    [Senate Hearing 119-64]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                             S. Hrg. 119-64

                           ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT
                        APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026

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

                                    HEARINGS

                                    before a

                              SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                       ON

                                   H.R. 6938

         AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT
           FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2026, AND FOR
           OTHER PURPOSES

                                   __________

                          Department of Defense--Civil
                              Department of Energy
                           Department of the Interior
                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

                     [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
                                   __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    60-258 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2026

                          COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                         SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine, Chair

    MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky            PATTY MURRAY, Washington, Vice
    LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska                   Chair
    LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina       RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
    JERRY MORAN, Kansas                  JACK REED, Rhode Island
    JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota            JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
    JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas               JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware
    JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana              BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
    CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi        TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
    BILL HAGERTY, Tennessee              CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut
    KATIE BOYD BRITT, Alabama            CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
    MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma           MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
    DEB FISCHER, Nebraska                GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
    MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota            KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York
    SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine, (ex         JON OSSOFF, Georgia
        officio)

                      Elizabeth McDonnell, Staff Director
                      Evan Schatz, Minority Staff Director

                                     ------

                  Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development

                         JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana, Chair

    MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky            PATTY MURRAY, Washington Ranking
    LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska               RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
    LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina       JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
    JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota            CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware
    CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi        TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
    BILL HAGERTY, Tennessee              MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
    KATIE BOYD BRITT, Alabama            GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
    MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota            JON OSSOFF, Georgia

                               Professional Staff

                                Melissa Burnison
                                 Bill McNavage
                               Kathleen Williams
                            Aaron Golner (Minority)
                            Laura Powell (Minority)
                         Amanda Wyma-Bradley (Minority)
                           Maria Calderon (Minority)

                             Administrative Support

                                  Cole Spiller

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                                    HEARINGS
                            Wednesday, May 21, 2025

                                                                       Page

    Department of Energy: Office of the Secretary....................     1

                            Wednesday, June 11, 2025

    Department of Defense--Civil: Department of the Army; Corps of
      Engineers--Civil...............................................    71
    Department of the Interior: Bureau of Reclamation................    80

                                  ----------

                                  BACK MATTER

    List of Witnesses, Communications, and Prepared Statements.......   105

    Subject Index....................................................   107
        Department of Defense--Civil.................................   107
            Department of the Army...................................   107
            Corps of Engineers--Civil................................   107

        Department of Energy.........................................   107
            Office of the Secretary..................................   107

        Department of the Interior...................................   108
            Bureau of Reclamation....................................   108

                           ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT
                        APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026
                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, MAY 21, 2025

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-124, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. John Kennedy (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senators Kennedy, Murkowski, Hoeven, Hagerty,
    Britt, Murray, Merkley, Coons, Baldwin, Peters, and Ossoff.

                              DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                            Office of the Secretary

    STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER WRIGHT, SECRETARY

                   opening statement of senator john kennedy

        Senator Kennedy. All right. Let us get started, folks. I am
    going to call the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development
    of the Appropriations Committee to order.
        With us today is Secretary Chris Wright, who is going to
    talk to us about the proposed Trump's ``skinny budget,'' if you
    will.
        I am just going to have a couple of preliminary comments,
    and then I am going to turn to the Vice Chair of the entire
    committee and the Ranking Member of the subcommittee to make
    remarks.
        Look, we all know about the portfolio of the Department of
    Energy. It is a smorgasbord, everything from nuclear weapon
    stockpiles, to research, to supercomputing, to artificial
    intelligence. There are two things, Mr. Secretary I want to
    point out in my opening statement that got my attention.
        The spending at your Department is not your fault, but it
    is unsustainable. It is simply unsustainable. If you take a
    look and compare the current budget of the Department of
    Energy, just go back a few years to fiscal year 2021. In fiscal
    year 2021, the Department's budget was roughly $61 billion.
    Today, it is roughly $160 billion. That is a what, 161 percent
    increase? That is pretty dramatic, and I know your proposed
    skinny budget is addressing some of that.
        I hope we can address the spending with a scalpel, not a
    meat axe, but we are going to have to address it. I will also
    point out, let us see that other chart, the Inspector General,
    as you have probably read the report, Chris, the report came
    out in November of 2024. The Inspector General identified $1
    billion in what it called wasteful spending, unsupportive
    spending, or fraudulent spending. That is a lot of taxpayer
    money.
        So, I am looking forward to this today. I am pretty much an
    all-of-the-above energy type guy. I will support any form of
    energy that is affordable, that is efficient, that is
    accessible. That includes renewables. In my judgment, President
    Biden's administration concentrated too exclusively, almost
    exclusively, I should say--on renewables. We have spent a lot
    of money, I don't see that we have gotten the results. The
    average electricity bill in America for the average American
    family over the past 4 years is up 28 percent. That is the
    first thing they care about. We have got to address it.
        And I hope we can today, Mr. Secretary, talk very
    specifically about what programs are working and what programs
    aren't. Because what has happened in the past, since I have
    been on this committee, is we get together as a subcommittee,
    we get our topline numbers, our staffs go off, the Democratic
    staffs and the Republican staffs, go off and negotiate. And at
    least on my side of the aisle, the staff comes back and says:
    Good news, spending is only going to go up 6 percent.
        Well, those days are gone, as far as I am concerned. That
    is just not acceptable to me, not when you have had a 161
    percent increase.
        And with that, I will turn to the Vice Chair of the
    Appropriations Committee and the Ranking Member of the Energy
    and Water Development Subcommittee, my good friend Senator
    Patty Murray.

