BREAKING NEWS: Energy Secretary Chris Wright Testifies Before Senate Armed Services Committee

Added: 2026-05-15

[00:00:00]and the assistant secretary of energy for environmental management, Mr. Timothy Walsh. Welcome to all three of you. I want to thank you for appearing today and for your willingness to serve your fellow Americans. The United States prevailed in the Cold War because we ma maintained a credible nuclear deterrent, a strong conventional military, and the unmatched scientific and industrial strength of our economy. Over time, the free world proved that economic vitality paired with commitment to peace through strength can outlast even the most dangerous authoritarian regimes. And today, they're still out there. We face a far more complex and dangerous world.

[00:00:41]The United States and its allies now face multiple nuclear armed adversaries, each seeking to reshape the international order and undermine our security and prosperity.

[00:00:52]War criminal Vladimir Putin continues to wield the world's largest and most diverse nuclear arsenal. Despite the strain of his unprovoked war in Ukraine, Russia continues to modernize its nuclear forces. Putin is fielding new destabilizing weapons and maintaining a production capacity that in key areas vastly exceeds our own. and the United States. Moscow's reckless nuclear ambitions stretch from the seafloor all the way into orbit. And frankly, it threatens our very existence.

[00:01:28]At the same time, Beijing is engaged in an unprecedented nuclear expansion.

[00:01:32]Under Xiinping, China is moving well beyond a minimum deterrent. Instead, China's building a far larger and more sophisticated nuclear force. It has rapidly constructed hundreds of new missile silos, expanded mobile missile and ballistic missile submarine forces, and invested in long range bombers. All of these measures flow from and to a strategy designed to surpass the United States in the coming decade.

[00:02:04]China is executing this nuclear buildup alongside a broader military um industrial surge. China's dominance in ship building, critical minerals, and key dual-use technologies reflects a deliberate effort to translate economic strength into long-term military advantage. I will note that deterrence is expensive, but this is a competition we cannot afford to lose. The Department of Energy and the National Nuclear Security Administration sit at the center of these challenges, hence our hearing today. Much of the nuclear security enterprise still relies on infrastructure dating back to the Manhattan project. Efforts to recapitalize that infrastructure, restore plutonium pit production, and modernize the stockpile are behind schedule at a time when uh when demands on the enterprises are growing. At the same time, the department is executing several critical national security initiatives. These include advancing multiple warhead modernization programs, sustaining the naval reactors program that underpins our sea-based deterrent, promoting artificial intelligence research, and developing advanced nuclear energy technologies to enhance resilience at military installations and support future operational needs. But the central question remains, are we moving with sufficient urgency?

[00:03:44]Our adversaries are expanding and modernizing their forces at a pace that should trouble every member of this committee. I believe the gentleman we hear from today are working to get us back on track. If we intend to preserve a credible deterrent, assure our allies, and prevent conflict, we must align our policies, budgets, and industrial capacity with today's realities. This does not come on the cheap and we must do so quickly because we're running out of time. Before I conclude, I'll say this. Given the urgency of the moment, I confess that I'm troubled by the department's failure to request funding for the nuclear sea launched cruise missile warhead program.

[00:04:31]despite explicit statutory direction to accelerate that effort.

[00:04:37]Direction which came from last year's National Defense Authorization Act passed by both houses of the Congress, signed into law by President Donald J.

[00:04:47]Trump.

[00:04:49]This is not a policy disagreement. It is simply a matter of complying with the statutory law. The United States cannot afford to forego credible, flexible response options while our adversaries nuclear forces grow day by day. I expect our witnesses to discuss this to explain this decision and outline how they will move quickly to correct it. Perhaps an early question there. Otherwise, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about how this committee can help instill a greater sense of urgency across the Department of Energy and the broader national security enterprise, how we can rebuild the scientific and industrial foundation that underpins our deterrent, and what specific steps are needed now to ensure the United States remains capable of deterring our adversaries now and into the future.

[00:05:40]With that, I turn to my friend and colleague, Senator Jack Reid. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and uh Secretary Wright, Administrator Williams, Assistant Secretary Walsh.

[00:05:50]Welcome. Thank you for your service. And please convey my thanks to the workforce at NNSA.

[00:05:57]They've dedicated themselves to maintaining our nuclear security and they do a fabulous job. Secretary Wright, I want to briefly address the conflict in Iran. You have been directly involved in managing the fallout from the war including the closure of the straight of hormuse oil supply disruptions and the cascading effect on energy prices in the United States and for American families. According to public reports, this war has cost the American public as much as $ 37 billion in increased gas and diesel cost or about $289 per household. The cost of this conflict are real. They are ongoing and they will outlast the headlines. Mr. Secretary, I would appreciate an update on your efforts to mitigate this crisis. For decades, defense programs have represented a substantial portion of the energy department's budget. This year, defense activities account for more than 75% of the department's total request, a significant increase from recent years.

[00:07:00]That growth though reflects a genuine increase, genuine increase in mission demands. This committee will want to understand how the department is managing the growth. At the start of this administration, NNSA had approximately 2,000 trained nuclear personnel supporting Pentagon requirements. These experts are exceedingly hard to recruit and retain.

[00:07:23]However, last year, the Trump administration dismissed hundreds of these experts. In fact, I was at TF Green International Airport in Providence and a young lady came up to me and said, "Well, sir, I was working at NSA a week ago and I was dismissed and I got a call last night to get back as quickly as possible because they could not continue to secure the materials at the site I was working at.

[00:07:48]So, it was done hastily and not done well. And you, this is in the face of where your workload is growing.

[00:07:57]I think it was uh not the right approach and at the wrong time and I want to understand who made that decision. Uh also what it cost and lost production time and what are you doing right now to rebuild for the future. Our federal workers are not just overhead cost. They are the backbone of our nuclear deterrent. Now turning to the issue of plutonium pit production. I'm encouraged by the progress at Los Alamos National Laboratory, which appears to be on track to reach its production goals of 30 plutonium pits per year. However, Savannah River National Laboratory remains an open question. I understand the facility is preparing to submit a final course projection potentially in the range of 20 billion and to begin production in the early 2030s. That's an enormous investment with considerable schedule risk. And if you could, I would love an update on the production challenges and your efforts to reduce cost.

[00:08:55]Earlier this week, the Navy released a proposal to build 15 so-called Trump class battleships and to make these ships nuclearpowered.

[00:09:03]Powering an entire fleet of large-scale battleships with nuclear reactors will drain our highlyenriched uranium reserves and force the department to accelerate the large scale up of a enriched uh a centrifuge enrichment facility. Further, if these battleships are intended to carry nuclear armed cruise missiles, as has been reported, the NNSA would face increased warhead production demands, which it is already struggling to meet. These proposals deserve scrutiny, and I would ask for a very thorough update today. President Trump will meet with President Xi uh in the next few hours. I suspect the question of whether to resume nuclear tests, they may arise. And I want to be clear that the NNSA administrator and the directors of our national laboratories have consistently certified for 25 consecutive years that we do not need to resume nuclear testing on technical grounds. Indeed, the National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore Laboratories has now successfully demonstrated the capability it was built for, simulating underground test conditions that no other country on Earth can replicate. This is a genuine achievement by NSSA and you should be very proud of it. I would like to understand the full significance of those efforts and your views on nuclear testing in general. Finally, Mr. Walsh, the issue of environmental cleanup remains a difficult challenge. For example, the Hanford nuclear site has 55 million gallons of radioactive waste in aging tanks and a legal obligation to begin high level vitrification.

