appreciates any administration playing games with361communities for political reasons, as is the case with that362work plan that was released last week. It is brazen abuse, pure363and simple. And I will keep digging into how that decision was364made, demanding answers, and speaking out about this, and365fighting for my State of Washington.366    Now, before I turn it over back to you, Chair Kennedy, I do367want to end by recognizing Doug Clapp. He was my former clerk,368a longtime staffer on this subcommittee, and a staffer in my369personal office before that. Doug started on this committee in3702007, 2 decades ago, and has left his mark on our Nation's laws371time and again: championing oversight and good governance,372advancing environmental cleanup work including at the Hanford373site, fighting for and securing the vital investments this374subcommittee makes, as well as working in my personal office on375the Wild Sky Wilderness Act and many other issues important to376my constituents.377    He was someone who understood that when we work together,378we can make powerful investments that show government can do379good in people's lives. I am really grateful for his years of380service. I want to wish him the best as he starts his next381chapter. I am also grateful he left behind not just a strong382legacy but a great team and a subcommittee so well prepared to383continue this work. And I thank all of them.384    Senator Kennedy.385    Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Senator.386    Mr. Secretary, we will turn to you next. I can assure you387we will give you plenty of time, in addition to your opening388statement, to answer any questions or any charges from this389committee. I was delighted when the President appointed you.390When we were talking before the committee began, I am not391kidding, I am reading your book, and it is fascinating. Some of392it I don't understand, I may have to call you and get you to393explain it to me, but it is very accessible. And when the394President appointed you, I was so excited that we would have395someone running the Department of Energy who has such a deep396background in the subject.397    And with that, the floor is now yours. Tell us what we need398to know, Mr. Secretary. And welcome to all of your staff, I399assume they are all sitting there on the front row?400401              summary statement of hon. christopher wright402403    Secretary Wright. Yes. Yes. Great. Thanks. The team behind404me, they will be here after the meeting too if we have405questions or follow-up.406    Senator Murray, if you have unpaid invoices, please bring407them to us right now. We pay our bills. I am not aware of any408unpaid invoices. If you know of some, please deliver to us.409    Senator Murray. We have the receipts up there.410    Secretary Wright. Please deliver them, and we will take411care of them. We pay our bills. We follow the law.412    Thank you, Senator. Yes, energy is a lifelong mission and413passion for me, and nothing will change that, and I am thrilled414to be here in this position.415    So, Chairman Kennedy, Ranking Member Murray, and Members of416the Committee, it is an honor to appear before you today as417Secretary of Energy, to discuss the President's fiscal year4182026 Budget Request for the Department of Energy. I want to419commend this committee for its long-standing commitment to420energy policy and the mission of the Department.421    Energy is the backbone of civilization. It is the essential422catalyst of human progress, enabling everything we do,423everything. From the lights in our homes, the heat in our424homes, the process heat in our factories, and the innovation in425our national laboratories. I have dedicated my life to426increasing access to energy and bettering human lives, and I am427thrilled to carry my work forward at the Department of Energy.428    My priorities for the Department are clear: to unleash a429golden era of American energy dominance, strengthen our430national security, and lead the world in innovation. A reliable431and abundant energy supply is the foundation of a strong and432prosperous nation. When America leads in energy, we lead in433prosperity, security, and human flourishing.434    America has a historic opportunity to secure our energy435systems, lead the world in scientific and technological436innovation, maintain and strengthen our weapons stockpile, and437meet Cold War legacy waste commitments. The Department of438Energy will advance these critical missions while cutting red439tape, increasing efficiency, unleashing innovation, and440ensuring we are better stewards of taxpayer dollars.441    The President's fiscal year 2026 budget will ensure442taxpayer resources are allocated appropriately and cost-443effectively. This budget will return DOE to its core mission of444advancing energy innovation and global competitiveness through445research and development. We will invest DOE's resources in446sources and technologies that support affordable, reliable, and447secure energy and provide a return on investment for the448American taxpayers.449    Achieving this vision means fully leveraging the resources450that have powered our country for generations. The United451States is blessed with an abundance of coal, oil, and natural452gas, and the Trump administration is committed to using them to453meet growing energy needs of the American people. Every one of454these resources was unleashed through the world-changing power455of American innovation.456    Our national labs are the engine that drives research and457development to expand our energy dominance. When it comes to458our national labs, we are undeniably capable of doing more with459less. We can both increase efficiency and drive innovation. We460will prioritize research that supports true technological461breakthroughs and maintains America's global competitiveness.462    We are also taking steps to accelerate innovation in463commercial nuclear development. America must lead the464commercialization of affordable and abundant nuclear energy.465DOE is working to advance the rapid deployment of next-466generation nuclear technology, including small modular467reactors. I am proud to report that we have officially ended468the previous administration's reckless pause on LNG (Liquefied469Natural Gas) export permits and are returning to regular order470for reviewing and approving new permits.471    DOE will also work to replenish the Strategic Petroleum472Reserve, a national asset that protects our security in times473of crisis. We are advancing President Trump's pledge to lower474the cost of living and expand consumer choice for all Americans475by right-sizing DOE's approach to home efficiency standards and476regulations.477    This month, DOE proposed the elimination or reduction of 47478regulations, the largest deregulatory effort in history. Once479finalized, these actions are projected to save the American480people approximately $11 billion dollars while restoring481consumer freedom and lowering costs. The responsible482stewardship and modernization of the Nation's nuclear weapons483systems is paramount for the Department of Energy and this484administration. DOE is focused on addressing critical upgrades485for the U.S. nuclear stockpile and maintaining our engine486powerhouses for submarines and aircraft carriers. Both tasks487will become even more crucial in the next few years.488    Our nuclear innovation is a nation that began with the489Manhattan Project, and the next Manhattan Project is clearly AI490(Artificial Intelligence). DOE has a significant role to play491in driving AI innovation for scientific discovery and national492security. Our agency has world-class high-performance computing493capabilities, including four of the world's top ten494supercomputers. Harnessing our energy potential to power global495AI leadership while meeting growing energy demand will be the496challenge of our time, but America does not back down from big497challenges or big builds.498    As Secretary of Energy, I am honored by the responsibility499to help meet the American people's growing needs for energy and500lead the world in energy development.501    Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the502committee today.503    [The statement follows:]504             Prepared Statement of Hon. Christopher Wright505    Chairman Kennedy, Ranking Member Murray, and Members of the506Committee, it is an honor to appear before you and this Committee today507as the Secretary of Energy to discuss the President's Fiscal Year (FY)5082026 Budget request for the Department of Energy (``the Department'' or509``DOE'').510    America has a historic opportunity to secure our energy systems;511deliver leadership in scientific and technological innovation,512including in Artificial Intelligence; maintain and strengthen our513weapons stockpiles; and meet Cold War legacy waste commitments. The514Department of Energy is capable of meeting these critical missions515while increasing efficiency, unleashing innovation, and ensuring we are516better stewards of taxpayer dollars. President Trump is committed to517balancing the budget and implementing fiscal restraint--focusing agency518funding on the crucial goal of unleashing American energy dominance.519This is a commitment I share and a duty I intend to fulfill.520    Recently, the Trump Administration celebrated its 100th day in521office, and the Department of Energy has been hard at work to deliver522on these goals of unleashing energy expansion while improving523operational efficiency. I am proud to report that we have officially524ended the previous administration's reckless pause on Liquified Natural525Gas (LNG) export permits and returned DOE to regular order for526reviewing and approving new permits. Since January, the Department has527approved applications from projects that will export more than 9.5528billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) of natural gas as LNG, adding nearly529as much incremental capacity as the world's leading LNG exporting530countries.531    Additionally, we are advancing President Trump's pledge to lower532the cost of living and expand consumer choice for all Americans by533rightsizing DOE's regulatory approach to home efficiency standards. At534President Trump's direction, DOE has officially withdrawn four535conservation standards before they took effect, including standards on536electric motors, ceiling fans, dehumidifiers, and external power537supplies. DOE has delayed the implementation of efficiency standards538for walk-in coolers and freezers, efficiency standards for gas539instantaneous water heaters, and test procedures for central air540conditioning and heat pumps, as well as extended the deadline for541compliance with energy-conservation standards for manufactured housing.542In addition, DOE published a final rule withdrawing coverage of543miscellaneous gas products such as outdoor heaters and decorative544hearths, meaning those beloved products are exempt from unnecessary545regulations.546    By removing burdensome rules, we are returning freedom of choice to547the American people, ensuring consumers can choose the home appliances548that work best for their lives and budgets.549    While we actively work to strengthen America's role as the world's550leader in oil and natural gas production and lower costs for all551Americans, we are also taking steps to accelerate innovation in the552commercial nuclear development. In the first 100 days, DOE issued two553disbursements to support the reopening of Michigan's Palisades Nuclear554Energy Plant. We allocated high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU)555material to five U.S. advanced nuclear reactor developers to boost556domestic reactor deployment. It is imperative to strengthen America's557nuclear future and I am taking immediate action to accelerate the558deployment of small modular reactors (SMRs). As electricity demand559continues to grow, fueled by AI development and the growth of American560manufacturing, Americans will need more energy from more sources,561including nuclear.562                               priorities563    My priorities for the Department of Energy are clear--to unleash a564golden era of American energy dominance while strengthening our565national security. Energy is the essential ingredient that enables566everything we do. Access to an abundant and reliable energy supply is a567key ingredient to unlocking prosperity and ensuring human flourishing568and innovation.569    Consequently, we are focused on energy addition, versus subtraction570or even replacement. As government leaders, we need to be of the571mindset that more is better; replacing energy sources does not add to572the finite energy supply that American families, businesses, and573innovators are competing for.574    This means fully leveraging the reliable sources of energy that575have fueled American innovation and security for decades. Coal, oil,576and gas are abundant natural resources that our country has been577blessed with, and the Trump Administration is committed to using them578to provide affordable, reliable, and secure energy for Americans. To579this end, we are returning the Office of Fossil Energy to its original580mission--advancing affordable, reliable, and secure energy sources for581the American people while continuing to support research and582development in emerging technologies that advance these sources. This583will not only enable greater focus on expanding energy access for the584American people, but also promote more efficient use of taxpayer585dollars.586    The United States is the largest global producer and exporter of587natural gas, and DOE is doing everything to ensure that the United588States retains and builds on this enviable position. Our policy589approach for LNG and other energy sources is to make it less expensive590and more reliable, and achieve more American energy production and591infrastructure development, not less. Right now, eight large-scale U.S.592export terminals are now producing around 15 Bcf/d of LNG exports to593the global market. With additional capacity currently under594construction, exports are expected to average 16 Bcf/d next year.595Exports are on track to nearly double from current levels and reach596around 29 Bcf/d around 2030 once all the export capacity under597construction is completed. This amount could grow as more projects598reach a final investment decision.599    A vital area of focus is expanding commercial nuclear power across600the country. America must lead the commercialization of affordable and601abundant nuclear energy, and so DOE will focus on the rapid deployment602and export of next-generation nuclear technology, including small603modular reactors. Small modular reactors will provide reliable power604for our Nation's growing energy demands, with the added benefits of605flexible deployment due to their compact size and modular design.606    We also need to unleash American energy innovation, and the607National Labs are the engine that drives research and development to608further this aim. When it comes to our National Labs, we are capable of609doing more with less. We can both increase efficiency and drive610innovation. We will prioritize research that supports true611technological breakthroughs, such as nuclear fusion, high- performance612computing, quantum computing, and AI, which will maintain America's613global competitiveness.614    AI is the next Manhattan Project. AI technology will define the615future of the world, and it is essential that the U.S. leads in the616development of this technology. DOE has a significant role to play in617driving AI innovation for scientific discovery, energy innovation, and618national security. Our agency has the world-class high-performance619computing capabilities that enable fast and efficient AI research and620development, including four of the world's top ten supercomputers. To621ensure American leadership, we must not overburden AI development with622restrictions and regulations--including those on energy supplies623essential for AI data centers. We need all energy sources to power the624global AI race and meet growing data centers energy demand, including625natural gas, nuclear, geothermal, and coal, while also ensuring the626security of the grid.627    Fortifying America's electric grid is critical to the reliable and628secure delivery of electricity. We are now faced with evolving and629rapid changes to the system that threaten the reliability of our grid.630Aging infrastructure and increases in demand are multifaceted stressors631to the grid, putting the national and economic security of the American632people at risk. The threats to America's energy infrastructure are also633evolving at an unprecedented pace. Cyber adversaries and physical634attacks are no longer isolated challenges--they are converging to635create a complex and persistent threat landscape. I am committed to636restoring American energy dominance to ensure that we make energy more637affordable, reliable, and secure.638    DOE will also work to replenish the Strategic Petroleum Reserve639(SPR). The SPR is a national asset that protects our security in times640of crisis. The last administration's politically motivated depletion of641180 million barrels has significantly degraded SPR infrastructure,642brought storage levels to historic lows, and weakened America's ability643to respond to new geopolitical oil market shocks. At the end of644calendar year 2024, the SPR held an estimated 394 million barrels of645crude out of a 714-million-barrel top-line capacity, or operational646capacity of 680 million barrels. It is noted that the time needed to647refill the SPR is six times greater than the time required to do a648drawdown; thus, it is important to make material progress immediately.649    In his 2025 Inaugural Address, President Trump made a commitment to650``bring prices down, fill our strategic reserves up again right to the651top, and export American energy all over the world.'' Subsequently, I652issued a Secretarial Order to refill the SPR and review SPR653infrastructure and develop appropriate plans to safeguard this654important strategic asset.655    Critical minerals and materials, used in applications across656energy, defense, industry, and consumer electronics, are essential for657economic growth and national security. Currently, however, the United658States is reliant on other countries, like China, which dominates659midstream processing and refining. It's essential that we focus on660building domestic capabilities to extract, process, manufacture, and661recover end-of-life critical materials for our industrial needs, energy662goals, and national security. DOE is already directly supporting the663goals laid out in recent executive orders on critical minerals and664materials by identifying and expediting pending projects to support665domestic mineral production, coordinating with other agencies including666the U.S. Department of Defense, exploring the effectiveness of offtake667agreements and pricing support, and developing new programs to bolster668domestic mining and production.669    America doesn't back down from big builds. If we want abundant,670affordable, and secure energy, we must invest in the transmission,671generation, and innovation that get us there. We are working to672accelerate projects through permitting reform. Every delay is a dollar673lost. We need to break ground faster with streamlined permitting,674standardized designs, and public-private partnerships to build at the675speed of national need. And we need to do so with security in mind to676be more resilient to attacks and failures. A proactive approach will677minimize disruptions and ensure the reliable delivery of essential678energy resources. Every mile of protected infrastructure is a step679toward energy independence and national resilience.680    To accomplish many of the goals this administration has set, the681energy sector needs relief from the burdensome permitting process that682sabotages America's natural competitive advantages for an abundant683energy supply and reliable grid. DOE is identifying and exercising the684legal authorities it has to streamline the permitting process for685energy infrastructure to bolster our grid security and reliability. It686is imperative that interagency working groups coordinate with Congress687to ensure the Federal Government does not unnecessarily stand in the688way of accomplishing President Trump's agenda for the American people.689DOE stands ready to provide insights on permitting reform questions,690drawing on our deep bench of technical experts across a range of energy691technologies and focus areas.692    DOE also remains committed to the responsible and safe cleanup of693our Nation's environmental legacy sites, from the Manhattan Project to694the Cold War. DOE's Environmental Management program will continue to695perform its cleanup efforts at all 14 of the active sites.696    I believe the Department of Energy is well positioned to meet the697next chapter of American energy security, but we will need to continue698to strengthen our Nation's energy leadership by developing our enviable699resources, bolstering global partnerships, and advancing new700technologies. We need to continue to foster innovations in quantum701computing and AI. We have an urgent need to upgrade our nuclear arsenal702and our broader capabilities to design and construct nuclear weapons703and power systems. DOE can and will accomplish these goals by cutting704red tape, prioritizing common-sense solutions, and cultivating American705ingenuity.706              fiscal year 2026 president's budget request707    DOE proposes $45.1 billion in discretionary budget authority for FY7082026. Our budget is a fiscally responsible budget that will ensure709taxpayer resources are allocated appropriately and cost-effectively.710This budget will return DOE to its core mission of advancing energy711innovation and global competitiveness through research and development.712We will invest DOE's resources in sources and technologies that support713affordable, reliable, and secure energy and provide a return on714investment for the American taxpayers, while restoring confidence in715America's fiscal management.716    The responsible stewardship and modernization of the Nation's717nuclear weapons systems is paramount for the Department of Energy and718this Administration. With $30 billion for the National Nuclear Security719Administration, we will address critical upgrades for the U.S. nuclear720stockpile and maintain our engine powerhouses for submarines and721aircraft carriers. Both tasks will become even more crucial in the next722few years. The President's budget proposes the cancellation of $15.247723billion in IIJA funds and a decrease of $2.572 billion relative to the724FY 2025 enacted level for the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy725account. This will bring to a halt investment in the Green New Scam726which wastes taxpayer money and does not solve the problems before our727Nation. While we will continue to invest in advancing emerging energy728technologies, we must ensure that every single dollar spent is729accountable to the taxpayers and generates a positive return on730investment. This Administration is ending the reckless subsidizing of731unreliable, unaffordable, and less secure energy sources.732    The budget decreases $408 million relative to the FY 2025 enacted733level for nuclear energy, shifting the program's focus to734commercialization, and curtailing non-essential research. As global735energy demand continues to grow, DOE must prioritize commercialization736of affordable and abundant nuclear energy. This budget will enable the737rapid deployment of next-generation nuclear technology across the738United States. Nuclear energy is incredible. It can provide not just739electricity, but also high-temperature process heat, critical to making740the materials we need for planes, trains, cars, and houses. Now is the741time for a nuclear renaissance. DOE is going to use all available742tools, from direct funding to loans, to unleash this pivotal form of743reliable energy.744    Additionally, the President's budget returns the Office of Science745to its core focus--unleashing American competitiveness. While the746budget decreases non-essential funding by $1.148 billion compared to747the FY 2025 enacted level, we believe this level of investment will748maintain competitiveness and allow us to invest in high priority areas749like high performance computing, AI, quantum information science,750fusion, and critical minerals while reducing funding for climate change751and Green New Scam research. We will also re-focus ARPA-E by decreasing752its funding by $260 million relative to the FY 2025 enacted level.753ARPA-E will no longer fund so- called green technologies and instead754will focus on high risk, high reward research that advances reliable755energy technologies and other critical and emerging technologies.756    The Department is also focused on streamlining our operations757within the agency, consolidating offices and activities to increase758efficiency. We will return the Office of Fossil Energy to its proper759name and restore its central function of supporting the production of760fossil energy, including coal and critical minerals for the United761States, while decreasing the budget by $270 million relative to FY 2025762enacted levels. The budget decreases Environmental Management by $389763million relative to FY 2025 enacted, roughly half of which reflects the764transfer of responsibility for the Savannah River Site in South765Carolina to the National Nuclear Security Administration, where766plutonium pit production capabilities will be developed.767    The Administration proposes to eliminate spending that is at odds768with the intentions and policies outlined in President Trump's769Executive Orders, Presidential Memoranda, Proclamations, and other770guidance.771    As Secretary of Energy, I am honored and humbled by the772responsibility to help meet the American people's growing energy needs773and lead the world in energy development. Thank you for the opportunity774to testify before this subcommittee.775776    Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Mr. Secretary,777how many employees did the Department of Energy have when you778took over?779    Secretary Wright. Just around 16,000 government employees.780    Senator Kennedy. How many does it have today?781    Secretary Wright. A little under 16,000 today.782    Senator Kennedy. Okay. How much have you reduced it783percentagewise?784    Secretary Wright. So far, only a relatively small amount.785We are looking at larger reductions, and as Senator Murray786mentioned, we have offered voluntary plans and programs for787people to be compensated by the government as they transition788to another career. We have done this slowly, carefully, with a789lot of engagement with people, and while looking at how to790restructure our Department. So, the ultimate reduction in791workforce will be larger than it has been today, but today our792payroll has barely moved.793    Senator Kennedy. Most entities in the private sector of the794size of the Department of Energy know how to modernize and795downsize, do they not?796    Secretary Wright. It is essential to survival as a797business. If you want to roll with changes in the marketplace798and the business, you better be ready to change your799organization.800    Senator Kennedy. Okay. I just read recently where801Microsoft, one of the most successful companies in the world,802is going to reduce its workforce by 6,000 employees, I mean, do803you think that is going to be the end of Microsoft?804    Secretary Wright. No. It will not be the end of Microsoft.805I will say, these are the hardest things to do, whether it is806in a company or a government agency. You know, these are807people's lives, and our Department is blessed with tremendous808men and women who have made enormous contributions.809    But you are right, Senator Kennedy, we have to look at it810critically and right-size and align the organization to the811mission and challenges of today.812813                                 LOANS814815    Senator Kennedy. Let me ask you a couple of specific816questions, Mr. Secretary. As a result--we had a party around817here under the Biden administration, and when you have a party,818you have to pay the band when the party is over. As a result of819the party, if you count the Inflation Reduction Act, which was820the Green New Deal, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act,821also part of the Green New Deal, the CHIPS (Creating Helpful822Incentives to Produce Semiconductors) and Science Act, your823Department got $99 billion in new appropriations, $30.5 billion824in new authorizations, and loan authority of over $400 billion.825How much of that $400 billion authority to loan money did the826Department of Energy use?827    Secretary Wright. Nearly $100 billion. Thank you for making828the point that more money, as is shown in your graph and the829numbers you quoted, and more people, that the headcount in the830Department grew over 20 percent during those 4 years, our831electricity output of the Nation as a whole, grew about 2832percent, and the cost per unit of electricity grew 28 percent.833    Senator Kennedy. Well, here is what----834    Secretary Wright. And we didn't deliver results for all of835that.836    Senator Kennedy. Here is what the Inspector General said837about some of the loans. The Inspector General, these are the838Inspector General's assessments, not mine, the Inspector839General called many of these loans, quote, ``high risk'', high840risk. And he said that these loans were designed to promote841innovation by financing projects, fine, not otherwise842acceptable by private equity investors.843    What does that mean? That means that the private sector844would not get near these projects with a 10-foot pole, would845they? Only government would put up the money, wouldn't it?846    Secretary Wright. That is correct.847    Senator Kennedy. For example, he found that DOE, under your848predecessor, announced that it was going to make a $400 million849loan, actually, it was not a loan, it was a grant, to two850companies. They announced it. And then somebody pointed out to851them that they were Chinese companies. They had to pull the852grant back. And why are we loaning money, this is another issue853brought out by the Inspector General, why are we loaning $7.5854billion to Stellantis?855    They can't get a bank loan themselves. I mean, J.P. Morgan856and Bank of America have been shoving money out the door for857energy projects. Why did we loan $9.63 billion to Blue Oval?858Why are we doing all of this? I am going to quickly give you an859example.860    I had a gentleman, I am not going to use any names, come861into my office yesterday. He is from a very wealthy family in862another country. He wants to build a solar manufacturing plant863in America. He is putting up a billion dollars. Do you know how864much the American taxpayer is going to put up; $850 million.865So, he is going to get, thanks to the American taxpayer, a866billion-dollar plant for $150 million to produce solar panels,867which the world is awash in. This is unconscionable. And I hope868you will do something about it, Mr. Secretary.869    Now, at some point we are going to get really specific870about savings, and I am going to expect you to get real871specific with us. I don't want to not fund anything that is872vital, but I am tired of the spending porn. I am tired of it.873    Secretary Wright. I think you have good reason to be874concerned with how monies have been deployed outside of the875Loan Program Office and for other assistance as well, and we876will come back to that. But your concern is well placed.877    Senator Kennedy. Vice Chair Murray.878    Senator Murray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.879880                           FEDERAL EMPLOYEES881882    Secretary Wright, despite your claims to the contrary, more883than 3,500 employees have taken the deferred resignation offer.884That is about 20 percent of your staff, and we do know that you885fired several hundred probationary employees as well. That has886meant some offices are now gutted, there is nobody there.887Others are in turmoil.888    I give you an example: the Office of Clean Energy889Demonstrations, which manages $20 billion in grants from the890Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, lost more than 77 percent of its891staff. It is going to be nearly impossible for that office to892accomplish its basic functions, let alone oversee any massive893and complex energy construction projects. And as I mentioned,894your firings have been really arbitrary, even firing some of895our grid operators and linemen at the Bonneville Power896Administration, which are not paid for by taxpayer dollars.897    I know you scrambled to get those people back, and several898weeks ago you said no more firings will occur at Bonneville.899These positions, really, they are absolutely critical to the900reliability of the grid in Washington State and the Pacific901Northwest. Will you commit today to exempting BPA (Bonneville902Power Administration) from your hiring freeze so they can bring903back on staff, mission-critical staff, and keep the Northwest904Grid running?905    Secretary Wright. We are very concerned about the power906marketing agencies. They are critical to our country,907Bonneville being one of them. We have been careful that their908operations have not been disrupted. They were short-staffed909when I arrived in this chair, and we will continue to treat910them as the critical assets they are.911    Again, headcount is one input. It is an important input,912but it is not the only input in running a successful business913or successful agency. And again, you brought up people that914have provisionally elected to do a deferred resignation915program. Many of them still have the option to decide whether916they really are staying or they really are leaving. They are in917transition. We are engaged with them. They are not fired. They918are not gone from the Department of Energy yet----919    Senator Murray. Well, there are a lot of folks still on the920payroll at the expense of the taxpayer. We are told that over921$70 million worth, they are on administrative leave now. They922are at home. They are not working. They are not processing923anything. They are not doing any work, and as a result, offices924across the Department are not able to function, because those925people are not there even though taxpayers are still telling926them to. On BPA, just in terms of that, I do look forward to927DOE hiring back sufficient staff. We have got to cover these928critical responsibilities.929930                      DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY BUDGET931932    Let me go turn to the budget. President Trump's skinny933budget really doubles down on the cuts that DOGE (Department of934Government Efficiency) has made to the Department. You propose935cutting $2.5 billion from the Office of Energy Efficiency and936Renewable Energy, 74 percent of the overall budget. That937eliminates programs that reduce energy prices for businesses,938for families.939    Now, on the one hand, you and the President say that you940support U.S. dominance in energy emerging technologies, but941then on the other hand, you are proposing cutting over a942billion dollars in funding to the Office of Science. That943really undermines critical research programs for AI, for944fusion, for quantum computing, for nuclear energy, and critical945minerals.946    Now, typically, a new administration crafts a budget947request that actually reflects their priorities. You talk a948lot, I know, about lowering costs for consumers and creating949this next Manhattan Project for AI, but it seems that this950budget request includes across-the-board cuts to the very951programs that would help you achieve those stated goals.952    So, I want to get this straight. You are asking Congress to953cut the budget for the Office of Science by more than a billion954dollars. That will help advance AI research and quantum955computing?956    Secretary Wright. It won't inhibit them at all. In fact, I957do think on the margin it will help, because, of course, all958the things you listed: fusion, quantum computing, basic959fundamental, advanced science, none of those things will be960cut. The problem is the labs have drifted into things that are961not fundamental basic science. They are political science, and962that is just not the mission of the labs.963    Senator Murray. Do you have examples of those that you964would like to share with us?965    Secretary Wright. We have a crazy range of things on966climate change. There is science around climate change that I967write about and have studied for 2 decades. There is real968science there, but it has become a political game more than a969real science game. That is not the business of the national970labs. And of course, we are going to shrink that activity.971    We are going to be smarter and more efficient. But none of972the top priorities you mentioned are going to be touched at973all.974    Senator Murray. Well, you talk about the importance----975    Secretary Wright. In fact, they are going to be enhanced.976977                             NUCLEAR POWER978979    Senator Murray. You talk about the importance of nuclear980power and small modular reactors. Just yesterday, you said you981were in favor of every incentive we can get from the Federal982Government to restart this industry. Yet in your budget that983you are proposing, you cut the Office of Nuclear Energy by $408984million. How are investors and companies supposed to have985confidence in partnering with you when what you say and what986your budget says are two different things?987    Secretary Wright. Each individual line item does not988indicate a policy. I think the nuclear industry is quite989enthusiastic and quite confident they are going to have the990best environment ever for commercial nuclear power under this991administration, under my leadership of the DOE. What we are992doing is mobilizing tens of billions of dollars of private993capital using government----994    Senator Murray. Yes. Well, the private capital is counting995on us to make that investment. Otherwise, we see them pull out.996We have actually seen companies in the country now pulling out997of projects because of the chaos in your Department. As a998businessman, you said that you should know more than anyone the999importance of certainty. And when they see the chaos and they1000see them pulling back, then they are not going to invest their1001private money either.1002    Secretary Wright. If you can connect me with anyone in the1003nuclear space, or fusion, or any of the things you listed that1004is pulling back, I would love to jump on the phone with them,1005because I have not met one. Not one. And in fact, I felt1006exactly the opposite. The most efficient tool that the1007Department of Energy has to help the nuclear industry is the1008Loan Program Office. Get high-quality equity money in front and1009bring government debt on these first few-of-a-kind reactors1010behind them. That is the way to get it done. It is not direct1011grant dollars. It is the Loan Program Office dollars.1012    Senator Murray. The Chairman is going to pull my mic in a1013second, and I do want to ask you a really critical question1014quickly. We are having a budget hearing today. We have not seen1015your full budget request. We need that in front of us. It is1016required. It is critical information. When are we going to see1017your full budget request?1018    Secretary Wright. I am working with OMB (Office of1019Management and Budget) right now to get that out as soon as we1020can. I understand your urgency.1021    Senator Murray. Thank you.1022    Senator Kennedy. Senator Britt.1023    Senator Britt. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.1024    Senator Kennedy. Senator Britt, we were talking earlier,1025and I made the comment, and I want to state it on the record,1026that you have got an automatic place in heaven for having to1027carry Senator Tuberville. Okay.1028    [Laughter.]1029    Senator Britt. This is legendary right here, legendary.1030    Senator Kennedy. I hope you are listening, Senator1031Tuberville.10321033                            NUCLEAR REACTORS10341035    Senator Britt. Legendary. Well, as the Chair mentioned1036earlier, and I was not expecting that one, so that is some good1037stuff. Your Department covers everything from basic research,1038to advanced nuclear reactors, to grid security, I mean, the1039work that you do affects Americans every single day. When we1040are looking at that, and this kind of piggybacks off of both of1041the questions that have been asked previously, but I want to1042talk about China and where they are specifically with their1043embrace of nuclear generation.1044    When you look at the facts as they are, China has at least104528 nuclear reactors that are in construction, which is about1046half of the construction of all nuclear reactors across the1047entire globe. We look at what they are doing. We know they are1048working to undermine us. To me, this is very similar to what we1049saw in the manufacturing space. They are using political and1050economic leverage to ultimately manipulate and get ahead.1051    I think that that is a mistake on a number of ways. I mean,1052if we turn a blind eye to that. I think it is critical that we1053look at this, particularly within the AI space, knowing that AI1054is not just an AI race, it is also an energy race, and we must1055win both.1056    So, my question to you is: What are your plans; what is the1057Trump administration's plans to win that race, and how do we1058make sure that you have the funds in the proper place to do1059that?1060    Secretary Wright. Fantastic, Senator Britt. And I agree1061very much with the assumptions. China is moving full speed1062ahead with nuclear. In fact, the most reactors they are1063building is essentially a knockoff, a stealing of an American1064reactor technology. But they build them much cheaper and much1065faster, and they don't have the giant bureaucratic regulatory1066overhang we have in the United States.1067    We need to get the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) in1068touch with physical reality. Grand Central Station in New York,1069our train station, could not be licensed as a nuclear reactor1070because its radiation is too high. We have standards that are1071just so expensive to meet, it makes everything slow, it makes1072everything expensive. We bring all sorts of regulatory1073uncertainty into that environment. So, we are talking with1074commercial providers. We have offered up DOE lands. We have had1075tons of solicitations: Come build on our land. We will be fast,1076we will be efficient, we will help you get going. We will1077arrange creative incentives for you to build nuclear reactors1078in our space.1079    I think we will do it. The Loan Program Office is a key1080tool. We do need to make sure we have funding available in the1081Loan Program Office, because used judiciously it is a way to1082leverage private capital to make things happen fast. If your1083equity investors behind that debt are the six hyperscalers in1084the United States, they are great credit. The American1085taxpayers are going to be paid back.1086    Alternatively, in the last administration, the Loan Program1087Office in its 15-year history, lent $43 billion. In the 76 days1088since Election Day to Inauguration Day of the new President,1089the previous administration lent or committed $93 billion, two1090and a half times the 15--year total----1091    Senator Britt. You are kidding me. Tell me that timeframe1092again?1093    Secretary Wright. 76 days from Election Day, when Biden----1094    Senator Britt. I didn't hear that.1095    Secretary Wright [continuing]. Lost the Presidential1096election, to President Trump's inauguration, in 76 days----1097    Senator Britt. That is absolute insanity.1098    Secretary Wright [continuing]. They lent or committed $931099billion. So, is there a reason I am moving slow when I am doing1100evaluations of projects? Yes, there is a very big reason.1101    Senator Britt. Well, let me turn quickly in my remaining1102time, and thank you so much for doing that. We cannot cede this1103ground to China, and so thank you for making sure----1104    Secretary Wright. Yes.1105    Senator Britt [continuing]. That we don't do that at all.1106In December of 2020, DOE selected a team led by Southern1107Company in Birmingham, Alabama, to lead the Molten Chloride1108Reactor Experiment, MCRE, in partnership with DOE. Developing1109this new type of nuclear reactor is transformational to that1110next-generation nuclear energy, and that type of leadership1111that we need to see across our Nation. The MCRE program is1112going to deliver the world's first fast-spectrum salt reactor1113to support the administration's goal of unleashing American1114energy dominance and to achieve world leadership in nuclear1115energy.1116    Further, MCRE is the first demonstration of a reactor1117technology that can revolutionize the commercial shipping1118industry, and serving as a catalyst for restoring American1119maritime dominance through floating nuclear power plants and1120U.S.-flagged large commercial ships. So, this project supports1121scalable, deployable, and transformational American nuclear1122energy.1123    Given that strategic value associated with this critical1124advanced reactor demonstration project, will you commit to1125support this project and to continuing to work so that it has1126successful reactor operation and will be executed during this1127administration?1128    Secretary Wright. A super exciting project. I can't commit1129today to any specific project because I very carefully1130assembled a team of people, of leaders, that are evaluating1131honestly and objectively all of these projects and going full1132steam ahead on ones that deliver affordable, reliable energy,1133and have a reasonable chance of success, and I will----1134    Senator Britt. Well, good. I hope you will take a look at1135this. We are really proud of the work that is being done, and I1136think that you are going to be very pleased with what you see.11371138                             GRID SECURITY11391140    And in my last few remaining seconds, I just wanted to ask1141about grid security. So, when you are looking at--the Chair and1142I; we live in Gulf Coast States, and so hurricane season is1143upon us. When we are looking at what is happening, you know,1144with the grid, obviously making sure it is protected, not only1145for natural disasters but national security disasters. What are1146you all doing to ensure that reliability and protection?1147    Secretary Wright. It is a key issue. It is a vulnerability1148of our country. Our grid is very distributed, a lot of it is1149very antiquated. It is very easy to attack our grid, and we are1150being attacked all the time. And I think there are more1151sophisticated attacks possible that have not been launched1152against us yet, but it could be an adversary waiting for the1153right time. In fact, one of the meetings I had right before1154coming here was with----1155    Senator Kennedy. Land the plane for me, Mr. Secretary. We1156have got to move on here.1157    Secretary Wright. Yes. I agree with the problem. We are1158working on it, including today.1159    Senator Britt. Excellent. Thank you.1160    Senator Kennedy. Senator Baldwin.1161    Senator Baldwin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And on that last1162topic, I am very interested in a discussion on transformers at1163some point, large-scale.1164    Secretary Wright. Yes.1165    Senator Baldwin. But grid security. Anyways, I wanted to1166share that in Wisconsin, we have seen the real impact of the1167Inflation Reduction Act. Over $5.3 billion in private1168investment has been announced, with nearly $3 billion already1169spent since the bill was enacted. We added over 4,500 jobs from1170projects that are either already up and running or will be1171soon, and that is tangible economic growth in our communities.1172    And I wanted to make sure that that was part of the record,1173as these investments are on the chopping block in many1174respects. And they are on the chopping block to make room for1175tax cuts that we know disproportionately benefit corporations1176and the well-off. So, I wanted to just put that into the1177record.11781179                            GRID INVESTMENTS11801181    But Secretary Wright, utilities across the country,1182including those in Wisconsin, have been making long-term plans1183for major grid investments based on the financing promised in1184the Inflation Reduction Act. They have spent years planning for1185and investing in transmission, energy production, and storage1186projects that will promote our energy independence and a1187resilient grid, all while lowering costs for Americans.1188    And these promised funds have been frozen by the Trump1189administration. So what update do you have today for Wisconsin1190utilities and businesses that are waiting for these funds to be1191released so that they can start or continue building out their1192planned investments?1193    Secretary Wright. Yes, thank you. Thank you for the1194question, Senator Baldwin. We have not actually frozen funds.1195Projects that are ongoing today, we are paying our bills. We1196are reaching out to all of--yes, please provide us, if you know1197of a partner that has done work and has unpaid bills, we will1198get it paid. I am aware of none of those.11991200                           CRITICAL MINERALS12011202    Senator Baldwin. We will follow up. On a related note,1203right now the United States is over 95 percent dependent upon1204China for battery-grade graphite. A Wisconsin-based company is1205working to commercialize a domestic, a domestic bio-based1206alternative to battery-grade graphite but is waiting for the1207Department of Energy to release funds that were announced but1208that have now been paused.1209    This administration continues to say that developing a1210domestic critical mineral supply chain is a top priority, but1211we are months into a funding freeze with no answers on the1212status of awards for programs like the Department of Energy's1213Critical Minerals Accelerator. With timely action from DOE, the1214company COnovate is committed to rapidly scaling this home-1215grown solution to address one of our most critical supply chain1216vulnerabilities. What is the timeline for getting the Critical1217Minerals Accelerator funding out the door?1218    Secretary Wright. Through this summer, we will review all1219of the major projects, and every one, as it is done, we will1220reach out to that company. We are going to get information from1221them, feedback, you said they have been working for years on1222it. We will hear their plans, we will review their plans.1223Certainly, we want a domestic supply of graphite or other anode1224materials, 100 percent that is in the wheelhouse. If it is a1225viable technology and a credible company with financing to do1226it, those are the kinds of things we are absolutely looking to1227fund.1228    But every one of them is sort of a project-by-project1229basis. It will be a back and forth with that company in1230Wisconsin, and if that idea looks to----1231    Senator Baldwin. With a footprint in South Carolina and1232Michigan also, I might add, so.1233    Secretary Wright. Now look, myself and the administration1234are all in on resourcing manufacturing in the United States,1235and particularly in these critical areas where China dominates,1236so.1237    Senator Baldwin. And as this is looking forward to the 20261238budget, will the Critical Materials Accelerator Program1239continue to be funded in the Department of Energy's budget, or1240are you planning to shut down our investments in the domestic1241battery material supply chain?1242    Secretary Wright. Well, I can't speak to any specific1243programs, but will we continue to invest in reshoring critical1244mineral supplies in the United States? 100 percent, that effort1245will go on.12461247                                ISOTOPES12481249    Senator Baldwin. Okay. Lastly, industry leaders in1250Wisconsin have made major gains in deploying commercial1251technologies that provide for domestic management of used1252nuclear fuel that is economical, safe, and sustainable. They1253are also using the same process to create medical-grade1254isotopes, like Moly-99, that will help solve chronic shortages1255of these critical nuclear medicines.1256    These industry leaders have had support from Congress and a1257successful partnership with the nuclear energy scientists at1258the Department of Energy to address this national security1259concern. Knowing this, will you consider reversing the proposed1260cuts to DOE's nuclear programs and invest in the development of1261a safer and more sustainable nuclear fuel cycle in your 20261262budget?1263    Secretary Wright. So, we have cuts at different levels in1264different Departments. We are not pulling back on our nuclear1265efforts at all. They may be funded slightly differently, but we1266are not pulling back on that. And what you specifically1267mentioned, the radioisotopes, it is one of the most exciting1268new things in cancer treatment, and imaging, and all that, and1269that is----1270    Senator Baldwin. And right now, we resource them from1271reactors in Russia, and in other countries, and we have that1272technology now developed here in the United States, in part1273from a long-term partnership with the Department of Energy and1274spin-offs from research institutions across the country, I want1275to see that commitment kept up.1276    Secretary Wright. I am sure we will talk in a few weeks1277about it. I have got to dig into that particular project, but1278definitely it is in a great spot.1279    Senator Kennedy. Senator Hoeven.1280    Senator Hoeven. Thanks, Mr. Chair.1281    Senator Kennedy. Talented Senator Hoeven.1282    Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and Mr. Secretary,1283great to see you again, and great to have you. Are you enjoying1284the job? I know your background is all in the private sector.1285How is it going, and are you enjoying it?1286    Secretary Wright. It is thrilling. It is exciting. I have1287worked with a number of tremendous people, from our labs to1288inside our Department, to the people sitting behind me. Yes.1289    Senator Hoeven. Well, with your knowledge and expertise----1290    Secretary Wright. It is the ride of a lifetime.12911292                      BASELOAD FOR GRID STABILITY12931294    Senator Hoeven. Well, with your knowledge and expertise, it1295is just great having you in the position. We appreciate you1296doing it. I am going to tell you something, you know, and then1297ask for your help. We need more baseload, you know, for AI and1298all these different purposes, we need more electricity, period.1299But for the stability of the grid and the reliability of the1300grid, we need more baseload. So, it is very important that we1301keep our coal-fired electricity online.1302    We have the most advanced coal-fired electric industry in1303the world in North Dakota, which you know, you have seen it.1304And we have addressed things like SOx, and NOx, and mercury,1305and now we are working on CO2 capture and sequestration. Now,1306it is technologically viable, we know that, but it is not1307commercially viable. You have had some experience with this1308because--and so have I, because when you and I both started1309working on the shale play for oil and gas, it was1310technologically viable; it was not commercially viable. But we1311cracked the code, and it has been a boon for this country in1312energy.1313    And the thing about the CO2 capture is our plants are fine1314for X-number of years, but we know that to keep them long-term,1315we are going to have to address CO2 the way we addressed SOx,1316NOx, and mercury, and the other things. And it is a potential1317twofer in that we can take that CO2 and put it downhole, and we1318can double what we get out of the shale plays in terms of oil1319and gas. This is all stuff you know.1320    Now, at the University of North Dakota, we have the Energy1321and Environmental Research Center that is a leader in1322developing and enhancing these technologies and actually1323commercializing them, and we need to continue that. So, I guess1324I want to know that you are going to be willing to continue1325that partnership agreement with the Fossil Energy Office so we1326continue this development.1327    And it includes not just the partnership agreement with the1328EERC (Energy & Environmental Research Center) and the DOE, but1329it also includes PCOR (Plains CO2 Reduction), so you can find1330these geological sites where you can sequester, and then also1331CarbonSAFE, which is how we monitor it so we know it is1332captured, and it stays captured, and how much has been1333captured.1334    So, one, I would like your help, or to know that you are1335going to continue to work with us on those programs. I want you1336to come out and see what we are doing, so that you know, you1337know, seeing is believing, although I know you are pretty well1338aware of it. And then I want your ideas on what else we can do1339to, again, crack the code here. So, go from there, will you?1340    Secretary Wright. Thank you, Senator Hoeven. And yes, I ran1341into John Argue in Oklahoma just a few weeks ago.1342    Senator Hoeven. Very good.1343    Secretary Wright. And I appreciate the great research that1344has been done there. And I certainly expect and hope that will1345continue in partnership with us. I am going to be cautious1346about committing to anything specific because, again, we have a1347process and we are going through it. We have got a whole team.1348But should we continue to look into these technologies?1349Absolutely, you know, as you said, with shale, we drove the1350cost curve down. Can you do that with other technologies? Yes.1351So technological research is of great interest, the value of1352CO2 to enhance oil recovery is, I think, going to be a very1353large and growing issue in the next 20 years. So yes, these are1354areas of great interest.1355    You know, as with every technology and every business, the1356devil comes in the details, in the numbers, and you know, what1357is the most effective ways to approach these things. You1358mentioned coal. Coal has been the largest source of global1359electricity for a hundred years. It is almost certainly going1360to be for decades to come. So, it is just a backbone of the1361global energy system. And if you look at States across the1362country that have the lowest-cost and most reliable electricity1363grids, they tend to be skewed to have very coal-heavy grids.1364    Senator Hoeven. Right. And we supply to a 12-State region,1365and if we develop this technology successfully, others will1366adopt it. And then, like I say with the CO2, we have got the1367secondary oil recovery. Now, Senator Kennedy is going to try to1368tell you that all the smart guys are in Louisiana, and that is1369just not true. They have got plenty of smart guys, including1370him, but we have got the experts at the EERC. And you know1371that.1372    And the other thing is, we are looking for your good ideas1373too. I mean, your background, you figured this stuff out. And1374with your degrees and your training, you know, we need your1375help on how to do that. And at the end of the day, this is1376about commercial viability. So, I share Senator Kennedy's1377concerns about spending levels in government. We need to get1378the debt and deficit under control. But we grow our economy and1379create more revenue when we solve these challenges.1380    And that is really your role at DOE, is to help our private1381sector, empower our private sector, to do these amazing,1382innovative things. So, we need your ideas on how to crack this1383code.1384    Secretary Wright. Thank you, Senator. And I look forward to1385visiting EERC with you and sitting around and having these1386dialogues with the great scientists there.1387    Senator Hoeven. Thanks again.1388    Secretary Wright. Thank you for the great comments.1389    Senator Kennedy. Senator Coons.1390    Senator Coons. Thank you, Chairman Kennedy, and Ranking1391Member Murray.13921393              DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY FISCAL YEAR 2026 BUDGET13941395    Secretary Wright, good to be with you. I just want to1396briefly frame, as I understand it, the Department of Energy1397plays three critical overall functions: Maintaining our1398national security through the Nuclear Security Administration;1399investing in critical public-private partnerships that will1400demonstrate and deploy the next generation of energy1401technologies, nuclear, geothermal, oil and gas, hydrogen; and1402funding research, both fundamental and applied, at our national1403labs and through many great university partnerships that1404ensures we remain the global leader in R&D.1405    These functions are critical to your three major goals that1406I share, outcompeting China, reducing energy costs for1407Americans, and eliminating energy poverty across the world. And1408based on your background as an MIT-trained engineer and1409successful energy entrepreneur, I think you and I share these1410goals. But my core concern is that the way DOGE has impacted1411your workforce, and the folks you have got available to carry1412these goals out, undermine these critical goals.1413    My understanding; and now I am on a number of different1414Appropriations Subcommittees, and so far, in every single one1415of them, we don't have a budget. Do you have a budget before us1416today, or is it a skinny budget?1417    Secretary Wright. So far, just the skinny budget. We are1418working with OMB to release more of that, but that is still a1419work in progress.1420    Senator Coons. And it is awful skinny. I mean, it is about1421a page. So, I am working off of an outline. But I am alarmed by1422a proposed cut of more than a billion to the Office of Science.1423That is more than 8 percent compared to enacted, at a time when1424China is investing in R&D, and combined with what is going on1425at NSF (National Science Foundation), an independent agency, I1426am concerned we are kneecapping the American Science1427Enterprise, which played such a critical role in our success in1428the 20th century.14291430                   RESEARCH FUNDING FOR UNIVERSITIES14311432    The skinny budget claims that your cut will only affect1433climate change and New Green Scam--Green New Scam research, but1434it does not define those terms, and I am concerned we will end1435up defunding critical research. The University of Delaware, my1436home State's leading research university, and many others in my1437State and around the country, are alarmed by Executive Order143814222, which lowers the F&A (Facilities and Administrative)1439caps on Federal grants.1440    How will your Department implement this EO (Executive1441Order) in a way that does not disproportionately impact R11442universities that are smaller and less well-resourced than the1443handful of critical institutions that really have long demanded1444the lion's share of Federal research dollars?1445    Secretary Wright. You are talking about the overhead1446percentage on things?1447    Senator Coons. Yes.1448    Secretary Wright. When we sent it out, we invited all of1449the universities to reach back out to us, to engage in a1450dialogue like I think you are proposing. So far, no one has1451taken us up on that effort.1452    Senator Coons. Not one university has reached back out to1453say----1454    Secretary Wright. Not, not that I----1455    Senator Coons [continuing]. Here, is how we would do it in1456a way that would minimize the impact?1457    Secretary Wright. Many sued us, but I----1458    Senator Coons. Many sued you?1459    Secretary Wright. But I am not sure----1460    Senator Coons. That is one form of outreach.1461    Secretary Wright. I am not aware of any dialogues on that.1462You know, it is a sticky question, Senator Coons. And look, it1463is a great university, and I am fully sympathetic to where you1464are coming from. And it is part of the--of course, it is part1465of this broader effort that we want to get, and going back to1466your national lab science question, that will be done bottom-up1467at every lab. I share that national labs are a treasure. We1468don't want to slow down any of our critical research, but is1469there some fat in there? Is there stuff we are working on that1470is not really basic science or critical to our energy thing? I1471think there is. And I have not found a lab director yet that1472disagrees with me.1473    Senator Coons. I have visited four of the national labs,1474been very impressed with them, look forward to continuing to1475fund--support funding for them, and engage with them. But I1476have two more questions, and I will keep moving with my1477remaining time.1478    Secretary Wright. You bet.14791480                             HYDROGEN HUBS14811482    Senator Coons. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law created1483hydrogen hubs and tasked DOE with implementing them, and I1484worked with bipartisan delegations from Pennsylvania, New1485Jersey, Delaware, with unions, with universities, with our oil1486refineries, three of them, and we ultimately secured an award1487from DOE for the Mid-Atlantic Clean Hydrogen Hub. I want to1488thank you for sending the pre-award funding that was just1489received last week.1490    Overall, this grant and leveraged private partnership would1491get $750 million in Federal, $2 billion in leveraged private1492investment over a decade to create thousands of good-paying1493jobs. My concern is that the hubs program is a key part of re-1494industrialization, and I legislatively helped create the Office1495of Clean Energy Demonstration, or OCED, in statute, and I am1496concerned the workforce has been hollowed out and that they1497will not be able to actually implement this and other programs.1498    There are others I could cite, the Loan Program Office, the1499Office of Manufacturing and Energy Supply Chains, and others,1500with something like 4,000 DOE employees encouraged to retire or1501terminated, you have lost about 20 percent of your workforce.1502How can nuclear--we will take nuclear--as an emerging critical1503American competitive technology be supported by the Loan1504Program Office when the House Reconciliation Bill would gut it1505and your budget zeroes it out? How does LPO (Loan Programs1506Office) function at the cutting edge of energy?1507    Secretary Wright. I think LPO is critical at the cutting1508edge of energy. It is really the most efficient tool we have in1509the Department to help emerging energy technologies. So, I1510absolutely want to see funding. I want to see the Loan Program1511Office able to lean in on emerging technologies. It is our1512greatest bang for the buck to help technologies. And I know1513that comes to the Senate next. I am making a plea. I would very1514much----1515    Senator Coons. Don't enact the budget we send; enact a1516budget you know we need. And we may end up--forgive me, just1517speaking for myself in the last ten seconds, Mr. Chairman--we1518may end up saying, you must have this many people here, and1519this many people here, and this many people here, because when1520certain functions get down to a handful of people, I would love1521us to see that the LPO is actually able to meet the mission.1522    Secretary Wright. We would be able to meet the mission.1523    Senator Kennedy. Senator Murkowski.1524    Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciated1525that exchange and a little bit of that candor. I appreciate1526that.1527    Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here. Thank you for your1528leadership. I know that folks in Alaska are looking forward to1529you heading north in a couple of weeks along with Secretary1530Burgum, and Administrator Zeldin, as well as a good handful of1531folks from our national labs. So, it is a big deal. We1532appreciate it.1533    I had a chance this morning to have Secretary Burgum before1534our Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, and while he didn't1535outline some of the initiatives that may be unfolding when you1536are up there, I hope that you take the time to really get close1537to those that are making things happen on the ground. I know1538they are going to have some questions to you about the status1539of some of the programs through the Department of Energy.15401541                            ALASKA PROJECTS15421543    And I hear what you are saying about you are not freezing1544anything, but there is review that is going on. I know one of1545the proposals that people are anxious about is the CarbonSAFE1546Phase III up North. This is what they are working on on the1547North Slope with regards to a carbon project that helps to1548facilitate and really enhance the build out of our oil1549operations up in the North Slope. So, you will be hearing those1550questions from folks, and I know you are going to be teed up on1551it.1552    Along some of the same lines that Senator Coons was1553mentioning, just in terms of the ability to do the work that we1554expect within the different offices. You noted in your opening1555comments just the great innovation that we have seen in oil,1556and gas, and in coal and how we are moving that forward. We1557have also seen that within the renewable energy space, and the1558EERE is looking at a cut here. You are going to have reductions1559in forces in that Department.1560    I reminded Secretary Burgum in a prior conversation that as1561rich as we are in our oil, in our gas, and in our coal, so many1562of our communities are so isolated, they will never, ever, ever1563be part of anybody's grid. And so, the successes that we have1564seen with microgrids, and how you take a little bit of wind,1565and a little bit of solar, and a little bit of--call it a run-1566of-river, or maybe you have some good storage, we are1567pioneering, we are ``imagineering'' in ways that people can't1568begin to appreciate. And some of the folks within your national1569labs have come up and seen it and remarked on it.1570    So just know that we are looking at the cuts to EERE. I am1571a little worried that perhaps things like microgrids get left1572behind. This will be the energy security for so many areas that1573have to figure it out on their own. They will not have the1574opportunity to plug in to Alaska's natural gas, and so I am1575just, I am putting that out there to you.1576    Secretary Wright. Yes.1577    Senator Murkowski. I also wanted to raise the issue of the1578Office of Indian Energy. As you know, I am the chairman of the1579Indian Affairs Committee, and we were successful in getting1580DOE's Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs up off the1581ground and get the Tribal Energy Loan Guarantee Program going.1582I have been disappointed with how it has struggled.1583    Your skinny budget does not make any mention of the Office1584of Indian Energy or any of the projects that we are working on1585specifically to tribal energy development. Can you give me any1586review or oversight as to where you may be taking that?1587    Secretary Wright. Yes. Thank you, Senator. And as we know,1588we both share that passion for energy to remote communities,1589energy to disadvantaged peoples. I think that is a critical1590area of focus for business and for government. So I can't1591provide any more, you know, department-wide thing in front of1592the budget that will be released, but I think the things you1593mention are unique and they are specific, and those are things1594that make sense for us to work on. We have national labs that1595are working on these problems, new solar materials as well,1596getting remote energy, getting energy to communities that don't1597have good access to it. I think that remains in the wheelhouse.1598    There is a big percentage cut to EERE, but it has got a1599ginormous budget. For everything it works on combined, it is a1600little over 3 percent of American energy, you know, and it has1601received hundreds of billions of dollars of subsidies and had1602tax credits for 30 years. So, you know, wins--you know, big1603government dollars thrown at something whose main impact has1604been to make electricity more expensive and not add1605meaningfully to the global or national energy system. I don't1606think it is unreasonable to shrink that. You talk about1607specific applications, remote energy, that is different.1608    Senator Murkowski. Well, and as you and I have discussed at1609some length, it is this issue of affordability, and your very1610keen focus it has to be--the energy has to be accessible, yes,1611but we have got to focus on the affordability place. Many1612people fail to appreciate, because we have got such1613extraordinary resources, that we pay some of the highest energy1614costs in the United States in our State. And so, everything1615that we can do to find those unique, discrete energy solutions,1616and this is why we count on some of the really bright people1617around here to make it happen.1618    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.1619    Secretary Wright. Thank you.1620    Senator Kennedy. Senator Ossoff.1621    Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.1622    Mr. Secretary, good to see you. Welcome.1623    Secretary Wright. Thank you.16241625                             GRID UPGRADES16261627    Senator Ossoff. A strong, resilient grid is an important1628contributor to America's energy security, yes?1629    Secretary Wright. Yes.1630    Senator Ossoff. In the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, with1631strong bipartisan majorities, we established new efforts to1632support state, governments, and utilities at upgrading their1633grids to make them more resilient, more reliable, and more1634efficient. And in 2023, the State of Georgia was awarded $2501635million to implement, in partnership with three utilities,1636Oglethorpe Power, Georgia Transmission, and Georgia System1637Operations grid upgrades across the State. Each dollar, by the1638way, matched by these utilities, private skin in the game as1639well.1640    And this is especially important in rural Georgia. Just to1641paint the picture for you, after the storm last fall, Hurricane1642Helene, the outages lasted for weeks, and weeks, and weeks.1643There was not the manpower or the capacity to repair all the1644damage. There is a real need for grid upgrades in Georgia, and1645these funds have been obligated, but I understand are now in a1646state of limbo pending review, additional questions being1647asked, driving some significant uncertainty in Georgia because,1648(a) my constituents want a world-class upgraded energy grid,1649and (b) these private companies have already themselves1650committed tens of millions of