                       statement of senator patty murray

        Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Senator Kennedy.
    Looking forward to working with you on this committee.
        Senator Kennedy. Same here.
        Senator Murray. I am pleased to serve as the Ranking Member
    of this important subcommittee, and I do hope we can continue
    our track record of writing bipartisan spending bills that make
    the crucial investments in our communities that we need.
        You know, DOE's (Department of Energy) work is really far-
    reaching. It has major implications for how much families spend
    on energy bills, on the reliability of our energy grid, whether
    we lead the world in clean energy, AI, quantum computing, and
    our national security, and our nuclear waste cleanup program.
        In my home State of Washington, as you know, we see all of
    this firsthand, at the Bonneville Power Administration, which
    provides power to families across our region; at the Pacific
    Northwest National Lab, which is pioneering cutting-edge
    research; and at Hanford, where we have the biggest nuclear
    cleanup site in the country, and a moral and legal obligation
    that we can never shortchange.
        So, we must give the programs DOE manages their due in
    terms of funding and in terms of oversight necessary to make
    sure that funding actually gets to our communities. But I
    believe those goals are in jeopardy because of some of your
    actions over the last few months, like a truly sweeping funding
    freeze, unprecedented contract cancellations, mass staffing
    reductions, and uncertainty that is hurting communities across
    our country.
        Now, Secretary Wright, my colleagues and I have been
    pressing you for information, on staffing, on funds signed into
    law you are holding up, or straight up cancelling, and more,
    and I have only received two responses so far, both of them
    yesterday, clearly to get ahead of today's hearing. And
    response, I have to say, is being charitable, because you did
    not really provide any answers in those.
        Last week, you told the House you have ignored basic
    inquiries from lawmakers because you are too busy, and you
    mentioned you don't want to spend time on false premises. So, I
    thought we could save some time today by debunking a few of
    those false premises.
        It is false for you to say less than 1,000 people have left
    since you took over. We know over 3,500 DOE employees have
    taken the so-called buyout that you offered, and we know you
    fired 500 more. It is false for you to say no contracts have
    been cancelled, when you have plainly cancelled electric
    vehicle and low-income energy assistance grants in Colorado,
    one example. And it is false for you to say there are no unpaid
    invoices, when we have heard from organizations still waiting
    on payments, including hydrogen hubs, which have unpaid
    invoices.
        Now, in addition to ignoring requests from Congress, your
    fiscal year 2025 spend plan, required by law, is completely
    inadequate. That is really critical, Mr. Secretary. It is a
    critical document for us to understand how you are spending, or
    how you are blocking, or cancelling billions of dollars
    Congress, all of us, provided for critical projects across the
    country.
        I have heard you say you are merely conducting a review, as
    if that somehow makes it okay. Call it whatever you want. The
    bottom line is the money is not moving. And as a former
    businessman, you know perfectly well that uncertainty alone has
    a massive cost. Jobs are being lost because of your actions.
    Private investment in critical energy projects is being
    cancelled, delayed, threatened to the tune of $71 billion so
    far this year.
        And as electric prices hit record highs, you are halting
    progress on investments that would lower people's bills.
    Meanwhile, you are letting thousands of critical staff go,
    encouraging folks to leave, with no regard for if they do their
    work well, or if their work is important. I still don't know
    how you could do something as crazy as try to fire Bonneville
    Power Administration workers in the name of efficiency. Those
    are literally people who keep the lights on, and they are not
    even paid by taxpayer dollars.
        Now, I know that eventually you reversed those firings, but
    the fact that they happened at all was, really, to me, a first
    in a parade of red flags.
        Now, we are here today to talk about another red flag. That
    is your budget that completely guts the non-defense half of
    your mission. Overall, you want to slash $20 billion from DOE's
    science and energy programs. Your budget proposes ripping 75
    percent out of the energy efficiency and renewable energy
    program and shuttering important clean energy and manufacturing
    programs. I don't know who is telling you people want to pay
    higher electric bills.
        Your budget slashes $1.1 billion from the Office of
    Science. Who is telling you that we should cede ground to China
    in the race for innovation, and lay off scientists at our
    national labs?
        Your budget cuts $15 billion from programs we created in
    the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, hydrogen hubs, battery
    storage, advanced manufacturing, supply chains, and other
    programs to lower our energy costs. Who told you we don't want
    those manufacturing jobs? Who told you we don't want to
    strengthen our energy protection and reduce our dependence on
    foreign oil?
        Well, here is what I will tell you. If we were to follow
    through with this disastrous budget, the only energy that we
    would save is from the lights that go out at factories across
    the country. Those lights are going to go off as China swoops
    in to take the lead in the technologies that will define the
    21st century.
        I don't see any efficiency in this budget, but I do see a
    heavy cost. And that is the cost you are going to pass on to
    our constituents in the form of higher electric bills, gas
    bills, and more power outages. Not to mention the cost when
    manufacturing moves elsewhere and we have to pay Trump's absurd
    tariffs for technology we could and should be making right
    here, or the cost to our country: discoveries we could be
    making here, jobs we could be creating right here, goods we
    could be making here and selling across the world.
        Instead, it feels like you want to gift-wrap the future and
    hand it to China. Your budget also, by the way, flat funds the
    Hanford cleanup. That has serious repercussions, they recently
    finalized milestones they have to meet on the high-level waste
    mission. Flat funding means the only way to hit those targets
    is to pull funding from other priorities, which would have
    ripple effects for workers carrying out critical projects
    across the site and ultimately would delay remediation along
    the Columbia River. That is unacceptable. We can't rob Peter to
    pay Paul.
        Mr. Secretary, I know you talk about energy abundance, but
    talk is cheap. Doing that work actually takes real investments.
    I think you know that. Investments you are now ripping to
    shreds. So, I personally want to see less talk and more money
    getting out the door the way Congress wrote and intended.
        You know, there is common ground in this space. I know we
    found it before. The very last bill Chair Kennedy and I wrote
    together passed out of this committee unanimously, and I want
    to see us do it again, because this is genuinely important
    work.
        Now, before I conclude, I would be remiss if I did not
    address the outrageously corrupt news we got last week on the
    Army Corps Work Plan. This administration is ripping away
    hundreds of millions of dollars from projects that were in the
    House bill and in the Senate Energy and Water fiscal year 2025
    bills, and funding other projects with that money that were not
    funded in any bill that we approved. This includes scrapping
    funds for the Howard Hanson Dam in Washington State. This is a
    vital project. It has to get done.
        I want you to know, I am going to keep working with you,
    Mr. Chairman, to get that done, because this committee and the
    subcommittee have come a long way together to fund these vital
    projects to communities across our country. And I know no
    member appreciates any administration playing games with
    communities for political reasons, as is the case with that
    work plan that was released last week. It is brazen abuse, pure
    and simple. And I will keep digging into how that decision was
    made, demanding answers, and speaking out about this, and
    fighting for my State of Washington.
        Now, before I turn it over back to you, Chair Kennedy, I do
    want to end by recognizing Doug Clapp. He was my former clerk,
    a longtime staffer on this subcommittee, and a staffer in my
    personal office before that. Doug started on this committee in
    2007, 2 decades ago, and has left his mark on our Nation's laws
    time and again: championing oversight and good governance,
    advancing environmental cleanup work including at the Hanford
    site, fighting for and securing the vital investments this
    subcommittee makes, as well as working in my personal office on
    the Wild Sky Wilderness Act and many other issues important to
    my constituents.
        He was someone who understood that when we work together,
    we can make powerful investments that show government can do
    good in people's lives. I am really grateful for his years of
    service. I want to wish him the best as he starts his next
    chapter. I am also grateful he left behind not just a strong
    legacy but a great team and a subcommittee so well prepared to
    continue this work. And I thank all of them.
        Senator Kennedy.
        Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Senator.
        Mr. Secretary, we will turn to you next. I can assure you
    we will give you plenty of time, in addition to your opening
    statement, to answer any questions or any charges from this
    committee. I was delighted when the President appointed you.
    When we were talking before the committee began, I am not
    kidding, I am reading your book, and it is fascinating. Some of
    it I don't understand, I may have to call you and get you to
    explain it to me, but it is very accessible. And when the
    President appointed you, I was so excited that we would have
    someone running the Department of Energy who has such a deep
    background in the subject.
        And with that, the floor is now yours. Tell us what we need
    to know, Mr. Secretary. And welcome to all of your staff, I
    assume they are all sitting there on the front row?