[00:10:45]converting this waste into glass for the permanent disposal. The state of Washington is watching and so is this committee. These cleanup commitments were made to local communities that did not choose to host nuclear production sites more than 80 years ago, but have paid the course ever since, and I would appreciate an update on your department's effort. Thank you again to our witnesses and look forward to your testimonies. Thank you, Mr. Sherman.

[00:11:08]>> Thank you, sir. And Secretary Wright, are you ready for your opening statement?

[00:11:13]>> Yes, sir. and you are recognized, sir.

[00:11:15]Welcome.

[00:11:16]>> Thank you, Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Reid, and members of the committee. It is an honor to appear before you today as Secretary of Energy to discuss the president's fiscal year 2027 budget request for the Department of Energy as it pertains to the National Nuclear Security Administration and the Office of Environmental Management.

[00:11:38]Under President Trump's leadership, we are securing peace through strength. I am proud to say NNSA is restoring its overriding mission focused on deterrence, urgency, and production while working handinand with the Office of Environmental Management to make substantial progress in advancing the critical cleanup of nuclear waste. The shest way to prevent nuclear war is to ensure America's strength is never in doubt. Here is what that looks like in practice. At NSA, we are strengthening America's nuclear deterrent. Today, NNSA is delivering more new nuclear weapons and plutonium pits than at any time since the Cold War. We are executing seven major warhead modernization programs concurrently. An unprecedented undertaking that ensures every leg of the triad remains remains safe, secure, and effective. Every NNSA uh warhead modernization program is ahead of schedule. Last year, NNSA delivered the last unit of the B61-12 nuclear gravity bomb, extending service life by at least 20 years. NSA produced the first B61 uh-13 nearly a year ahead of schedule.

[00:13:10]We finished the first production unit of a key W84 warhead component 18 months early. NNSA completed the final unit of the W88 Alt 370 in December, a multi-year effort to modernize the warhead carried aboard our ballistic missile submarine. We are rebuilding the industrial base that underpins our deterrent. Production of new plutonium pits at Los Alamos Natural Laboratory has surged with a goal to produce 100 pits by the end of the Trump administration. We're accelerating production of uranium components, high explosives, and other critical weapons materials. We're making breakthroughs in the science that underpins our stockpile. Last year, the National Ignition Facility achieved fusion ignition multiple times, including a record 8.6 megajoules in one shot. No other country has achieved ignition even once. NNSA is reducing nuclear and radiological threats. Since the beginning of the Trump administration, NNSA removed seesium irradiators from five more US states, reducing dirty bomb risk. The nuclear emergency support team, NEST, conducted 360 operations, trainings, and exercises at home and abroad to strengthen defenses against nuclear threats. We are advancing American energy dominance through nuclear leadership.

[00:14:49]NNSA produced 325 kg of highass lowadrich uranium or halu and provided it to the office of nuclear energy for powering advanced reactor projects.

[00:15:03]Recently, NNSA secured a record 1.7 metric tons of Halu from Japan, the largest single international uranium shipment in NNSA history. Thanks to President Trump's leadership, America's nuclear renaissance is here. We're delivering real results in the Office of Environmental Management. We are cleaning up nuclear waste in communities that shouldered the weight of America's earliest nuclear programs. Work that helped win World War II and the Cold War. That mission continues today with a renewed focus on transforming these sites into engines for the energy and technologies of the future. In Ohio, we are transforming the historic Portsmith gaseous diffusion site into a powerful hub that will create thousands of jobs and drive long-term innovation and investment in the community. In closing, NNSA and the Office of Environmental Management work every day to protect our nation and strengthen our security. I am honored to support these missions and the extraordinary men and women behind them. Together, we will keep America safe. Thank you.

[00:16:21]>> Well, thank you, Secretary Wright. And I understand u the other two gentlemen will not make opening statements. Is that correct?

[00:16:30]>> All right. Um, well, let me begin by uh well, thank you very much for your statement and and for all of your accomplishments, but I do want to ask about the matter I referred to in in my opening statement. Um, and and that is the specific language that we put in the last NDAA and sent to the president. Um we provided funding through reconciliation to accelerate the development of nuclear sea launch cruise missile. Um but this funding was not applied as directed. Instead um the department proposes to use these funds to avoid paying for the base program in its latest budget request. Um that is contrary to statutory intent.

[00:17:25]Secretary Wright. So, um, who made that decision and, um, what specifically is being done to rectify that mistake?

[00:17:36]>> Uh, let let's try to clarify it. I'm not sure there is a a disagreement or a difference of opinion here, but I want to make sure we get it correct because the the appropriations and the and the uh, directions come from you. We view that the sea launch cruise missile program as one of the top priorities in our in our NNSA. We are hard busily at work at it. We intend to deliver it ahead of schedule and certainly well before uh the warhead it will attach to.

[00:18:05]Uh activity is continued on that a pace.

[00:18:09]We didn't request funding in fiscal year 2027 because we have carryover funding and funding from the working families tax cut that looks able to fund our continued high-paced efforts beyond fiscal year 2027. And I don't know if administrator uh Williams wants to comment as well, but we are fully aligned with you on the critical nature of this program and want to do everything we can to expedite progress. See happy for Secretary Williams to address this.

[00:18:41]>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um the secretary has described this correctly.

[00:18:45]So the W80-5 uh warhead for the Silicon platform is the direct uh EV um evolved from the recently completed W80-4. So there's just significant learnings that we had in a previous weapon system that we've been able to apply to the slick men warhead in partnership with our uh Navy partners through the nuclear weapons council. So uh we are really moving out at pace and um they will not uh be waiting on us for a warhead. Um and uh as the secretary described, we have sufficient funds to carry out all of the critical missions uh with urgency on the Silicon project through 2027 uh and uh have resumed in the out years uh to complete that.

[00:19:33]>> Well, thank you. And u um people of goodwill can can disagree, but at pace is not what the statute calls for. It says accelerate quote accelerate the development, procurement and integration of the warhead for the nuclear arms sea launch cruise missile unquote. In other words, pick up the pace that you um had planned for and speed it up and use the money as um as um as appropriated for that purpose.

[00:20:14]Let's agree. will visit about that and and Mr. Secretary, I appreciate the spirit in which you answered that question, but but it does not seem to us that um that we're getting what we asked for. Um I bet we can agree though, Mr. secretary that NASA Stennis Space Center hosts multiple federal agencies and would be a good place to look at for um uh the potential benefits of bringing reliable nuclear power to that federal city. What do you say to that?

[00:20:48]>> Oh, absolutely. Anytime you have a nuclear facility of such quality of that, you have the workforce, you have nuclear authorizations, th those those are absolutely the kind of facilities that are critical to relaunching the renaissance of commercial nuclear power workers, technologies, facilities um in a community that's already accepted and permitting for nuclear activity. So I agree that's that can be a great uh launch pad and work area for the next generation of nuclear power. And I also want to say Mr. Chairman we we want to work with you and engage immediately on this Slickman issue. We want to follow your your uh requests and your funding and the plan that's there. We we share your urgency on the Slickman project and let's meet and get together and and figure out the way to deliver fully to your satisfaction.