dollars of capital to this1651project.1652    So where does that stand, and when will we have an answer1653on whether those funds, which again have already been obligated1654and are part of a bipartisan piece of legislation, are indeed1655going to be headed to Georgia?1656    Secretary Wright. Yes, Senator Ossoff, thank you for your1657question and your comments. I agree, grid stability, and do we1658have challenges there, absolutely; is there work to be done1659there, absolutely. I don't think you were here when I first1660laid out the reason--one of the reasons we are doing these very1661careful reviews was it is a similar story for the grants as the1662Loan Program Office. But I will give the numbers from the Loan1663Program Office, it extended $43 billion of credit in the 151664years it existed as an office, and then in the 76 days after1665the election last November----1666    Senator Ossoff. This is not an LPO. This is not an LPO1667award?1668    Secretary Wright. It is the same thing on the other side. I1669will just say it this way then, of those grants that you are1670talking about, those commitments that have been made more money1671was committed in the 76 days from the election----1672    Senator Ossoff. Forgive me, Mr. Secretary, but my time is1673limited. And the question is: when will my constituents have an1674answer?1675    Secretary Wright. This summer. This summer, we put together1676a team, a process. We are engaging with the lenders, and we are1677running through them. And everyone that is viable, that is1678going to help the community of Georgia that is financially1679viable, those are the things that will go forward.1680    Senator Ossoff. What I mean, this is, again, bipartisan1681legislation, grid upgrades, bipartisan support in Georgia,1682award to the State of Georgia, private investment to accompany1683it, clear unmet need, let us have a follow-up conversation1684about how we can expedite consideration of that, because there1685is just tremendous uncertainty that has been created by this1686insistence on a grant-by-grant-by-grant, loan-by-loan-by-loan1687scrubbing of everything against ideological criteria at OMB.1688    And I understand that you want to make sure that public1689dollars are well used, but these are obligated funds that were1690appropriated on a bipartisan basis in Congress.16911692                  DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY PROJECT REVIEW16931694    I want to raise one more key Georgia concern with you. Are1695you familiar with the Blue Bird Corporation, the most famous1696school bus in the world?1697    Secretary Wright. Okay.1698    Senator Ossoff. Blue Bird, made in Georgia. We are proud of1699it.1700    Secretary Wright. I recognize the name, but no not--okay,1701made in Georgia.1702    Senator Ossoff. And there is growing demand from local1703school districts for electric school buses for all kinds of1704good reasons. And the Blue Bird Corporation wants to get in on1705this and be able to meet that market demand. They have invested1706$80 million of private capital to retool an aging manufacturing1707facility to produce those electric school buses. That was1708matched by an $80 million Federal grant from the Department of1709Energy.1710    And similarly, and again, I frankly don't need, don't have1711time, with all due respect, for the big picture on what you are1712doing and why you are doing it, I sort of understand the1713talking points on that. What I want to convey to you is how1714important this is to Middle Georgia. This is one of the most1715storied and successful companies in Georgia history. When this1716grant was awarded, Peach County Industrial Development1717Authority called it an awesome win for our community. Fort1718Valley Mayor Jeffery Lundy said it is Celebration day. I got a1719quote from a councilman here who said that: When Blue Bird goes1720up, Fort Valley goes up; when Blue Bird goes down, Fort Valley1721goes down.1722    And again, we have got private capital that has been1723hazarded, that has been invested, and expectation, a lot of1724commercial decisions that have been made assuming the Federal1725Government will make good on its commitments for funds it has1726obligated. When can Blue Bird expect an answer?1727    Secretary Wright. This summer, I think, is the timeframe1728that we will get to ---1729    Senator Ossoff. This summer like June, this summer like1730July, this summer like August?1731    Secretary Wright. I can't get you that date right now, but1732it will be done this summer.1733    Senator Ossoff. And you understand, Mr. Secretary, the cost1734of prolonged uncertainty, especially for these private1735companies, yes?1736    Secretary Wright. I do. And if you reviewed the portfolio1737of things I have looked at that don't check the boxes you1738talked about, you would understand why I can't just send out1739hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money to bridges to1740nowhere.1741    Senator Ossoff. I am asking you to make good on obligations1742that have already been made to the State of Georgia. We will1743follow up on this directly as well.1744    Thank you so much.1745    Senator Kennedy. Senator Hagerty.1746    Senator Hagerty. I want to thank you, Chairman Kennedy,1747Vice Chair Murray, for holding this meeting.1748     And Secretary Wright, it is wonderful to see you here. I1749have enjoyed getting to know you, and I am so pleased that1750someone with your expertise and background is playing the role1751that you are for our Nation. You and I have discussed this1752before, but the United States is at a pivotal moment in energy1753production. It is not just for our Nation; it is for the entire1754world. But before I go on, I would be remiss if I didn't thank1755you for coming to visit my home State of Tennessee just days1756after you were confirmed as U.S. Secretary of Energy.1757    I was pleased to be there with you in East Tennessee, and I1758think you know Tennessee has been at the forefront of what you1759have called yourself as the Manhattan Project 2.0, and I was1760very pleased to introduce you there, and to talk about how we1761can leverage the deep technological expertise that we have1762there in our home State, as you take this Department and lead1763our Nation toward a new energy future.1764    I think if we look toward the critical advancements in1765artificial intelligence, and quantum computing, advanced1766manufacturing, they will define the 21st century. And all of1767these technologies require massive amounts of energy to1768succeed. So, you are really at the cusp of what it is going to1769take for our Nation to remain at the forefront and create the1770competitive advantage necessary for us to dominate future1771technologies. It is going to take strong leadership and energy.1772    And if we fail, I think the U.S. really risks ceding ground1773to adversaries, like the Chinese Communist Party. But I really1774believe that, as you have described, America is at the1775threshold of an American golden age in energy, and that1776revolution is going to happen with your leadership.17771778                         SMALL MODULAR REACTORS17791780    I would like to turn to a specific point that we have1781discussed, that is, small module reactors. They are widely seen1782as the future of nuclear technology because they address the1783biggest challenges that have held back traditional nuclear1784power. And by that, I mean specifically cost, scale,1785flexibility, time to deployment. Tennessee right now is the1786nation--has the nation's only early permit for an SMR (Small1787Modular Reactor).1788    And just yesterday the Tennessee Valley Authority submitted1789their construction permit application to the Nuclear Regulatory1790Commission. And as we explore SMR deployment at the Clinch1791River site and through partnership with the Oak Ridge National1792Lab, I am very hopeful that Tennessee can become the catalyst1793for the United States' nuclear energy resurgence.1794    But if we could zoom out a bit, Secretary Wright, I would1795like to ask you how you see nuclear energy, particularly SMRs,1796playing a central role in advancing and achieving American1797energy dominance and grid reliability over the next decade?1798    Secretary Wright. Oh. I think it is critical, Senator. As1799you and I have discussed before, it is the critical technology1800that could scale wildly beyond where it is today, which is just1801electricity production, into huge-scale electricity production1802and process heat, an even larger, more critical source of1803energy to make everything in the globe possible. So, I am all1804in with you on advancing nuclear.1805    If I can give an analogy, Senator Hagerty, you talked about1806the stress we need a lot more energy to meet this AI challenge.1807To give an analogy, imagine if the Military, the Department of1808Defense, set out a quote to the defense companies and said: We1809want to buy tanks. We will pay full price for high-performance1810tanks, but you can deliver us a tank that only moves some of1811the time, maybe when the sun is shining, and it only will shoot1812maybe when the wind is blowing. And so, it is an1813underperforming tank, but we will pay you full price for it.1814And further, we will give you a subsidy to build the factory to1815build these tanks.1816    So, what do you think is going to happen, right? You are1817going to get paid to deliver an inferior tank. Of course, you1818are going to do it. And then what happens to your army? It is1819not just the poor kids that are in those tanks, it is the kids1820that are in all the other tanks that now have underperforming1821partners in the battle that are at risk. That is what we have1822done to our electricity grid. We have burdened electric,1823nuclear, and natural gas--and all our dispatchable energy1824sources, with an unreliable, turns on sometime, turns off the1825other time, not there when you need it at peak demand, but yet1826we pay at the same price and we subsidize the development of1827it.1828    It has not only made the grid more expensive, it has1829hampered the advancement of dispatchable energy technologies.1830    Senator Hagerty. Right.1831    Secretary Wright. Nuclear is the one that could burst1832through, but we need to fix some problems.1833    Senator Hagerty. To stay on this, I know you have thought1834this through, but what steps is your Department taking then,1835regarding SMRs, to deal with regulatory hurdles, the financial1836hurdles, the technological hurdles that may be in the way of1837further SMR, or more rapid SMR development?1838    Secretary Wright. Specifically, in our purview, we have1839offered up DOE lands for test and demonstration projects: Come1840do it on our land. We are building test facilities at the Idaho1841National Lab so you can bring your reactor and test it in a1842containment dome that is on DOE thing. Just through normal1843processes, this stuff just happens just deathly slow. And then1844I am very passionate about wanting to use the Loan Program1845Office because the developers of these reactors are going to be1846grade-A credit hyperscalers that are buying the power or other1847things. But there is just not debt capital for these new1848reactors.1849    I want to get grade-A equity capital. I want to match it1850with LPO debt to get shovels in the ground and start building1851these reactors, because as we build them, the costs will come1852down.1853    Senator Hagerty. Absolutely.1854    Secretary Wright. The reliability, they will be1855commercially bankable. We will get to a great place. But1856relaunching the nuclear industry is not going to be trivial,1857and your efforts, and I hope the DOE efforts, it is going to1858take all of us to make it happen, but huge upside for all of us1859if we do it.1860    Senator Hagerty. Well, I think the members of this1861committee as your partners in that regard.1862    Thank you, Mr. Chair.1863    Secretary Wright. Thank you, Senator.1864    Senator Kennedy. Senator Peters.18651866                            GRID RELIABILITY18671868    Senator Peters. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary1869Wright, just this past weekend, severe storms knocked out power1870for over 150,000 Michiganders in West Michigan. This comes only1871literally a few short weeks after an ice storm left as many as1872300,000 people without power across northern Michigan, as well1873as a large part of our Upper Peninsula. Events like these, as1874you know as well, are becoming too common, especially in1875Michigan, but all across the country. So, I think it is very1876clear that power infrastructure is in dire need of upgrades,1877particularly resiliency, given the fact that storms are coming1878at greater frequency and are more severe than we have seen in1879the past.1880    So simply put, we just have to invest in the grid. And1881actually, this is something I think we all agree on in a1882bipartisan way. And believe it or not, even here in Congress,1883we have come together to agree on that. I think it is one of1884the few things. And it was part of the infrastructure law that1885we passed, that we allocated much-needed funding on a1886bipartisan basis to address grid resilience nationwide.1887    But from what I am hearing in my State, and this is my1888concern, the Department of Energy has been unwilling to1889communicate with grant selectees or allow this funding out the1890door to let them start this critical work, especially as people1891are out of power. The frustration is that they call, and they1892basically get no answer, no response whatsoever. You have1893basically gone dark. And that is incredibly disappointing,1894given folks are living in the dark, and then you are dark in1895terms of even trying to come back with any kind of answer.1896    So, all I want to know is why. I don't want to hear that it1897is because you are reviewing everything all over again, because1898right now the Department of Energy is sitting on their hands,1899and there are folks in my State that are still waiting,1900literally, for the lights to come back on. So please tell me1901what has kept the Department of Energy, under your watch, from1902communicating, simply communicating, with those selected to1903receive these grid resilience grants? And when do you expect to1904be disbursing funds so that these projects can get underway?1905    Secretary Wright. Well, I would love the phone numbers,1906because I am not aware of any unreturned phone calls. So, if1907you have got companies in your thing, please, you can hand me1908the phone numbers right now. We will call them today. So, we1909are engaged with all the counterparties on our deals that are1910going on. We are gathering information, we are gathering data;1911we are communicating. For things that are already awarded and1912work is in progress, we are paying our bills.1913    We are getting a little bit of additional information from1914companies because the vast majority of the counterparties never1915delivered a business plan, never delivered something credible,1916but yet they were given a vague promise of funding. We have1917continued to fund the things that are in place. But there has1918clearly been an abuse of tens of billions of dollars of1919taxpayer money, and I want to make sure that when we are1920sending money to someone, there really is a business on the1921other end, they are really going to have a product that is1922viable at the end--and that that product is going to benefit1923the American taxpayers at the end.1924    We are all for those things. Grid reliability is right in1925the wheelhouse. So, I think, you know, there have been all1926sorts of things about how we have cancelled everything. They1927are just not true.1928    Senator Peters. Well, I am hearing that. So, I will take1929you up on an offer.1930    Secretary Wright. Yes.1931    Senator Peters. Let us know. Our team will follow up with1932your team. I appreciate your commitment to make those calls. I1933can tell you, at least the ones that have come to me are very1934credible institutions and companies. And so, there is a real1935problem there, and it raises a real alarm for me. So, I1936appreciate your willingness to get on the phone or get whoever1937you have to get on the phone, and we will follow up later today1938or tomorrow.1939    Secretary Wright. Thanks for raising that. We absolutely1940want to connect. I can assure you, no one at the DOE is sitting1941on their hands and just ignoring people's phone calls. That is1942just not the way we roll.19431944                    FISCAL YEAR 2026 BUDGET REQUEST19451946    Senator Peters. Well, good. Let us get to the bottom of1947that. I also see the President's budget calls for the1948cancellation of over $15 billion of bipartisan infrastructure1949funding. And in there, there is a brief description1950accompanying that cut, the $15 billion cut, mentioning, quote,1951``battery makers'' end of quote. That makes me think you are1952referring to the Battery Manufacturing and Recycling Grants1953Program, or the Battery Materials Processing Grant Program.1954    If so, I hope you know that that could mean hundreds of1955good-paying jobs that are going on in Michigan right now, a lot1956of incredible work in batteries. In fact, there was a recent1957announcement you may have seen from General Motors, that new1958battery chemistry they are announcing, with incredibly longer1959range, lightweight, uses less critical minerals, exciting1960things that are happening. So, to see this is concerning.1961    So, I want to know, is that what the President's skinny1962budget sets out to do? Zero out the Battery Manufacturing and1963Recycling Grants Program, and the Battery Materials Processing1964Grants Program? And if so, should I take that to mean that1965domestic manufacturing is not a priority for the1966administration?1967    Secretary Wright. Domestic manufacturing is absolutely a1968priority for the administration, absolutely. One clarification1969too--sorry--not provided there. That $15 billion you mentioned,1970right there, none of that is committed to any company. There is1971no counterparty on that. That is just non-placed funds.1972    Senator Peters. So, it is not going to be cut. We are1973hearing that it----1974    Secretary Wright. That is not cuts to any business----1975    Senator Peters. The President budget calls for the1976cancellation of over $15 billion, so.1977    Secretary Wright. Because it has been unallocated. It1978hasn't been committed to anyone, and their proposed budget is1979to rescind it back to the Treasury.1980    Senator Peters. So, for this company, it is not coming1981back, it is gone. That money is going to be rescinded back?1982    Secretary Wright. Yes, that is the proposed budget, but it1983is not for any existing current projects.1984    Senator Peters. We will follow up with you on that as well.1985    Secretary Wright. Yes. Thank you, Senator.1986    Senator Kennedy. Senator Merkley.1987    Senator Merkley. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.1988    If I understand right, you said you have not met a single1989nuclear company that is----1990    [Off mic]1991    Senator Merkley [continuing]. I have all those--those over199260 sometimes have a little technical problem--that is talking1993about the importance of public funding. Is that right?1994    Secretary Wright. Wait. Say that again? Sorry, Senator1995Merkley?19961997                             NUCLEAR ENERGY19981999    Senator Merkley. You said you have not met a single nuclear2000company that is talking about the importance of public funding?2001    Secretary Wright. No, I think--I may have been unclear. But2002what I responded to was I don't know of any nuclear company2003that said to me or anyone at our Department: Hey, you are2004pulling back. We are less likely to invest. I have been talking2005to everyone who will listen and everyone who visits about how2006we can work with nuclear companies to get things going, to help2007their project in all different avenues. In fact, I think we2008have been called the most constructive administration with the2009nuclear industry ever.2010    Senator Merkley. Yes, so I just wanted--if that had been2011your statement, it seemed out of sync with the fact that just2012this month, the state of the nuclear energy industry was one of2013the platforms that was hyper focused on Federal policies and2014programs that expand nuclear generation, an event that you had2015attended. So that does fit, then?2016    Secretary Wright. I mean, I have attended a number of2017nuclear events. One of them was yesterday or the day before, is2018that the event you are talking about?2019    Senator Merkley. Well, I was just trying to clarify because2020I think maybe the way it came out of your--maybe the way you2021had phrased it, didn't seem consistent with the record. But I2022think you have clarified it. Thank you.2023    Okay. And I know, for example, one company that was founded2024in Oregon has really advocated for public funding for the SMR,2025this is the NuScale company, and they have got a lot of funding2026over time to help them get through the Nuclear Regulatory2027process.20282029                 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY PROJECTS--SCHOOLS20302031    Turning to a challenge in my State: I have a small school2032district in Mosier, a tiny, tiny town in the Columbia Gorge,2033that has a-hundred-year-old building, and they got a grant to2034be able to redo their HVAC system. And they were very excited,2035it was actually a small school, often does not have a grant2036writer. They did not have a grant writer, the parent of one of2037the students wrote the grant. So, for them to be one of only 242038schools that got this was like a whopping big deal of2039celebration.2040    You can imagine the problems with a-hundred-year-old2041school, asbestos, and so on, and so forth. And so then, with2042the change of administration, they were first told that the2043funds were frozen. And then they were told they are not frozen,2044but they then could not reach a point of contact on how to2045proceed. And I know you have lost--well, let go a lot of staff,2046but there was no way to like: How do we go forward?2047    And then they proceeded to hear that, okay, they did reach2048a contact, and they were told that a final decision has not2049been made yet. And then they were told that they have to get2050DOE to approve their contractors. And so, this has just been,2051it is like one step to another of just a complete bureaucratic2052nightmare over the last 3 months. And can you have your team2053get these contractors approved and let this school get their2054project done?2055    Secretary Wright. Senator, absolutely. We will check into2056that right away. You know, we are here to serve the communities2057and serve the businesses of the country. So, I am not familiar2058with this story, but if you have marked----hopefully one of my2059staff has written down the name of the school, and we will dive2060onto it.2061    Senator Merkley. And we will get you a whole page on it.2062    Secretary Wright. Thank you.2063    Senator Merkley. Because the contractor was ready to go.2064The school that did not have much money has already done2065upfront costs, are just hanging out there. And it is a mess.2066And one of your staff members could hopefully, like: Okay,2067done. You have got a responsible contractor, you are free to2068go. Go for it.2069    And second, Frontier Oregon, which is the term we use for2070even more rural than rural, we have a Grant School District, it2071is a school district that includes John Day, a town that just2072lost its lumber mill, one that Senator Wyden and I had strived2073for years and years to keep open through a special agreement2074for the delivery of logs. Unfortunately, the owner wants to2075retire. They are tied up trying to figure out the transition.2076    But here is the school district, and it is also stuck in2077kind of a crazy space. So, without taking up your time with all2078the details, Grant County School District, the school district,2079can we get someone on your team to work with them to clear this2080up and let them--they have a--it is also an HVAC issue?2081    Secretary Wright. Yes, Senator. Thanks for raising that.2082Thanks for raising that. Sorry for their experiences.20832084                  BONNEVILLE POWER AUTHORITY STAFFING20852086    Senator Merkley. So, I wanted to turn to Bonneville Power2087Authority. Bonneville controls dozens of dams, a huge amount of2088electricity. They have to integrate wind energy, solar energy,2089meanwhile, on the Columbia River, they have the challenge of2090enough water for the barges to take the wheat to market. They2091have a challenge of the salmon. I mean, it is one of the most2092complicated--am I past 5 minutes already?2093    Senator Kennedy. That is okay.2094    Senator Merkley. Can you give me another moment?2095    Senator Kennedy. Everybody else went over. You go ahead and2096go over too.2097    Senator Merkley. All right, thank you. So, they had a bunch2098of people fired who are probationary. And we said: Oh, man,2099this is such a complicated area. And they need these employees,2100and some of them, I think 80 were rehired, but we have not2101gotten exact numbers. But then we had lost 200 in the first2102buyout. Another 160 have taken the second buyout, maybe that2103you have not approved those yet. Here is the thing, this is2104such a complicated system. We were really stunned by these2105whole initial firings, and the first buyout, because these are2106really experienced people doing really complicated systems. And2107so, was there careful analysis beforehand of the challenges2108they would face with the strategy of the buyouts?2109    Secretary Wright. With the buyouts, we have a clause that2110we need to approve them, and I think we have tried not to2111approve any in the power marketing administrations because they2112were short-handed when we arrived in this administration. So,2113they have been voluntary programs. They should not have even2114been extended the offer--they were probably extended the offer2115the second go-round, but the hope is not to lose more people2116from there.2117    Senator Merkley. Well, I was surprised in the hearing last2118week with Dan Newhouse that your response was you had just2119recently heard about their shortage. And this is such a2120complicated system, I encourage any strategies of buyouts or2121firings to do the analysis up front, especially when so many2122experienced people are needed to keep the grid functioning, and2123the water level right, and the salmon rules followed, et2124cetera, in such a system.2125    Secretary Wright. The dams are critical. Bonneville is2126critical. I agree, Senator.2127    Senator Merkley. Thank you. And by the way, they are still2128under a Federal hiring freeze, which is handicapping their2129ability to fill in the expertise that they need to replace the2130people who took the first buyout.2131    Secretary Wright. We will look into that.2132    Senator Merkley. Thank you.2133    Secretary Wright. We will look into that.2134    Senator Kennedy. Senator Murray, do you have anything else?2135    Senator Murray. I just have a couple comments. You have2136heard from my side, one after the other, of contracts that were2137canceled or frozen. These are real. You said no grants are2138frozen, no invoices unpaid. I don't know if you are not paying2139attention, or you have not seen it. But I just want to remind2140you, it is illegal to ignore the clear directions of Congress.2141These are programs, spending bills that we passed through this2142committee. They were signed into law. And if you are not--if2143you are canceling them, or freezing them, or whatever, that is2144impoundment, and it is illegal.2145    And I don't raise that concern lightly. I am deeply2146concerned, and we are hearing the same stories over and over2147again. I do have a list. You said you have not seen any. I will2148submit it for the record, of canceled and frozen grants. These2149are just a handful that we know about. So, we expect your2150office to follow through and to do it quickly.21512152                    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY SPEND PLAN21532154    Secondly, on the CR (Continuing Resolution) spend plan.2155That was required within 45 days. That is by law. Your2156Department still has not given that to us. And again, I don't2157raise this lightly. This committee, all of our committees, need2158to know where that money is going, where it is being spent.2159Hanford site is on the brink of having to lay off2160subcontractors and restart an entire reprocurement process on2161an important project because they are being directed now to2162hold off on implementing projects at fiscal year 2025 spend2163levels.2164    So, this is not efficient. And Congress requires that. And2165we need those fixed. So that is really critical. And we expect2166a real response not, you know, a nice little phrase.2167    And finally, on communication, you have heard it from2168several people. I appreciate that you are telling everybody,2169call my office we will call you back. But two-way communication2170is two-way communication. You told me you would pick up the2171phone whenever, but we are not getting calls back. People are2172not getting calls back. And I think it is really important that2173you know that. I know you told some people that you were too2174busy, but you told me to call whenever. I have tried to get in2175touch with you. It took us a month and a half to get a call2176scheduled. So, communication is not, you know: Someday I will2177call you back. It is unacceptable.21782179                          RESPONSE TO LETTERS21802181    And I do want to enter seven letters into the record that I2182have sent with colleagues over the past several months2183requesting information about what is going on at DOE, radio2184silence until yesterday. That was convenient. So, we need to2185get responses back to those letters. And I want to be on record2186saying that communication is not ignoring us.2187    [The information follows:]21882189[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]21902191    Senator Murray. Again, thank you very much for being here2192today.2193    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to it. We have got2194a lot of work ahead of us.21952196                          LOAN PROGRAM OFFICE21972198    Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Senator.2199    Mr. Secretary, I want to go back to some of your earlier2200testimony, be sure I heard it correctly. The 76-day period you2201are talking about, that is the period between the time that2202President Trump was elected and President Biden left office; is2203that right?2204    Secretary Wright. That is correct.2205    Senator Kennedy. And during that short period of time, 762206days, how much taxpayer money went out the door of the2207Department of Energy?2208    Secretary Wright. From the Loan Program Office in loans and2209commitments; $93 billion, well over twice as much as in the2210previous 15 years.2211    Senator Kennedy. So how do you vet and do due diligence on2212a loan in 76 days, one loan, much less $93 billion? How do you2213do it?2214    Secretary Wright. I think it is probably pretty clear it2215was not done in many cases. As I mentioned, I am told I am2216holding back clearly in-place stuff. There is lots of funds2217that have gone out the door and commitments that were made from2218businesses that provided no business plan, no numbers about2219their own financial solvency or how this project can actually2220work.2221    Senator Kennedy. So, you are telling me that the Department2222of Energy, in a 76-day period, before their boss was going to2223leave office, gave or loaned money to entities that had no2224business plan?2225    Secretary Wright. Correct.2226    Senator Kennedy. No financials?2227    Secretary Wright. Correct. A number of those were not--were2228before the 76-day period as well. I have come in with great2229concern about how this institution, this great American2230institution, has been run and how American taxpayer money has2231been handled. I am sorry everyone is upset that we are taking2232some time to do it, but what we have seen and what the record2233shows----2234    Senator Kennedy. I am not upset. I am not upset, could it2235be that--a lot of people say you have not returned your calls,2236could it be that you and your colleagues have returned the2237calls, but the people calling just did not like the answer?2238Could that be a possibility?2239    Secretary Wright. I am not aware of that. You know, I give2240my cell phone number to any Senator that wants it.2241    Senator Kennedy. I know you do.2242    Secretary Wright. And I return my calls.2243    Senator Kennedy. I mean, has your Department gone dark?2244Somebody said your Department has gone dark. Is it dark over2245there?2246    Secretary Wright. It doesn't look dark behind me.2247    Senator Kennedy. I don't see any of you sitting on your2248hands. Somebody made that charge. I see everybody's hands. Let2249me ask you something else, Mr. Secretary, does anybody ever2250come to the Department of Energy to get some of this free money2251and lie to you?2252    Secretary Wright. I have not experienced that, but I think2253it is a reasonable assumption that that has happened.2254    Senator Kennedy. Does anybody ever come to you, or is it2255conceivable that some of these folks that heard about this free2256money came to you with a half-baked idea?2257    Secretary Wright. I think it is very conceivable. In fact,2258I have seen such plans that were half-baked, it would be2259charitable.2260    Senator Kennedy. You are seeing plans about that didn't2261have a business plan, right?2262    Secretary Wright. Correct; a promise to develop one, to2263find a location.2264    Senator Kennedy. Just give me the money and I will develop2265the plan later.2266    Secretary Wright. Correct.2267    Senator Kennedy. And now you are going back through not2268money that has already been contracted, but you are going back2269through and checking each one of these loans and these grants2270to make sure there was no stealing, aren't you?2271    Secretary Wright. We are. We are.2272    Senator Kennedy. And to make sure there was no2273incompetence, aren't you? Is that correct?2274    Secretary Wright. We are looking at that, and yes, my blood2275pressure is rising right now just thinking about what we have2276seen and what did happen at the Department.2277    Senator Kennedy. And you are going to tell some of these2278boondoggles no, aren't you?2279    Secretary Wright. That is correct.2280    Senator Kennedy. And they are going to be upset, aren't2281they?2282    Secretary Wright. That is correct.2283    Senator Kennedy. And they ought to be upset, shouldn't2284they?2285    Secretary Wright. I don't think they should be upset. I2286think they should be ashamed.2287    Senator Kennedy. I am--it is rare that I am speechless, but2288I want to be sure I understood. The people running the2289Department of Energy for President Biden's administration2290shoveled $93 billion, not million, $93 billion out the door in229176 days. And it just happened to be the time between when2292President Trump was elected and President Biden, their boss,2293was leaving; is that right?2294    Secretary Wright. It is correct and distasteful, confidence2295undermining.2296    Senator Kennedy. My, God. Look, I hope you take whatever2297time you need to go through all of these projects penny by2298penny. I mean, I have heard this testimony today, well, it will2299cost jobs in my State. If somebody steals $50 million and goes2300and spends the money in their State, that is going to stimulate2301the economy, isn't it?2302    Secretary Wright. Yes, it will.2303    Senator Kennedy. But it is still stealing, isn't it? And it2304is still illegal, isn't it?2305    Secretary Wright. Yes.2306    Senator Kennedy. I mean, they were spending money at the2307Department of Energy like it was ditch water. Their budget went2308from $60 billion to $160 billion since fiscal year 2021. It2309just sounds to me like there were a lot of people coming to the2310Department of Energy who had all four feet and their snout in2311the trough. And I hope you will turn down the boondoggles and2312refer the thieves to the Department of Justice.2313    Secretary Wright. We will indeed. Senator, the one2314complication in there, too, is mixed in there are good2315companies doing good things, honestly, with credible plans.2316    Senator Kennedy. And you are trying to separate the wheat2317from the chaff?2318    Secretary Wright. Yes, that is what we are trying to do.2319That is our job, and we are doing it. But there is a lot of2320chaff.23212322                    STAFFING AT DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY23232324    Senator Kennedy. Let me ask you one final question, let me2325go back to how many employees you have now. There have been2326some allegations today that you have cut tens of thousands of2327employees. Is that accurate?2328    Secretary Wright. Well, I think the allegations were2329thousands, and our headcount will ultimately be reduced by2330thousands. But we are doing it slowly.2331    Senator Kennedy. You have 16,000 now?2332    Secretary Wright. Yes.2333    Senator Kennedy. And you think you can do it with fewer2334than 16,000?2335    Secretary Wright. Correct.2336    Senator Kennedy. What is wrong with that?2337    Secretary Wright. I think it is just common-sense business.2338    Senator