                  summary statement of hon. christopher wright

        Secretary Wright. Yes. Yes. Great. Thanks. The team behind
    me, they will be here after the meeting too if we have
    questions or follow-up.
        Senator Murray, if you have unpaid invoices, please bring
    them to us right now. We pay our bills. I am not aware of any
    unpaid invoices. If you know of some, please deliver to us.
        Senator Murray. We have the receipts up there.
        Secretary Wright. Please deliver them, and we will take
    care of them. We pay our bills. We follow the law.
        Thank you, Senator. Yes, energy is a lifelong mission and
    passion for me, and nothing will change that, and I am thrilled
    to be here in this position.
        So, Chairman Kennedy, Ranking Member Murray, 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
    2026 Budget Request for the Department of Energy. I want to
    commend this committee for its long-standing commitment to
    energy policy and the mission of the Department.
        Energy is the backbone of civilization. It is the essential
    catalyst of human progress, enabling everything we do,
    everything. From the lights in our homes, the heat in our
    homes, the process heat in our factories, and the innovation in
    our national laboratories. I have dedicated my life to
    increasing access to energy and bettering human lives, and I am
    thrilled to carry my work forward at the Department of Energy.
        My priorities for the Department are clear: to unleash a
    golden era of American energy dominance, strengthen our
    national security, and lead the world in innovation. A reliable
    and abundant energy supply is the foundation of a strong and
    prosperous nation. When America leads in energy, we lead in
    prosperity, security, and human flourishing.
        America has a historic opportunity to secure our energy
    systems, lead the world in scientific and technological
    innovation, maintain and strengthen our weapons stockpile, and
    meet Cold War legacy waste commitments. The Department of
    Energy will advance these critical missions while cutting red
    tape, increasing efficiency, unleashing innovation, and
    ensuring we are better stewards of taxpayer dollars.
        The President's fiscal year 2026 budget will ensure
    taxpayer resources are allocated appropriately and cost-
    effectively. This budget will return DOE to its core mission of
    advancing energy innovation and global competitiveness through
    research and development. We will invest DOE's resources in
    sources and technologies that support affordable, reliable, and
    secure energy and provide a return on investment for the
    American taxpayers.
        Achieving this vision means fully leveraging the resources
    that have powered our country for generations. The United
    States is blessed with an abundance of coal, oil, and natural
    gas, and the Trump administration is committed to using them to
    meet growing energy needs of the American people. Every one of
    these resources was unleashed through the world-changing power
    of American innovation.
        Our national labs are the engine that drives research and
    development to expand our energy dominance. When it comes to
    our national labs, we are undeniably capable of doing more with
    less. We can both increase efficiency and drive innovation. We
    will prioritize research that supports true technological
    breakthroughs and maintains America's global competitiveness.
        We are also taking steps to accelerate innovation in
    commercial nuclear development. America must lead the
    commercialization of affordable and abundant nuclear energy.
    DOE is working to advance the rapid deployment of next-
    generation nuclear technology, including small modular
    reactors. I am proud to report that we have officially ended
    the previous administration's reckless pause on LNG (Liquefied
    Natural Gas) export permits and are returning to regular order
    for reviewing and approving new permits.
        DOE will also work to replenish the Strategic Petroleum
    Reserve, a national asset that protects our security in times
    of crisis. We are advancing President Trump's pledge to lower
    the cost of living and expand consumer choice for all Americans
    by right-sizing DOE's approach to home efficiency standards and
    regulations.
        This month, DOE proposed the elimination or reduction of 47
    regulations, the largest deregulatory effort in history. Once
    finalized, these actions are projected to save the American
    people approximately $11 billion dollars while restoring
    consumer freedom and lowering costs. The responsible
    stewardship and modernization of the Nation's nuclear weapons
    systems is paramount for the Department of Energy and this
    administration. DOE is focused on addressing critical upgrades
    for the U.S. nuclear stockpile and maintaining our engine
    powerhouses for submarines and aircraft carriers. Both tasks
    will become even more crucial in the next few years.
        Our nuclear innovation is a nation that began with the
    Manhattan Project, and the next Manhattan Project is clearly AI
    (Artificial Intelligence). DOE has a significant role to play
    in driving AI innovation for scientific discovery and national
    security. Our agency has world-class high-performance computing
    capabilities, including four of the world's top ten
    supercomputers. Harnessing our energy potential to power global
    AI leadership while meeting growing energy demand will be the
    challenge of our time, but America does not back down from big
    challenges or big builds.
        As Secretary of Energy, I am honored by the responsibility
    to help meet the American people's growing needs for energy and
    lead the world in energy development.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the
    committee today.
        [The statement follows:]
                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Christopher Wright
        Chairman Kennedy, Ranking Member Murray, and Members of the
    Committee, it is an honor to appear before you and this Committee today
    as the Secretary of Energy to discuss the President's Fiscal Year (FY)
    2026 Budget request for the Department of Energy (``the Department'' or
    ``DOE'').
        America has a historic opportunity to secure our energy systems;
    deliver leadership in scientific and technological innovation,
    including in Artificial Intelligence; maintain and strengthen our
    weapons stockpiles; and meet Cold War legacy waste commitments. The
    Department of Energy is capable of meeting these critical missions
    while increasing efficiency, unleashing innovation, and ensuring we are
    better stewards of taxpayer dollars. President Trump is committed to
    balancing the budget and implementing fiscal restraint--focusing agency
    funding on the crucial goal of unleashing American energy dominance.
    This is a commitment I share and a duty I intend to fulfill.
        Recently, the Trump Administration celebrated its 100th day in
    office, and the Department of Energy has been hard at work to deliver
    on these goals of unleashing energy expansion while improving
    operational efficiency. I am proud to report that we have officially
    ended the previous administration's reckless pause on Liquified Natural
    Gas (LNG) export permits and returned DOE to regular order for
    reviewing and approving new permits. Since January, the Department has
    approved applications from projects that will export more than 9.5
    billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) of natural gas as LNG, adding nearly
    as much incremental capacity as the world's leading LNG exporting
    countries.
        Additionally, we are advancing President Trump's pledge to lower
    the cost of living and expand consumer choice for all Americans by
    rightsizing DOE's regulatory approach to home efficiency standards. At
    President Trump's direction, DOE has officially withdrawn four
    conservation standards before they took effect, including standards on
    electric motors, ceiling fans, dehumidifiers, and external power
    supplies. DOE has delayed the implementation of efficiency standards
    for walk-in coolers and freezers, efficiency standards for gas
    instantaneous water heaters, and test procedures for central air
    conditioning and heat pumps, as well as extended the deadline for
    compliance with energy-conservation standards for manufactured housing.
    In addition, DOE published a final rule withdrawing coverage of
    miscellaneous gas products such as outdoor heaters and decorative
    hearths, meaning those beloved products are exempt from unnecessary
    regulations.
        By removing burdensome rules, we are returning freedom of choice to
    the American people, ensuring consumers can choose the home appliances
    that work best for their lives and budgets.
        While we actively work to strengthen America's role as the world's
    leader in oil and natural gas production and lower costs for all
    Americans, we are also taking steps to accelerate innovation in the
    commercial nuclear development. In the first 100 days, DOE issued two
    disbursements to support the reopening of Michigan's Palisades Nuclear
    Energy Plant. We allocated high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU)
    material to five U.S. advanced nuclear reactor developers to boost
    domestic reactor deployment. It is imperative to strengthen America's
    nuclear future and I am taking immediate action to accelerate the
    deployment of small modular reactors (SMRs). As electricity demand
    continues to grow, fueled by AI development and the growth of American
    manufacturing, Americans will need more energy from more sources,
    including nuclear.
                                   priorities
        My priorities for the Department of Energy are clear--to unleash a
    golden era of American energy dominance while strengthening our
    national security. Energy is the essential ingredient that enables
    everything we do. Access to an abundant and reliable energy supply is a
    key ingredient to unlocking prosperity and ensuring human flourishing
    and innovation.
        Consequently, we are focused on energy addition, versus subtraction
    or even replacement. As government leaders, we need to be of the
    mindset that more is better; replacing energy sources does not add to
    the finite energy supply that American families, businesses, and
    innovators are competing for.
        This means fully leveraging the reliable sources of energy that
    have fueled American innovation and security for decades. Coal, oil,
    and gas are abundant natural resources that our country has been
    blessed with, and the Trump Administration is committed to using them
    to provide affordable, reliable, and secure energy for Americans. To
    this end, we are returning the Office of Fossil Energy to its original
    mission--advancing affordable, reliable, and secure energy sources for
    the American people while continuing to support research and
    development in emerging technologies that advance these sources. This
    will not only enable greater focus on expanding energy access for the
    American people, but also promote more efficient use of taxpayer
    dollars.
        The United States is the largest global producer and exporter of
    natural gas, and DOE is doing everything to ensure that the United
    States retains and builds on this enviable position. Our policy
    approach for LNG and other energy sources is to make it less expensive
    and more reliable, and achieve more American energy production and
    infrastructure development, not less. Right now, eight large-scale U.S.
    export terminals are now producing around 15 Bcf/d of LNG exports to
    the global market. With additional capacity currently under
    construction, exports are expected to average 16 Bcf/d next year.
    Exports are on track to nearly double from current levels and reach
    around 29 Bcf/d around 2030 once all the export capacity under
    construction is completed. This amount could grow as more projects
    reach a final investment decision.
        A vital area of focus is expanding commercial nuclear power across
    the country. America must lead the commercialization of affordable and
    abundant nuclear energy, and so DOE will focus on the rapid deployment
    and export of next-generation nuclear technology, including small
    modular reactors. Small modular reactors will provide reliable power
    for our Nation's growing energy demands, with the added benefits of
    flexible deployment due to their compact size and modular design.
        We also need to unleash American energy innovation, and the
    National Labs are the engine that drives research and development to
    further this aim. When it comes to our National Labs, we are capable of
    doing more with less. We can both increase efficiency and drive
    innovation. We will prioritize research that supports true
    technological breakthroughs, such as nuclear fusion, high- performance
    computing, quantum computing, and AI, which will maintain America's
    global competitiveness.
        AI is the next Manhattan Project. AI technology will define the
    future of the world, and it is essential that the U.S. leads in the
    development of this technology. DOE has a significant role to play in
    driving AI innovation for scientific discovery, energy innovation, and
    national security. Our agency has the world-class high-performance
    computing capabilities that enable fast and efficient AI research and
    development, including four of the world's top ten supercomputers. To
    ensure American leadership, we must not overburden AI development with
    restrictions and regulations--including those on energy supplies
    essential for AI data centers. We need all energy sources to power the
    global AI race and meet growing data centers energy demand, including
    natural gas, nuclear, geothermal, and coal, while also ensuring the
    security of the grid.
        Fortifying America's electric grid is critical to the reliable and
    secure delivery of electricity. We are now faced with evolving and
    rapid changes to the system that threaten the reliability of our grid.
    Aging infrastructure and increases in demand are multifaceted stressors
    to the grid, putting the national and economic security of the American
    people at risk. The threats to America's energy infrastructure are also
    evolving at an unprecedented pace. Cyber adversaries and physical
    attacks are no longer isolated challenges--they are converging to
    create a complex and persistent threat landscape. I am committed to
    restoring American energy dominance to ensure that we make energy more
    affordable, reliable, and secure.
        DOE will also work to replenish the Strategic Petroleum Reserve
    (SPR). The SPR is a national asset that protects our security in times
    of crisis. The last administration's politically motivated depletion of
    180 million barrels has significantly degraded SPR infrastructure,
    brought storage levels to historic lows, and weakened America's ability
    to respond to new geopolitical oil market shocks. At the end of
    calendar year 2024, the SPR held an estimated 394 million barrels of
    crude out of a 714-million-barrel top-line capacity, or operational
    capacity of 680 million barrels. It is noted that the time needed to
    refill the SPR is six times greater than the time required to do a
    drawdown; thus, it is important to make material progress immediately.
        In his 2025 Inaugural Address, President Trump made a commitment to
    ``bring prices down, fill our strategic reserves up again right to the
    top, and export American energy all over the world.'' Subsequently, I
    issued a Secretarial Order to refill the SPR and review SPR
    infrastructure and develop appropriate plans to safeguard this
    important strategic asset.
        Critical minerals and materials, used in applications across
    energy, defense, industry, and consumer electronics, are essential for
    economic growth and national security. Currently, however, the United
    States is reliant on other countries, like China, which dominates
    midstream processing and refining. It's essential that we focus on
    building domestic capabilities to extract, process, manufacture, and
    recover end-of-life critical materials for our industrial needs, energy
    goals, and national security. DOE is already directly supporting the
    goals laid out in recent executive orders on critical minerals and
    materials by identifying and expediting pending projects to support
    domestic mineral production, coordinating with other agencies including
    the U.S. Department of Defense, exploring the effectiveness of offtake
    agreements and pricing support, and developing new programs to bolster
    domestic mining and production.
        America doesn't back down from big builds. If we want abundant,
    affordable, and secure energy, we must invest in the transmission,
    generation, and innovation that get us there. We are working to
    accelerate projects through permitting reform. Every delay is a dollar
    lost. We need to break ground faster with streamlined permitting,
    standardized designs, and public-private partnerships to build at the
    speed of national need. And we need to do so with security in mind to
    be more resilient to attacks and failures. A proactive approach will
    minimize disruptions and ensure the reliable delivery of essential
    energy resources. Every mile of protected infrastructure is a step
    toward energy independence and national resilience.
        To accomplish many of the goals this administration has set, the
    energy sector needs relief from the burdensome permitting process that
    sabotages America's natural competitive advantages for an abundant
    energy supply and reliable grid. DOE is identifying and exercising the
    legal authorities it has to streamline the permitting process for
    energy infrastructure to bolster our grid security and reliability. It
    is imperative that interagency working groups coordinate with Congress
    to ensure the Federal Government does not unnecessarily stand in the
    way of accomplishing President Trump's agenda for the American people.
    DOE stands ready to provide insights on permitting reform questions,
    drawing on our deep bench of technical experts across a range of energy
    technologies and focus areas.
        DOE also remains committed to the responsible and safe cleanup of
    our Nation's environmental legacy sites, from the Manhattan Project to
    the Cold War. DOE's Environmental Management program will continue to
    perform its cleanup efforts at all 14 of the active sites.
        I believe the Department of Energy is well positioned to meet the
    next chapter of American energy security, but we will need to continue
    to strengthen our Nation's energy leadership by developing our enviable
    resources, bolstering global partnerships, and advancing new
    technologies. We need to continue to foster innovations in quantum
    computing and AI. We have an urgent need to upgrade our nuclear arsenal
    and our broader capabilities to design and construct nuclear weapons
    and power systems. DOE can and will accomplish these goals by cutting
    red tape, prioritizing common-sense solutions, and cultivating American
    ingenuity.
                  fiscal year 2026 president's budget request
        DOE proposes $45.1 billion in discretionary budget authority for FY
    2026. Our budget is a fiscally responsible budget that will ensure
    taxpayer resources are allocated appropriately and cost-effectively.
    This budget will return DOE to its core mission of advancing energy
    innovation and global competitiveness through research and development.
    We will invest DOE's resources in sources and technologies that support
    affordable, reliable, and secure energy and provide a return on
    investment for the American taxpayers, while restoring confidence in
    America's fiscal management.
        The responsible stewardship and modernization of the Nation's
    nuclear weapons systems is paramount for the Department of Energy and
    this Administration. With $30 billion for the National Nuclear Security
    Administration, we will address critical upgrades for the U.S. nuclear
    stockpile and maintain our engine powerhouses for submarines and
    aircraft carriers. Both tasks will become even more crucial in the next
    few years. The President's budget proposes the cancellation of $15.247
    billion in IIJA funds and a decrease of $2.572 billion relative to the
    FY 2025 enacted level for the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
    account. This will bring to a halt investment in the Green New Scam
    which wastes taxpayer money and does not solve the problems before our
    Nation. While we will continue to invest in advancing emerging energy
    technologies, we must ensure that every single dollar spent is
    accountable to the taxpayers and generates a positive return on
    investment. This Administration is ending the reckless subsidizing of
    unreliable, unaffordable, and less secure energy sources.
        The budget decreases $408 million relative to the FY 2025 enacted
    level for nuclear energy, shifting the program's focus to
    commercialization, and curtailing non-essential research. As global
    energy demand continues to grow, DOE must prioritize commercialization
    of affordable and abundant nuclear energy. This budget will enable the
    rapid deployment of next-generation nuclear technology across the
    United States. Nuclear energy is incredible. It can provide not just
    electricity, but also high-temperature process heat, critical to making
    the materials we need for planes, trains, cars, and houses. Now is the
    time for a nuclear renaissance. DOE is going to use all available
    tools, from direct funding to loans, to unleash this pivotal form of
    reliable energy.
        Additionally, the President's budget returns the Office of Science
    to its core focus--unleashing American competitiveness. While the
    budget decreases non-essential funding by $1.148 billion compared to
    the FY 2025 enacted level, we believe this level of investment will
    maintain competitiveness and allow us to invest in high priority areas
    like high performance computing, AI, quantum information science,
    fusion, and critical minerals while reducing funding for climate change
    and Green New Scam research. We will also re-focus ARPA-E by decreasing
    its funding by $260 million relative to the FY 2025 enacted level.
    ARPA-E will no longer fund so- called green technologies and instead
    will focus on high risk, high reward research that advances reliable
    energy technologies and other critical and emerging technologies.
        The Department is also focused on streamlining our operations
    within the agency, consolidating offices and activities to increase
    efficiency. We will return the Office of Fossil Energy to its proper
    name and restore its central function of supporting the production of
    fossil energy, including coal and critical minerals for the United
    States, while decreasing the budget by $270 million relative to FY 2025
    enacted levels. The budget decreases Environmental Management by $389
    million relative to FY 2025 enacted, roughly half of which reflects the
    transfer of responsibility for the Savannah River Site in South
    Carolina to the National Nuclear Security Administration, where
    plutonium pit production capabilities will be developed.
        The Administration proposes to eliminate spending that is at odds
    with the intentions and policies outlined in President Trump's
    Executive Orders, Presidential Memoranda, Proclamations, and other
    guidance.
        As Secretary of Energy, I am honored and humbled by the
    responsibility to help meet the American people's growing energy needs
    and lead the world in energy development. Thank you for the opportunity
    to testify before this subcommittee.

        Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Mr. Secretary,
    how many employees did the Department of Energy have when you
    took over?
        Secretary Wright. Just around 16,000 government employees.
        Senator Kennedy. How many does it have today?
        Secretary Wright. A little under 16,000 today.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. How much have you reduced it
    percentagewise?
        Secretary Wright. So far, only a relatively small amount.
    We are looking at larger reductions, and as Senator Murray
    mentioned, we have offered voluntary plans and programs for
    people to be compensated by the government as they transition
    to another career. We have done this slowly, carefully, with a
    lot of engagement with people, and while looking at how to
    restructure our Department. So, the ultimate reduction in
    workforce will be larger than it has been today, but today our
    payroll has barely moved.
        Senator Kennedy. Most entities in the private sector of the
    size of the Department of Energy know how to modernize and
    downsize, do they not?
        Secretary Wright. It is essential to survival as a
    business. If you want to roll with changes in the marketplace
    and the business, you better be ready to change your
    organization.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. I just read recently where
    Microsoft, one of the most successful companies in the world,
    is going to reduce its workforce by 6,000 employees, I mean, do
    you think that is going to be the end of Microsoft?
        Secretary Wright. No. It will not be the end of Microsoft.
    I will say, these are the hardest things to do, whether it is
    in a company or a government agency. You know, these are
    people's lives, and our Department is blessed with tremendous
    men and women who have made enormous contributions.
        But you are right, Senator Kennedy, we have to look at it
    critically and right-size and align the organization to the
    mission and challenges of today.