[00:21:40]>> Good. Good. Well, I appreciate the spirit of that answer with with regard to the nuclear at Stenis. Uh there are going to be some regulatory barriers that have inhibited a prompt development. And so I hope that you can work with us to eliminate some of these barriers.

[00:21:57]>> Let's do that. We'll address that together.

[00:21:58]>> Thank you, sir. And I now recognize my friend and colleague, Senator Reid.

[00:22:03]>> Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen. Uh I mentioned in my opening remarks the great success you're seeing at uh Los Alamos in pit production. Congratulations on that effort all of you. Uh though the Savannah River is still not up to scale and completed. Uh the estimate is 20 billion. Uh we need to get a detailed estimate and detailed schedule. Uh can you provide that Secretary Wright?

[00:22:34]Ranking member, we we share your concern about the Savannah River pit production, the the slow progress and the and the rather high budget uh estimations we've seen so far. I'll I'll soon turn it to uh administrator Williams, but we are passionate about better engineering, better designing, figuring out how to deliver that facility in a timely fashion at a reasonable budget that's responsible use of the taxpayer funds and to get up to pace on pit production at our second facility. We share your historical concerns with that. I think we have the team in place and the urgency in a place to address it.

[00:23:12]Senator Williams. Um, >> ranking member, uh, thank you for the question. Uh, just recently the Savannah River site has been turned over to NSA uh, from EM. And that is more than symbolic, sir. That is a signal that it's gone from a shutdown agenda over many decades to a growth agenda and critical to the plutonium mission. Uh, we are moving out on the SRPPF. Uh we are rebidding the contract because we agree with you that the timeline in the budget is not acceptable. 20 billion is not an acceptable uh number and uh we will be providing more information as those bids and conversations with contractors come together this summer.

[00:23:54]Um but we are re-evaluating the requirements uh from a bottoms up tops down top down approach. I know that sounds like a cliche but we have this urgency um to and we need that for the plutonium mission for the plutonium pit mission. So uh believe me it is uh extremely high priority for us.

[00:24:14]>> Thank you very much and please keep it well informed on both schedule and course. Uh Secretary Walsh welcome. Uh Hannerford River uh you're in the process of cleaning up. uh you've started to vitrify uh waste and uh into glass and thank you for that. Uh the other thing you're doing is essentially pouring grout into the uh waste and solidifying it. Uh, one issue I think is much concern to many of us here is that are you committed to uh, guarantee that this grout will be disposed outside of the state of Washington before uh, you go ahead and engage.

[00:24:58]>> Yeah, thank you for that question ranking member. Absolutely. Last uh, year as you know in October the DF law vitrification plant finally came online.

[00:25:10]25 years in the making, almost 17 billion dollars spent on that. Uh but unfortunately, you know, technology and science has progressed faster than the construction. And we now know that grouting is much faster, better, safer, and less expensive, 120th of the cost of vitrification of low activity waste. uh at Savannah River, we're treating about nine million gallons a year of very similar tank waste uh from the extraction of plutonium from uranium. So we have a a a great example there and the plan is a dual glass plus grout approach that's going to shave decades off the cleanup mission at Hamford and save tens of billions of dollars. And that grout will be uh safely uh grouted and shipped off site and disposed in a near surface uh repository.

[00:26:05]>> Well, thank you. I think the word that describes your effort is seance.

[00:26:09]>> Seaance. Let's try.

[00:26:11]>> Secretary Wright, a final question. Uh we're in the midst of an explosion of energy cost. Were you or your department called in to provide insights or advice on the effects of the operations in the Persian Gulf before they were undertaken?

[00:26:30]>> Ranking member, yeah, I I am in close contact and consultation with the president since the day I was sworn into this job. So, we discuss Iran, the Middle East, energy quite regularly, all the time. Now, um it's really uh impolite to ask for your private discussion with the president, but you were certainly aware of the potential for a um disruption of the oil trade. Is that fair?

[00:27:00]>> Oh, a whole whole administration was well aware of that risk.

[00:27:03]>> Thank you. Uh and u now what do you think we can do or should do to try to mitigate the impact on working homes throughout the country?

[00:27:14]Yeah, obviously ending a decadesl long nuclear program in Iran is a prickly and tricky endeavor as as we're all seeing right now. Uh one way or the other, the United States will reestablish the free flow of energy trade through the Straits of Hormuz. Virtually every nation in the world is aligned in this endeavor and most particularly all of the Gulf states, all of the neighbors are aligned with this in this endeavor as well. So it it it will get done either in a in an agreement in a deal with Iran or without a deal with Iran.

[00:27:48]>> Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

[00:27:49]>> Thank you, Mr. >> Thank you. Thank you, Senator.

[00:27:51]>> Now recognize the chair of the strategic subcommittee, my friend, Senator Fischer.

[00:27:57]>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator or Secretary Wright, welcome. Uh looking at your total budget request for the Department of Energy, it's at 54 billion. Is that correct?

[00:28:12]Yes.

[00:28:13]>> And um I believe my numbers are correct that 65% of that will go to NNSA and it would increase that total to 75% of your budget if you include the cleanup site.

[00:28:27]Is that correct?

[00:28:29]>> Yes. If you if you lumped environment th those are our two biggest categories certainly the nuclear stockpile and and environmental management.

[00:28:36]>> Right. Um, as we're as we're looking at the U, budget increase, can you explain uh why the additional funds are necessary for NNSA as it transitions from their stockpile stewardship mission to a production focused mission, which I support.

[00:28:56]>> Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Since since the day we met, Senator Fischer, we've talked about the security of this country and the and the critical nature of it. We can never be complacent or let our guard down in maintaining security of the United States of America. At the end of the Cold War, I think we're the only of the major power that really stopped building new weapons, designing and innovating. We maintained a safe stockpile all throughout it. But we we lost our mojo a bit in divine in designing new weapons and modernizing our weapons. And it is absolutely essential that every power in the world believes and understands that the United States has the top nuclear arsenal. We are prepared to respond to any threat in any fashion deemed appropriate by the commander-in-chief. And so, yeah, now is the time to step up our efforts to modernize all of our existing stockpiles and build some new capabilities as we've talked about. And I thank you for your support and your urging of us on in in this all along the way. Thank Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Uh, deterrence is is uh of prime importance to this country. Uh, Administrator Williams, the FY26 NDAA created a rapid capabilities program within the agency in this setting. How is NNSA utilizing this program to address those emerging needs that we see?

[00:30:21]>> Uh, thank you for your question, Senator, uh, and for your support of that. It is critical that we deter our adversaries and we do that through production. Uh and that is precisely uh how we are getting our mojo back uh in America's nuclear weapons enterprise and that is uh best uh seen in the rapid capabilities program. Uh we have a a couple of uh very significant uh projects that we're working on and programs to deliver uh new capabilities to the war fighter in absolutely record time. And it is that we are doing business completely differently. Uh these are cross functional teams. We just say that we lock them in a room and they can come out when they deliver weapons.

[00:31:03]>> Right. It is not far from that.

[00:31:06]>> Um as as we uh look at the successes that the agency had in 2025 such as accelerating the delivery of the B61-13.

[00:31:18]um what lessons did you learn from that and what opportunities uh do you think we have in the future in order to accelerate those programs?