Kennedy. Yes. Businesses do it every day in the2339real world.2340    Secretary Wright. American taxpayers deserve it.2341    Senator Kennedy. That has never happened in the Federal2342Government. I mean, it is easier to divorce your spouse than to2343get rid of a Federal employee up here. That is not the way the2344world works, is it, Mr. Secretary?2345    Secretary Wright. It is not the way the world should work.2346And I give enormous credit to President Trump, who had the2347boldness to say if there is a right thing that needs to be done2348and it is difficult, please do it. And so, yes, this is new2349territory. This is not what happens normally in the Federal2350Government. But it is what needs to happen periodically in the2351Federal Government.2352    And I give the credit to President Trump, who is willing to2353take the heat and has set the Departments free, make the2354changes you need to make to better serve American taxpayers and2355American consumers. And across his administration, that is what2356is being done.2357    Senator Kennedy. All right. On that note, I just wanted to2358clear that up, Mr. Secretary, because I--you know, I don't know2359you to be a person who does not return his phone calls or take2360care of business. And my guess is you don't tolerate people2361around you who take a cavalier approach to their job. And I2362wanted to get that on the record. I applaud you for being able2363to do the job with fewer people.2364    Thank you for being here today, thank you to all your2365staff. You all can't take the rest of the day off, it is2366still----2367    [Laughter.]23682369                     ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS23702371    Senator Kennedy. The hearing record is going to remain open2372for a week. Some Senators may send you additional questions.2373They might submit additional information for the record within2374that time. It is their prerogative. If they have questions, I2375hope you will try to answer them in a reasonable amount of2376time. I want to thank you for being here today.2377    [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but2378were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the2379hearing:]2380             Questions Submitted to Hon. Christopher Wright2381             Questions Submitted by Senator Mitch McConnell2382    Question. The U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources2383led a successful, bipartisan effort last year in passing the Nuclear2384Fuel Security Act of 2023 (NFSA) and the Prohibiting Russian Uranium2385Imports Act, both of which have been enacted into law. Specifically,2386the NFSA directed the U.S. Department of Energy to `` . . . promote2387diversity of supply in domestic uranium mining, conversion, enrichment,2388and deconversion capacity and technologies, including new capacity,2389among U.S. nuclear energy companies.''2390    Given efforts being undertaken with regards to the Department's2391Request for Proposals (RFP) for Low-Enriched Uranium (LEU) Enrichment2392Acquisition--can you commit that this program is working to promote a2393diversity of supply and technologies among companies that can provide2394LEU, additive uranium, and conversion supply to meet the needs of the2395existing nuclear fleet?2396    Answer. The Department of Energy's Office of Nuclear Energy is2397continuing forward with Request for Proposals (RFP) for Low-Enriched2398Uranium (LEU) Enrichment Acquisition, which are intended to spur2399additional domestic LEU production capacity, reduce reliance on Russian2400nuclear fuel, and ensure LEU demand is met through trusted sources.2401DOE/NE is working to meet this goal, which includes diversity of supply2402in the uranium fuel supply chain.2403                                 ______24042405             Questions Submitted by Senator Lindsey Graham2406MESC2407    Question. I appreciate the administration's commitment to ensuring2408taxpayer dollars are used responsibly and the backlog of grants left by2409the previous Administration. Can you provide an update on the expected2410timeline for a signed agreement with the following South Carolina2411applicants:2412  --TS Conductor2413  --Mercedes Benz Vans2414  --Ice Air (DE-MS0000059)2415    Answer. TS Conductor (DE-MS0000125)--MESC has a signed agreement2416with TS Conductor, as a fully conditioned award ($61,849,328 total2417project, $28,248,485 DOE share) that is not yet authorized to begin2418work, as it still requires finalization of the project's terms and2419timeline. DOE is continuing to conduct a thorough review of this2420project and is analyzing the responses to a recent data request. DOE is2421working expeditiously to complete this review in a timely manner.2422    Mercedes Benz Vans (DE-MS0000155)--MESC has a signed agreement with2423Mercedes Benz Vans, as a fully conditioned award ($569,983,704 total2424project, $284,991,852 DOE share) that is not yet authorized to begin2425work as it still requires finalization of the project's terms and2426timeline. DOE is continuing to conduct a thorough review of this2427project and is analyzing the responses to a recent data request. DOE is2428working expeditiously to complete this review in a timely manner.2429    Ice Air (DE-MS0000059)--This is a standard award ($34,999,068 total2430project, $17,499,534 DOE share) that has been authorized to proceed.2431MESC continues to receive and pay invoices on work conducted during2432Budget Period 1 (9/1/2024-9/30/2026) of the project. The project is2433contingent on further NEPA review through an Environmental Assessment2434and the outcome of the DOE's review of the projects including analysis2435of responses from a recent data request.2436    For all awardees, we are moving expeditiously through the process2437while conducting a diligent review. If there are any major concerns or2438issues encountered through the process, it may take longer to finalize2439our review. We remain committed to working with your office on these2440important matters as we continue to conduct this thorough review.2441    Question.2442LPO2443    Nuclear energy is critical to our national security and provides2444clean reliable power across South Carolina. The U.S. Department of2445Energy Loan Programs Office (LPO) plays an essential role in attracting2446private capital to ensure US leadership and meet our growing energy2447demand. Do you support a DOE Loan Office that has sufficient resources2448to support the construction of nuclear projects in the United States?2449    Answer. Yes, I support a Loan Programs Office that has sufficient2450resources to advance the Administration's energy dominance agenda. LPO2451is one of the most efficient and high impact tools that DOE has to2452support nuclear energy through financing nuclear projects in the United2453States. Notably, LPO is currently disbursing a loan to Palisades, the2454first restart of a nuclear reactor in U.S. history.2455    Question. The nation's nuclear arsenal needs modernization, and the2456key to this modernization strategy is the production of no fewer than245780 war-reserve plutonium pits. The Department of Energy and the2458National Nuclear Security Administration have determined that a two-2459site solution is required to meet the objectives of no fewer than 802460war-reserve pits per year. The Savannah River Plutonium Processing2461Facility, located at the Savannah River Site, is critical to meet the2462required plutonium pit objective and is slated to produce not fewer2463than 50 war-reserve pits per year. Do you commit to support all efforts2464to complete the construction of the Savannah River Plutonium Processing2465Facility?2466    Answer. Yes, I am committed to the two-site solution to produce no2467fewer than 80 war reserve plutonium pits, including at the Savannah2468River Plutonium Processing Facility.2469    Question. It has come to my attention that an organization seeks to2470acquire a sizable plot of land near the Savannah River Site,2471specifically near the Barnwell Gate. The Department of Energy has2472expressed concern over the transfer of this land to the community, as2473there is groundwater and surface contamination on the site. It is my2474understanding that there was funding requested in the FY25 budget for2475land transfers; however, due to the Continuing Resolution this funding2476was not appropriated. Do you commit to working with me and my staff to2477advancing this land transfer and site clean up?2478    Answer. The tract of land in question is not excess to DOE's needs2479and is not available for transfer. Additionally, it is not suitable for2480transfer since, as you note, contamination has leached from offsite2481operations onto the area, including surface and groundwater.2482Remediation would be required to protect human health prior to2483excessing any land. Since the extent of the contamination is thus far2484unknown, the extent and cost of such remediation is similarly unknown.2485After remediation, additional activities include an environmental2486baseline survey, archeological survey and report, moving/reestablishing2487the site barricade and building, establishing a new boundary fence, and2488revising all safety and security studies would be necessary.2489    Question. In December 2023, the United States imported nearly2490243,000 kilograms of uranium from China, despite there being no2491recorded imports from China between 2020 and 2022. Do believe the2492uptick of uranium imports from China pose a national security risk? Do2493you also believe China is helping Russia circumvent a ban on U.S.2494imports of Russian enriched uranium?2495    Answer. We feel that it is critical for the United States to2496establish domestic enrichment capacity to ensure that we are not2497reliant on Russian uranium. It is also important that Russian shipments2498are not supplanted by Chinese shipments of uranium. Therefore, DOE,2499along with other Departments and Agencies continue to track shipments2500of uranium from Russia and China.2501    Currently, foreign imports of low enriched uranium (LEU) are needed2502to meet our nuclear fuel needs, until we get our domestic nuclear fuel2503enterprise up and running, as directed by President Trump's executive2504orders.2505    While some imports to the U.S. from foreign sources may be2506necessary in the short-term, limiting the importation of foreign LEU2507mitigates several energy and national security risks:2508  --Supply chain: Concern has been expressed that foreign countries may2509        be exporting LEU into the U.S. at below-market prices. While2510        the data shows a significant decline in LEU price in 2023,2511        there is a demonstrated history of foreign ``dumping''2512        (biodiesel, steel, solar panels, EVs, etc.) to undercut2513        domestic competitors and dominate markets.2514  --National Security: Upon implementation of the Prohibiting Russian2515        Uranium Imports Act, there has been some concern domestically2516        as well as from international partners that Russia may attempt2517        to route LEU through foreign nations, effectively ``red-2518        washing'' the imports. DOE and other USG agencies have been2519        tracking imports from foreign adversaries to ensure the proper2520        implementation of the ban and to prevent the circumvention of2521        the ban on the import of LEU into the United States.2522                                 ______25232524            Questions Submitted by Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith2525    Question. The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and the National2526Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) are investing in the2527technology development of commercial radioisotope power systems (RPSs),2528a technology that converts the heat from the decay of radioisotopes2529into thermal and/or electrical power for national security and2530scientific missions. Due to the scarcity of the existing plutonium-2382531radioisotope for RPS technology from the U.S. Department of Energy,2532alternative RPS technology using strontium-90 (Sr-90) is being pursued.2533    The Waste Encapsulation and Storage Facility (WESF) at the Hanford2534Site holds the largest source of separated legacy Sr-90, with enough2535Sr-90 to power up to 200 RPSs for DoD and NASA. Two studies were2536completed by DOE-EM using FY21 appropriated funds, concluding that2537recovering these Sr-90 capsules during the existing wet-to-dry storage2538transfer effort planned by 2029 would have minimal impact on the2539overall project. DoD funded $3M in FY25 to begin critical path design2540and nuclear safety activities to ensure the availability of these2541capsules by early FY28.2542    Secretary Wright, we know that costs associated with defense2543nuclear waste cleanup rank as one of the largest liabilities in the2544entire U.S. Government. What creative opportunities, such as the reuse2545of legacy material and partnerships with the private sector, are you2546pursuing to reduce these long-term liabilities at nuclear cleanup2547sites?2548    Answer. The Department is partnering with American industry to2549eliminate environmental risks in a manner that saves money and enables2550beneficial reuse of materials the government does not need. Due to past2551national defense activities, some EM sites are home to materials that2552are suitable for beneficial reuse to enable American energy,2553innovation, and jobs.2554    To tap into this potential, unnecessary restrictions, such as the2555ban on the release on scrap metal from radiation areas and the2556moratorium on the free release of volumetrically contaminated metals,2557have been rolled back. This effort boosts potential reuse opportunities2558for nickel stockpiles as well as other metals at EM sites, while saving2559money on disposal costs--enabling a win-win for DOE, industry, and2560American taxpayers.2561    In Oak Ridge, Tennessee the Department is drawing down our2562inventory of uranium-233 while increasing the world's supply of a rare2563isotope crucial for a promising form of cancer treatment by 1,5002564percent. In Tennessee, we are also partnering with industry to provide2565materials the Department no longer needs for radioisotope power2566systems.2567    DOE has successfully partnered with private industry on beneficial2568reuse of nuclear materials at Oak Ridge and remains open to any2569potential additional opportunities at other DOE sites, including2570Hanford.2571    The Department is also transferring land no longer needed for DOE2572missions to local development authorities and governments in states2573like Tennessee, Ohio, and Kentucky to grow jobs, unleash commercial2574nuclear, fuel AI, expand private industry opportunities and produce2575more American energy.2576    The Department looks forward to working with Congress on these and2577other opportunities to transform liabilities into opportunities for2578American energy and innovation.2579    Question. The President's efforts to revitalize nuclear power2580production will enhance our nations' competitiveness, national2581security, and prosperity. My home state of Mississippi is extremely2582supportive of the Department's effort to modernize our nuclear2583infrastructure, increase safety and extend the lifespan of our existing2584commercial fleet. Your department has invested in Silicon Carbide2585material development through the Accident Tolerant Fuel program.2586Industry and Congress have been very supportive of onshoring this2587critical technology innovation, but the effort has recently stalled2588over seemingly bureaucratic delays, so I wanted to make sure you had2589visibility on this issue.2590    Mr. Secretary, what is the Department's plan to implement2591Congressionally allocated Silicon Carbide funding in an expedited2592manner to ensure that the program is completed as directed by the2593Congress?2594    Answer. The Department of Energy is pleased to continue to support2595U.S. nuclear leadership consistent with priorities and direction2596provided from Congressional appropriation. The Department has funded2597multiple industry-led efforts towards the development of Silicon2598Carbide (SiC) cladding concepts over a number of years. In December25992022, consistent with congressional appropriation, the Department2600awarded a multi-year incrementally funded SiC development award. The2601Department continues to obligate congressional appropriations on this2602award and has accelerated over $8 million to date. Originally SiC was2603included as a technology drive of the Accident Tolerant Fuels (ATF)2604effort, however because of our near-term focus this will be now more2605appropriately part of the Next Generation Fuels (NGF) effort.2606                                 ______26072608               Questions Submitted by Senator Mike Rounds2609    Question. The Department of Energy's support for large-scale2610scientific projects, such as the Long Baseline Neutrino Facility (LBNF)2611and the Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE), is a prime example2612of how Federal investment drives global leadership in science and2613technology.2614    What steps can be taken to make certain the LBNF/DUNE experiment2615timeline remains on track?2616    Answer. LBNF/DUNE is critical to maintaining U.S. leadership in2617particle physics. When completed, it will be the foremost neutrino2618experiment in the world. To successfully deliver the project on time2619and schedule, DOE will continue to emphasize sound project management,2620proactive risk management, and clear communication with all2621stakeholders. Given the scale and complexity of LBNF/DUNE,2622international partnerships are also critical to its success.2623    Question. The Sanford Underground Research Facility (SURF) in South2624Dakota plays a critical role in the LBNF/DUNE mission. As the deepest2625underground laboratory in the country, it hosts groundbreaking research2626in dark matter and neutrino physics. Would you being willing to visit2627the SURF facility?2628    Answer. The Sanford Underground Research Facility (SURF) in Lead,2629South Dakota, is important for advancing fundamental physics research.2630As the deepest underground laboratory in the United States, its depth2631provides natural shielding from cosmic rays, creating an unparalleled2632environment for highly sensitive experiments. This shielding is2633critical for detecting elusive particles like neutrinos and for2634searching for dark matter without interference from background2635radiation. DOE supports SURF through a cooperative agreement to foster2636underground science experiments that require this unique environment.2637Currently, SURF hosts groundbreaking research, including the LUX-ZEPLIN2638(LZ) experiment, which is actively searching for dark matter and has2639world-leading sensitivity in the search for dark matter particles. The2640LBNF/DUNE project is also under construction at SURF, further2641underscoring the facility's unique role in cutting-edge experiments. I2642hope to visit SURF in the future to see the innovative science being2643performed in this unique environment.2644    Question. A number of scientists have considered thorium as a2645potential alternative fuel for nuclear energy production. Countries2646such as India, China, and Canada have shown significant interest in2647thorium-related research. In the past year, China has successfully2648developed a thorium-fueled reactor. The Department of Energy has2649conducted some analysis of thorium as a reactor fuel at its national2650laboratories. Would you consider expanding research into the potential2651of thorium-fueled reactors?2652    Answer. The Department of Energy, as a premier U.S. research and2653development (R&D) organization, is pleased to execute far reaching R&D2654towards alternative nuclear fuel technologies. In fact, this is an area2655that DOE has studied in the past.2656    In 2023, the Department, as directed by the Energy Act of 2020,2657completed an initial assessment of nuclear fuel options other than2658uranium; ``Alternate Fuels: Thorium and Uranium-233.'' The report2659discusses holistically the historical use of Thorium in light water2660reactors (LWR) and Non-LWRs.2661    Ultimately, with limited USG resources, there isn't a sufficient2662economic driver associated with thorium. Nonetheless, China will not2663gain a military advantage over the United States by utilizing thorium2664reactor technology, as the U.S. military is currently and actively2665evaluating the realistic, near-term potential of deploying advanced2666reactor technology to power DoD facilities, as directed by President2667Trump's recent nuclear Executive Orders. But with the absence of an2668economic driver to establish commercial thorium fuel infrastructure and2669with the current abundance of domestic uranium, U.S. Government2670investment in a thorium fuel cycle is not warranted at this time. If a2671need for thorium fuel emerges in the future, this position may be2672revisited. Moreover, the proliferations risks associated with thorium2673fuels would also need to be addressed.2674    As such, the Department currently is focused on uranium fueled2675technologies; however, the Department continues to monitor2676developments.2677    Question. Numerous electric cooperatives in South Dakota have been2678awarded funding through the Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships2679(GRIP) program. These cooperatives intend to utilize the funding to2680address the increasing demand for transmission capacity in the region.2681It is my understanding that the Department of Energy's review of grant2682programs may be affecting the GRIP initiative. Could you please provide2683an update on when recipients of GRIP Round 1 and GRIP Round 2 funding2684might expect to hear back from the DOE regarding this matter?2685    Do you believe the purpose of the GRIP program aligns with the2686Trump administration's energy goals?2687    Answer. DOE has implemented a new policy to ensure responsibility2688for DOE's financial assistance that identifies waste of taxpayer2689dollars, protects America's national security and advances President2690Trump's commitment to unleash affordable, reliable and secure energy.2691DOE is committed to conducting a thorough review of these projects2692under its existing authorities to ensure they are among other things,2693financially sound and economically viable, aligned with national and2694economic security interests, and consistent with Federal law and this2695Administration's policies.2696                                 ______26972698              Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray2699    Question. As the only DOE National Laboratory stewarded by EERE,2700NREL delivers the scientific knowledge and innovations that advance2701energy technologies, systems, and markets. Its unique strength lies in2702developing and integrating technologies into robust, resilient2703systems--bridging foundational research with practical applications to2704lower energy costs, drive economic growth, bolster national security,2705and deliver abundant and reliable energy. Indeed, NREL is the United2706States' energy systems laboratory. Top-line funding consistent with2707enacted Fiscal Year 2024 levels for EERE is essential to safeguarding2708NREL's workforce, infrastructure, and cutting-edge capabilities--and to2709maintaining the United States' global leadership in science and2710technology. In Fiscal Year 2024, 64 percent of NREL's funding came from2711EERE programs, most of it for research and development (R&D).2712    Will you commit to protecting the R&D funding flowing to NREL at2713levels consistent with FY24?2714    Answer. The National Labs are the engines that drive research and2715development. We can both increase efficiency and drive innovation. EERE2716will prioritize research that supports true technological2717breakthroughs, which will maintain America's global competitiveness.2718    Question. EERE's Facilities and Infrastructure (F&I) Program2719ensures that NREL's existing research and support infrastructure is2720maintained and upgraded, helping to attract world-class scientists and2721develop innovative solutions to our most pressing energy challenges.2722The program supports maintenance and repair, operational readiness for2723safeguards and security, environment, safety, health, and quality2724(ESHQ), and general plant projects--as well as the operation of EERE's2725high-performance computing and NREL's Energy Systems Integration2726Facility (ESIF).2727    Will you commit to funding EERE's F&I Program at FY24 levels?2728    Answer. EERE's FY26 request for Facilities and Infrastructure to2729operate and maintain NREL decreases by only 5% from FY24 to FY26. This2730funding ensures continuity of essential laboratory operations. The2731request provides direct funding for operational activities of major2732facilities and infrastructure and site-wide investments, including the2733continued construction of the Energy Materials and Processing at Scale2734(EMAPS) facilities.2735    Question. NREL is in the final stage of constructing its Energy2736Materials and Processing at Scale (EMAPS) facility, which will2737accelerate the transition from scientific breakthroughs to commercial2738applications through collaboration with industry partners,2739universities, and other DOE labs. As global competitors like China2740invest heavily in their science and technology ecosystems, these2741capabilities are vital to meeting U.S. energy needs and sustaining2742leadership. Any reductions or delays in EMAPS funding could result in2743higher costs to taxpayers.2744    Do you support NREL's EMAPS construction, and are you prepared to2745fully leverage the facility to keep pace with global science and2746technology competitors such as China?2747    Answer. EERE's FY26 request for Facilities and Infrastructure2748includes the continued construction of the Energy Materials and2749Processing at Scale (EMAPS) facility.2750    Question. With rumors circulating about downsizing or disbanding2751EERE--and at a time of increasing demand across the energy system--2752there is growing concern that the Department's reorganization could2753leave its energy systems laboratory without a clear steward. In FY24,275464 percent of NREL's funding came from EERE's R&D and F&I programs,2755including every dollar of the critical Facilities and Infrastructure2756Program.2757    In your reorganization of DOE, where will stewardship of NREL--one2758of the ``Crown Jewels'' of American scientific innovation, to use your2759words--reside?2760    Answer. At this time, there has been no announcement of any plans2761to reorganize the Department.2762    Question. At your confirmation hearing, you stated that grid2763stability is your ``single biggest concern.'' This is no small2764challenge. Our electric grid is under increasing stress, with energy2765demand accelerating at an unprecedented pace due to AI and the2766proliferation of data centers. Research and development in energy2767systems will be critical to addressing this challenge--from smarter2768grid planning and modeling to advanced technologies that manage grid-2769related threats.2770    Will you commit to funding and prioritizing research and innovation2771in grid resiliency, reliability, affordability, and energy systems2772integration--areas where NREL plays a critical role?2773    Answer. Research and innovation in grid resilience, reliability,2774affordability, and energy systems integration are key priorities for2775the Office of Electricity and we commit to supporting them consistently2776with the President's energy dominance agenda and within the scope of2777appropriated funding levels and Congressional direction we receive.2778    Question. I have concerns about reports that DOE is undergoing an2779unprecedented reduction in staffing, with many employees facing forced2780retirements, administrative leave, or termination. Additionally, the2781Administration has extended a Federal hiring freeze until July 15. The2782reductions and hiring freeze are reportedly affecting program offices2783essential to implementing existing laws and managing awarded funds.2784DOE's ability to effectively execute its statutory mission depends on2785the presence of qualified, experienced personnel. A hollowed-out2786workforce cannot administer the complex portfolio of Federal energy2787programs Congress has funded.2788    How many DOE employees have been furloughed, terminated, placed on2789administrative leave, or taken a deferred resignation package since2790January 20, 2025?2791    Answer. As of the date of the hearing, DOE did not have full2792resolution of the number of employees who would enter the Deferred2793Resignation Program (DRP). Since January 20, 2025, DOE has not2794furloughed any employees.2795    The Department of Energy continues to take a hard business look at2796our current capabilities and how we need to evolve to meet growing2797energy needs. In partnership with OMB and OPM, DOE is evaluating agency2798mission and goals to ensure staff are strategically aligned to support2799agency priorities.2800    Question. What are DOE's plans for further staffing reductions,2801including through reductions in force, and which offices or program2802areas will be most impacted?2803    Answer. As of May 21, 2025, no action has been taken to develop an2804official/comprehensive reduction-in-force (RIF) plan for the Department2805of Energy.2806    Question. Why did DOE collect workforce data from the National2807Laboratories, including the number of laboratory employees and on-site2808contractors, and is the Department considering reductions in force at2809the National Laboratories?2810    Answer. DOE regularly collects workforce data because it is prudent2811practice, in managing our labs, to have an understanding of the size2812and composition of the workforce. Also, as directed by Executive Order2813(E.O.) 14222, ``Implementing the President's 'Department of Government2814Efficiency' Cost Efficiency Initiative,'' we conducted a review of all2815contracts and grants in order to reduce overall spending or reallocate2816spending to promote efficiency and advance Administration policies.2817Reduction in force is a term allocated to only Federal employees, not2818contractors. DOE is not aware of any plans from the National2819Laboratories to reduce staff.2820    Question. How will DOE ensure continuity of services, compliance,2821and oversight of active awards amid these reductions and hiring freeze?2822    Answer. DOE has an acquisition workforce with the knowledge, tools,2823and capability to manage and oversee active awards. Internal controls2824are essential and they are in place. We have also eliminated non-2825essential contracts and financial assistance agreements that are no2826longer effectuating program goals or agency priorities, freeing up time2827for our dedicated acquisition workforce to manage existing awards.2828    Question. What contingency plans exist to support grantees and2829contractors currently engaged in DOE-funded work, especially if their2830DOE points-of-contact are no longer available?2831    Answer. Contracts have explicitly defined deliverables and2832requirements and financial assistance agreements have clear objectives2833and outcomes. Contractors and grantees should have demonstrated past2834performance and expertise to appropriately deliver on their2835requirements. All contracts and financial assistance awards have2836Contracting and Grants Officers and Specialists to administer the2837awards.2838    Question. Please provide an update on the Water Power Technologies2839Office spend plan for the remainder of FY 2025. Additionally, provide2840information on any additional carryover funds from past fiscal years2841that have not yet been obligated/spent but are required to fulfill2842prior commitments. TEAMER, for example?2843    Answer. WPTO's FY25 spend plan and plans for prior year carryover,2844including plans for TEAMER, are still being finalized and undergoing2845departmental review.2846    Question. Cuts to research, development, and deployment at DOE2847destroy essential programs that allow companies to scale up new2848technologies. Getting a new device from the lab to a manufacturing line2849requires investment without guaranteed returns. This period is called2850the ``valley of death,'' and government plays a crucial role in2851shepherding companies through it during a time when private industry is2852reluctant to invest due to the inherent risk. Secretary Wright and Elon2853Musk both benefitted from DOE programs to get their companies over2854these ``valleys of death.'' Sec. Wright invested in Fervo, which2855received $5.6M from ARPA-E and up to $60M from the Office of Energy2856Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and in Natron, which received $19.8M2857from ARPA-E SCALEUP, and was on the board of Oklo, which received $4.5M2858from ARPA-E. Elon Musk's Tesla got a crucial $465M loan from the Loans2859Program Office to build the factory behind its first widely available2860model. Yet the President's Budget proposes cutting many of these2861essential offices.2862    Will DOE continue to provide support to companies facing the2863``valley of death?''2864    Answer. DOE is still evaluating awards to ensure appropriate2865resources are allocated efficiently, and that the Department's2866initiatives are in line with the statutory mission of DOE and the2867policies and priorities of the Administration. We thank you for2868understanding, as DOE is processing and evaluating all selections and2869awards in accordance with all laws, regulations, and fiscal2870responsibility, as efficiently as possible.2871    Question. How do DOE and DOGE justify these cuts given the2872important role these offices played in enriching their heads?2873    Answer. The Department is focused on streamlining operations within2874the agency to increase efficiency. We will continue to evaluate every2875program and office on a case-by-case basis to ensure that we are2876progressing the goal of American energy dominance as is the priority of2877this Administration.2878    Question. Actions to freeze and rescind funding for programs2879enacted under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), the2880Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), and annual appropriations are deeply2881troubling. These abrupt reversals--some in response to Executive Order288214154 and DOE's Secretarial Order on January 20, 2025--are causing2883severe uncertainty and economic risk for energy stakeholders and2884communities that depend on the continuity of these investments.2885    Is DOE currently honoring all legal obligations for previously2886obligated and executed awards, including those at the National2887Laboratories?2888    Answer. The Department of Energy is undertaking a review of its2889entire financial assistance portfolio. Any action taken will be2890consistent with the underlying statutory authority and terms of2891financial awards and Federal regulations.2892    Question. Will non-Federal recipients be reimbursed for work2893performed and invoiced prior to or during the funding freeze?2894    Answer. The Department of Energy will ensure that authorized2895invoices are paid.2896    Question. Has DOE provided the required reports to Congress on2897apportionment delays or violations of the Impoundment Control Act, as2898outlined in Federal fiscal statutes?2899    Answer. The Department is committed to meeting its statutory2900obligations and will follow the law.2901    Question. Will DOE commit to proactively updating Congress and2902stakeholders on the status of affected programs and personnel?2903    Answer. Yes.2904    Question. I am concerned by DOE's new policy that sets 10 or 15%2905limit to indirect costs, otherwise known as facilities and2906administrative costs, for research grants. Indirect cost support is2907critical to cover research-related expenses, such as laboratory2908equipment, facilities, and operations critical for cutting-edge2909research. Cutting off this support, especially without warning or input2910from stakeholders, severely impedes research institutions' ability to2911carry out the scientific work that has been authorized by Congress and2912has produced critical breakthroughs we all benefit from. Further, the2913ramifications of this policy will likely spread far beyond the grants2914themselves--maintaining U.S. competitiveness depends on our research2915institutions' world-class facilities, which are made possible through2916the use of indirect costs.2917    How did DOE comply with required procedures, or provide appropriate2918justification, to deviate from its long-standing indirect cost rate2919policies?2920    Answer. Due to pending litigation challenging Policy Flash PF 2025-292122 regarding indirect costs for Institutes of Higher Education, the2922Department of Energy (DOE) respectfully refers to its filings in Case29231:25-cv-10912-ADB in the U.S. District Court for the District of2924Massachusetts, and in particular, Document 47, the Opposition to the2925Motion for Temporary Restraining Order filed on April 22, 2025.2926    Due to pending litigation challenging Policy Flash PF 2025-252927regarding indirect costs for state and local governments, DOE2928respectfully refers to its filings in Case No. 6:25-cv-01458-MTK in the2929U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.2930    Note: DOE has issued several policies capping indirect and fringe2931costs--Policy Flashes PF 2025-25 (state and local government awards),29322025-26 (non-profit awards), and PF 2025-27 (for-profit