                                     LOANS

        Senator Kennedy. Let me ask you a couple of specific
    questions, Mr. Secretary. As a result--we had a party around
    here under the Biden administration, and when you have a party,
    you have to pay the band when the party is over. As a result of
    the party, if you count the Inflation Reduction Act, which was
    the Green New Deal, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act,
    also part of the Green New Deal, the CHIPS (Creating Helpful
    Incentives to Produce Semiconductors) and Science Act, your
    Department got $99 billion in new appropriations, $30.5 billion
    in new authorizations, and loan authority of over $400 billion.
    How much of that $400 billion authority to loan money did the
    Department of Energy use?
        Secretary Wright. Nearly $100 billion. Thank you for making
    the point that more money, as is shown in your graph and the
    numbers you quoted, and more people, that the headcount in the
    Department grew over 20 percent during those 4 years, our
    electricity output of the Nation as a whole, grew about 2
    percent, and the cost per unit of electricity grew 28 percent.
        Senator Kennedy. Well, here is what----
        Secretary Wright. And we didn't deliver results for all of
    that.
        Senator Kennedy. Here is what the Inspector General said
    about some of the loans. The Inspector General, these are the
    Inspector General's assessments, not mine, the Inspector
    General called many of these loans, quote, ``high risk'', high
    risk. And he said that these loans were designed to promote
    innovation by financing projects, fine, not otherwise
    acceptable by private equity investors.
        What does that mean? That means that the private sector
    would not get near these projects with a 10-foot pole, would
    they? Only government would put up the money, wouldn't it?
        Secretary Wright. That is correct.
        Senator Kennedy. For example, he found that DOE, under your
    predecessor, announced that it was going to make a $400 million
    loan, actually, it was not a loan, it was a grant, to two
    companies. They announced it. And then somebody pointed out to
    them that they were Chinese companies. They had to pull the
    grant back. And why are we loaning money, this is another issue
    brought out by the Inspector General, why are we loaning $7.5
    billion to Stellantis?
        They can't get a bank loan themselves. I mean, J.P. Morgan
    and Bank of America have been shoving money out the door for
    energy projects. Why did we loan $9.63 billion to Blue Oval?
    Why are we doing all of this? I am going to quickly give you an
    example.
        I had a gentleman, I am not going to use any names, come
    into my office yesterday. He is from a very wealthy family in
    another country. He wants to build a solar manufacturing plant
    in America. He is putting up a billion dollars. Do you know how
    much the American taxpayer is going to put up; $850 million.
    So, he is going to get, thanks to the American taxpayer, a
    billion-dollar plant for $150 million to produce solar panels,
    which the world is awash in. This is unconscionable. And I hope
    you will do something about it, Mr. Secretary.
        Now, at some point we are going to get really specific
    about savings, and I am going to expect you to get real
    specific with us. I don't want to not fund anything that is
    vital, but I am tired of the spending porn. I am tired of it.
        Secretary Wright. I think you have good reason to be
    concerned with how monies have been deployed outside of the
    Loan Program Office and for other assistance as well, and we
    will come back to that. But your concern is well placed.
        Senator Kennedy. Vice Chair Murray.
        Senator Murray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                               FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

        Secretary Wright, despite your claims to the contrary, more
    than 3,500 employees have taken the deferred resignation offer.
    That is about 20 percent of your staff, and we do know that you
    fired several hundred probationary employees as well. That has
    meant some offices are now gutted, there is nobody there.
    Others are in turmoil.
        I give you an example: the Office of Clean Energy
    Demonstrations, which manages $20 billion in grants from the
    Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, lost more than 77 percent of its
    staff. It is going to be nearly impossible for that office to
    accomplish its basic functions, let alone oversee any massive
    and complex energy construction projects. And as I mentioned,
    your firings have been really arbitrary, even firing some of
    our grid operators and linemen at the Bonneville Power
    Administration, which are not paid for by taxpayer dollars.
        I know you scrambled to get those people back, and several
    weeks ago you said no more firings will occur at Bonneville.
    These positions, really, they are absolutely critical to the
    reliability of the grid in Washington State and the Pacific
    Northwest. Will you commit today to exempting BPA (Bonneville
    Power Administration) from your hiring freeze so they can bring
    back on staff, mission-critical staff, and keep the Northwest
    Grid running?
        Secretary Wright. We are very concerned about the power
    marketing agencies. They are critical to our country,
    Bonneville being one of them. We have been careful that their
    operations have not been disrupted. They were short-staffed
    when I arrived in this chair, and we will continue to treat
    them as the critical assets they are.
        Again, headcount is one input. It is an important input,
    but it is not the only input in running a successful business
    or successful agency. And again, you brought up people that
    have provisionally elected to do a deferred resignation
    program. Many of them still have the option to decide whether
    they really are staying or they really are leaving. They are in
    transition. We are engaged with them. They are not fired. They
    are not gone from the Department of Energy yet----
        Senator Murray. Well, there are a lot of folks still on the
    payroll at the expense of the taxpayer. We are told that over
    $70 million worth, they are on administrative leave now. They
    are at home. They are not working. They are not processing
    anything. They are not doing any work, and as a result, offices
    across the Department are not able to function, because those
    people are not there even though taxpayers are still telling
    them to. On BPA, just in terms of that, I do look forward to
    DOE hiring back sufficient staff. We have got to cover these
    critical responsibilities.

                          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY BUDGET

        Let me go turn to the budget. President Trump's skinny
    budget really doubles down on the cuts that DOGE (Department of
    Government Efficiency) has made to the Department. You propose
    cutting $2.5 billion from the Office of Energy Efficiency and
    Renewable Energy, 74 percent of the overall budget. That
    eliminates programs that reduce energy prices for businesses,
    for families.
        Now, on the one hand, you and the President say that you
    support U.S. dominance in energy emerging technologies, but
    then on the other hand, you are proposing cutting over a
    billion dollars in funding to the Office of Science. That
    really undermines critical research programs for AI, for
    fusion, for quantum computing, for nuclear energy, and critical
    minerals.
        Now, typically, a new administration crafts a budget
    request that actually reflects their priorities. You talk a
    lot, I know, about lowering costs for consumers and creating
    this next Manhattan Project for AI, but it seems that this
    budget request includes across-the-board cuts to the very
    programs that would help you achieve those stated goals.
        So, I want to get this straight. You are asking Congress to
    cut the budget for the Office of Science by more than a billion
    dollars. That will help advance AI research and quantum
    computing?
        Secretary Wright. It won't inhibit them at all. In fact, I
    do think on the margin it will help, because, of course, all
    the things you listed: fusion, quantum computing, basic
    fundamental, advanced science, none of those things will be
    cut. The problem is the labs have drifted into things that are
    not fundamental basic science. They are political science, and
    that is just not the mission of the labs.
        Senator Murray. Do you have examples of those that you
    would like to share with us?
        Secretary Wright. We have a crazy range of things on
    climate change. There is science around climate change that I
    write about and have studied for 2 decades. There is real
    science there, but it has become a political game more than a
    real science game. That is not the business of the national
    labs. And of course, we are going to shrink that activity.
        We are going to be smarter and more efficient. But none of
    the top priorities you mentioned are going to be touched at
    all.
        Senator Murray. Well, you talk about the importance----
        Secretary Wright. In fact, they are going to be enhanced.