[00:31:27]Administrator, >> I think the secretary said it best in uh in his opening statement uh a focus on deterrence, urgency, and production. The stewardship mission was a tremendous success. Uh and from it, we have this tremendous capability of compute resources that allow us to go faster into the future. Um I would just say that u that we are moving out at pace.

[00:31:50]Um changing the culture of NNSA more than anything around this production mission uh is uh I always say that culture eats strategy for breakfast. And I think you'll find an NNSA that is revitalized around that mission. You know, when we look at the um pit production which lapsed at the end of the cold war, it's been a long um long uh standing concern of this committee uh that we how do we ramp that back up? And I was encouraged when I visited Los Alamos a year ago. But I would say to you um what what progress uh can we make there? And and what's the NNSA's plan to reach that requirement of at least 80 pits per year?

[00:32:43]>> And I could provide more information in the closed portion of the hearing, but uh since >> But do you feel positive about where we're headed? I'm very positive under President Trump and Secretary Wright's leadership, uh, we are going to achieve production numbers of plutonium pits that are multiples of anything that were expected or projected uh, this year and in subsequent years. I I would just say that uh, we are moving out in ways that really no one thought was possible and we're executing on that mission. I'm look forward to telling you more about in close session.

[00:33:14]>> Thank you for your work. Thank you.

[00:33:15]>> Thank you, Senator Fischer. Senator Blumenthal.

[00:33:19]>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for being here today and for your service. U Secretary Wright, uh I I noted on Sunday that you said you were open to suspending the federal gas tax. Since then, President Trump has indicated he'll support the idea, which Senator Kelly and I introduced in the Gas Price Relief Act some two months ago, lowering prices by temporarily suspending the 18.4 cent per gallon gas through October 1.

[00:34:00]You support that idea?

[00:34:02]Yeah, I'm certainly supportive of all ideas that can lower price energy prices for Americans. I spent my whole life.

[00:34:10]>> This is one that the president supported. I assume you do.

[00:34:14]>> Everything has tradeoffs. I think it's a good idea. I think it's got some positive things, but it it's got some trade-offs as well.

[00:34:22]>> Well, I'm not going to press you, but I'm surprised that you are somewhat equivocal on the idea. And let me ask you, um, because I believe strongly that suspending the gas tax ought to be combined with a big oil windfall profits tax, which I've championed with Senator White House. As you well know, big oil is raking in bonanza profits. Shell announced just Friday that it has reported a $7 billion profit in the latest quarter, which is double the previous quarter. That is emblematic of what big oil companies are making as a result of the war. Don't you think it's time that companies like Shell put some of that money back in consumer pockets?

[00:35:19]Uh the the oil and gas industry has had a rough couple decades. The shale revolution's been tremendous for American and American consumers and global consumers.

[00:35:31]>> Well, should some of the windfall profits go back to consumers? Yes or no?

[00:35:36]If you raise taxes when produ when we need production to rise, you'll get less production and ultimately higher prices.

[00:35:43]Incentives are what drive human bear.

[00:35:44]>> They're not putting any of these profits into more production, are they?

[00:35:48]>> Oh, they are. They've said they're not doing more production because they don't know how long the war is going to last.

[00:35:55]>> They they they Shell, an example, invest tens of billions of dollars every year in drilling new oil and gas wells and exploring. So if if you tax something, you get less of it. And I think getting less of energy is not a good strategy.

[00:36:11]And and if you look at historical records, >> so you would oppose a windfall profits tax.

[00:36:17]>> Any short-term tax like that for a shortage of any product is a bad idea.

[00:36:20]Yeah. Is there a way to assure that for example some of these profits go back to consumers in particular that the suspension of the gas tax goes back to consumers rather than to fatten the profits of big oil companies?

[00:36:37]Suspension of the gas tax would likely flow almost entirely through to consumers because the retailing of gasoline is a very competitive business.

[00:36:45]So, if one business thought, I'm just going to keep that 18 cents themselves, they'd lose their gasoline sales.

[00:36:51]>> Let me let me switch topics, sir. Um, Iran's enriched ur uranium, they have about a ton of it, which is one of the objectives of or was of operation epic fury, that is to secure that enriched uranium.

[00:37:13]How close does that degree of enrichment enable Iranians to develop a nuclear weapon? What amount of time would it take to do it?

[00:37:26]Fright, frighteningly close. Yeah, they they they are weeks a small number of weeks away to enrich that to weaponsgrade uranium. There's still a weaponization process that happens after that, but they're quite close to your constru is that they are weeks away on that one ton of enriched uranium >> to get it to enrich it to weapons grade uranium. Yes, they are only weeks away.

[00:37:55]>> And what about the other 11 tons that apparently they have?

[00:38:01]Well, they they have some 20% enriched uranium and that's several more weeks behind 60%. And of course, unenriched uranium, it's a long process to get it to weapons grade. But when you're at 60%, you are, although the numbers don't sound that way, you're way more than 90% of the way there for the enrichment necessary for weapons grade uranium.

[00:38:22]Very close. 20% uranium, which they also have a lot of is, is far along as well.

[00:38:26]It's very concerning. So in order to in effect secure or stop their enrichment, President Trump would have to go after all of the 12 tons, not just one ton of uranium.

[00:38:43]>> I I I think that's the wise strategy.

[00:38:46]Ultimately, the goal is to prevent future enrichment of uranium as well.

[00:38:51]Yes. For to have a safe world, we need to end their nuclear program.

[00:38:56]>> Thank you.

[00:38:56]>> Thank you, Senator. Senator Rounds.

[00:39:00]>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, first of all, thank you gentlemen for your service to our country. Um, I also want to thank Secretary Wright for your team's support of the Sanford Underground Research Lab. Uh, we enjoyed hosting Under Secretary Gil last week for a ceremony as the facility begins construction on a facility to house the deep underground nutrino experiments particle accelerator. We look forward to welcoming you and Mr. Williams whenever you can make it out. We appreciate that.

[00:39:31]Secretary Wright and Administrator Williams, can you speak to how your offices are leveraging artificial intelligence through the Genesis mission to solve national security problems and what additional resources or authorities would enable you to move more quickly?

[00:39:50]Yes, our artificial intelligence is simply a massive expansion of human capabilities. So, it's going to allow think of a nuclear weapons design. These are exquisite and bespoke systems. They are designed for one use and one use only. They are very technically sophisticated. Thank God the scientific uh prowess in our labs has allowed us to lead the world in this area. But these are tools that are going to allow us to make things better, ultimately probably make more robust designs and ultimately probably easier to manufacture and cheaper to make weapons. So they they will add tremendously to our capabilities. That excites us. The flip side of that is we know our adversaries who are behind us in artificial intelligence but very active in artificial intelligence as well. They're going to do the same thing. and complacency on our end. We could seed our lead not just in industrial space but also in the military space and and uh uh Secretary Williams, our whole department in this administration are are resolved to not let that happen.

[00:40:59]>> Mr. Williams, >> thank you for the question. Senator, uh the nuclear weapons enterprise has been using artificial intelligence directly in our program since 2017. Uh this year NSA will um spend approximately $600 million on uh artificial intelligence initiatives throughout our enterprise.

[00:41:19]Um it is a terrific complement to our high performance computing capability which is unique in the world. Uh along with our physics codes and physics models uh we're able to do extraordinary things uh for national sec security for nuclear security. This is both in the weapons design but also in the uh nuclear materials detection capabilities and other non-prololiferation capabilities. So um we are very focused.