awards). These2933policy flashes operate differently from Policy Flash PF 2025-22 in that2934they do not prescribe a fixed indirect cost rate (like 15%, as2935announced in Policy Flash PF 2025-22). Rather, they cap the total2936amount of indirect costs and fringe benefits that DOE will repay,2937expressed as a percentage of the total award amount.2938    Question. What steps is DOE taking to ensure that changes to its2939indirect cost policies do not cause immediate and irreparable injury to2940our universities' capabilities to train a next-generation energy2941workforce?2942    Answer. Due to pending litigation challenging Policy Flash PF 2025-294322 regarding indirect costs for Institutes of Higher Education, the2944Department of Energy (DOE) respectfully refers to its filings in Case29451:25-cv-10912-ADB in the U.S. District Court for the District of2946Massachusetts, and in particular, Document 47, the Opposition to the2947Motion for Temporary Restraining Order filed on April 22, 2025.2948    Due to pending litigation challenging Policy Flash PF 2025-252949regarding indirect costs for state and local governments, DOE2950respectfully refers to its filings in Case No. 6:25-cv-01458-MTK in the2951U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.2952    Note: DOE has issued several policies capping indirect and fringe2953costs--Policy Flashes PF 2025-25 (state and local government awards),29542025-26 (non-profit awards), and PF 2025-27 (for-profit awards). These2955policy flashes operate differently from Policy Flash PF 2025-22 in that2956they do not prescribe a fixed indirect cost rate (like 15%, as2957announced in Policy Flash PF 2025-22). Rather, they cap the total2958amount of indirect costs and fringe benefits that DOE will repay,2959expressed as a percentage of the total award amount.2960    Question. What are the long-term implications of this policy on the2961pipeline of future scientists and researchers trained through2962university programs?2963    Answer. Due to pending litigation challenging Policy Flash PF 2025-296422 regarding indirect costs for Institutes of Higher Education, the2965Department of Energy (DOE) respectfully refers to its filings in Case29661:25-cv-10912-ADB in the U.S. District Court for the District of2967Massachusetts, and in particular, Document 47, the Opposition to the2968Motion for Temporary Restraining Order filed on April 22, 2025.2969    Due to pending litigation challenging Policy Flash PF 2025-252970regarding indirect costs for state and local governments, DOE2971respectfully refers to its filings in Case No. 6:25-cv-01458-MTK in the2972U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.2973    Note: DOE has issued several policies capping indirect and fringe2974costs--Policy Flashes PF 2025-25 (state and local government awards),29752025-26 (non-profit awards), and PF 2025-27 (for-profit awards). These2976policy flashes operate differently from Policy Flash PF 2025-22 in that2977they do not prescribe a fixed indirect cost rate (like 15%, as2978announced in Policy Flash PF 2025-22). Rather, they cap the total2979amount of indirect costs and fringe benefits that DOE will repay,2980expressed as a percentage of the total award amount.2981    Question. Has DOE assessed the potential regional economic and2982workforce consequences of capping indirect costs on state, local, and2983non-profit implementation partners? If so, will DOE release that2984analysis publicly?2985    Answer. Due to pending litigation challenging Policy Flash PF 2025-298622 regarding indirect costs for Institutes of Higher Education, the2987Department of Energy (DOE) respectfully refers to its filings in Case29881:25-cv-10912-ADB in the U.S. District Court for the District of2989Massachusetts, and in particular, Document 47, the Opposition to the2990Motion for Temporary Restraining Order filed on April 22, 2025.2991    Due to pending litigation challenging Policy Flash PF 2025-252992regarding indirect costs for state and local governments, DOE2993respectfully refers to its filings in Case No. 6:25-cv-01458-MTK in the2994U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.2995    Note: DOE has issued several policies capping indirect and fringe2996costs--Policy Flashes PF 2025-25 (state and local government awards),29972025-26 (non-profit awards), and PF 2025-27 (for-profit awards). These2998policy flashes operate differently from Policy Flash PF 2025-22 in that2999they do not prescribe a fixed indirect cost rate (like 15%, as3000announced in Policy Flash PF 2025-22). Rather, they cap the total3001amount of indirect costs and fringe benefits that DOE will repay,3002expressed as a percentage of the total award amount.3003    Question. What will happen to existing (conditional and3004nonconditional) awards if they do not meet the new terms and conditions3005in this policy?3006    Answer. Due to pending litigation challenging Policy Flash PF 2025-300722 regarding indirect costs for Institutes of Higher Education, the3008Department of Energy (DOE) respectfully refers to its filings in Case30091:25-cv-10912-ADB in the U.S. District Court for the District of3010Massachusetts, and in particular, Document 47, the Opposition to the3011Motion for Temporary Restraining Order filed on April 22, 2025.3012    Due to pending litigation challenging Policy Flash PF 2025-253013regarding indirect costs for state and local governments, DOE3014respectfully refers to its filings in Case No. 6:25-cv-01458-MTK in the3015U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.3016    Note: DOE has issued several policies capping indirect and fringe3017costs--Policy Flashes PF 2025-25 (state and local government awards),30182025-26 (non-profit awards), and PF 2025-27 (for-profit awards). These3019policy flashes operate differently from Policy Flash PF 2025-22 in that3020they do not prescribe a fixed indirect cost rate (like 15%, as3021announced in Policy Flash PF 2025-22). Rather, they cap the total3022amount of indirect costs and fringe benefits that DOE will repay,3023expressed as a percentage of the total award amount.3024    Question. What data and models did DOE use to conclude that a3025uniform 10 or 15% cap would be sufficient and sustainable across such3026varied institutional types (e.g., universities, local governments, non-3027profits, for-profits)? Will DOE release this analysis publicly?3028    Answer. Due to pending litigation challenging Policy Flash PF 2025-302922 regarding indirect costs for Institutes of Higher Education, the3030Department of Energy (DOE) respectfully refers to its filings in Case30311:25-cv-10912-ADB in the U.S. District Court for the District of3032Massachusetts, and in particular, Document 47, the Opposition to the3033Motion for Temporary Restraining Order filed on April 22, 2025.3034    Due to pending litigation challenging Policy Flash PF 2025-253035regarding indirect costs for state and local governments, DOE3036respectfully refers to its filings in Case No. 6:25-cv-01458-MTK in the3037U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.3038    Note: DOE has issued several policies capping indirect and fringe3039costs--Policy Flashes PF 2025-25 (state and local government awards),30402025-26 (non-profit awards), and PF 2025-27 (for-profit awards). These3041policy flashes operate differently from Policy Flash PF 2025-22 in that3042they do not prescribe a fixed indirect cost rate (like 15%, as3043announced in Policy Flash PF 2025-22). Rather, they cap the total3044amount of indirect costs and fringe benefits that DOE will repay,3045expressed as a percentage of the total award amount.3046    Question. How does DOE justify this cap given that many3047organizations and governments currently operate with indirect cost3048rates significantly higher than the new proposed cap to cover essential3049research infrastructure and compliance?3050    Answer. Due to pending litigation challenging Policy Flash PF 2025-305122 regarding indirect costs for Institutes of Higher Education, the3052Department of Energy (DOE) respectfully refers to its filings in Case30531:25-cv-10912-ADB in the U.S. District Court for the District of3054Massachusetts, and in particular, Document 47, the Opposition to the3055Motion for Temporary Restraining Order filed on April 22, 2025.3056    Due to pending litigation challenging Policy Flash PF 2025-253057regarding indirect costs for state and local governments, DOE3058respectfully refers to its filings in Case No. 6:25-cv-01458-MTK in the3059U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.3060    Note: DOE has issued several policies capping indirect and fringe3061costs--Policy Flashes PF 2025-25 (state and local government awards),30622025-26 (non-profit awards), and PF 2025-27 (for-profit awards). These3063policy flashes operate differently from Policy Flash PF 2025-22 in that3064they do not prescribe a fixed indirect cost rate (like 15%, as3065announced in Policy Flash PF 2025-22). Rather, they cap the total3066amount of indirect costs and fringe benefits that DOE will repay,3067expressed as a percentage of the total award amount.3068    Question. What outreach or consultation--if any--did DOE undertake3069with university, non-profit, municipal, or private-sector stakeholders3070prior to issuing these policy changes?3071    Answer. A Policy Flash is a communication tool used by the DOE3072Office of Acquisition Management to disseminate acquisition or3073financial assistance-related information, guidance, and updates to3074procurement and financial assistance personnel. A Policy Flash simply3075informs the contracting community of a planned course of action. A3076Policy Flash is not a regulation; can be modified or cancelled at any3077time; is not subject to a public comment process; and does not have the3078force and effect of law. Policy Flash 2025-22 was an announcement of a3079planned course of action, along with the procedure to be used--3080application of a 15% indirect cost rate for grants to Institutions of3081Higher Education. The Policy Flash promised that ``[a]dditional3082information is forthcoming[,]'' including a ``separate notice and3083guidance'' to any recipients subject to termination of awards. Some DOE3084program offices sent notices to awardees after Policy Flash 2025-22 was3085issued, but due to an April 16, 2025 Court order that enjoined3086implementation of Policy Flash 2025-22 in any form, DOE has not pursued3087implementation of the Policy Flash or the indirect cost rate specified3088in it since that time.3089    Due to pending litigation challenging Policy Flash PF 2025-253090regarding indirect costs for state and local governments, DOE3091respectfully refers to its filings in Case No. 6:25-cv-01458-MTK in the3092U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.3093    Note: DOE has issued several policies capping indirect and fringe3094costs--Policy Flashes PF 2025-25 (state and local government awards),30952025-26 (non-profit awards), and PF 2025-27 (for-profit awards). These3096policy flashes operate differently from Policy Flash PF 2025-22 in that3097they do not prescribe a fixed indirect cost rate (like 15%, as3098announced in Policy Flash PF 2025-22). Rather, they cap the total3099amount of indirect costs and fringe benefits that DOE will repay,3100expressed as a percentage of the total award amount.3101    Question. What impact assessments has DOE conducted to understand3102how this cap will affect the financial viability of ongoing and future3103research projects?3104    Answer. Due to pending litigation challenging Policy Flash PF 2025-310522 regarding indirect costs for Institutes of Higher Education, the3106Department of Energy (DOE) respectfully refers to its filings in Case31071:25-cv-10912-ADB in the U.S. District Court for the District of3108Massachusetts, and in particular, Document 47, the Opposition to the3109Motion for Temporary Restraining Order filed on April 22, 2025.3110    Due to pending litigation challenging Policy Flash PF 2025-253111regarding indirect costs for state and local governments, DOE3112respectfully refers to its filings in Case No. 6:25-cv-01458-MTK in the3113U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.3114    Note: DOE has issued several policies capping indirect and fringe3115costs--Policy Flashes PF 2025-25 (state and local government awards),31162025-26 (non-profit awards), and PF 2025-27 (for-profit awards). These3117policy flashes operate differently from Policy Flash PF 2025-22 in that3118they do not prescribe a fixed indirect cost rate (like 15%, as3119announced in Policy Flash PF 2025-22). Rather, they cap the total3120amount of indirect costs and fringe benefits that DOE will repay,3121expressed as a percentage of the total award amount.3122    Question. Has DOE evaluated how this cap could influence the United3123States' position in global research and innovation competitiveness?3124    Answer. Due to pending litigation challenging Policy Flash PF 2025-312522 regarding indirect costs for Institutes of Higher Education, the3126Department of Energy (DOE) respectfully refers to its filings in Case31271:25-cv-10912-ADB in the U.S. District Court for the District of3128Massachusetts, and in particular, Document 47, the Opposition to the3129Motion for Temporary Restraining Order filed on April 22, 2025.3130    Due to pending litigation challenging Policy Flash PF 2025-253131regarding indirect costs for state and local governments, DOE3132respectfully refers to its filings in Case No. 6:25-cv-01458-MTK in the3133U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.3134    Note: DOE has issued several policies capping indirect and fringe3135costs--Policy Flashes PF 2025-25 (state and local government awards),31362025-26 (non-profit awards), and PF 2025-27 (for-profit awards). These3137policy flashes operate differently from Policy Flash PF 2025-22 in that3138they do not prescribe a fixed indirect cost rate (like 15%, as3139announced in Policy Flash PF 2025-22). Rather, they cap the total3140amount of indirect costs and fringe benefits that DOE will repay,3141expressed as a percentage of the total award amount.3142    Question. How does DOE reconcile these cost caps with existing3143negotiated indirect cost rates under OMB Circulars and 2 CFR 200,3144particularly where they exceed the new ceilings?3145    Answer. Due to pending litigation challenging Policy Flash PF 2025-314622 regarding indirect costs for Institutes of Higher Education, the3147Department of Energy (DOE) respectfully refers to its filings in Case31481:25-cv-10912-ADB in the U.S. District Court for the District of3149Massachusetts, and in particular, Document 47, the Opposition to the3150Motion for Temporary Restraining Order filed on April 22, 2025.3151    Due to pending litigation challenging Policy Flash PF 2025-253152regarding indirect costs for state and local governments, DOE3153respectfully refers to its filings in Case No. 6:25-cv-01458-MTK in the3154U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.3155    Note: DOE has issued several policies capping indirect and fringe3156costs--Policy Flashes PF 2025-25 (state and local government awards),31572025-26 (non-profit awards), and PF 2025-27 (for-profit awards). These3158policy flashes operate differently from Policy Flash PF 2025-22 in that3159they do not prescribe a fixed indirect cost rate (like 15%, as3160announced in Policy Flash PF 2025-22). Rather, they cap the total3161amount of indirect costs and fringe benefits that DOE will repay,3162expressed as a percentage of the total award amount.3163    Question. What specific exemptions, waivers, or appeal mechanisms3164will DOE make available for awards where capped indirect costs would3165result in program delays, layoffs, or funding shortfalls?3166    Answer. Due to pending litigation challenging Policy Flash PF 2025-316722 regarding indirect costs for Institutes of Higher Education, the3168Department of Energy (DOE) respectfully refers to its filings in Case31691:25-cv-10912-ADB in the U.S. District Court for the District of3170Massachusetts, and in particular, Document 47, the Opposition to the3171Motion for Temporary Restraining Order filed on April 22, 2025.3172    Due to pending litigation challenging Policy Flash PF 2025-253173regarding indirect costs for state and local governments, DOE3174respectfully refers to its filings in Case No. 6:25-cv-01458-MTK in the3175U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.3176    Note: DOE has issued several policies capping indirect and fringe3177costs--Policy Flashes PF 2025-25 (state and local government awards),31782025-26 (non-profit awards), and PF 2025-27 (for-profit awards). These3179policy flashes operate differently from Policy Flash PF 2025-22 in that3180they do not prescribe a fixed indirect cost rate (like 15%, as3181announced in Policy Flash PF 2025-22). Rather, they cap the total3182amount of indirect costs and fringe benefits that DOE will repay,3183expressed as a percentage of the total award amount.3184                                 ______31853186            Questions Submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin3187    Question. The President's ``skinny'' Budget Request calls for a3188$1.15 billion cut to the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science.3189The Office of Science is the primary sponsor of research in the3190physical sciences, the home of 28 cutting-edge user facilities, and a3191direct funder and operator of the National Labs. You previously3192described our National Labs as ``the crown jewel of our nation's3193scientific research,'' yet the Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 Budget Request3194calls for a roughly 14 percent cut to the Labs' primary funding3195mechanism. You also have claimed that DOE can, ``Do more with less.''3196Meanwhile China, our chief scientific rival, is reportedly investing3197tens of billions of dollars in critical technologies like artificial3198intelligence, quantum computing, and critical materials. In contrast3199with the 14 percent cut you propose, the Chinese government increased3200its basic science budget by 10 percent last December. While China3201doubles down on its scientific investments, the unprecedented cuts3202proposed in the President's FY26 Budget Request suggest that America3203plans to cede scientific leadership to China in these technologies and3204in basic science research.3205    How will you ensure American scientific competitiveness with China3206while gutting funding for the National Labs?3207    Answer. The President's Budget Request reduces funding for climate3208change and Green New Scam research, but maintains U.S. competitiveness3209in priority areas such as high-performance computing, artificial3210intelligence, quantum information science, nuclear energy (fission and3211fusion), and critical minerals. This funding level will refocus DOE's3212Office of Science to its core scientific priorities and cut spending on3213the previous administration's political priorities. DOE recognizes that3214the national laboratories play a vital role in advancing scientific3215discovery and technological innovation. They drive fundamental3216discoveries that underpin future technological advancements, pushing3217the boundaries of human knowledge in areas critical to national3218security and economic competitiveness. Their activities bridge the gap3219between basic research and practical application, translating3220scientific breakthroughs into tangible technologies with real-world3221impact. The President's Budget Request reflects a commitment to3222responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars, balancing broader3223Administration priorities. Strategic choices must be made to ensure3224resources are allocated to maximize overall benefit to the nation. This3225budget reflects a commitment to prioritize national laboratory3226investments that demonstrate the greatest potential for near-term3227impact, preserve the foundations for scientific discovery, and align3228with core administration goals.3229    Question. The FY26 Budget Request names quantum information science3230as a priority technology area for DOE. If the National Quantum3231Initiative Act is reauthorized to enable greater funding for quantum3232programs and technologies through the DOE Office Science, will you3233support increased appropriations to execute quantum activities at DOE?3234    Answer. QIS is a priority for the administration and DOE welcomes3235the opportunity to discuss QIS investments across the Department's3236portfolio in the context of a reauthorization of the National Quantum3237Initiative (NQI) Act. In FY 2020, DOE's Office of Science established3238five lab-led National Quantum Information Science (QIS) Research3239Centers, as called for in the NQI Act. These centers focus on3240accelerating transformational advances in basic science and quantum-3241based technology needed for world-leading capabilities in QIS. In3242addition to these centers, the Department of Energy, through the Office3243of Science, continues to prioritize investments in quantum research3244across all of its core science programs. At $329M in the Fiscal Year32452026 Request, QIS is one of the Office of Science's largest3246initiatives. These investments span foundational science, application3247development, and user access programs.3248    Question. Universities are a vital part of the science and3249innovation system in Illinois and across the country. For that reason,3250DOE's recent actions to restrict indirect cost recovery are a concern,3251as it could reduce investments and participation by U.S. universities3252in DOE's basic science programs, and limit scientific discovery. During3253the hearing, I was pleased to hear your willingness to engage3254universities in a constructive dialogue on this difficult issue. You3255referred to an invitation from DOE to U.S. universities to engage in3256such a dialogue, but there do not appear to be any public statements3257from you or DOE confirming such an invitation.3258    Will you share all written materials, whether publicly released or3259not, that solicited opportunities for dialogue with universities3260regarding the departmental indirect cost policy?3261    Answer. Due to pending litigation challenging Policy Flash PF 2025-326222 regarding indirect costs for Institutes of Higher Education, the3263Department of Energy (DOE) respectfully refers to its filings in Case32641:25-cv-10912-ADB in the U.S. District Court for the District of3265Massachusetts, and in particular, Document 47, the Opposition to the3266Motion for Temporary Restraining Order filed on April 22, 2025.3267    Due to pending litigation challenging Policy Flash PF 2025-253268regarding indirect costs for state and local governments, DOE3269respectfully refers to its filings in Case No. 6:25-cv-01458-MTK in the3270U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.3271    Note: DOE has issued several policies capping indirect and fringe3272costs--Policy Flashes PF 2025-25 (state and local government awards),32732025-26 (non-profit awards), and PF 2025-27 (for-profit awards). These3274policy flashes operate differently from Policy Flash PF 2025-22 in that3275they do not prescribe a fixed indirect cost rate (like 15%, as3276announced in Policy Flash PF 2025-22). Rather, they cap the total3277amount of indirect costs and fringe benefits that DOE will repay,3278expressed as a percentage of the total award amount.3279    Question. What is the specific time period during which this3280outreach was made, as well as the time period for responses to be3281gathered, including its end date?3282    Answer. Due to pending litigation challenging Policy Flash PF 2025-328322 regarding indirect costs for Institutes of Higher Education, the3284Department of Energy (DOE) respectfully refers to its filings in Case32851:25-cv-10912-ADB in the U.S. District Court for the District of3286Massachusetts, and in particular, Document 47, the Opposition to the3287Motion for Temporary Restraining Order filed on April 22, 2025.3288    Due to pending litigation challenging Policy Flash PF 2025-253289regarding indirect costs for state and local governments, DOE3290respectfully refers to its filings in Case No. 6:25-cv-01458-MTK in the3291U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.3292    Note: DOE has issued several policies capping indirect and fringe3293costs--Policy Flashes PF 2025-25 (state and local government awards),32942025-26 (non-profit awards), and PF 2025-27 (for-profit awards). These3295policy flashes operate differently from Policy Flash PF 2025-22 in that3296they do not prescribe a fixed indirect cost rate (like 15%, as3297announced in Policy Flash PF 2025-22). Rather, they cap the total3298amount of indirect costs and fringe benefits that DOE will repay,3299expressed as a percentage of the total award amount.3300    Question. Were any universities proactively approached or3301consulted, formally or informally, on this issue? If so, which ones?3302    Answer. Due to pending litigation challenging Policy Flash PF 2025-330322 regarding indirect costs for Institutes of Higher Education, the3304Department of Energy (DOE) respectfully refers to its filings in Case33051:25-cv-10912-ADB in the U.S. District Court for the District of3306Massachusetts, and in particular, Document 47, the Opposition to the3307Motion for Temporary Restraining Order filed on April 22, 2025.3308    Due to pending litigation challenging Policy Flash PF 2025-253309regarding indirect costs for state and local governments, DOE3310respectfully refers to its filings in Case No. 6:25-cv-01458-MTK in the3311U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.3312    Note: DOE has issued several policies capping indirect and fringe3313costs--Policy Flashes PF 2025-25 (state and local government awards),33142025-26 (non-profit awards), and PF 2025-27 (for-profit awards). These3315policy flashes operate differently from Policy Flash PF 2025-22 in that3316they do not prescribe a fixed indirect cost rate (like 15%, as3317announced in Policy Flash PF 2025-22). Rather, they cap the total3318amount of indirect costs and fringe benefits that DOE will repay,3319expressed as a percentage of the total award amount.3320    Question. A coalition of national organizations, including the3321Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities and the Association3322of American Universities, have announced an effort to develop a more3323efficient and transparent indirect costs funding model. Does DOE plan3324to engage with this effort?3325    Answer. Due to pending litigation challenging Policy Flash PF 2025-332622 regarding indirect costs for Institutes of Higher Education, the3327Department of Energy (DOE) respectfully refers to its filings in Case33281:25-cv-10912-ADB in the U.S. District Court for the District of3329Massachusetts, and in particular, Document 47, the Opposition to the3330Motion for Temporary Restraining Order filed on April 22, 2025.3331    Due to pending litigation challenging Policy Flash PF 2025-253332regarding indirect costs for state and local governments, DOE3333respectfully refers to its filings in Case No. 6:25-cv-01458-MTK in the3334U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.3335    Note: DOE has issued several policies capping indirect and fringe3336costs--Policy Flashes PF 2025-25 (state and local government awards),33372025-26 (non-profit awards), and PF 2025-27 (for-profit awards). These3338policy flashes operate differently from Policy Flash PF 2025-22 in that3339they do not prescribe a fixed indirect cost rate (like 15%, as3340announced in Policy Flash PF 2025-22). Rather, they cap the total3341amount of indirect costs and fringe benefits that DOE will repay,3342expressed as a percentage of the total award amount.33433344                          SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS33453346    Senator Kennedy. And the subcommittee will now stand3347adjourned.3348    [Whereupon, at 4:14 p.m., Wednesday, May 21, the3349subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of3350the Chair.]33513352                       ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT3353                    APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 202633543355                              ----------33563357                        WEDNESDAY, JUNE 11, 202533583359                                       U.S. Senate,3360           Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,3361                                                    Washington, DC.3362    The subcommittee met at 10:02 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen3363Senate Office Building, Hon. John Kennedy (chairman) presiding.3364    Present: Senators Kennedy, Murkowski, Hyde-Smith, Britt,3365Rounds, Murray, Merkley, and Peters.33663367                      DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL33683369                         Department of the Army33703371                       Corps of Engineers--Civil33723373STATEMENT OF MR. D. LEE FORSGREN, ACTING ASSISTANT3374            SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (CIVIL WORKS)33753376               OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN KENNEDY33773378    Senator Kennedy. The Energy and Water Development3379Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee will come to3380order. I want to thank all of our witnesses today. I think I'll3381start by deferring to the vice-Chair of the Appropriations3382Committee and the ranking member of this subcommittee, my3383colleague, Senator Murray. She'd like to make some comments,3384and then I'll have a few comments to make, and then we'll hear3385from our witnesses.33863387                   STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATTY MURRAY33883389    Senator Murray. All right. Thank you very much, Chair3390Kennedy. Good morning to all of you, acting Assistant Secretary3391Forsgren, Lieutenant General Graham, acting Assistant Secretary3392Cameron. Thank you all for being here today.3393    We are here today to talk about the fiscal year 2026 budget3394request for the Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of3395Reclamation. Whether they know it or not, every American3396depends on the work of these agencies every day, and that's3397especially true for folks in my home State of Washington, and3398anyone who lives out West, or near a major waterway.3399    The Army Corps keeps our ports running smoothly, which is3400critical for our economy and our trade. They manage critical3401infrastructure like our dams, levees, and bridges, and protect3402communities from dangerous floods. And they support our3403ecosystems and help protect keystone species like salmon among3404a lot else.3405    The Bureau of Reclamation brings water to over 30 million3406people and irrigation to 1 in 5 farmers out West. It generates3407power to keep the lights on in millions of homes, and it3408protects farmers and communities against drought to name a few3409things. It is critical work that we cannot afford to3410shortchange, but President Trump's budget request shows yet3411again that he has no clue and no problem gutting essential3412water investments our communities rely on to feed their3413families and stay safe from flooding.3414    The President's budget requests a nearly 25 percent cut for3415the Corps of Engineers. And when you consider the fact that3416House Republicans last yearlong CR (Continuing Resolution)3417already cut funding for the Corps, we are really talking about3418a nearly 30 percent cut for the Corps, relative to the funding3419level just a few months ago.3420    This request, for example, falls $1.7 billion below the3421target level for the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, leaving3422more than half of that target funding on the table. Not only3423that, you include just $60 million for donor and energy ports3424like my home State when our bipartisan Water Resources3425Development Act has specifically instructed that there be $4173426million for these ports. And President Trump's budget also3427proposes a massive 30 percent cut for the Bureau of3428Reclamation.3429    These cuts would end critical work on flood prevention,3430port dredging, basic management of our water resources and3431more. This is flat out dangerous, and Trump's budget is dead on3432arrival here in Congress as far as I'm concerned. But we have a3433lot more to cover beyond the budget request because as we sit3434here today, the President seems bent on doing everything he can3435to undermine the work of the Corps and the Bureau with reckless3436staffing cuts, and by brazenly and corruptly politicizing the3437allocation of funding and control over our Nation's water3438resources.3439    In the span of just a few months, DOGE (Department of3440Government Efficiency) has pushed out a quarter of the Bureau's3441staff without any discernible strategy. This mass exodus of3442talent puts the Bureau's mission at serious risk. The last3443thing we need are fewer dam safety inspections or big delays on3444repair projects.3445    And when it comes to politicization, the President spent3446much of his first few weeks in office making up conspiracies3447about California's water supply as wildfires raged, vowing to3448block disaster relief, picking fights with the state's3449governor, and against the advice of all experts, ultimately3450ordered the Corps to open two dams and unleash billions of3451gallons of water on California's central valley.3452    That move, predictably, did absolutely nothing to stop the3453fires and came nowhere near LA (Los Angeles), but it did waste3454huge quantities of precious water, and nearly flooded, yes,3455flooded local farms and communities, and put agriculture at3456risk. It was one of the first instances we saw of this3457President meddling in the Corps's work and overruling experts3458to chase some fixation.3459    But it was not the last. A few weeks ago, the Corps3460released plans detailing how it is allocating funding for3461construction projects in fiscal year 2025. Now, usually, that3462is something we decide here in Congress, but that3463decisionmaking power was turned over to Trump Administration3464with the House Republicans yearlong slush fund CR. That was one3465of the many reasons I voted against that bill, and it's a3466reminder to all of us about why we do need strong bipartisan3467spending bills.3468    So, instead of allocating construction funding to projects3469that were selected in both our bipartisan Senate Appropriations3470Bill and the Republican House Bill, and giving funding to red3471and blue States roughly evenly, as both bills did, this3472administration decided to steal hundreds of millions of dollars3473million in critical investments from blue States and steer3474those investments instead to red States and the President's3475political allies.3476    Every single construction project in California, the most3477populous State in the country was zeroed out. We're talking3478about funds that protect people in one of the most flood-prone3479States in the country gone, and Trump completely defunded3480construction at the Howard Hanson Dam in Washington State,3481leaving a literal hole in the ground. This is a shovel-ready3482project that will ensure water reliability for over 1 million3483people in the region. And of course, the administration budgets3484proposal does not fund those projects in fiscal year 2026.3485    All told, two-thirds of the Army construction funding is3486now headed to red States for no reason other than Trump wanting3487to punish political enemies and reward friends. This is not how3488these projects should work ever in the United States of3489America.3490    Lieutenant General Graham, a few weeks ago, the assistant3491secretary's office was asked in a house hearing about this3492nakedly partisan allocation. That official didn't even try to3493justify it. Instead, they said, tellingly, the buck stopped3494with OMB (Office of Management and Budget). So, there it is,3495Trump and Russell Vought called the shots and defended those3496projects on their own.3497    Now, I shouldn't need to tell anyone here floods hit red3498States and blue States alike. Droughts, hammer farmers in rural3499districts and strain families in big ways. Every single3500American in one way or another depends on our ports being well3501maintained to get the basic goods we count on and keep our3502economy humming. And everyone should be able to trust their3503government will decide how to invest resources and protect them3504from threats like flooding, drought, and wildfire based on3505science, based on engineering. That is what's best for people,3506not on a President's desire for retribution.3507    So, I believe Congress needs to reject these reckless cuts3508that you are requesting for the Corps and the Bureau, and we3509need to see an end to this egregious politicization of these3510kinds of resources. This is not a path we can afford to3511continue going down as a country.3512    So, I'll just give a warning to all of my colleagues. Once3513again, it may not have been your State this time, but you all3514know full well just how fickle the President can be. We should3515not leave this authority with him. We do need to come together3516and write our own strong bipartisan bill. Thank you.3517    Senator Kennedy. Put Senator Murray down as doubtful3518gentlemen about your budget. I look at your budget a decrease3519of 23 percent, it's $2 billion from fiscal year 2025 enacted. A3520reduction in funding for the Mississippi River and tributaries3521account of 29 percent. That's $106 million.3522    A reduction in funding for the operation