                                 NUCLEAR POWER

        Senator Murray. You talk about the importance of nuclear
    power and small modular reactors. Just yesterday, you said you
    were in favor of every incentive we can get from the Federal
    Government to restart this industry. Yet in your budget that
    you are proposing, you cut the Office of Nuclear Energy by $408
    million. How are investors and companies supposed to have
    confidence in partnering with you when what you say and what
    your budget says are two different things?
        Secretary Wright. Each individual line item does not
    indicate a policy. I think the nuclear industry is quite
    enthusiastic and quite confident they are going to have the
    best environment ever for commercial nuclear power under this
    administration, under my leadership of the DOE. What we are
    doing is mobilizing tens of billions of dollars of private
    capital using government----
        Senator Murray. Yes. Well, the private capital is counting
    on us to make that investment. Otherwise, we see them pull out.
    We have actually seen companies in the country now pulling out
    of projects because of the chaos in your Department. As a
    businessman, you said that you should know more than anyone the
    importance of certainty. And when they see the chaos and they
    see them pulling back, then they are not going to invest their
    private money either.
        Secretary Wright. If you can connect me with anyone in the
    nuclear space, or fusion, or any of the things you listed that
    is pulling back, I would love to jump on the phone with them,
    because I have not met one. Not one. And in fact, I felt
    exactly the opposite. The most efficient tool that the
    Department of Energy has to help the nuclear industry is the
    Loan Program Office. Get high-quality equity money in front and
    bring government debt on these first few-of-a-kind reactors
    behind them. That is the way to get it done. It is not direct
    grant dollars. It is the Loan Program Office dollars.
        Senator Murray. The Chairman is going to pull my mic in a
    second, and I do want to ask you a really critical question
    quickly. We are having a budget hearing today. We have not seen
    your full budget request. We need that in front of us. It is
    required. It is critical information. When are we going to see
    your full budget request?
        Secretary Wright. I am working with OMB (Office of
    Management and Budget) right now to get that out as soon as we
    can. I understand your urgency.
        Senator Murray. Thank you.
        Senator Kennedy. Senator Britt.
        Senator Britt. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
        Senator Kennedy. Senator Britt, we were talking earlier,
    and I made the comment, and I want to state it on the record,
    that you have got an automatic place in heaven for having to
    carry Senator Tuberville. Okay.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Britt. This is legendary right here, legendary.
        Senator Kennedy. I hope you are listening, Senator
    Tuberville.

                                NUCLEAR REACTORS

        Senator Britt. Legendary. Well, as the Chair mentioned
    earlier, and I was not expecting that one, so that is some good
    stuff. Your Department covers everything from basic research,
    to advanced nuclear reactors, to grid security, I mean, the
    work that you do affects Americans every single day. When we
    are looking at that, and this kind of piggybacks off of both of
    the questions that have been asked previously, but I want to
    talk about China and where they are specifically with their
    embrace of nuclear generation.
        When you look at the facts as they are, China has at least
    28 nuclear reactors that are in construction, which is about
    half of the construction of all nuclear reactors across the
    entire globe. We look at what they are doing. We know they are
    working to undermine us. To me, this is very similar to what we
    saw in the manufacturing space. They are using political and
    economic leverage to ultimately manipulate and get ahead.
        I think that that is a mistake on a number of ways. I mean,
    if we turn a blind eye to that. I think it is critical that we
    look at this, particularly within the AI space, knowing that AI
    is not just an AI race, it is also an energy race, and we must
    win both.
        So, my question to you is: What are your plans; what is the
    Trump administration's plans to win that race, and how do we
    make sure that you have the funds in the proper place to do
    that?
        Secretary Wright. Fantastic, Senator Britt. And I agree
    very much with the assumptions. China is moving full speed
    ahead with nuclear. In fact, the most reactors they are
    building is essentially a knockoff, a stealing of an American
    reactor technology. But they build them much cheaper and much
    faster, and they don't have the giant bureaucratic regulatory
    overhang we have in the United States.
        We need to get the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) in
    touch with physical reality. Grand Central Station in New York,
    our train station, could not be licensed as a nuclear reactor
    because its radiation is too high. We have standards that are
    just so expensive to meet, it makes everything slow, it makes
    everything expensive. We bring all sorts of regulatory
    uncertainty into that environment. So, we are talking with
    commercial providers. We have offered up DOE lands. We have had
    tons of solicitations: Come build on our land. We will be fast,
    we will be efficient, we will help you get going. We will
    arrange creative incentives for you to build nuclear reactors
    in our space.
        I think we will do it. The Loan Program Office is a key
    tool. We do need to make sure we have funding available in the
    Loan Program Office, because used judiciously it is a way to
    leverage private capital to make things happen fast. If your
    equity investors behind that debt are the six hyperscalers in
    the United States, they are great credit. The American
    taxpayers are going to be paid back.
        Alternatively, in the last administration, the Loan Program
    Office in its 15-year history, lent $43 billion. In the 76 days
    since Election Day to Inauguration Day of the new President,
    the previous administration lent or committed $93 billion, two
    and a half times the 15--year total----
        Senator Britt. You are kidding me. Tell me that timeframe
    again?
        Secretary Wright. 76 days from Election Day, when Biden----
        Senator Britt. I didn't hear that.
        Secretary Wright [continuing]. Lost the Presidential
    election, to President Trump's inauguration, in 76 days----
        Senator Britt. That is absolute insanity.
        Secretary Wright [continuing]. They lent or committed $93
    billion. So, is there a reason I am moving slow when I am doing
    evaluations of projects? Yes, there is a very big reason.
        Senator Britt. Well, let me turn quickly in my remaining
    time, and thank you so much for doing that. We cannot cede this
    ground to China, and so thank you for making sure----
        Secretary Wright. Yes.
        Senator Britt [continuing]. That we don't do that at all.
    In December of 2020, DOE selected a team led by Southern
    Company in Birmingham, Alabama, to lead the Molten Chloride
    Reactor Experiment, MCRE, in partnership with DOE. Developing
    this new type of nuclear reactor is transformational to that
    next-generation nuclear energy, and that type of leadership
    that we need to see across our Nation. The MCRE program is
    going to deliver the world's first fast-spectrum salt reactor
    to support the administration's goal of unleashing American
    energy dominance and to achieve world leadership in nuclear
    energy.
        Further, MCRE is the first demonstration of a reactor
    technology that can revolutionize the commercial shipping
    industry, and serving as a catalyst for restoring American
    maritime dominance through floating nuclear power plants and
    U.S.-flagged large commercial ships. So, this project supports
    scalable, deployable, and transformational American nuclear
    energy.
        Given that strategic value associated with this critical
    advanced reactor demonstration project, will you commit to
    support this project and to continuing to work so that it has
    successful reactor operation and will be executed during this
    administration?
        Secretary Wright. A super exciting project. I can't commit
    today to any specific project because I very carefully
    assembled a team of people, of leaders, that are evaluating
    honestly and objectively all of these projects and going full
    steam ahead on ones that deliver affordable, reliable energy,
    and have a reasonable chance of success, and I will----
        Senator Britt. Well, good. I hope you will take a look at
    this. We are really proud of the work that is being done, and I
    think that you are going to be very pleased with what you see.

                                 GRID SECURITY

        And in my last few remaining seconds, I just wanted to ask
    about grid security. So, when you are looking at--the Chair and
    I; we live in Gulf Coast States, and so hurricane season is
    upon us. When we are looking at what is happening, you know,
    with the grid, obviously making sure it is protected, not only
    for natural disasters but national security disasters. What are
    you all doing to ensure that reliability and protection?
        Secretary Wright. It is a key issue. It is a vulnerability
    of our country. Our grid is very distributed, a lot of it is
    very antiquated. It is very easy to attack our grid, and we are
    being attacked all the time. And I think there are more
    sophisticated attacks possible that have not been launched
    against us yet, but it could be an adversary waiting for the
    right time. In fact, one of the meetings I had right before
    coming here was with----
        Senator Kennedy. Land the plane for me, Mr. Secretary. We
    have got to move on here.
        Secretary Wright. Yes. I agree with the problem. We are
    working on it, including today.
        Senator Britt. Excellent. Thank you.
        Senator Kennedy. Senator Baldwin.
        Senator Baldwin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And on that last
    topic, I am very interested in a discussion on transformers at
    some point, large-scale.
        Secretary Wright. Yes.
        Senator Baldwin. But grid security. Anyways, I wanted to
    share that in Wisconsin, we have seen the real impact of the
    Inflation Reduction Act. Over $5.3 billion in private
    investment has been announced, with nearly $3 billion already
    spent since the bill was enacted. We added over 4,500 jobs from
    projects that are either already up and running or will be
    soon, and that is tangible economic growth in our communities.
        And I wanted to make sure that that was part of the record,
    as these investments are on the chopping block in many
    respects. And they are on the chopping block to make room for
    tax cuts that we know disproportionately benefit corporations
    and the well-off. So, I wanted to just put that into the
    record.