[00:41:48]We have extraordinary capability in our labs at Sandia, Los Alamos and Liverour.

[00:41:53]Some of the best scientists in the world are dedicating themselves to this national security mission at this hour while we sit here instead of going out into industry and certainly making more money. So it is a extraordinary effort uh in the department of energy for national security.

[00:42:08]>> I I think you know a lot of discussion since chat GPT uh came about in terms of as if it's a brand new item that is just upon us now. The reality is that uh a lot of our national laboratories have been moving in this direction for a number of years and you have been integrating this over a period of time.

[00:42:29]There is stability in that in in that process but it is accelerating. Can you talk a little bit about the labs and their ability to accelerate and to keep up with the hyperscalers or are you working in conjunction with the hyperscalers today?

[00:42:42]>> That's an excellent question. So for many decades um NSA has led literally the world in high performance computing.

[00:42:50]We've been the best customer, the leading customer, but the scale of AI is so enormous that uh industry is simply going to outpace all combined US government spending together. And so the challenge is then reversed. We must keep pace with industry instead of setting the pace for industry. And that is a profound challenge that will require the attention of your committee and uh the leadership that Secretary Wright provides. So, um I'd say we're very focused on that. Uh we work closely with uh all of the um uh technology companies and leading tech technology companies around the infrastructure. Uh I would just say that we have very very good and deep cooperation uh with our scientists at the labs and again our scientists are the lab at the labs are the best in the world. We are solving problems, one of which I'll mention in the close session um of problems that uh that our war fighters need right now. And uh I'll tell you more about in the close session.

[00:43:52]>> Very good. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll yield back my 5 seconds.

[00:43:57]>> That's very generous of you. Thank Thank you, Senator Rosen.

[00:44:02]>> Well, thank you, Senator Rounds, for 5 seconds. Do I get to keep those uh Senator?

[00:44:07]>> No, ma'am. We have Thank you, Mr. chairman and uh thank you to the witnesses for being here today. I want to uh get right into it, Mr. Secretary, because the Nevada National Security Site, as we call it in Nevada, still the Nevada test site, was ground zero for the majority of the United States explosive nuclear testing from 1951 to 1992 when 100 atmospheric tests and 828 underground tests were conducted. All of us who lived in Nevada back then remember the days when the ground shook beneath us the first Saturdays of every month. You'd look over and say, "Oh, just just a nuclear bomb going off." You know, many have lost their lives because of the testing. Others bear the scars of radiation exposure. To this day, radiation exposure, the invisible enemy.

[00:44:54]And so, since that time, the site has done critical work to certify the reliability, safety, and effectiveness of our nuclear stockpile. but without the need for explosive testing either above or below ground. There's new projects under construction that's going to help the site provide even greater certainty and data about the performance of the US not nuclear stockpile. Far better data experts say than the information that could be gleaned if the US were to unfortunately and I say this to our peril conduct an explosive nuclear test as President Trump and some in his orbit have advocated. In fact, every Secretary of Energy since the Clinton administration has certified the integrity of our nuclear stockpile and certified that we do not need to resume testing. The same has been repeatedly certified by the directors of our national labs, multiple secretaries of defense under both Democrat and Republican presidents, and all commanders of strategic command. So indeed, Mr. Secretary Administrator Williams himself told me during his confirmation hearing and I'll quote, "I would not advise testing and I think we should rely on scientific information."

[00:46:02]So, Secretary Wright, I'm going to cite your very impressive educational resume with engineering degrees from MIT and Berkeley um and so many experts in agreement that there's no technical or strategic need to resume explosive nuclear testing. Can you commit today that this administration will not conduct an explosive nuclear test? Yes or no?

[00:46:25]>> Well, Senator Rosen, ultimately that decision comes down to the commanderin-chief.

[00:46:30]>> If you were asked, if you were asked, what would your advice be? Then let me phrase it another way. You advise the president. Of course, any president has that right. But what would your advice be as an engineer, as a scientist, as a secretary?

[00:46:45]This year again uh the leaders of the of the weapons laboratories and the uh >> stratcom commander again certified our weapon stockpile as reliable from the from the non uh explosive testing we do.

[00:47:04]I think our in our arsenal is ready to go but there may be other reasons for which the commander-in-chief may want to engage in a nuclear test. So you will disagree then with your again extensive educational uh achievements and studies and as a scientist disagree with scientists and administrations going back to the 1990s and the data that shows that renewed explosive testing is unnecessary. You are going to disagree with that. You think there's still a need for it. You're going to disagree with all the experts.

[00:47:38]>> You you're misunderstanding what I'm saying.

[00:47:40]>> Well, just as yes or no. You agree that there's a need for explosive testing or not?

[00:47:44]>> To assure the reliability of our weapons, there is not a need for explosive testing.

[00:47:52]>> Thank you. Administrator Williams, do you agree with the experts? It's unnecessary for the United States to resume explosive nuclear testing of any kind. I know it's not your decision. I'm asking what your recommendation would be based on the information, expert scientific information that we have going back decades, Democrat and Republican and independent alike scientists.

[00:48:14]>> Mr. Secretary, state your opinion but not what your recommendation would be.

[00:48:19]>> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and U. Senator Rosen. the um we conduct more than a thousand tests on our nuclear stockpile every year. Uh we test all kinds of components uh to make sure of their reliability. I assure you that no one doubts the efficacy and quality of our weapons. I guarantee you that our adversaries have no question about how well our weapons work. Um the question of testing I think as this hearing uh demonstrates is a multi-dimensional problem. There is a technical component to it. Uh and I support the secretary's statement u but there is a geopolitical and a uh political component to it as well and all of those decisions uh rest in the hands of the president as they should because all of it is relates to deterrence.

[00:49:10]>> I was asking about your opinion on the science but thank you. I'm going to submit a question for the record about the NNSA. Uh the funding that was zeroed out for construction. You've been down to the tunnels that verify the integrity of our nuclear stockpile. Uh we received no um money for that due to some technical errors. I'm going to send a letter to your office. Hopefully, we can discuss that because we need to continue. You've been down there. We need to continue to keep that project going and uh correct that technical error. The Nevada test site is a great uh asset for the United States and our national security and uh we are going to continue to make significant uh investments uh in that. It's a critical mission for uh for our nuclear security.

[00:49:52]>> Thank you.

[00:49:53]>> Thank you, Senator Rosen. And uh yes, all members are um encouraged to submit statements for the record. Senator Shehy, >> Secretary Wright, good to see you. uh you know 80 years ago America had an incredible breakthrough in physics and split the atom and of course one byproduct of that has been uh the cleanest most unlimited source of energy in the history of mankind that America invented and and we fielded and we pioneered and then because Jane Fonda made a movie about it we sheld it and we've effectively frozen out the progress of nuclear power in this country the leading economy in the world the most innovative country in history we've chosen to ignore the most unlimited cleanest source of energy in the history of mankind. Meanwhile, China's building nuclear power plants in every street corner every other week as are other countries. And we are voluntarily recusing ourselves as we face a potential energy crisis. Reliable, cheap base load power as AI, quantum computing, and cryptocurrency will place unprecedented demands on our grid.