and maintenance3523account of 28 percent, $1.6 billion. The budget doesn't propose3524any use, none, of the Inland Waterways Trust Fund receipts, and3525proposes to use only $1.7 billion from the Harbor Maintenance3526Trust Fund. That's about $1.7 billion less than the3527Congressional target.3528    I was reading the other night, I don't remember the exact3529figures, but scientists estimate that there are 2 to 3 trillion3530galaxies in the universe. And in not a single one of those3531galaxies is this Congress or any Congress likely to approve3532this budget. I mean, that's just a fact.3533    Now, I understand the way it works, that you gentlemen3534didn't write this budget. Hopefully, you had input, but you3535didn't write it. It came from OMB. And I also understand that3536Congress has never accepted a President's budget, any3537President's budget, and just enacted it without changes. That's3538never happened in the history of ever. So, I get all that.3539    But having said that this is obviously not acceptable, and3540I hope we can talk about that frankly today. I don't know3541what's going to happen this year in terms of a budget. I'm an3542optimist, but I am a paranoid optimist. Last year, I watched3543Senator Murray and Senator Collins work really, really hard to3544put together 12 bills. I watched the entire Appropriations3545Committee work very, very hard to approve those bills.3546    And a lot of us had to, on both sides of the aisle, had to3547swallow things that we almost choked on, but we wanted to put3548together a budget because that's our first job. I know you hear3549a lot about the Senate being in the personnel business, and we3550are, but really, our job's put together a budget. And we did.3551And my friend Senator Schumer refused to bring any of those3552bills to the floor. Not one, none, zero.3553    My goal was to see the bills come to the floor and then3554have an open amendment process where colleagues of mine both on3555and off the Appropriations Committee could weigh in. But3556Senator Schumer chose not to. I mean, that's just a fact.3557    I don't know what's going to happen this year under3558President Trump. I want to try to be as impartial as I can be3559in making this statement, but I think it's accurate. Under3560President Biden, and President set the tone in Washington,3561under President Biden, the general discussion was who needs to3562pay more in taxes?3563    Under President Trump, it's clear to me at this juncture3564that the discussion has changed. The discussion is now what the3565hell happened to the money? And that's a healthy discussion to3566have. But when it comes to the Corps of Engineers--and before I3567get there, and that leads me to believe that we may not have a3568budget this year. I just don't know if we can come together on3569it. It's always a challenge.3570    But it's clear to me that at least on my side of the aisle3571we are expecting to reduce the amount of spending,3572strategically, but reduce it. And I know some of my friends in3573the Senate are going to have a problem with that, but that's3574the reality.3575    Now, when it comes to the Corps of Engineers, that is3576slightly different because there is bipartisan support for the3577important work that you do. It doesn't mean that we can't find3578savings, and it doesn't mean that we shouldn't make changes.3579And we're going to talk about that today, but a 23 percent3580decrease, I think some to Murray by her calculations, it might3581be a 30 percent. That's just not acceptable. So, help us, help3582us work through this and come up with a plan that looks like3583somebody designed it on purpose, which is not this one.3584    Let me make one other comment and then, then I want to hear3585from you gentlemen. Look, I know you have a tough job. I get3586that. Every Senator, every congress person wants their3587projects, and they want them first, and they want them3588yesterday. I get that. And you have finite resources. We all3589do. And you have a lot of smart people working at your agency,3590but you could use more. I get all that.3591    So, I don't want to--I'm spending a few minutes on this3592because I appreciate the job that you do. I do. But we've got3593to do better. Our estimates on the cost of projects are just3594too wide off the mark. I mean, I could give you, I'm not going3595to do it, but I could give you example, after example, after3596example. And we're not talking 10 percent off, or 20 percent3597off, or 30 percent off, we're talking squillions of dollars3598off. I understand inflation, but it doesn't account for this.3599    We also have to figure out a way you do--frankly, to bring3600these projects in on time or at least closer to the estimated3601time. If you did in the private sector in terms of your delays3602in your, I'll say higher, our cost overruns, if you did that in3603the private sector, you would be out of business. Nobody would3604hire you, and the penalties from not completing the project on3605time would put you out of business. We just got to do better.3606It's just that simple. And I hope you, today, you'll talk about3607how you're planning on doing that.3608    Let's start with us today. I guess I should introduce our3609colleagues who are here today. Acting Secretary Lee Forsgren,3610he was appointed principal deputy Assistant Secretary of the3611Army Civil Works on March 31. Welcome. Lieutenant General3612Williams H. Butch Graham, Jr. You are the 56th Chief of3613Engineers and Commanding General of the United States Army3614Corps of Engineers. You assumed your duties on September 13,36152024. Welcome. Acting Assistant Secretary for Water and3616Science, Scott Cameron. Secretary Cameron has been in this role3617since January 21. We welcome all of you. The floor is yours.3618Why don't we start with Secretary Forsgren.36193620                SUMMARY STATEMENT OF MR. D. LEE FORSGREN36213622    Mr. Forsgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member3623Murray, other members of the subcommittee. It's an honor to be3624here this morning. Before I go too deep, I wanted to point out3625that on Saturday, the Army turns 250, and the Army Corps of3626Engineers turns 250 on Monday. So, this--the Corps of Engineers3627and the Civil Works Program have been around since the dawn of3628the country, and I could not be prouder to be working with the3629professionals that to every day take that legacy forward.3630    I would like to ask that my entire statement be placed in3631the record. But a couple of just points, Mr. Chairman. We3632couldn't agree with you more that we need to find ways to bring3633projects in, on time, and as much as closer to being on-budget.3634There is a myriad of reasons for that.3635    But pointing fingers isn't going to solve the problem. We3636are committed to trying to do that there. There's probably not3637a single silver bullet that would've fixed that problem, or it3638would've been fixed decades ago. So, we've got to find a bunch3639of a number of ways to work the problem, to make our projects3640be more cost effective and faster.3641    That said, General Graham works every day on that process.3642We are committed, as Secretary of the Army's Office and in the3643administration, to support those functions in all of our3644interest, and it's in the national interest to do so.3645    And with that, I would just welcome any questions that you-3646all might have.3647    [The statement follows:]3648               Prepared Statement of Mr. D. Lee Forsgren3649    Chairman Kennedy, Ranking Member Murray, and distinguished members3650of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to be here today to3651discuss the President's Fiscal Year 2026 Budget for the Army Civil3652Works program.3653    The Fiscal Year 2026 Budget includes nearly $6.7 billion for the3654Army Civil Works program, with a focus on the Corps' primary missions3655of commercial navigation, flood and storm damage reduction, and aquatic3656ecosystem restoration. The Budget focuses on opportunities to support3657these missions that provide a high return to the American public, such3658as by facilitating maritime commerce, addressing the most significant3659flood risks facing communities, and restoring the highest priority3660aquatic ecosystems.3661    In total, the FY 2026 Construction program is funded at more than3662$1.6 billion. The majority of that amount is provided in the3663Construction account, but also $43 million from the Harbor Maintenance3664Trust Fund, and $55 million from the Mississippi River and Tributaries3665account. The Construction program uses objective, performance-based3666criteria to give priority to the projects with the highest economic,3667environmental, and safety returns.3668    The President's Fiscal Year 2026 Budget focuses on commercial3669navigation, which is a key pillar in our nation's economic strength. In3670support of our nation's manufacturing supply chain and the3671Administration's commitment to our nation's coastal ports and inland3672waterways, the Fiscal Year 2026 Budget includes $379 million in3673construction funding including $161.591 million for the Houston Ship3674Channel, Texas project and $176.6 million to continue construction of3675the Sault Ste Marie (Replacement Lock), Michigan project to provide3676efficiency and redundancy for a critical trade route for iron ore in3677the Great Lakes region. Also included in the Budget is $1.1 billion to3678operate and maintain the top 50 U.S. coastal ports, which handle around367990 percent of the nation's waterborne cargo that is shipped to or from3680the United States in foreign commerce.3681    Flood and storm damage reduction is at the center of the Civil3682Works program's actions to support the Administration's goal of3683addressing the most significant flood risks facing communities.3684Accordingly, the Budget contains over $1.7 billion for flood and storm3685damage reduction. Of this amount, the Budget includes $571 million in3686funding to address dam safety at the Whittier Narrows, CA project.3687    The Budget includes $650 million for the aquatic ecosystem3688restoration mission. The Budget supports the high-priority3689environmental restoration priorities of the Administration with the3690inclusion of $446 million for the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration3691program, which will enable significant progress to continue in3692restoring America's Everglades.3693    Of course, in addition to construction projects, the Budget focuses3694on maintaining the key features of the vast water resources3695infrastructure that the Corps owns and manages. Specifically, the FY36962026 Budget funds the Operation and Maintenance program at over $4.13697billion, consisting of just over $2.3 billion from the Operation and3698Maintenance account, nearly $1.7 billion from the Harbor Maintenance3699Trust Fund, and nearly $192 million from the Mississippi River and3700Tributaries account. For Operation and Maintenance, the Budget3701prioritizes the maintenance of commercial navigation on Federal3702channels over spending on projects that are not a Federal3703responsibility.The allocation of funding among projects for maintenance3704reflects a risk-informed approach that considers both project and3705project component conditions and the potential consequences of a3706failure. The Budget also gives priority to the maintenance of coastal3707ports and inland waterways with the highest commercial traffic.3708    As I wrap up, I'll note the FY 2026 Budget provides $139 million3709for the Investigations program, consisting of $130 million from the3710Investigations account and $9 million from the Mississippi River and3711Tributaries account. This includes preconstruction engineering and3712design work for dam safety modification projects with high risk of3713failure, including $18.5 million for Garrison Dam, Lake Sakakawea,3714North Dakota and $26 million for Keystone Lake, Oklahoma.3715    Additionally, the FY 2026 Regulatory Program is funded at $2213716million to provide efficiency in permit processing.3717    Lastly, I would like to note that $7 million is included for the3718Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. Since37192009, my office has never received an appropriation larger than $53720million, and some years less. However, our costs--salaries and3721retirement, services and rent, and travel and supplies--have all3722continued to rise over the past 15 years. Using the latest U.S.3723government Consumer Price Index data (at a 44.6% cumulative rate of3724inflation), the $5 million my office received in 2009 equates to over3725$7 million in today's dollars. However, this funding has remained flat.3726Full funding is critical to provide effective oversight of the Army3727Civil Works program.3728    To summarize, the Budget makes critical investments in water3729resources that will benefit the American people and promote greater3730prosperity and economic growth for decades to come.3731    I am very honored to implement the President's priorities for the3732Army Civil Works program and excited to be a part of a great team--3733serving our Nation.3734    Thank you for inviting me here today. I look forward to your3735questions.37363737    Senator Kennedy. Lieutenant General Graham, welcome.3738STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL WILLIAM H. GRAHAM, JR.,3739            CHIEF OF ENGINEERS AND COMMANDING GENERAL,3740            U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS3741    General Graham. Thanks. Chairman Kennedy, Ranking Member3742Murray, I'm honored to testify before you today in regard to3743the President's fiscal year 2026 budget. The United States Army3744Corps of Engineers, as we've heard this morning, the course of3745works program is absolutely key to the Nation's commercial3746navigation, flood and storm damage reduction, and aquatic3747ecosystem restoration missions, amongst others.3748    To highlight a couple of those, the navigation program3749underpins the entire national economy ensuring that commodities3750can move reliably and efficiently. Our flood and storm damage3751reduction program maintains over 746 dams, and over 13,0003752miles of Federal levees that protect over $200 billion in flood3753damages avoided, averaged over a 10-year period.3754    The 2026 President's budget is performance-based and3755focused on high performing projects and programs, and the Corps3756uses a targeted approach to invest in the water resources that3757benefit the Nation now and into the future.3758    Chairman, we absolutely take you seriously on we've got to3759improve delivery. Our objective every day is to safely deliver3760quality projects on schedule and within budget. That's our3761objective. It's not a goal, it's our objective. To this end,3762we've improved our ability to measure our on-schedule3763performance. And right now, when I checked this morning, we're3764at 81 percent. That's a low, low, low B, and that's3765unacceptable.3766    This performance, as you've discussed, is influenced by3767factors that we can't control, such as inflation. But there's a3768bunch that we can control, and I'd like to highlight three, and3769then we're organizing the Corps around these three.3770    First and foremost, we've got to get the engineering right,3771and we've got to get the engineering right before we ask for3772authorization. It's like coming up to the authorizing3773committees and say, ``I need a house,'' and I put a price tag3774on it, but I didn't tell I need a four-bedroom house with a3775two-car garage.3776    We've asked for authority to build things where we haven't3777had the scope nailed down fully. And in engineering terms, the3778design needs to be matured at least to the 35 percent design3779before we ask for the authority to build it. And that's my3780commitment to you. I'll sign no chief's report unless the3781engineering is advanced to the 35 percent design.3782    Second thing we need to do is we've got to get the project3783management right. And Chairman, that's what you said. We've got3784to make good schedules that have contingency to deal with the3785unknowns. And then, we've got to stick to those schedules with3786a great sense of urgency.3787    And the last one, we've got to get the team that's building3788this right. And we're striving every day to bring in the right3789team members or the right contractors to augment our team to3790build these facilities. So, the path to successful deliveries3791is clear; plan projects thoroughly, build them rapidly with3792predictable funding, and have the right team of master3793craftsmen to deliver them. And I look forward to working with3794this committee to stay on that path.3795    And I look forward to your questions.3796    [The statement follows:]3797 Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General William H. ``Butch'' Graham,3798                                  Jr.3799    Chairman Kennedy, Ranking Member Murray, and Members of the3800Subcommittee:3801    I am honored to testify before your committee today, along with Mr.3802D. Lee Forsgren, the Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil3803Works), in regard to the President's Fiscal Year 2026 (FY 2026)3804discretionary Budget request (discretionary request) for the Army Civil3805Works Program.3806    Through the Civil Works Program, the United States Army Corps of3807Engineers (Corps) works with other Federal agencies, and with state,3808Tribal, and local agencies and others, to develop, manage, restore, and3809protect water resources, primarily through the construction, operation3810and maintenance, and study of water-related infrastructure projects.3811The Corps focuses on work that provides high economic, environmental,3812and public safety returns to the Nation. The Corps also regulates3813development in waters of the United States and works with other Federal3814agencies to help communities respond to, and recover from, floods and3815other natural disasters.3816                summary of fy 2026 discretionary request3817    The Civil Works Program is performance-based and focuses on high-3818performing projects and programs within the three main water resources3819missions of the Corps: commercial navigation, flood and storm damage3820reduction, and aquatic ecosystem restoration. The Corps uses a targeted3821approach to invest in water resources, which will benefit the Nation3822now and in the future.3823    The discretionary request includes nearly $6.7 billion for the3824Civil Works Program.3825                         investigations program3826    The Investigations program is funded both in the Investigations3827account and in the Mississippi River and Tributaries account. The Corps3828uses these funds to evaluate water resources problems and opportunities3829within the Corps' three main mission areas, design proposed projects,3830and support related work. The Investigations program includes the Corps3831planning assistance and technical assistance programs, where the Corps3832shares its expertise with local communities to help them identify and3833understand their water resources challenges, and to develop options,3834with an emphasis on steps that they can take on their own to address3835these issues. For FY 2026, the Budget includes a total of $139 million3836for the Investigations program.3837                          construction program3838    The Construction program is funded through the Construction3839account, the Mississippi River and Tributaries (MR&T) account, and the3840Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF) account.3841    The goal of the Construction program is to produce as much value as3842possible for the Nation from the available funds. The Corps also gives3843priority to investments, selected on a risk-informed basis, in dam3844safety assurance, seepage control, and static instability correction3845work at dams that the Corps owns and operates. The FY 2026 Budget3846includes a total of $1.656 billion for the Construction program to3847support these high- priority investments.3848                operation and maintenance (o&m) program3849    The O&M program of the Corps is funded through the O&M account, the3850MR&T account, and the HMTF account.3851    Generally, the O&M program supports completed works owned or3852operated by the Corps, including operation and maintenance of locks and3853dams along the inland waterways; maintenance dredging of inland and3854coastal Federal channels; operation and maintenance of multi-purpose3855dams and reservoirs for flood risk reduction and related purposes such3856as hydropower; and management of Corps facilities and lands, including3857serving as a responsible steward of the natural resources on those3858lands.3859    The FY 2026 Budget includes a total of $4.174 billion for the3860Operation and Maintenance program to support the Corps' efforts to3861sustain the benefits of its existing infrastructure.3862    All structures age and can deteriorate over time, causing a3863potential decline in reliability. The Corps has a large portfolio of3864water resources projects and is working to sustain the benefits that3865the key features of its infrastructure provide.3866    The Corps continues to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of3867its Operation and Maintenance program. The Corps does so by targeting3868its investments in infrastructure maintenance, repair, and3869rehabilitation on a risk-informed basis. It invests in the highest3870priority needs with emphasis on the key features of the infrastructure3871that the Corps owns and operates, and in work that will reduce long-3872term O&M costs in real terms.3873                           regulatory program3874    Through its Regulatory Program, the Corps protects the Nation's3875waters including wetlands, and regulates development that could impede3876navigation, while allowing reasonable development to proceed. The FY38772026 request includes $221 million to support this important permitting3878and compliance work.3879        formerly utilized sites remedial action program (fusrap)3880    Through FUSRAP, the Corps is involved in the investigation and3881cleanup of certain low- level radioactive materials and mixed wastes,3882located mostly at sites contaminated as a result of the Nation's early3883atomic weapons development program. The FY 2026 Budget includes $2003884million to continue this remediation work.3885                               conclusion3886    The FY 2026 discretionary Budget request for the Army Civil Works3887Program represents a continuing, fiscally prudent investment in the3888Nation's water resources infrastructure. The U.S. Army Corps of3889Engineers is committed to a performance-based Civil Works Program,3890based on innovative, high-return, risk-informed solutions.3891    Thank you, Chairman Kennedy, Ranking Member Murray, and Members of3892the Subcommittee. This concludes my statement. I look forward to3893answering any questions you or other Members of the Subcommittee may3894have.38953896    Senator Kennedy. Thank you, General. Mr. Secretary.38973898                       DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR38993900                         Bureau of Reclamation39013902STATEMENT OF MR. SCOTT J. CAMERON, ACTING ASSISTANT3903            SECRETARY FOR WATER AND SCIENCE3904    Mr. Cameron. Thank you, Chairman Kennedy, Ranking Member3905Murray, and Senator Hyde-Smith for the opportunity to testify3906to you today on behalf of the President's 2026 budget request3907for the Bureau of Reclamation.3908    Reclamation's projects and programs serve as the water and3909power infrastructure backbone of the American West constituting3910an important driver of economic growth in hundreds of basins3911throughout the 17 Western States. Reclamation manages water for3912agriculture, hydropower production, municipal and industrial3913use, and provides flood control and recreation for 90 million3914people.3915    Recreation's activities support economic activity valued at3916$64 billion, and support approximately half a million jobs.3917Reclamation delivers 10 trillion gallons of water to millions3918of people each year and provides water for irrigation of 103919million acres of farmland, which yields approximately 253920percent of our Nation's fruit and nut crops, and 60 percent of3921the vegetable harvest.3922    Water and related resources account ensures reliable water3923and energy for agriculture, industry, cities, and rural3924populations, foundational pillars of the President's America3925first agenda. These investments deliver tangible results3926aligned with executive orders, promoting energy dominance, and3927streamlined governance.3928    The Central Valley Project in California maintains and3929modernizes facilities and increases water conveyance to3930Southern California and the San Joaquin Valley. The Klamath3931Project in Oregon and California ensures operational3932flexibility for irrigation deliveries and natural resource3933management.3934    The Bureau of Reclamation's work on the Colorado River3935directly advances presidential priorities of securing American3936energy, ensuring domestic water supply, and asserting3937sovereignty and international negotiations with Mexico through3938the lower Colorado River Operations Program, including3939implementation of the drought contingency plans, and binational3940agreements with Mexico. Reclamation enhances water supply3941reliability for U.S. communities while acknowledging our treaty3942obligations.3943    We're working very closely with the seven Colorado River3944Basin States at this point because a number of key agreements3945expire in 2026, and we are working very hard to find a seven-3946State solution that the seven governors will find agreeable to3947manage the increasingly scarce water resources over the3948Colorado Basin for the next 20 years.3949    Thank you for your time. I look forward to answering your3950questions.3951    [The statement follows:]3952                 Prepared Statement of Scott J. Cameron3953    Thank you, Chairman Kennedy, Ranking Member Murray, and members of3954the Subcommittee for the opportunity to testify in support of President3955Trump's Fiscal Year 2026 budget blueprint request for the Bureau of3956Reclamation and discuss what our team is doing to make America safer,3957stronger, and more prosperous. I am Scott Cameron, Senior Advisor to3958the Secretary, Exercising Delegated Authority of the Assistant3959Secretary.3960    Reclamation's projects and programs serve as the water and power3961infrastructure backbone of the American West, constituting an important3962driver of economic growth in hundreds of basins throughout the 173963Western States. Reclamation manages water for agriculture, hydropower3964production, municipal and industrial use, and provides flood control3965and recreation for 90 million people. Reclamation's activities support3966economic activity valued at $64 billion and support approximately3967450,700 jobs. Reclamation delivers 10 trillion gallons of water to3968millions of people each year and provides water for irrigation of 103969million acres of farmland, which yields approximately 25 percent of the3970Nation's fruit and nut crops, and 60 percent of the vegetable harvest.3971    Reclamation serves 17 Western States: Arizona, California,3972Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North3973Dakota, Oregon, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, and3974Wyoming. Reclamation works with a wide range of stakeholders, including3975water and power customers, Tribes, State and local officials, non-3976governmental organizations and others.3977    The Bureau of Reclamation's FY 2026 budget blueprint of $1.23978billion focuses on the core mission of maintaining assets that provide3979safe, reliable and efficient management of water resources through the3980western United States.3981                   water & related resources overview3982    The Bureau of Reclamation's Water & Related Resources (W&RR)3983account is the primary source for carrying out its mission to manage,3984develop, and protect water and related resources in the western United3985States. This account supports the planning, construction, operation,3986maintenance, and rehabilitation of Reclamation projects that deliver3987water for agricultural, municipal, and industrial use; generate3988hydroelectric power; and support environmental stewardship and3989recreation. It also supports programs that promote water conservation,3990improve infrastructure reliability, and ensure compliance with3991applicable environmental laws.3992    Within the W&RR account, appropriations are organized into several3993functional categories. Water and Energy Management and Development3994supports projects and programs that enhance water supply reliability,3995and water infrastructure development. Land Management and Development3996covers the stewardship of Federal lands associated with Reclamation3997projects, including recreation, cultural resources, and public safety.3998Fish and Wildlife Management and Development supports species and3999habitat protection, ensuring compliance with the Endangered Species Act4000and other environmental statutes. Facility Operations ensures that4001Reclamation's dams, canals, and powerplants operate safely and4002efficiently to meet delivery and power generation commitments. Facility4003Maintenance and Rehabilitation addresses aging infrastructure,4004conducting major repairs, and modernizing facilities to maintain system4005reliability and performance. This account also funds the ongoing4006operational and maintenance needs of completed Indian Water Rights4007projects as well as work to help meet statutory compliance of enacted4008settlements. Together, these categories ensure the Bureau can meet its4009core mission while addressing long-term sustainability and risk4010management.4011    The W&RR account ensures reliable water and energy for agriculture,4012industry, and rural populations--foundational pillars of the4013President's ``America First'' agenda. These investments deliver4014tangible results aligned with Executive Orders promoting energy4015dominance and streamlined governance.4016    prioritizing western water deliveries for people and agriculture4017    On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued a memorandum titled4018``Putting People over Fish: Stopping Radical Environmentalism to4019Provide Water to Southern California.'' This directive instructs4020Reclamation to ``route more water from the Sacramento--San Joaquin4021Delta to other parts of California'' to benefit farms and communities.4022Reclamation is taking action now to support the President's initiatives4023by:4024    Focusing on California Water Supply: The Central Valley Projects4025(CVP) includes multiple divisions, including the American River4026Division, Delta, and the Trinity River division. These projects4027maintain and modernize facilities and increase water conveyance to4028Southern California and the San Joaquin Valley.4029    Emphasis on Water Deliveries for People & Agriculture: The Klamath4030Project ensures operational flexibility for irrigation deliveries.4031    Streamlining Regulatory Hurdles: Supporting ESA compliance and4032legal coordination to invoke emergency exemptions.4033                          colorado river water4034    The Bureau of Reclamation's work on the Colorado River directly4035advances presidential priorities of securing American energy,4036maximizing domestic water supply, and asserting sovereignty in4037international negotiations. Through the Lower Colorado River Operations4038Program, including implementation of Drought Contingency Plans and bi-4039national agreements with Mexico under Minute 323, Reclamation enhances4040water reliability for U.S. communities while maintaining strategic4041control of cross-border resources. Simultaneously, operation of Glen4042Canyon Dam and Lake Powell, along with the Upper Colorado River4043Operations Program, reinforces national energy production through4044stable hydropower generation, and ensures water delivery certainty4045across the Southwest, fulfilling directives to prioritize4046infrastructure, reduce regulatory interference, and deliver for4047farmers, families, and industry.4048                  central utah project completion act4049    The Budget supports continuing construction of the Utah Lake4050Drainage Basin Water Delivery System, the final component of the4051Central Utah Project; allows for development and implementation of4052water conservation projects to extend limited water supplies; and4053provides support for associated fish and wildlife conservation4054measures.40554056    Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.4057    I'm going to listen for a while. My guess is Senator Murray4058has some questions.4059    Senator Murray. I do.4060    Senator Kennedy. The floor is yours, Madam vice-Chair.4061    Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank4062you for your testimony this morning.4063    General Graham, let me start with you. The Howard Hanson4064Dam project is to address dam safety issues, provide additional4065water supply and meet the court's legal obligations by opening4066up miles of critical salmon habitat. Would you agree with that4067assessment4068    General Graham. Ranking Member Murray, yes. The Howard4069Hanson project right now is the one we're working on, is4070primarily a fish passage to figure out how to get small4071juvenile fish off of a high head dam, which we've never done4072before. But it's part of a larger project that provides, as you4073said, critical flood risk management and water supply4074protection to the southeastern part of Seattle.4075    Senator Murray. Is it true that the $500 million the4076project was slated to receive in the fiscal year 2025 budget as4077well as in the House and Senate bills would've allowed4078construction to proceed on schedule?4079    General Graham. Yes, that would've allowed us to keep on4080our current construction schedule.4081    Senator Murray. Yes. Well, it's clear that Howard Hanson4082Dam project is shovel ready. And despite that, the Trump4083Administration seems ready to walk away from that. Everyone4084needs to understand turning the Army Corps into a political4085slush fund sets a very dangerous precedent. In fact, in4086testimony before the House, a top Army Corps official very4087explicitly stated that OMB, not the experts at the Corps,4088called the final shots here.4089    Section 107 has been passed on a bipartisan basis in our4090bill for the last 5 years and makes clear that funding should4091be allocated only to projects determined to be eligible by the4092chief of engineers. It appears that OMB handed the Corps the4093final spend plan without consulting you as required. The law4094needs to be followed.4095    So, I'm going to ask you yes or no. Were you provided a4096final spend plan so you could determine all the project listed4097were eligible?4098    General Graham. Ranking Member Murray, we provided our best4099technical recommendation to the assistant secretary.4100    Mr. Forsgren. And Senator Murray, we provided input through4101the presidential budget process on that spending plan.4102    Senator Murray. You provided----4103    General Graham. We provided technical input on that4104spending plan.4105    Senator Murray. So, that you could prove that all of them4106were eligible. Correct?4107    General Graham. I don't think eligibility was ever the4108question.4109    Senator Murray. Well, that's really troubling and really an4110example of this administration that just somehow thinks they're4111above the law. I mean, I got news for Russell Vought; the law4112applies to him the same as for everybody else. So, that is very4113troubling.4114    Mr. Forsgren, let me go back to you. I consistently hear4115from ports and harbors across the country about how they rely4116on the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund to maintain critical port4117infrastructure.4118    Now, in April, the administration issued an executive order4119acknowledging that cargo carriers divert goods to Canada from4120our donor ports, Seattle-Tacoma, others, to avoid the harbor4121maintenance tax. That's really an unfair practice. I've spoken4122about it for years, but this year's budget request does not4123even attempt to meet the word of targets for HMTF (Harbor4124Maintenance Trust Fund) donor port funding. And even more4125troubling in the skinny budget.4126    This administration tries to tell Congress that it is not a4127Federal responsibility to provide those dollars, even though4128that is one of the explicit purposes Congress passed into law.4129That is really unacceptable. Donor port funding has already4130been determined through the water process and our annual4131appropriations bills for years. It is extremely frustrating4132that I have to continue raising this issue year after year to4133get our ports the fair share they are entitled to under the4134law.4135    Will you commit to ensure that donor ports like Seattle and4136Tacoma will receive their full fair share of the HMTF dollars4137as Congress intended?4138    Mr. Forsgren. Senator, I will commit to working to ensure4139that the Harbor Maintenance Fund is used to the maximum extent4140it possibly can. We understand the Harbor Maintenance Fund is4141the backbone of the commercial navigation----4142    Senator Murray. Yes.4143    Mr. Forsgren [continuing]. System for our ports, and that4144system has to be able to be functional across all the Nation's4145ports. But I will say there needs to be a primary focus on the4146principal