                                GRID INVESTMENTS

        But Secretary Wright, utilities across the country,
    including those in Wisconsin, have been making long-term plans
    for major grid investments based on the financing promised in
    the Inflation Reduction Act. They have spent years planning for
    and investing in transmission, energy production, and storage
    projects that will promote our energy independence and a
    resilient grid, all while lowering costs for Americans.
        And these promised funds have been frozen by the Trump
    administration. So what update do you have today for Wisconsin
    utilities and businesses that are waiting for these funds to be
    released so that they can start or continue building out their
    planned investments?
        Secretary Wright. Yes, thank you. Thank you for the
    question, Senator Baldwin. We have not actually frozen funds.
    Projects that are ongoing today, we are paying our bills. We
    are reaching out to all of--yes, please provide us, if you know
    of a partner that has done work and has unpaid bills, we will
    get it paid. I am aware of none of those.

                               CRITICAL MINERALS

        Senator Baldwin. We will follow up. On a related note,
    right now the United States is over 95 percent dependent upon
    China for battery-grade graphite. A Wisconsin-based company is
    working to commercialize a domestic, a domestic bio-based
    alternative to battery-grade graphite but is waiting for the
    Department of Energy to release funds that were announced but
    that have now been paused.
        This administration continues to say that developing a
    domestic critical mineral supply chain is a top priority, but
    we are months into a funding freeze with no answers on the
    status of awards for programs like the Department of Energy's
    Critical Minerals Accelerator. With timely action from DOE, the
    company COnovate is committed to rapidly scaling this home-
    grown solution to address one of our most critical supply chain
    vulnerabilities. What is the timeline for getting the Critical
    Minerals Accelerator funding out the door?
        Secretary Wright. Through this summer, we will review all
    of the major projects, and every one, as it is done, we will
    reach out to that company. We are going to get information from
    them, feedback, you said they have been working for years on
    it. We will hear their plans, we will review their plans.
    Certainly, we want a domestic supply of graphite or other anode
    materials, 100 percent that is in the wheelhouse. If it is a
    viable technology and a credible company with financing to do
    it, those are the kinds of things we are absolutely looking to
    fund.
        But every one of them is sort of a project-by-project
    basis. It will be a back and forth with that company in
    Wisconsin, and if that idea looks to----
        Senator Baldwin. With a footprint in South Carolina and
    Michigan also, I might add, so.
        Secretary Wright. Now look, myself and the administration
    are all in on resourcing manufacturing in the United States,
    and particularly in these critical areas where China dominates,
    so.
        Senator Baldwin. And as this is looking forward to the 2026
    budget, will the Critical Materials Accelerator Program
    continue to be funded in the Department of Energy's budget, or
    are you planning to shut down our investments in the domestic
    battery material supply chain?
        Secretary Wright. Well, I can't speak to any specific
    programs, but will we continue to invest in reshoring critical
    mineral supplies in the United States? 100 percent, that effort
    will go on.

                                    ISOTOPES

        Senator Baldwin. Okay. Lastly, industry leaders in
    Wisconsin have made major gains in deploying commercial
    technologies that provide for domestic management of used
    nuclear fuel that is economical, safe, and sustainable. They
    are also using the same process to create medical-grade
    isotopes, like Moly-99, that will help solve chronic shortages
    of these critical nuclear medicines.
        These industry leaders have had support from Congress and a
    successful partnership with the nuclear energy scientists at
    the Department of Energy to address this national security
    concern. Knowing this, will you consider reversing the proposed
    cuts to DOE's nuclear programs and invest in the development of
    a safer and more sustainable nuclear fuel cycle in your 2026
    budget?
        Secretary Wright. So, we have cuts at different levels in
    different Departments. We are not pulling back on our nuclear
    efforts at all. They may be funded slightly differently, but we
    are not pulling back on that. And what you specifically
    mentioned, the radioisotopes, it is one of the most exciting
    new things in cancer treatment, and imaging, and all that, and
    that is----
        Senator Baldwin. And right now, we resource them from
    reactors in Russia, and in other countries, and we have that
    technology now developed here in the United States, in part
    from a long-term partnership with the Department of Energy and
    spin-offs from research institutions across the country, I want
    to see that commitment kept up.
        Secretary Wright. I am sure we will talk in a few weeks
    about it. I have got to dig into that particular project, but
    definitely it is in a great spot.
        Senator Kennedy. Senator Hoeven.
        Senator Hoeven. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
        Senator Kennedy. Talented Senator Hoeven.
        Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and Mr. Secretary,
    great to see you again, and great to have you. Are you enjoying
    the job? I know your background is all in the private sector.
    How is it going, and are you enjoying it?
        Secretary Wright. It is thrilling. It is exciting. I have
    worked with a number of tremendous people, from our labs to
    inside our Department, to the people sitting behind me. Yes.
        Senator Hoeven. Well, with your knowledge and expertise----
        Secretary Wright. It is the ride of a lifetime.

                          BASELOAD FOR GRID STABILITY

        Senator Hoeven. Well, with your knowledge and expertise, it
    is just great having you in the position. We appreciate you
    doing it. I am going to tell you something, you know, and then
    ask for your help. We need more baseload, you know, for AI and
    all these different purposes, we need more electricity, period.
    But for the stability of the grid and the reliability of the
    grid, we need more baseload. So, it is very important that we
    keep our coal-fired electricity online.
        We have the most advanced coal-fired electric industry in
    the world in North Dakota, which you know, you have seen it.
    And we have addressed things like SOx, and NOx, and mercury,
    and now we are working on CO2 capture and sequestration. Now,
    it is technologically viable, we know that, but it is not
    commercially viable. You have had some experience with this
    because--and so have I, because when you and I both started
    working on the shale play for oil and gas, it was
    technologically viable; it was not commercially viable. But we
    cracked the code, and it has been a boon for this country in
    energy.
        And the thing about the CO2 capture is our plants are fine
    for X-number of years, but we know that to keep them long-term,
    we are going to have to address CO2 the way we addressed SOx,
    NOx, and mercury, and the other things. And it is a potential
    twofer in that we can take that CO2 and put it downhole, and we
    can double what we get out of the shale plays in terms of oil
    and gas. This is all stuff you know.
        Now, at the University of North Dakota, we have the Energy
    and Environmental Research Center that is a leader in
    developing and enhancing these technologies and actually
    commercializing them, and we need to continue that. So, I guess
    I want to know that you are going to be willing to continue
    that partnership agreement with the Fossil Energy Office so we
    continue this development.
        And it includes not just the partnership agreement with the
    EERC (Energy & Environmental Research Center) and the DOE, but
    it also includes PCOR (Plains CO2 Reduction), so you can find
    these geological sites where you can sequester, and then also
    CarbonSAFE, which is how we monitor it so we know it is
    captured, and it stays captured, and how much has been
    captured.
        So, one, I would like your help, or to know that you are
    going to continue to work with us on those programs. I want you
    to come out and see what we are doing, so that you know, you
    know, seeing is believing, although I know you are pretty well
    aware of it. And then I want your ideas on what else we can do
    to, again, crack the code here. So, go from there, will you?
        Secretary Wright. Thank you, Senator Hoeven. And yes, I ran
    into John Argue in Oklahoma just a few weeks ago.
        Senator Hoeven. Very good.
        Secretary Wright. And I appreciate the great research that
    has been done there. And I certainly expect and hope that will
    continue in partnership with us. I am going to be cautious
    about committing to anything specific because, again, we have a
    process and we are going through it. We have got a whole team.
    But should we continue to look into these technologies?
    Absolutely, you know, as you said, with shale, we drove the
    cost curve down. Can you do that with other technologies? Yes.
    So technological research is of great interest, the value of
    CO2 to enhance oil recovery is, I think, going to be a very
    large and growing issue in the next 20 years. So yes, these are
    areas of great interest.
        You know, as with every technology and every business, the
    devil comes in the details, in the numbers, and you know, what
    is the most effective ways to approach these things. You
    mentioned coal. Coal has been the largest source of global
    electricity for a hundred years. It is almost certainly going
    to be for decades to come. So, it is just a backbone of the
    global energy system. And if you look at States across the
    country that have the lowest-cost and most reliable electricity
    grids, they tend to be skewed to have very coal-heavy grids.
        Senator Hoeven. Right. And we supply to a 12-State region,
    and if we develop this technology successfully, others will
    adopt it. And then, like I say with the CO2, we have got the
    secondary oil recovery. Now, Senator Kennedy is going to try to
    tell you that all the smart guys are in Louisiana, and that is
    just not true. They have got plenty of smart guys, including
    him, but we have got the experts at the EERC. And you know
    that.
        And the other thing is, we are looking for your good ideas
    too. I mean, your background, you figured this stuff out. And
    with your degrees and your training, you know, we need your
    help on how to do that. And at the end of the day, this is
    about commercial viability. So, I share Senator Kennedy's
    concerns about spending levels in government. We need to get
    the debt and deficit under control. But we grow our economy and
    create more revenue when we solve these challenges.
        And that is really your role at DOE, is to help our private
    sector, empower our private sector, to do these amazing,
    innovative things. So, we need your ideas on how to crack this
    code.
        Secretary Wright. Thank you, Senator. And I look forward to
    visiting EERC with you and sitting around and having these
    dialogues with the great scientists there.
        Senator Hoeven. Thanks again.
        Secretary Wright. Thank you for the great comments.
        Senator Kennedy. Senator Coons.
        Senator Coons. Thank you, Chairman Kennedy, and Ranking
    Member Murray.