[00:50:57]We are woefully behind. What is it you are doing? What is it the broader enterprise is doing? and what can we do to make sure that we are rapidly not not studies, not more white papers, not more discussion groups and coordination bodies. What are we doing to rapidly start rebuilding our nuclear power infrastructure across America?

[00:51:17]>> So, thank you for the question uh Senator Shehy and thank you for this the eloquent statement of the situation today and as you know I share your assessment of that this is a tremendous energy source that we brought on the scene. We deployed it rapidly and then we stopped decades ago probably before you were born. We stopped meaningful movement forward on that. Fortunately, a lot is going on well today. Uh we have four executive orders from President Trump. We have reformed uh NRC or NRC has reformed its regulatory process all internally within the organization to make it an an organization that doesn't stop all ideas in nuclear space. It engages and focuses on safety, safety and safety instead of bureaucracy, safety and bureaucracy. We have issued awards to restart uranium enrichment in this country. uh permitting and awards to start fuel fabrication back up in this country again. And we will have multiple next generation small modular reactors running critical before July 4 of this year. We have brought incredible urgency to the matter as you laid out this problem. We've been left behind. That's nonsense. This is the United States's of America. We will be the leader in nuclear power and nuclear innovation in the coming decades. We're using our lands to permit reactor development on our lands. We are using our energy dominance financing office, the largest lending energy authority in the world today to lean into nuclear projects with uh competent developers that have equity capital. We are doing everything we can to get nuclear moving at high speed again. And I believe in the next 12 months, you will see many projects break ground under construction and we're going to stop the nonsense and get moving with nuclear power again. And I so appreciate your support and your passionate advocacy for that cause.

[00:53:20]>> Well, I think to to your point, the DOW now is is a great vanguard for that as we look at distributed power infrastructure, especially in a Western Pacific uh engagement. So, thank you for that. Uh I think words have meaning and you know when the AEC became the Nuclear Regulatory Commission uh you know just the name shift itself it indicated we were shifting from an entrepreneurial uh organization focused on growth to one focused on on bureaucracy and regulation. Um Mr. Williams uh Secretary I'm sorry uh the Sentinel program is of course uh pivotal not just for the nation but my home state of Montana. Um you know most of us would not drive 60-year-old cars to work every day. We wouldn't put our families on 60-year-old airliners and you certainly don't have a 60-year-old cell phone. Uh yet our nuclear missiles buried in the ground across our silos are 60-year-old and sometimes older technology. There have been some interimm upgrades, but fundamentally that technology is the same. Uh it's critical we get the Sentinel upgrade done. It's over schedule, over budget. what are we going to be doing under this admin to make sure that we're getting that program back uh on schedule so we can get it done and and have a credible and capable uh land-based nuclear deterrent.

[00:54:29]Thank you for your question. Uh, Senator, as a fellow Navy veteran, uh, you know, I care deeply about deterrence. The Sentinel is critical is the, you know, third leg of the triad.

[00:54:39]Uh, is critical for our national security. Uh, NNSA is supporting the Mark 21A uh, re-entry vehicle design and keeping that on track uh, and keeping the weapon program uh, the W87-1 uh, on track and ahead of schedule. Um, several times in my leadership at NSA, uh, there have been questions raised about, you know, is Sentinel going to stay on on track? And my message to my workforce is that I never want to hear that question again. We are betting on the Air Force moving things to the left and we will deliver weapons ahead of need for that program. So my commitment to you is that uh the Department of War will not be waiting on the Department of Energy for weapons and we are doing everything possible to partner with them uh to keep that on track and so I'm optimistic uh about that trajectory with the Air Force.

[00:55:34]>> Thank you Senator She Senator Shaheen.

[00:55:41]>> Um thank you Mr. Chairman. Do you want to go?

[00:55:44]>> Yeah. I'm I'm gonna defer to Senator Gillibrand since she has to leave. And um >> Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Senator Shaheen. I didn't know you hadn't already gone, so thank you. Um Secretary Wright, as demonstrated by Vault Typhoon, the Chinese military is actively targeting American critical infrastructure, including power utilities and other critical infrastructure. During this time, do you think it is important for the federal government to assist power utilities in keeping our grid secure?

[00:56:15]AB: Absolutely, Senator. Absolutely.

[00:56:18]>> Do you agree? If this is important to you, the fiscal year 27 budget cut DOE's Office of Cyber Security, Energy Security, and Emergency Response, Caesar, by 16%. Do you understand that the American people are rightly concerned about these types of cuts because this is such a priority for our security?

[00:56:39]Uh I I think it is a a serious concern and a growing concern for our for our security. But I I think you know when I got into the department it had grown massively in size and expenditures in the four years before I arrived and and the production of energy in the country had been squaltched and prices had gone up. So just spending money doesn't mean better results. We are massively focused on Caesar. We have brought great expertise into that. had have had a first class leader on it. So, it is a you you are 100% right. It is a very important topic and reducing budget funding does not mean a reduced concern for it. It just means we're aligning the resources we have and the partnerships we have and the progress we think we can make and the and the required funding to do that.

[00:57:28]>> Okay. If there's any problems, I'm going to I'm going to play your answer for you because I have deep concerns that you're not reinvesting in the gains that we had because it's such an important priority.

[00:57:38]So, we're going to mark your words here that you think you have enough money to do the very, very hard task ahead of you. Caesar has worked with the Lawrence Liverour National Laboratory to launch a new AI test bed designed to help utilities and technology providers assess and improve the security and reliability of AI models used in the energy sector. Why is it important for the government to help quantify the vulnerability of different AI models in the energy sector?

[00:58:06]>> Well, because energy sector infrastructure is sort of foundational to our economy and foundational to our quality of life. Um, if you want to destroy a society or bring them down, you attack their energy infrastructure.

[00:58:19]We we see Russia doing this ceaselessly every day. Um, so yes, again, I I I very much agree with your presence that we that AI is a powerful tool. It's going to lead to fantastic advancements. It's also going to lead to scary threats. And so focusing our efforts on how can and and is our is our electricity grid today bulletproof? Absolutely not. We have a lot of room for improvement.

[00:58:45]>> How is um Caesar integrating Frontier AI models into its work.

[00:58:50]>> We're looking at from with Frontier models, how can they both find vulnerabilities in our system and yes, they can do that. And how can we use these same models to fix and defend against these vulnerabilities and hopefully in front of bad actors, whether they're state or non-state actors. But it is a very real and very serious challenge.

[00:59:13]>> And are you using them to stay on top of vulnerabilities in both IT and OT used by power utilities?

[00:59:21]>> Yes, we are.

[00:59:22]>> And how is the uh decision by the administration to bar anthropic impacted Caesar's ability to have access to all the frontier models to do this work?

[00:59:32]>> Yeah, as as you know, the administration's had some serious struggles and some serious back and forth with anthropic. Those continue to go on. there continues to be a dialogue and back and forth with anthropic. It is a it is a leading model and it's an important model in the world we live in today.

[00:59:49]>> Um I'd like to get followup on that um as you see how it's impacting you and whether you need more support. Um DOE's Office of Environmental Management is responsible for the demolition, cleanup, and remediation of the West Valley Demonstration Project in Western New York. This is the site of the only commercial reprocessing facility to recycle spent nuclear fuel in our nation's history and let left legacy waste. Amazing progress has been made with the completion of phase 1 A and the contract for phase 1B was awarded last year to begin work on belowgrade work and soil remediation with decades of more work to be done. The authorization of the West Valley is set to expire at the end of this fiscal year. Um, Secretary Wright and Assistant Secretary Walsh. Do I have a bipartisan bic I have a bipartisan bicameal bill to reauthorize West Valley. Do you both support this program and can I have your commitment to work with me on this reauthorization?