Federal responsibility, which is the mainline4147channels. But I do will commit to working with you to fully4148utilize the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund as it is passed into4149law.4150    Senator Murray. Okay. Well, let me ask you one more4151question in my last few seconds. The Columbia River provides4152habitat for salmon, endangered species. It also irrigates4153600,000 acres of farmland and serves as a marine highway. It4154also provides electricity to the entire northwest, and4155critically, it has a transboundary waterway shared with Canada.4156So, the State Department has been leading efforts to negotiate4157a modernized Columbia River Treaty, which is really critical to4158providing certainty for people and businesses across our region4159who rely on the Columbia River.4160    But this administration appears committed to doing4161everything they can now to tank our relationship with our4162friend and neighbor, Canada. And the key to getting this4163agreement in place and all the hard work that has gone into it4164was collaboration between all the stakeholders. It is really4165imperative that as the interim agreement is executed, that that4166collaboration continues.4167    So, Mr. Cameron, Mr. Forsgren, will you commit to ensuring4168that the Corps and Reclamation continue to communicate with4169Tribes and the public utilities on the operation of the4170Columbia River System?4171    Mr. Forsgren. Senator Murray, we certainly commit. We are4172committed to the treaty, as is reflected in the budget, and we4173are committed to continuing the dialogue necessary to operate4174and maintain the system.4175    Senator Murray. Mr. Cameron.4176    Mr. Cameron. Yes, Senator. I've already had multiple4177meetings with stakeholders from throughout the Columbia River4178Basin, so we're including Tribes. So, you know, conversations4179are ongoing.4180    Senator Murray. Okay. This is really a critical treaty. We4181need to get it enacted. And again, Canada is not our enemy4182there. We need to conclude them. Thank you.4183    Senator Kennedy. Senator Hyde-Smith.4184    Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you, Chairman Kennedy. And thank4185you, panel, for being here today. I certainly appreciate your4186willingness to serve in the capacities that you do.4187    My first question is going to be on the Yazoo Backwater4188Area Management Project, which is no surprise to anyone. I've4189been working on this for many, many years. And Secretary4190Forsgren and General Graham, as you know, the U.S. Army Corps4191of Engineers, Mississippi Valley Division, signed a record of4192decision for the new Yazoo Backwater Area Management Plan4193earlier this year, which I, with thousands of Mississippi, were4194thrilled about this milestone. And I'd also like to express my4195gratitude to the Corps for the $32 million allocated to the4196project in your fiscal year 2025 work plan that was announced4197last month.4198    Of those funds, $15 million we used for pre-construction4199engineering and design work, $15 million for mitigation to4200protect wildlife and wildlife habitat, and $2 million for4201mitigation infrastructure construction. We're certainly moving4202in the right direction now and providing adequate flood4203protection for area residents. Something that was promised4204literally decades ago.4205    The findings outlined in the project's final environmental4206impact statement stated in addition to reducing catastrophic4207flooding that project implementation would not convert any4208wetlands to wetlands. Wildlife and habitat will be better off4209for the project, aquatic resources will be better off with this4210project, water quality will be better off for this project,4211everything is positive here. Everything will be better off.4212    Secretary for Forsgren and General Graham, would you agree4213with the findings detailed in the final EIS (Environmental4214Impact Statement)?4215    Mr. Forsgren. Yes, Senator. We are committed to that4216project. We were--I will say, put my personal hat on, I sat in4217your office about 5 years ago when we discussed the outlines of4218the beginnings of that project and how we might move forward.4219And I was thrilled to see that it, you know, is moving forward.4220So, when I was sworn in, I was happy, to be honest, not to have4221to take up--that the project had moved forward in that interim4222period.4223    The short answer is there's going--we're committed to the4224project. We're committed to moving forward. I believe the4225findings are accurate. That doesn't mean the Corps still has a4226lot to do for as the engineering and how we finalize exactly4227what that project needs to look like. But we're talking about4228deciding on the--which crown molding we're going to take, put4229in the house. We're not deciding on to build the house in this4230case.4231    General Graham. I don't have much to add. We're thrilled,4232and we're excited to see this moving forward. Our commitment to4233you is as we go into pre-construction engineering and design,4234is let's advance that design now to include the mitigation4235that--you know, the extent of that, so that when we come4236forward, this is how much this is going to cost, that we give4237you an accurate cost estimate. That's our commitment to you.4238    Senator Hyde-Smith. Wonderful. And the total capability for4239this project for the fiscal year 2026 is truly significant. I4240get that. I'm shocked by that, nor does it scare me away4241because it's something we have to do. Should Congress provide4242robust funding for the Yazoo Backwater Area Management Project4243in this year's appropriations process, how confident are you4244that the Corps will be able to put that to good use?4245    Mr. Forsgren. Senator, you raise a very pertinent issue in4246the context of the Yazoo Project. That's true across that. And4247that is how to--the Corps's capabilities set against their4248capabilities on any given project versus the totality of the4249project. And you really can't take the capabilities for a4250project without looking at the totality of the region, of the4251district, and of the Nation in total.4252    So, with that said, I will defer to General Graham to talk4253specifically, but I think we're still trying to figure out how4254our capabilities match against the resources.4255    General Graham. And Senator, that's it, with the work plan4256funding, with the engineering pre-construction work we're doing4257right now. I don't really know what our capability is.4258Concretely, for 2026, we owe you that. And our commitment to4259you is to work with you and your office as the months progress4260and share what we do know with you on the efficacy of our4261current cost estimate.4262    Senator Hyde-Smith. Great. Well, I certainly want us all to4263get to yes, and I'm willing to help us get there, whatever it4264takes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.4265    Senator Kenndey. Senator Britt.4266    Senator Britt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.4267    Thank you all for appearing before this committee today. I4268want to start by telling you how much I appreciate your4269attention and that of Deputy Assistant Secretary Stacy Brown to4270the needs of Alabama's inland waterway system. Thank you for4271getting on the phone with me. Thank you for helping us work4272through this.4273    As you all know, we had catastrophic failures this year,4274whether it be at Demopolis, whether it be in Holt, whether it4275be in Wilson. When these things happen, it disrupts entire4276economies. I mean, we saw it negatively impact our Ag industry,4277negatively impact our energy industry, negatively impact our4278aerospace industry. So, I am very grateful for your attention4279to those matters and helping us get them back up and moving.4280    That being said, I'm also pleased to see that the work plan4281budgeted for repairs in Demopolis and Holt and also appreciate4282what you're doing in Coffeeville as well. I think it is4283imperative that we actually fix these things before they become4284a problem. And so, that's my question to you. How do we get to4285the place where we are doing the type of maintenance that is4286needed to prevent these failures, on time, on budget, but ahead4287of when they actually occur?4288    And so, Mr. Forsgren, let's start with you. I know there is4289a substantial O&M (Operations and Maintenance) backlog. I know4290when you are looking at all of the different needs across the4291Nation, how do we make sure that we're appropriately taking4292care of our inland waterway system and not playing catch up,4293but doing these things on the front end?4294    Mr. Forsgren. Senator, the Corps basically does all of its4295O&M budgeting and proposals against the engineering and risk4296assessed. You know, for risk of--well, I'm meaning risk of4297failure, and we prioritize those things with the highest risk4298of failure. Could there always be more resources in O&M?4299Absolutely. But we all live in a constrained environment, but4300the Corps does very, in fact, they do a very good job of4301assessing the damage, assessing the potential risks associated4302with failure when they look at O&M. Have we been absolutely4303perfect with that? No. But----4304    Senator Britt. Is it an issue of funding? Is it an issue of4305front loading that so that you have that, or is it an issue of4306manpower? Like, what gets us to these points?4307    Mr. Forsgren. I think it's principally an issue of--funding4308is too easy a way to say that. You know, it's easy. If we had4309more money and more people, of course we could do better.4310    Senator Britt. Absolutely.4311    Mr. Forsgren. But I think it's more of a case of what can--4312how do we really focus what we're doing with the resources we4313do have.4314    Senator Britt. Well, let's continue this conversation. I4315have limited time here, but I want us to actually dig down on4316this. There is no reason for us to get to the point of failure.4317We should be taking a look and making responsible upgrades and4318maintenance on the front end so that we don't get to this4319point. So, I want to talk to y'all about that in a real way----4320    Mr. Forsgren. Absolutely.4321    Senator Britt [continuing]. So that we can have a tangible4322pathway forward. I want to talk about a project that I think4323has worked well, and Lieutenant General Graham, I'd like to ask4324you about the Mobile Harbor Deepening Project. Look, we've4325taken it down to 50 feet. It's going to be the deepest deep-4326water port there, right there in the Gulf. This is a project4327that has been on time and under budget. Talk to me about how4328you achieved that.4329    General Graham. Oh, in the few minutes we have left, on4330Black Warrior, we are now providing a reliable transportation4331system that your constituents can count on. We own that. I4332stood down at the sill----4333    Senator Britt. Thank you.4334    General Graham [continuing]. Theopolis, and I had all of4335our smart engineers from around the Nation there, and we were4336trying to figure out how could we have seen that that still4337might be great.4338    Senator Britt. I appreciate you taking ownership of that.4339Thank you.4340    General Graham. We absolutely own that. They got really4341inventive up at Holt so that we can get that back in operation4342with the temporary fix. And then, we have the long-term fix. We4343absolutely are not providing a reliable system, and that's our4344commitment to do that.4345    Senator Britt. I really appreciate that. Thank you so much.4346    General Graham. On Mobile Harbor, this is going to be a4347great year on the deepening. The key to success, stable,4348predictable funding.4349    Senator Britt. Stable predictable funding. I only have a4350few minutes left, so let me talk about something there. In the4351word of bill this year, order 2024, I included a provision in4352there that said no less than 70 percent of suitable dredge4353material would be used for beneficial use. This is critically4354important. We can do two things. We can make sure that we have4355the economic engine that is the Port of Mobile, and we4356responsibly preserve our natural resources.4357    It's imperative. This dredge material could be used for4358habitat restoration, for beach nourishment, for wetland4359creation. And I am not going to move off of that. So, we have4360to make sure that we are good stewards of the natural resources4361that the good Lord has given us. And we can do both of these4362things at the same time.4363    I am out of time, but listen, it is not acceptable that we4364have delays in this. I want to make sure that we figure out a4365pathway to get these answers quickly, and that we can speed up4366the process. It is imperative that we do so, both on the4367permitting side, and taking a look at some of these4368overburdensome reviews.4369    So, I know that I am out of time, but do you have just a4370comment on how we can do that? Quickly----4371    Mr. Forsgren. Short answer is----4372    Senator Britt [continuing]. The chairman's being gracious4373to me.4374    Mr. Forsgren. Senator, we are committed to beneficial use4375of dredge materials as the--probably the preferred method to4376dispose----4377    Senator Britt. Good4378    Mr. Forsgren [continuing]. Of our dredging material. And we4379are committed both on the permitting side and on the project4380design side to maximize the use of beneficially used materials.4381    Senator Britt. Okay. Let's--go ahead.4382    General Graham. Senator, what we're doing down at Dolphin4383Island is----4384    Senator Britt. Yes, sir.4385    General Graham [continuing]. I think exemplary.4386    Senator Britt. Yes sir.4387    General Graham. What Mobile's district doing with a4388programmatic agreement so that we can get that all up front on4389the permitting, and that is we treat the clean sand, clean silt4390as a resource for the environment and for--in terms of the4391beach protection as well, so.4392    Senator Britt. Absolutely. Okay, well, let's work together.4393I am absolutely not going to back off of this and believe that4394we can do both things.4395    And Mr. Chairman, thank you for giving me this time. I4396also, just a point of personal privilege, real quick. I am4397looking forward to the confirmation of Adam Telle. We were baby4398staffers together, brand new in Richard Shelby's office. Got to4399know each other. I've never met a bigger Mississippi State fan4400in my life, by the way. So, you'll get ready for that.4401    But worked with he and his wife through the years. He is a4402true public servant. He is a tireless advocate for America's4403infrastructure. I mean, in addition to that, he happens to be4404an Alabama native. And so, I know he knows firsthand the needs4405and how significant the inland waterway system is for our4406country's continued growth. So, I am excited about getting him4407confirmed, and getting him in place, and having him in front of4408this committee, Mr. Chairman.4409    Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Senator. Senator Rounds.4410    Senator Rounds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.4411    Acting Assistant Secretary Forsgren, it's good to see you4412here today. I'd like to talk about the Tribal Partnership4413Program, or TPP. It's been a very successful program in my4414State of South Dakota. This program provides Federal support to4415Tribes for projects related to environmental restoration, flood4416mitigation, and protection of natural and cultural resources.4417    The Water Resources Development Act award of 2024 made the4418Tribal Partnership Program permanent, allowing the U.S. Army4419Corps of Engineers to continue supporting this important work.4420Do you believe the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers currently has4421the resources necessary to effectively continue executing4422projects under the TPP?4423    Mr. Forsgren. Yes, Senator, I believe we do. There are many4424ways that we can reach the goals of that partnership to work4425with Tribes to enhance their water infrastructure.4426    Senator Rounds. Good. Look, I think these Tribal nations4427really do want to have an ongoing and working relationship.4428These are areas that can really improve the economic4429opportunities and literally the safety in those areas as well.4430Consultation is critical. They appreciate not only the idea4431that we can work together, but the clear evidence is when we4432actually ask their opinion, we get their feedback, and then we4433work in a consultative way to get a project done.4434    Mr. Forsgren. We commit to continuing the Tribal4435consultations.4436    Senator Rounds. Thank you, sir.4437    Lieutenant General Graham, thank you, first of all, for4438being here today. And thank you for your service to our4439country. Nearly 1 year ago, Southeastern South Dakota4440experienced some catastrophic flooding, record rainfall.4441Destroyed numerous homes and caused significant damage to4442public infrastructure.4443    General Graham, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers plays a4444vital role in flood response efforts. Each year, Congress4445allocates funds specifically for disaster-related flood work,4446enabling the Corps to support, preparedness response and4447recovery measures. In your view, does the Corps currently have4448the capability to adequately prepare local communities for4449large scale flooding?4450    General Graham. So, Senator, on the emergency response4451side, on Public Law 84-99, I believe, we do work closely to use4452those authorities and those appropriations to the maximum4453extent possible. We've been very aggressive with that over the4454last couple years. And then working with the Federal Emergency4455Management Agency under the Stafford Act, we can bring in the4456expertise of the Corps on flooding, particularly to the area4457along the Big Sioux River.4458    I'm excited to see in the President's budget that we've got4459a new start for a study to take a look at the Corps project4460that exists there and see if we can improve it, understand that4461putting a dirt berm across I-29 is probably not the best4462solution we could come up with it. It was what they could back4463in the '70s, but so our commitment to you is we're excited to4464see this is a known problem, and we're committed to working4465with you to solving this.4466    Senator Rounds. There was a beautiful residential district4467there called McCook Lake. And basically, what this did was to4468divert the water, and it diverted it right through that4469residential district. There's a better way to do it, and we'll4470look forward to working with you to see that we find the4471appropriate plans so that when this happens again in the4472future, and it will, that those types of flooding conditions4473are diverted so that there is less damage to public property4474and infrastructure in that region.4475    General Graham. Thank you, sir.4476    Senator Rounds. Assistant Secretary Cameron, first of all,4477I want to thank you for being here today. As you know, Congress4478has authorized the Bureau of Reclamation to design and4479construct rural water supply projects. These projects are4480intended to deliver potable water to rural communities in4481western States.4482    To advance large scale water projects two types of Federal4483authorization are required. First, the authority to conduct a4484feasibility study, and the authority to construct the project.4485The three regional water organizations in South Dakota are4486currently seeking congressional authorization to conduct4487feasibility studies. If these entities receive the necessary4488authorizations, will the Bureau of Reclamation have the4489capacity to promptly initiate and complete these studies?4490    Mr. Cameron. Thank you for that question, Senator. We are4491committed to working with those communities to help them figure4492out how we can proceed with feasibility studies. And, in the4493event that Congress authorizes the work, we will find a path to4494advance that activity.4495    Senator Rounds. In a timely fashion.4496    Mr. Cameron. Yes, sir, given the availability of resources.4497    Senator Rounds. Okay. I noticed that the budget is not the4498best this year. It means that if we can get some money in there4499for that purpose, we'll get it done.4500    Mr. Cameron. Yes, happy to work with you on that, sir. I4501point out that you mentioned Tribes earlier. We are4502prioritizing rural water projects that have some connection to4503Tribes as well inside the President's budget, given our trust4504responsibility to Tribes. And often, there are Indian water4505rights settlements as Congress has passed that. We're trying to4506implement that.4507    Senator Rounds. That's part of the projects that we've got4508going on, so I look forward to working with you to accomplish4509it this year. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.4510    Senator Kennedy. Senator Merkley.4511    Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And you4512can see we're dashing in and out of many different hearings4513this morning. So, I really appreciate the chance to come and4514ask a couple of questions.4515    And I wanted to start, Mr. Forsgren, about the Cole Rivers4516Hatchery. Cole Rivers sounds like a name of a river, but4517actually it's the name of a person for a hatchery that's on the4518Rogue River, one of the most extraordinary rivers in the world.4519This hatchery provides fish for not just the Rogue River, but4520for lakes, for the Umpqua River. It is like incredibly4521important, and we've had huge cooperation with the Army Corps4522in working on it.4523    But even with that, it seems like progress is very slow as4524though study after studies gets completed, yet the actual4525implementation of the restoration is proceeding way, way too4526slowly. I want to know if the Corps fully understands how4527important this hatchery is dedicated to its rehabilitation. The4528supply of clean water is essential. We've took quite a bit of4529work just to get steady supply of electricity to this site. And4530let me stop there and just say, are you familiar with the4531project, and are you all in on helping us restore the hatchery?4532    Mr. Forsgren. Senator, I must admit, I am familiar only at4533the--I'll call it 60,000-foot level as to the project. I'll4534defer to General Graham on more specifics on that particular4535project. I don't want to tell you wrong.4536    General Graham. So, Senator, we understand the importance4537of that hatchery and Oregon's running it for us. We've got4538money, I think it was in fiscal year 2024 to fix the roof, but4539we know it has a failed water supply. Still challenges with the4540transformer, and we will continue to push make our best4541technical recommendations for the budget packages to make those4542fixes.4543    Senator Merkley. So, the Portland District has identified4544significant capacity of, they refer to it as capability, to4545support going more aggressively to attack the challenges at4546this hatchery. I mean, years of it being a priority. You4547mentioned a roof, like it's a complete rebuild. Even the4548challenge of the water not being properly supplied and4549filtered, causing the death of a number of the hatchery4550projects. And it's like, have we gotten to the point that we4551can't even figure out how to get clean water, steady4552electricity, steady filtering?4553    So, what would the Army Corps be able to do if Congress4554were to appropriate full capability for this project, given the4555Portland District is telling us they have that capability?4556    Mr. Forsgren. I will put some context over, and then I'm4557going to let General Graham give the specifics. Capabilities4558are always done in the context of the totality of the budget4559and the resources and the needs in a given district, in a given4560division, and nationwide. And so, yes, you know, the Corps may4561have on paper have the capacity to do this or that as a4562complete focus on that project to the exchange of other--you4563know, to the detriment of other projects in the same region.4564So, you--it's really to say that a district has capacity is4565always a little bit of an unfair thing, because it has to take4566into account the totality of the program.4567    Senator Merkley. Because of my shortage of time, I'll just4568note, here's the deal. When these dams were built, a promise4569was made to everyone that the Corps would make sure that these4570hatcheries provided the fish that could not go upriver to4571spawn. That promise is being broken. It is extremely important4572that that be understood, and that promise be upheld. And that4573means we've got to get the clean water, not just studied, but4574supplied. We've got to get the filtering equipment, not just4575thought about, but rebuilt and so, so forth.4576    I'm down to 20 seconds, so I'm going to switch gears to4577Scoggins Dam. Last month, my office noted, after 20 years of4578planning, the Bureau of Reclamation made the decision to4579rescope and downsize the planned structural reconstruction of4580the dam safety project at Scoggins Dam.4581    Why is this scary to everyone? Because we are reaching the4582point in that several 100-year cycle where a major earthquake4583occurs, the big one, if you will, and that dam and releasing4584the water out of it would flood down that valley and wipe out4585urban areas.4586    And yet, after 20 years of investment in planning, we are4587hearing that the goal of strengthening that dam to prevent that4588type of catastrophe is being abandoned. Why?4589    Mr. Cameron. Senator, I'll have to look at the particulars4590there. I can tell you more broadly that we are committed to dam4591safety around the Nation, and we're pleased that Congress still4592has provided some funds for the bipartisan infrastructure law4593to spend money on dam safety in addition to what's in the4594President's budget. But I'll have to get back to you on the4595particulars of that, sir.4596    Senator Merkley. Were the partners who used the dam supply4597water consulted on the factors that went into this decision?4598    Mr. Cameron. I not prepared to answer that question. I just4599don't have the information at hand, but I will get back to you,4600sir, on that.4601    Senator Merkley. The answer is they were not. Can you4602commit to ensuring that the Bureau will work with the community4603on a path forward?4604    Mr. Cameron. I can absolutely commit to that, sir.4605    Senator Merkley. Thank You. Mr. Chairman, not seeing any of4606my colleagues across the aisle, I have one more question if you4607have time for it.4608    Senator Kennedy. Sure, go ahead.4609    Senator Merkley. Yes. So, I wanted to address the challenge4610in the Klamath Basin. It's been plagued by drought for many4611years. Water is precious in the basin and vital to the survival4612of the community. The stakeholders have all come together to4613support each other in a whole variety of projects.4614    One of those projects was to install sensors. They're4615referred to as SCADA sensors along the Klamath Project to allow4616real-time water evaluation in order to do real-time water4617management. This was passed into law in March 2022. The sensors4618have not been installed. Can anyone give me a sense of when4619this project is going to be completed?4620    Mr. Cameron. I'm not prepared to give you a timeline right4621now, Senator. I will say we are aware of that issue with the4622SCADA sensors and believe the funding is available to move4623ahead. But I'd be happy to provide a schedule for you after the4624hearing.4625    Senator Merkley. Thank you. If you'll commit to briefing me4626and my staff, I'd certainly appreciate it.4627    Mr. Cameron. Absolutely, sir.4628    Senator Merkley. I'll tell you folks, go, listen, that $54629million is written into law. This first phase of this is4630putting sensors on poles that stick in bodies of water. How is4631it? We seem to go years unable to get a project funded. That's4632it's funded, but nothing happens. And that is really4633frustrating. We're only a few months into this administration,4634but maybe the team, the new team, can get this done.4635    Mr. Cameron. We'll look into it, and we'll look forward to4636briefing you and your staff on a path forward, sir.4637    Senator Merkley. Thank you.4638    Senator Kennedy. Senator Peters.4639    Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.4640    Gentlemen, welcome to the committee. I want to start by4641first focusing on the Soo Locks a project of national4642significance. Simply put an unscheduled outage of the poll4643lock, which is the largest lock at the Soo would devastate the4644economy, harm our manufacturing sector, and jeopardize national4645security. To put things into perspective, just a 6-month4646unscheduled outage at the Soo would result in an estimated 114647million jobs lost, and $1.1 trillion hit to the economy. That's4648a classic definition of critical infrastructure.4649    The bottom line is we need a second poll lock to alleviate4650the risk, and I've been leading the charge with a lot of my4651colleagues for quite some time. Most recently, I led a4652bipartisan and bicameral letter advocating for the inclusion of4653Soo Lock's funding in the most recent Army Corps work plan and4654budget request.4655    And I want to say thank you thank you for answering that4656call. Crucially, the $264 million included in the work plan4657will allow for the award of all remaining construction4658contracts, which is a big deal. And the budget request matches4659the project's full work capability for this fiscal year,4660something that I'm going to work to ensure makes it into the4661final funding bill.4662    But looking ahead I'm going to be doing everything in my4663power to see that this critical project actually gets4664completed. I think we're on a good track, but we always got to4665keep the eye on the ball.4666    And so, that's my question to you Secretary Forsgren and4667General Graham, if you could let me know, can I count on you to4668make sure we get this thing across the finish line, and make4669sure I continue to have your focus?4670    Mr. Forsgren. Senator, yes is the short answer. The longer4671answer is the President is committed to maintaining the4672integrity of the inland waterway and national lock system. It4673is, as you so articulately laid out, it is the backbone of the4674economy of this country, and we cannot afford as a Nation to4675let that happen. And I commit we will be working forward,4676looking for ways forward to enhance that system.4677    Senator Peters. Great. I appreciate that general,4678    General Graham. And Senator Peters, absolutely. It was4679great to see the funding and the work plan allowing us to hit4680those last three options. And to Chairman Kennedy, that's how4681we safely deliver quality projects on schedule, within budget,4682is we keep the efficient funding flowing, and then we can--I4683mean, we're never going to get better prices than what we had4684locked in to finish those last three options up at the Soo. I'm4685heading up there in a few weeks to make sure that there are no4686surprises up there, and that the team on the ground has4687everything they need to continue to deliver. And I think we're4688on track for 2030, which is exciting.4689    Senator Peters. Great, great. Good to hear. Good to have4690you back up there soon as well.4691    Speaking of the Soo, I also hope that both of you will work4692with me to establish a special salary rate table for Soo Lock4693operational and maintenance positions. I think both of you4694understand the challenge of getting folks there. The4695reliability of the Soo Lock complex is going to hinge on those4696workers, and for a variety of reasons it is very challenging.4697So, to both of you, again, can I count on your help to make4698sure we have adequate staffing for the facility as it operates?4699    General Graham. Senator Peters, absolutely. That wonderful4700investment to make sure that this key piece of infrastructure,4701as you laid out, will only serve the public well if we have the4702right staff there. And based on kind of some irregularities,4703I'll call it in kind of how the pay model works, getting the4704special salary rate through will allow us to pay our staff what4705we believe they're worth. And so, you have our commitment.4706    Senator Peters. Great. Appreciate that. I appreciate that,4707thank you. Next, I want to talk to you about the importance of4708the Brandon Road in our basin project, as you know, invasive4709bighead and silver carp, pose a truly an unprecedented risk to4710the Great Lakes, which together support a $7 billion fishing4711industry, a $16 billion boating industry, and roughly about $64712trillion in the regional economy.4713    At present, the electric dispersal barriers in the Chicago4714Sanitary and Ship Canal represent the sole structural measure4715to deter invasive carp from reaching Lake Michigan where this4716remains our primary line of defense against the steady advance4717of this invasive carp. It would only be a matter of time before4718the bighead and silver carp established themselves in the Great4719Lakes decimating the ecosystem or fishing or boating4720recreational industries as well.4721    The Brandon Road Project is a solution to this problem, and4722it'll employ the precise measures necessary to halt the spread4723of carp before they reach the Great Lakes. I think this project4724is nothing short of critical to the lasting health of the Great4725Lakes. And as both of you know, I think time is of the essence4726as well.4727    So, my question for both of you, again, similar, can I4728count on you to work with me and my colleagues here in4729Congress, as well as both the States of Michigan and Illinois,4730to keep this project moving in the right direction? It's been a4731project for years in the making, but again, time is of the4732essence and your forceful assistance is necessary.4733    Mr. Forsgren. Senator, I have the luxury in this particular4734instance and being able to quote the President directly on it,4735and that is he's fully committed to that project. I know he,4736and your governor, worked very closely on that project. And you4737might guess my direction vis-a-vis that project is to see that4738happens. We got great help from, as was mentioned, the4739President and the governor. We were able to get the real estate4740secured that we need. We released Contract 1A, which is the4741leading-edge bubbler of this multi-tiered defense. And so, that4742will be the start of fish deterrence. And so, that's exciting4743to see that contract on the streets.4744    Senator Peters. Excellent. Well, thank you. Thank you both.4745    Mr. Cameron. Senator, if I could add.4746    Senator Peters. Oh yes.4747    Mr. Cameron. The Interior Department is also actively4748involved with supporting the Corps and their work there. So,4749it's not Reclamation, but our Geological Survey and the Fish4750and Wildlife Service are both actively involved.4751    Senator Peters. Excellent. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.4752Chairman.4753    Senator Kennedy. I've got a few questions, gentlemen. Let4754me start with you, Mr. Secretary. I'm trying to understand how4755you, and all of you, and OMB, are thinking here. Where's the4756money come from for the Inland Waterways Trust Fund?4757    Mr. Forsgren. Senator, it's principally raised by tax on4758the diesel fuel used in the tug and barge industry.4759    Senator Kennedy. Yes. Do you know the balance in that4760account off the top of your head?4761    Mr. Forsgren. I don't know off the top of my head. I I'll4762be happy to provide that to you for the record----4763    Senator Kennedy. Okay.4764    Mr. Forsgren. But it is not insignificant.4765    Senator Kennedy. I'm sorry.4766    Mr. Forsgren. The number, the balance is not insignificant.4767    Senator Kennedy. Okay. The proposed budget proposes not to4768spend it. Why would we--it can't be used for anything else. Why4769would we not spend it?4770    Mr. Forsgren. Sir, well, first of all, most of the needs4771that with--I hate I'm going to kind of back up with the Corps's4772capabilities. Most of the needs that we were currently capable4773of using that trust fund for were moved forward into the 20254774spending plan. So, a lot of that were taken care--a lot of4775those projects were funded in 2025 pretty close to their full4776capabilities in the interim future.4777    And it also, the advantage of the trust funds is that4778they're designed to be for monies to be raised to used,4779including out years, you know, and over a longer period of4780time. So, you know, we moved the funds forward into 2025 for4781most of the projects that we're currently ongoing. And then the4782projects, you know, there were balances left that will be used4783in future years to fund projects as they come up and the Corps4784capability come available.4785    Senator Kennedy. So, Mr. Secretary, you're saying you don't4786need the money right now?4787    Mr. Forsgren. No, sir. We're going to need the money very4788soon.4789    Senator Kennedy. I'm talking about right now. It's a timing4790issue?4791    Mr. Forsgren. I would say largely, sir, yes. That there4792could--we always use some. You know, what we don't want to do4793is get into a situation where we're trying to spend money just4794because it's about to expire.4795    Senator Kennedy. Agreed.4796    Mr. Forsgren. We'd rather find that--you know, fund it as4797the project's needed as they go forward.4798    Senator Kennedy. Where's the money come from for the Harbor4799Maintenance Trust Fund?4800    Mr. Forsgren. Sir, it's a value-based user fee that is4801charged against cargo, all cargoes, entering or exiting United4802States.4803    Senator Kennedy. Okay. It's got some money in it, doesn't4804it?4805    Mr. Forsgren. It does. And again, to be used over time.4806    Senator Kennedy. Right. This proposed budget only proposes4807using $1.7 billion. Is that right?4808    Mr. Forsgren. Yes, sir.4809    Senator Kennedy. That's below the mark that we set. Is it4810not?4811    Mr. Forsgren. Yes sir.4812    Senator Kennedy. How come?4813    Mr. Forsgren. Again, more of a timing issue. Some of the4814things were moved forward, others, it--the President did put a4815focus on what were principal Federal responsibilities, which is4816the maintenance and dredging of Federal channels. And so,4817again, the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund is to be used over4818time for those projects.4819    Senator Kennedy. Okay. Well, nobody's thinking about using4820this money for something else. Are they?4821    Mr. Forsgren. No, sir.4822    Senator Kennedy. Okay. General, I want to ask you a4823question about bringing these projects in on budget and on4824time. I know you said it was engineering, we got to get the4825engineering right, project management right, team right. Let me4826give you an example. I'm not going beat this to death, and I'm4827just picking a project. We've got a lot of projects in4828Louisiana, just like Alaska. A lot of projects. Everybody has a4829lot of projects. But the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal in New4830Orleans, 10 years ago, we projected it would cost about $9514831million. Now, the cost is up to about $4.7 billion. And the4832courses, it'll take 14 years. I mean, I understand inflation,4833but why? And I'm using this as an example.4834    General Graham. So, Senator, the Inner Harbor Navigation4835Canal down there where the intercoastal waterway bisects and4836gets across and up onto the Mississippi River is absolutely4837key. And you know, the history that we've had on multiple4838lawsuits and injunctions over the years, a lot of it built from4839the lack of trust from the local communities, particularly the4840Lower Ninth Ward.4841    So, that cost estimate, and I, for everybody who's4842listening, that IHNC (Inner Harbor Navigation Canal) is also4843part of the flood protection for the greater New Orleans area,4844the river facing gates. So, it's imperative that we get this4845right. And what I told the district to do is to make sure that4846they have put in their cost estimates, the risks associated.4847Most of those risks are the fact that--not the fact, most of4848those risks are elements of not having local support to build4849this. We want to get a team together.4850    Senator Kennedy. How do you quantify that?4851    General Graham. So, that's what we owe you. You take a risk4852that it's going to get delayed, and then you try your best to4853put money associated with that would get delayed. So, we4854would've loved to build this thing for less than $1 billion 104855years ago, but the court cases have prevented us from doing4856that. The lack of trust from the citizens of the Lower Ninth4857Ward have prevented us from doing that. So, we're trying to4858build that trust so that we don't end up in this infinite loop4859of litigation.4860    Senator Kennedy. I got it. All right. Senator Murkowski,4861I'm going to ask General--ask you one more question. And you're4862well aware of all this. For whatever reason, sea levels are4863rising, our land in South Louisiana is sinking. Part of that is4864because over time, sediment becomes more and more compacted.4865Where did that sediment come from? That sediment came from the4866Mississippi River, which used to overflow, which was a blessing4867and a curse.4868    But our Corps did an extraordinary job at our request of4869levying the Mississippi River. We weighed the cost and the4870benefit and said the right thing to do here is to levy the4871river. Well, that obviously stopped the sediment. And I'm not4872suggesting we take the levies down.4873    [Laughter.]4874    Senator Kennedy. What do we do? We're not going to take the4875levies down. The land's sinking. There's no new sediment coming4876in. The sediment's becoming more compacted, and the sea levels4877are rising. What would you do, if you were king for a day?4878General, let me start with you, and then I'll ask the4879secretary.4880    General Graham. Sure. Chairman Kennedy, so some of the4881projects are that we have a tremendous amount of non-structural4882projects going on in Southeast.4883    Senator Kennedy. Yes. And I'm not asking you to comment on4884any particular project. I get all the politics, and the4885wailing, and the national gnashing of teeth. And everybody's4886bows are in an uproar over which one's the best one. I get4887that. I'm just asking, what approach should we take?4888    General Graham. So, raising homes to deal with sea level4889rise coming up in the land sinking, that non-structural4890approach is a tool that we're starting to execute at scale in4891Southern Louisiana. What we're also taking a look at is4892supporting the State of Louisiana in whatever sediment4893diversion pass that it's choosing to take. They had applied for4894a permit and granted it.4895    Senator Kennedy. Do you think sediment diversion works?4896    General Graham. In some instances, I believe it does. It4897has to be done very carefully. And in anytime we move the4898Mississippi River off from where it's going to someplace else,4899that's going to have tremendous forces. And so, we have to take4900a look at that mindfully. But I believe we have the engineering4901expertise and working in conjunction with the State, I believe4902that we can use that tool effectively.4903    Senator Kennedy. Now, do you--on the sediment diversion,4904are you saying we should do it in small amounts, pilot4905projects, or larger amounts, or does that matter?4906    General Graham. I think pilot projects to prove that we4907know what we think we know are always wise.4908    Senator Kennedy. So, you're thinking of a pilot project?4909    General Graham. I think those----4910    Senator Kennedy. We've done some.4911    General Graham. We have done some.4912    Senator Kennedy. We don't have enough pilots.4913    General Graham. I owe you a better, more detailed answer on4914that.4915    Senator Kennedy. Okay. What do you think, Mr. Secretary?4916    Mr. Forsgren. Senator, I certainly agree that the Corps's4917expertise in moving and doing sediment projects and doing a4918traditional Corps approach is--will be one of the tools that4919has to happen. I think we need to think about the other side of4920some of the stuff the Corps does, and that's using the4921regulatory program to create some incentives for the private4922sector to do positive things.4923    Senator Kennedy. For example?4924    Mr. Forsgren. I'll use a perfect example in South4925Louisiana. Right now, in the 404 Program, we cannot give a4926mitigation bank credit for preventing subsidence losses of4927wetlands. Those coastal wetlands losses are mounting to about4928the only losses nationally in wetlands resources.4929    But we can't--we don't have a mechanism now between law,4930between--I don't think it's law, it's really regulation, that4931would allow someone--for example, there are several large4932landowners down there that at a relatively low cost, you know,4933a few million dollars could, you know, barrier the breaches4934that have been in the--into the coastal wetlands for a long4935time and put some that would stop some of the salt water4936incursion, which accelerates the wetlands losses and some of4937the subsidence.4938    But if they could sell credits for 404 purposes for4939elsewhere in Louisiana, that would provide the economic4940incentive for doing that. But we don't have--we can do it. So,4941now, you've got people in South Louisiana going up to North4942Louisiana to buy credits to do development.4943    Senator Kennedy. Got you.4944    Mr. Forsgren. There's a mismatch. We need to find more4945creative ways, some more creative ways to use the regulatory4946system in a positive manner to help.4947    Senator Kennedy. Okay. I want to sit down--we'll sit down4948and talk about that.4949    Mr. Forsgren. Absolutely, Senator.4950    Senator Kennedy. Thank you for your creative thinking. I4951want to be sure I understand you, General, you think diversion4952works?4953    General Graham. I believe there's cases where it can be4954part of the solution. Yes.4955    Senator Kennedy. You think it can work in South Louisiana?4956    General Graham. Yes.4957    Senator Kennedy. Okay. Senator.4958    Senator Murkowski. I love these conversations. This is why4959the Corps is so important. Quite honestly, we need really smart4960people who are really good engineers to figure out some of4961these challenges. Whether it is what you're facing down there4962in Louisiana with the loss of your wetlands, and the4963subsidence, and all that. We got other problems up north that4964come about through coastal erosion, river erosion, the4965permafrost melting. We've got subsidence there. It's just a4966different kind.4967    But at the end of the day, we're all looking to the Corps4968for many of these answers. And like your situation in4969Louisiana, there is no small project that I can find in the4970State of Alaska. The thing that should be simple is not simple.4971These are legacy projects, and whether it's Lowell Point, most4972people in America will never hear of Lowell Creek Tunnel and4973why it's important, but it's going to save a little community4974like Seward.4975    But honest to God, it's 20 years maybe more in the making.4976I'm not even going to count the dollars. But that's not what I4977want to talk to you about today. I want to talk to you about4978the Port of Nome, because I'm worried that as we're looking at4979your budget, what we are talking about here today, the projects4980that are important to Alaska and Louisiana, the amount of folks4981that we've got at the Corps, coupled with the decrease in the4982budget, problems like we're facing in Juneau with the4983jokulhlaups, that is a Norwegian term for glacial outburst4984flooding, which just about on August 7 of each year, the people4985of Juneau are visited by a massive flood where a glacier rises4986up because you've got so much volume under this basin, floods4987the river, floods, the area. We need some smart engineering4988solutions, and it's not going to get any cheaper to the Port of4989Nome every single time, whether it's in public hearing like4990this or in private conversations in my office.4991    The Corps has assured me that the Port of Nome is a4992priority project. They realize that the United States of4993America needs a deep-water port given Nome's strategic4994advantage where it's sitting right up there, right directly4995across from Russia. All of the traffic that we're seeing coming4996through the Bering Strait, nobody disagrees that this is a4997significant port.4998    And yet, when I look at the budget request, I'm just4999confused. I'm just confused because you've got a port that is5000not getting any cheaper. We all recognize that the problem is5001that when you don't have adequate funding in the beginning, the5002costs are only going to increase. I'm hoping Mr. Forsgren, that5003you're going to have some creative ways that you can share with5004me today about either funding streams or perhaps it's on the5005regulatory side to help lessen the burden.5006    But when you've got short construction season, when you've5007got logistical challenges for places that are not contiguous to5008the rest of the United States, you know the challenges that we5009have. First question, and I hope I know the answer to this; is5010the Port of Nome a priority for the U.S. Army Corps?5011    General Graham. Yes, Senator.5012    Senator Murkowski. Okay.5013    Mr. Forsgren. The fact that it was included for funding,5014specifically by name, demonstrates that commitment.5015    Senator Murkowski. And I think that that's good. And I take5016that for what it is, but I'm concerned that when you don't5017include meaningful funding. Basically, there's $3 million here.5018It looks to me that this is--what we're talking about is a5019contingency amount for a prior year's funding rather than5020looking at the project, evaluating the need, and putting the5021commitment behind it. How am I supposed to read the commitment5022from the Corps about a project like this with a budget like5023this? And I know you anticipated that question.5024    Mr. Forsgren. I did, but that doesn't make the answer any5025easier.5026    Senator Murkowski. No, it doesn't, because it defies a5027rational explanation, in my view.5028    Mr. Forsgren. Senator, all I can say is, the Port of Nome5029is a commitment, is a project that the administration has5030committed to. And we are--there have been a number of5031challenges at the Port of Nome, contracting and others, that5032have put us in a place where the exact level of resources that5033we thought we could execute in the short-term is uncertain. And5034so, yes, and I'll defer.5035    General Graham. So, Senator, we're working through the5036solicitation right now, and the bids, and working to see if we5037can get to an award. And that's with the $250 million that we5038have on hand. The $3 million in 2026, we would use to advance5039the next feature, the engineering for the next feature. That's5040the east breakwater. So, we are moving that forward. The key is5041getting to award this year for the causeway extension, and I'm5042still--that's our goal. But we're not quite there yet.5043    Senator Murkowski. So, the last time we talked about this5044we've had many, many, many conversations about this. The effort5045was going to be to see if you couldn't attract more interest5046from outside contractors. I'm told that that has happened. I'm5047told that we're further along with getting a successful bid out5048there, but what you're both sharing with me today by body5049language and words is not very comforting.5050    General Graham. Actually, we're further along, certainly,5051Senator. This is still all part of the acquisition process.5052Talked to the district yesterday and they're optimistic.5053    Senator Murkowski. And define optimistic. Does that mean5054that we get, we get through the bid process this summer?5055    General Graham. That's what they're optimistic about. Yes.5056    Senator Murkowski. And do we actually do anything physical5057this year,5058    General Graham. Moving Rock this year. Senator, I owe you5059an answer on that. As you said, the construction season's5060short, and I can't remember offhand the sequence of buying5061rock. So, I owe you an answer on that.5062    Senator Murkowski. I think you need to talk to your folks5063in Alaska. I'm sure you have. The assurance that I got was that5064we were going to be seeing physical activity this year. This5065year. And we know what happens in Nome after October when the5066ice comes in and everything--all work effectively stops.5067    So, what you're sharing with me is we're going to be better5068off on paper. You're going to try to move some rock, but I just5069don't want one stack moved from one corner to another. Either5070stop calling it a priority project and just acknowledge that5071the Corps and the administration is saying that the Arctic is5072no longer significant, and I refuse to accept that for an5073answer. Or put some direction to this in a way that is5074aggressive, that is meaningful and is responsive to what we're5075seeing 57 miles across the water in Russia.5076    I think we're an embarrassment when we say one thing and we5077simply do not move to facilitate it in a way that could be5078recognized as positive. So, I don't mean to be lectury, but I5079am so frustrated with where we are on Port of Nome right now. I5080know you've got a lot of other projects in Alaska that we're5081working on. We go through our checklist all the time. We're5082making some good progress there, thank you. We need to deal5083with Lowell Point, we need to deal with--and we need to deal5084all this stuff.5085    But in the meantime, the Arctic is not waiting. Right now,5086there's more interest in the administration with Greenland for5087an Arctic port. That's inexcusable. We have Alaska, right?5088Anyway, thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen.50895090                     ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS50915092    Senator Kennedy. All right, gentlemen. Thank you. We'll5093meet again. We'll talk some more. The hearing record will5094remain open for a week. My colleagues can submit additional5095information, if they would like. Thank you for being here5096today. If you get questions, please respond to them in a5097reasonable amount of time, both for this hearing and generally.5098    [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but5099were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the5100hearing:]5101               Questions Submitted to Mr. D. Lee Forsgren5102            Questions Submitted by Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith5103    Question. Secretary Forsgren and General Graham, Arkabutla Lake is5104a federally authorized flood control reservoir that stores floodwater5105to provide vital flood protection for a large portion of northwest5106Mississippi. In May 2023, the Corps issued an emergency declaration5107after it discovered a depression at the toe of the Arkabutla dam, which5108could result in a dam breach if left untreated. Mississippians--5109particularly those who live or own property below the dam--have been on5110pins and needles ever since. On multiple occasions over the past 25111years--usually in the spring--there have been instances where5112substantial rain events have caused the lake to fill up. In response,5113the Corps has declared potential breach emergencies, 24-hour dam5114surveillance has been activated, and so on. The Corps Vicksburg5115District has and continues to work hard to correct the problem. But5116Mississippians are very eager for the Corps to get this corrected,5117sooner rather than later. Will you work with me to help expedite the5118Arkabutla dam repairs as quickly as possible? I have requested funding5119above the budget request to address this issue. If enacted into law,5120how will the Corps put those funds to good use, swiftly and5121effectively?5122    Answer. The Corps is working expeditiously to address the safety5123concern at this dam. Consistent with this objective, the Budget5124provided the full amount that the Corps estimated that it could use5125effectively and efficiently in FY 2026. Since then, the Corps has5126revised its approach to the pre-construction engineering and design5127phase of this project, which may affect the amount that it could use5128effectively and efficiently in FY 2026. At this point, our focus is on5129making the best use of the enacted FY 2025 funds.5130                                 ______51315132              Questions Submitted by Senator Tammy Baldwin5133    Question. For the past several years, I have supported the5134Navigation Ecosystem Sustainability Program, which has made great5135progress on the ecosystem restoration activities under that authority.5136When will Lock and Dam 25 be ready for funding?5137    Answer. So far, $732 million has been appropriated for design and5138construction of Lock and Dam 25. The Corps is continuing work on the5139project using these funds.5140                                 ______51415142             Questions Submitted by Senator Martin Heinrich5143    Question. The enacted 2024 Water Resources Development Act included5144a provision to carry out planning, design, and construction measures5145for the Middle Rio Grande Bosque. This project is crucial for wildlife5146prevention and restoration. How does the Army Corps plan to balance5147wildfire prevention and restoration efforts with the need to maintain5148water flow and protect this ecosystem, especially the removal of jetty5149jacks?5150    Answer. In January 2004, Congress authorized the Corps to assist5151with the planning, design, and construction of measures for wildfire5152prevention and restoration in the Middle Rio Grande bosque in and5153around the City of Albuquerque in accordance with PL 108-137,5154Operations and Maintenance, Section 116. Under this authorization, the5155Corps developed a plan in partnership with the Bureau of Reclamation5156and the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District to identify jetty jacks5157that could safely be removed without compromising the flood mitigation5158function while maintaining flow levels in the river and bosque5159ecosystem. The 2024 authorization expands this authorization to the5160entire Middle Rio Grande and under this authorization, the Corps would5161expand the plan in partnership with the Bureau of Reclamation and the5162Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District, and in coordination with5163relevant landowners and stakeholders.5164    Question. If the Corps is not appropriated the full amount for the5165acequia irrigation infrastructure program, how is the agency planning5166to fill the funding gap between shovel-ready work and the appropriated5167amount?5168    Answer. The Corps awarded two acequia construction contracts in FY51692025 (Farmers and La Joya) and plans to award another contract in FY51702026 (Rio Chama-Chamita). The Corps has sufficient funds on hand for5171that work.5172                                 ______51735174             Questions Submitted by Senator Gary C. Peters5175    Question. While I am pleased to see that the FY2026 Army Corps5176Budget Request called for much-needed funding for the Soo Locks and5177Brandon Road, I am disappointed to see that two vital flood risk5178mitigation studies--one in Southeast Michigan and the other in the5179Midland region--were left out.5180    Let me be clear, there remains work to be done on these studies.5181Recognizing that, the Detroit District is working on Additional5182Resources Requests for both studies, and the non-Federal sponsors are5183fully on board.5184    Be assured, I'm going to fight to secure the full funding for these5185studies through the appropriations process, because these communities5186simply can't afford to see the progress made to date come to a halt.5187    Secretary Forsgren and General Graham, I urge you to approve these5188Additional Resources Requests as soon as possible and work with me to5189ensure additional funding is provided to match those resource requests.5190Can I count on your support for these studies--both the Southeast5191Michigan Flood Risk Management Feasibility Study and the Tittabawassee5192River Watershed Flood Risk Management Feasibility Study?5193    Answer. The FY 2025 Corps work plan provided $1.2 million for each5194of these studies, which is the amount that the Corps estimated that it5195would need to fund the remaining Federal share of their cost. At the5196start of FY 2026, the Corps had more than $1 million in unobligated5197funds on each of these studies and estimated that it could not use any5198further funds in FY 2026.5199    Question. I am also frustrated to see that the Great Lakes Coastal5200Resiliency Study--something that has long enjoyed strong bipartisan5201support--was unfunded in both the FY2025 Work Plan and the FY20265202Budget Request.5203    This study represents a first of its kind effort to develop a5204coordinated strategy to manage and protect the Great Lakes and its52055,200-mile coastline from threats associated with lake level5206fluctuations, erosion, flooding, nutrient runoff, and aging5207infrastructure.5208    Secretary Forsgren and General Graham, what is the Administration's5209rationale for leaving this study--which was already underway--unfunded?5210    Answer. The Army allocated the available funds to other studies and5211projects. The Corps had significant unobligated prior-year funds on5212hand for this study in those years. At the start of FY 2025, it had5213roughly $4.2 million. At the start of FY 2026, it had roughly $2.35214million.5215                                 ______52165217    Questions Submitted to Lieutenant General William H. Graham, Jr.5218              Questions Submitted by Senator Tammy Baldwin5219    Question. The Corps' FY25 work plan allocates $264.1 million to the5220Soo Lock project, but I understand that the project needed $314.55221million in FY25 to fund all of the contract options that expire at the5222end of FY25. Will the Corps' FY26 budget request for the Soo Lock5223project include enough funds to complete all of the contract options5224expiring at the end of FY25 as well as the remaining upper approach5225wall work and future modifications planned for FY26?5226    Answer. The FY25 Work Plan contained funding required to award all5227remaining options on the Phase 3 portion of the new lock construction5228project at the Soo prior to expiration. The additional amount5229referenced (i.e., the delta between $314.5 million and $264.1 million)5230would have been used for other work, such as partially funding the5231remaining upper approach wall work or addressing potential construction5232contract modifications in FY26. The FY26 President's Budget amount for5233this project would be used to complete the remaining upper approach5234wall work and address potential construction contract modifications5235required in FY26.5236                                 ______52375238              Questions Submitted to Mr. Scott J. Cameron5239             Questions Submitted by Senator Martin Heinrich5240    Question. Can you provide a project update for the Navajo Gallup5241Water Supply Project? How does the Bureau plan to meet your legal and5242trust obligations to this project?5243    Answer. The Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) has made significant5244progress on the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project (NGWSP), completing5245over 70% since breaking ground in 2012. The first of the two5246independent water transmission systems, the Cutter Lateral, was5247completed in 2020 and has since been delivering drinking water to over52481,550 homes/6,200 people in eight Navajo chapters. Water deliveries5249began to the Teepee Junction portion of the Jicarilla Apache Nation in5250fall of 2024.5251    On the San Juan Lateral, Reclamation is more than 60% finished,5252with 185 miles of the 200 miles of that water transmission system5253installed or under contract. Reclamation completed two large5254construction contracts this spring, including the Navajo Code Talkers5255Sublateral that will be able to deliver water to the Window Rock/Ft.5256Defiance, Arizona area. There are currently 3 large active construction5257contracts, including the San Juan Lateral Water Treatment Plant, and5258Reclamation is scheduled to award 10 more construction contracts over5259the next 2 = years to complete the Project in accordance with Public5260Law 111-11.5261    Public Law 118-158 (extended through the end of FY 2025 by Public5262Law 119-4) increased the NGWSP's FY 2025 appropriation ceiling to5263$1.640 billion, allowing Reclamation to allocate $120 million to NGWSP5264from the Reclamation Water Settlement Fund (RWSF) as well as an5265additional $25 million from the FY 2025 Operating Plan within Water &5266Related Resources to fully fund anticipated FY 2025 capabilities.5267    Question. Reclamation has historically been a strong partner in the5268Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Collaborative. The Collaborative5269has recently had difficulty drawing down funds. Can we expect funding5270disruptions are over and that this partnership will continue?5271    How does Reclamation plan to meet your Endangered Species Act5272requirements without fully supporting programs like the Collaborative?5273    Answer. Reclamation's water delivery and power generation mission5274will continue while meeting our environmental responsibilities on5275individual projects, including the Middle Rio Grand Project. Funding5276levels for ESA-related activities for this project that meet these5277responsibilities has remained consistent at approximately $4 million in5278FY 2023, FY 2024, and 2025. The FY 2026 budget request anticipates5279similar funding levels.5280    Question. Can you provide an update on the status of the El Vado5281Dam construction?5282    Answer. Reclamation is in the process of evaluating preliminary5283alternatives to move forward into design. A value planning study was5284performed to identify ways to reduce project costs and schedule. A5285field exploration campaign is underway to better understand the5286foundation and embankment material properties and inform upcoming5287design phases.5288    Question. How will Reclamation honor its commitment to completing5289the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water Supply Project--an authorized5290project--on time, if you are proposing zero dollars for Rural Water5291construction?5292    Answer. Reclamation remains committed to the completion of the5293Eastern New Mexico Water Supply Project. Reclamation has contributed5294$364 million toward completion of the Project to date, and over $305295million has been allocated in FY 2024 and FY 2025. Additionally,5296Reclamation has $92 million remaining in rural water construction5297funding for which this project is eligible.5298    Currently under construction are Finished Water (FW) 1 and FW 3,5299both of which are planned for completion in this fiscal year. The5300remaining activities will complete the remaining pipelines and5301facilities. These include: Texico Lateral, Elida Lateral, Raw Water5302(RW) 1, RW2, RW3, the Water Treatment Plant, Caprock Booster Pump5303Station, Intake Pump Station, Elida Pump Station, Caprock Storage Tank,5304Ultimate Buildout work and delivery of power to facilities.53055306                         CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS53075308    Senator Kennedy. Thank you for coming. We'll talk again.5309We're probably going to have to start over with this budget.5310Gentlemen, I'm not telling you anything that you don't know.5311It's just not realistic and I support a lot of what Russ and my5312friends at OMB are doing. But I just know the appetite for the5313work that you all do and the necessity of it. So, I'm just5314being realistic.5315    Thank you for coming. Take the rest of the day off.5316    [Laughter.]5317    [Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., Wednesday, June 11, the hearings5318were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene5319subject to the call of the Chair.]53205321             LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND5322                      PREPARED STATEMENTS53235324                              ----------5325                                                                   Page53265327Baldwin, Senator Tammy, U.S. Senator From Wisconsin, Questions5328  Submitted by53295330
53315332Cameron, Mr. Scott J., Acting Assistant Secretary for Water and5333  Science, Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior.....    805334    Prepared Statement of........................................    805335    Questions Submitted to.......................................   10253365337Durbin, Senator Richard J., U.S. Senator From Illinois, Questions5338  Submitted by...................................................    6753395340Forsgren, Mr. D. Lee, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army5341  (Civil Works), Department of Defense--Civil....................    715342    Prepared Statement of........................................    765343    Questions Submitted to.......................................   1005344    Summary Statement of.........................................    7553455346Graham, Lieutenant General William H. Jr., Chief of Engineers and5347  Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of5348  Defense--Civil.................................................    775349    Prepared Statement of........................................    785350    Questions Submitted to.......................................   1025351Graham, Senator Lindsey, U.S. Senator From South Carolina,5352  Questions Submitted by.........................................    5753535354Heinrich, Senator Martin, U.S. Senator From New Mexico, Questions5355  Submitted by53565357
53585359Hyde-Smith, Senator Cindy, U.S. Senator From Mississippi,5360  Questions Submitted by53615362
53635364Kennedy, Senator John, U.S. Senator From Louisiana, Opening5365  Statement of53665367
53685369McConnell, Senator Mitch, U.S. Senator From Kentucky, Questions5370  Submitted by...................................................    565371Murray, Senator Patty, U.S. Senator From Washington:5372    Questions Submitted by.......................................    615373    Statement of53745375
53765377Peters, Senator Gary C., U.S. Senator From Michigan, Questions5378  Submitted by...................................................   10153795380Rounds, Senator Mike, U.S. Senator From South Dakota, Questions5381  Submitted by...................................................    5953825383Wright, Hon. Christopher, Office of the Secretary, Department of5384  Energy.........................................................     15385    Prepared Statement of........................................     75386    Questions Submitted to.......................................    565387    Summary Statement of.........................................     553885389                             SUBJECT INDEX53905391                              ----------53925393                      DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL53945395                         Department of the Army53965397                       Corps of Engineers--Civil53985399                                                                   Page54005401Construction Program.............................................    795402Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP).........    795403Investigations Program...........................................    785404Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Program..........................    795405Regulatory Program...............................................    795406Summary of FY 2026 Discretionary Request.........................    785407                               __________54085409                          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY54105411                        Office of the Secretary54125413Additional Committee Questions...................................    565414Alaska Projects..................................................    245415Baseload for Grid Stability......................................    195416Bonneville Power Authority Staffing..............................    335417Critical Minerals................................................    185418Department of Energy:5419    Budget.......................................................    135420    Fiscal Year 2026 Budget......................................    215421    Project Review...............................................    265422    Projects--Schools............................................    325423    Spend Plan...................................................    345424Federal Employees................................................    125425Fiscal Year 2026:5426    Budget Request...............................................    315427    President's Budget Request...................................    105428Grid:5429    Investments..................................................    175430    Reliability..................................................    295431    Security.....................................................    175432    Upgrades.....................................................    255433Hydrogen Hubs....................................................    235434Isotopes.........................................................    195435Loan Program Office..............................................    535436Loans............................................................    115437Nuclear:5438    Energy.......................................................    325439    Power........................................................    145440    Reactors.....................................................    155441Priorities.......................................................     85442Research Funding for Universities................................    225443Response to Letters..............................................    355444Small Modular Reactors...........................................    285445Staffing at Department of Energy.................................    555446                               __________54475448                       DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR54495450                         Bureau of Reclamation54515452Additional Committee Questions...................................   1005453Central Utah Project Completion Act..............................    825454Colorado River Water.............................................    825455Prioritizing Western Water Deliveries for People and Agriculture.    815456Water & Related Resources Overview...............................    8154575458                                  [all]