[01:00:46]>> Absolutely. Yeah, absolutely. And uh, thank you for working on that, Senator Gillibrand and and also Congressman Lane Worthy.

[01:00:54]>> Thank you. Vote. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Gillibrand, you're asking uh Secretary Wright to follow up on the record with um more complete answer to your question, are you not?

[01:01:06]>> Yes, please. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[01:01:07]>> Uh thank you, Senator Gillibrand. You um >> you owe um Senator Shaheen a favor.

[01:01:15]>> I do.

[01:01:16]>> Senator Shaheen, you're recognized.

[01:01:18]>> Well, thank you. I will plan to collect.

[01:01:21]Um and thank you all for being here.

[01:01:24]Administrator Williams, I'm going to um I want to ask you about your role as administrator as opposed to under secretary, but we all know that the New START treaty has expired. And however, NNSA has a long history in researching future sensor systems to detect nuclear weapons activities that could be um needed for future arms control as well as the ability to find out what others might be doing to undermine existing arms control treaties. Um you were very eloquent in responding to Senator Rounds about the scientists and the expertise you have in your agency. So can you talk about what detection research activities are occurring? Why are these important especially now as we're in a postnew start era?

[01:02:14]>> Gladly. Um this is a key part of our deterrent strategy for the United States. A lot of attention and funding of course goes to the what I call the offensive strategy, but you are highlighting the defensive strategy, right? Um it takes a weapons program to find a weapons program and that's why NNSA is uniquely uh suited for exactly what you describe. Uh we provide uh sensors in space that look for nuclear detonations uh so that we can monitor any kind of uh activity uh worldwide and particularly over uh combat zones or conflict zones and over >> and do you do that 247? uh absolutely 247 and we continue to innovate and provide new capabilities uh that I won't discuss in this open forum. Um but uh I have been thoroughly briefed on that.

[01:03:02]That's a key part. I want to highlight what's happening at the Nevada test site in the P tunnel. Um we have we are doing uh what is called decoupled testing uh as a way to um enhance the sensors the seismic sensors so that we can detect our adversaries uh that might be conducting uh testing that is uh not consistent with the uh testban treaty and um just recently uh we have a experiment that sits on a scaffold um a carbon fiber scaffold we're putting many tons of chemical explosives, not nuclear, but chemical explosives inside this cavern that we've dug uh in the Nevada test site. And later this fall, we're going to be detonating that with sensors around uh to better calibrate our ability to uh find, frankly, uh countries that might be cheating uh on the testban treaty and uh that is very active. Unfortunately, we just put the concrete uh wall and sealed that off uh in preparation for our fall test. So, I otherwise would love to have given you a tour of it, but it's very impressive.

[01:04:09]>> Well, thank you. And and I know you also monitor enrichment technology. So, are you are you assessing where you think Iran is in terms of their enrichment capacity? and are you um weighing in with the administration in terms of um how we should be thinking about the enhanced um uranium that Iran has.

[01:04:37]>> Uh we have uh 70,000 people in the NNSA enterprise. Uh and I would bet that well over a thousand of them have PhDs uh particularly in physics. We know as much about enrichment as anybody on the planet uh in our organization uh relating to the uh Iranian program. Much of that collection information comes from the um intelligence community, but of course we are the technical experts behind that analysis and uh all of that is fully uh available to the president and his decision makers.

[01:05:11]>> Thank you, Secretary Wright. I I want to ask you a question not directly about um the issues that we've been talking about here but but about your budget um because as I understand your budget would increase defense spending at the Department of Energy by 7.2 billion but at the same time you would cut 2.5 billion from energy program funding with energy efficiency programs in particular taking a huge hit. Um, so you request zero for weatherization, even though that program saves families hundreds of dollars on their energy bills. You propose cutting the building technologies funding by 93% despite the fact that buildings account for 40% of our energy use. Um, in New Hampshire, we pay a lot of attention to those issues because we're at the end of the pipeline and we have some of the highest energy prices in the country. Um, and the war in Iran has exacerbated all of that. So talk to us if you will about how you square those cuts to successful energy efficiency programs that have really helped families in my state and throughout this country with the high energy costs and the budget that you've proposed.

[01:06:26]>> Yeah, Senator, I've spent my whole life on energy affordability. So I share your passion for that. It's just a matter of balancing what's the right role of the government in that and what's the right role in the marketplace in that. When we when I arrived in the department, the regulations on energy efficiency were closing factories in the United States because their products were illegal.

[01:06:47]Mostly products that lowincome people can afford to buy weren't efficient enough, weren't designed the way some people thought was perfect. And we were shutting out those options. So, of course, we want to drive efficiency.

[01:06:59]There's economic drivers that drive devices to become more efficient.

[01:07:04]There's sometimes intelligent government regulation that can nudge that along the way, but the Department of Energy had gone so far overboard, we were actually standing in the way of the building of energy infrastructure and other things that can ultimately drive down the cost of energy. So, I share your passion, but it's a longer discussion to be had, but thank you for raising it, Senator. Um, it is, and I'm out of time, but I would just point out that in New Hampshire, the programs that I mentioned are really saving people money. And if we really want to to push on the private sector to help government address the efficiency issues, then we would be promoting performance contracting in ways that I fear the administration is not doing.

[01:07:42]So, I hope you would take a look at that.

[01:07:44]>> Thank you, Senator Shaheen. Senator Kelly.

[01:07:48]>> Uh, thank you, gentlemen, for being here and testifying today. Secretary Wright, uh, good to see you again. The Department of Energy is in the middle of a men's change right now. You and your department are modernizing the stockpile, restarting plutonium pit production, and sustaining the naval reactor fleet, all while supporting a growing mission set.

[01:08:14]All of these priorities depend on a workforce made up of nuclear engineers, machinists, uh, experts in explosives, and other highly specialized professionals to get this job done.

[01:08:28]These people are hard to train. They're hard to hire. They're hard to retain at times. There are limited educational pipelines to find them. Many of them are retiring and there's enormous competition in the private sector. This workforce challenge has become more urgent following last year's workforce reductions. It's not just the number of people that you lost, it's the way it was done and the signal that that sends. When termination notices went out, some personnel performing performing mission critical functions and holding Q clearances were immediately stripped of access, leaving them them unable to transfer ongoing projects. At the same time, others in positions not tied to immediate operational requirements retained access long after their dismissal.

[01:09:24]Secretary, right? To me, that's not a bureaucratic error. It's a fundamental error in how things were planned and it means the people who ordered these cuts didn't seem to understand the agency.

[01:09:40]It would be helpful to understand how did that order come to you and your department on who to cut and how many people to cut and if it did, did you push back and conduct any sort of review? And how are these cuts carried out that resulted in the issues we're currently facing?

[01:10:11]Yeah, thank thank you for the question, Senator Kelly. First of all, the the net result we've we've reduced the headcount at the Department of Energy to about where it was at the beginning of the Biden administration. It grew dramatically during the Biden administration and we shrunk it back down roughly to the size it was at the beginning of the Biden administration.

[01:10:32]And o almost all of that, you know, way over 95% all of that was voluntary. You know, we offered severance packages to people that wanted to take them and didn't. Some people we said, "Hey, no, we we actually can't give it to you. You we need you to stay and we would make a pitch and a sell." Um, so it was a slowgoing. It was it was directed and driven by me. It was in different departments in different areas where we offered these packages.

[01:11:03]>> But you were you were told to cut these specific people.

[01:11:07]>> I was not told to cut these specific people. There was >> Were you given like a headcount?

[01:11:12]>> No, I was not. I I was not. There was a mistake made early on and you referenced it and that was entirely my fault. In my first week after confirmation, there was a term provisionary employees. I I rightfully took it as or wrongfully wrongfully 100% my fault. I thought it was newly hired people that we were in training and there were a lot of them.

[01:11:38]Um we had, you know, a bunch of people that are hired for educational promotion and we made a broadbrushed thing to remove the provisional employees. That was a mistake. And you referenced some of the impacts of it because provisional did not mean what I thought it meant. My fault and it you could have been new in a role. You've been at the department for 15 years, but you're newly in a role and you're considered provisional. And we lost some uh or or we wrongly laid off a number of critical very important people in NSA. As soon as I realized that, which was within 24 hours, we called all of them back and all but two came back. That was a screw-up. That was on me. We reversed that screw up within 24 hours. But I own that screw-up. The rest of that restructuring of our department was choices also led by me.

[01:12:33]It was done slow and thoughtfully and entirely from uh myself and leadership within the department.

[01:12:40]>> All right. Well, Secretary Wright, I appreciate you, you know, taking responsibility. We don't see a lot of that from this administration and um I I would just Could I have 30 more seconds, Mr. Chairman?

[01:12:55]>> I just, you know, as an engineer myself, I know.

[01:12:58]>> Is there objection anywhere in the room?

[01:13:00]Without objection, >> I just know the you know the value of having nuclear scientists, you know, computational scientists, weapons technicians. We just have to be really careful because your mission in this agency is so critical to our national security and these folks are trained for years and years and we've got to make sure we have the workforce in place. So I appreciate you being candid and u being accountable. I agree with that sentiment very much. These are critical people with very specialized skills. One of the biggest jobs of the three of us here and the rest at the department behind me is to make a culture that people are proud and love to work there.

[01:13:39]>> Getting getting people fired up so they'll stay in our labs in our weapons programs and not go to the private sector is a huge part of our job, which is why we've driven a lot of reforms in the national labs to get rid of the bureaucracy, allow them to move quick, have more decision- making at the tip of the spear. I want to make sure that the morale at the labs is much higher when I leave than when I arrive. I share your assessment of that and thank you for asking those questions, Senator.

[01:14:03]>> Thank you.

[01:14:05]>> I applaud the agreement between the secretary and the senator. Senator Banks, you're recognized.

[01:14:10]>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Wright, you've been very helpful to Indiana on a on on many fronts and I appreciate your leadership very much.

[01:14:19]I've championed pilot program language supporting the evaluation and deployment of small modular reactors and advanced nuclear technologies to strengthen our national security infrastructure. Crane Navy Base in southern Indiana is exactly the kind of strategic defense asset that could benefit from a resilient on-site nuclear power generation. How does the department plan to partner with the Department of the Navy on these types of SMR pilot efforts and what advice do you have for us?

[01:14:51]>> Yes. Uh thank you for the question, Senator Banks. And and by raising crane, you know, you're you're right on the target. If you want to do something in nuclear today to get this ball moving again, almost everything that's going to happen is in places that are already nuclear. They've already had the permitting. They have some experience there. They have a workforce. they have some industrial capacity as you do at crane. So that is exactly the kind of locations that are best suited for new deployment of reactors, community support, workforce, um you know, buildings, facility, a nuclear history.

[01:15:26]And uh yeah, we're going to see lots of activity around the country as we restart the nuclear industry. But I'm repeating myself, but yes, the vast majority of that will be at existing facilities with a nuclear history such as Crane. I think it's a great target for development. Tell >> us more. Tell us more about your interactions with the Department of the Navy. I mean, how's that relationship?

[01:15:49]How are you working together? What roadblocks exist >> uh to continue that partnership and grow it? So yeah, first of all, Navy's fantastic truly fantastic. And and I must say probably the greatest nuclear innovation in in power production in global history is the Navy. You know, Hyman, Admiral Hyman Rickover program to develop the reactors that run our submarines and run our aircraft carriers. Absolutely a phenomenal phenomenal engineering achievement that launched it set a high bar of what can be achieved in the nuclear space and how to achieve it. The safety record the operating performance of the reactors designed by the Navy you know back in the in the 40s and 50s just awesome. So yeah do Navy people appreciate and understand nuclear reactors absolutely.

[01:16:45]In fact, there's a reason the head of the of the National Nuclear Security Administration is a former Navy nuclear submariner. He gets our armed forces. He gets our services. He gets nuclear. He lived in a tube with a nuclear reactor in it for over a year. So, uh >> I think Navy is a awesome partner in this area.

[01:17:07]>> Any advice for Crane? I mean, I I know I know um Secretary um you I know I I understand you recognize the the vision and the importance, but before I get to Secretary Williams, any advice for Crane?

[01:17:20]>> Engage directly. You know, I I always say subt subtlety goes over our head, you know, and and I'm sure there are dialogues right now with Crane, but we should be actively engaging in them like what's the most appropriate next step to move the nuclear ball forward at Crane.

[01:17:37]So, probably there's people in our department already actively engaged with Crane. Please confirm there is. And if there isn't, if they're waiting for us to reach out, please tell them to proactively reach out. We'd love to talk to them. We'd love to engage with them.

[01:17:51]And um >> thank you for that. I'll make sure that Secretary Williams, good to see you. We serve together colleagues in the House.

[01:17:58]Crane has built nationally recognized expertise in radiation hardened electronics and micro electronics to support the strategic deterrence mission. Can you discuss the importance of sustained investment in radiation hardened technologies to ensure that the US maintains its technological edge?

[01:18:18]>> Yes. Uh thank you for the question, Senator. Nice to see you. And um as a fellow Navy veteran um one of the things I would highlight about crane and then I'll get to your answer uh is the importance of supply chain. We need to look for commercial nuclear as well. We need to look beyond uh just uh reactor designs. They have to get built and some of those capabilities are at crane uh in support of the nuclear navy. In terms of hardened electronics, uh, our nuclear weapons are made to perform and survive in the most, uh, extreme of environments. And those extreme environments include being able to penetrate a nuclear detonation uh, and still function as planned, on time, on target uh, without any interruption. And hardened electronics are directly linked to that. We have extraordinary capabilities. We test them in our facilities like NIF and and uh what things that we're building down at Sandia. So, it is absolutely critical.

[01:19:20]>> Thank you. My time is expired.

[01:19:22]>> Thank you, Senator Banks. This concludes the open portion of today's hearing. I want to thank our witnesses for their testimony, for the information of members. Question for the record will be due to the committee within two business days of the conclusion of this hearing.

[01:19:37]We will commence the closed portion of this hearing in Senate Security at 5 minutes past 11.

[01:19:46]We are recessed until 5 minutes past 11.