                  DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY FISCAL YEAR 2026 BUDGET

        Secretary Wright, good to be with you. I just want to
    briefly frame, as I understand it, the Department of Energy
    plays three critical overall functions: Maintaining our
    national security through the Nuclear Security Administration;
    investing in critical public-private partnerships that will
    demonstrate and deploy the next generation of energy
    technologies, nuclear, geothermal, oil and gas, hydrogen; and
    funding research, both fundamental and applied, at our national
    labs and through many great university partnerships that
    ensures we remain the global leader in R&D.
        These functions are critical to your three major goals that
    I share, outcompeting China, reducing energy costs for
    Americans, and eliminating energy poverty across the world. And
    based on your background as an MIT-trained engineer and
    successful energy entrepreneur, I think you and I share these
    goals. But my core concern is that the way DOGE has impacted
    your workforce, and the folks you have got available to carry
    these goals out, undermine these critical goals.
        My understanding; and now I am on a number of different
    Appropriations Subcommittees, and so far, in every single one
    of them, we don't have a budget. Do you have a budget before us
    today, or is it a skinny budget?
        Secretary Wright. So far, just the skinny budget. We are
    working with OMB to release more of that, but that is still a
    work in progress.
        Senator Coons. And it is awful skinny. I mean, it is about
    a page. So, I am working off of an outline. But I am alarmed by
    a proposed cut of more than a billion to the Office of Science.
    That is more than 8 percent compared to enacted, at a time when
    China is investing in R&D, and combined with what is going on
    at NSF (National Science Foundation), an independent agency, I
    am concerned we are kneecapping the American Science
    Enterprise, which played such a critical role in our success in
    the 20th century.

                       RESEARCH FUNDING FOR UNIVERSITIES

        The skinny budget claims that your cut will only affect
    climate change and New Green Scam--Green New Scam research, but
    it does not define those terms, and I am concerned we will end
    up defunding critical research. The University of Delaware, my
    home State's leading research university, and many others in my
    State and around the country, are alarmed by Executive Order
    14222, which lowers the F&A (Facilities and Administrative)
    caps on Federal grants.
        How will your Department implement this EO (Executive
    Order) in a way that does not disproportionately impact R1
    universities that are smaller and less well-resourced than the
    handful of critical institutions that really have long demanded
    the lion's share of Federal research dollars?
        Secretary Wright. You are talking about the overhead
    percentage on things?
        Senator Coons. Yes.
        Secretary Wright. When we sent it out, we invited all of
    the universities to reach back out to us, to engage in a
    dialogue like I think you are proposing. So far, no one has
    taken us up on that effort.
        Senator Coons. Not one university has reached back out to
    say----
        Secretary Wright. Not, not that I----
        Senator Coons [continuing]. Here, is how we would do it in
    a way that would minimize the impact?
        Secretary Wright. Many sued us, but I----
        Senator Coons. Many sued you?
        Secretary Wright. But I am not sure----
        Senator Coons. That is one form of outreach.
        Secretary Wright. I am not aware of any dialogues on that.
    You know, it is a sticky question, Senator Coons. And look, it
    is a great university, and I am fully sympathetic to where you
    are coming from. And it is part of the--of course, it is part
    of this broader effort that we want to get, and going back to
    your national lab science question, that will be done bottom-up
    at every lab. I share that national labs are a treasure. We
    don't want to slow down any of our critical research, but is
    there some fat in there? Is there stuff we are working on that
    is not really basic science or critical to our energy thing? I
    think there is. And I have not found a lab director yet that
    disagrees with me.
        Senator Coons. I have visited four of the national labs,
    been very impressed with them, look forward to continuing to
    fund--support funding for them, and engage with them. But I
    have two more questions, and I will keep moving with my
    remaining time.
        Secretary Wright. You bet.

                                 HYDROGEN HUBS

        Senator Coons. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law created
    hydrogen hubs and tasked DOE with implementing them, and I
    worked with bipartisan delegations from Pennsylvania, New
    Jersey, Delaware, with unions, with universities, with our oil
    refineries, three of them, and we ultimately secured an award
    from DOE for the Mid-Atlantic Clean Hydrogen Hub. I want to
    thank you for sending the pre-award funding that was just
    received last week.
        Overall, this grant and leveraged private partnership would
    get $750 million in Federal, $2 billion in leveraged private
    investment over a decade to create thousands of good-paying
    jobs. My concern is that the hubs program is a key part of re-
    industrialization, and I legislatively helped create the Office
    of Clean Energy Demonstration, or OCED, in statute, and I am
    concerned the workforce has been hollowed out and that they
    will not be able to actually implement this and other programs.
        There are others I could cite, the Loan Program Office, the
    Office of Manufacturing and Energy Supply Chains, and others,
    with something like 4,000 DOE employees encouraged to retire or
    terminated, you have lost about 20 percent of your workforce.
    How can nuclear--we will take nuclear--as an emerging critical
    American competitive technology be supported by the Loan
    Program Office when the House Reconciliation Bill would gut it
    and your budget zeroes it out? How does LPO (Loan Programs
    Office) function at the cutting edge of energy?
        Secretary Wright. I think LPO is critical at the cutting
    edge of energy. It is really the most efficient tool we have in
    the Department to help emerging energy technologies. So, I
    absolutely want to see funding. I want to see the Loan Program
    Office able to lean in on emerging technologies. It is our
    greatest bang for the buck to help technologies. And I know
    that comes to the Senate next. I am making a plea. I would very
    much----
        Senator Coons. Don't enact the budget we send; enact a
    budget you know we need. And we may end up--forgive me, just
    speaking for myself in the last ten seconds, Mr. Chairman--we
    may end up saying, you must have this many people here, and
    this many people here, and this many people here, because when
    certain functions get down to a handful of people, I would love
    us to see that the LPO is actually able to meet the mission.
        Secretary Wright. We would be able to meet the mission.
        Senator Kennedy. Senator Murkowski.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciated
    that exchange and a little bit of that candor. I appreciate
    that.
        Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here. Thank you for your
    leadership. I know that folks in Alaska are looking forward to
    you heading north in a couple of weeks along with Secretary
    Burgum, and Administrator Zeldin, as well as a good handful of
    folks from our national labs. So, it is a big deal. We
    appreciate it.
        I had a chance this morning to have Secretary Burgum before
    our Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, and while he didn't
    outline some of the initiatives that may be unfolding when you
    are up there, I hope that you take the time to really get close
    to those that are making things happen on the ground. I know
    they are going to have some questions to you about the status
    of some of the programs through the Department of Energy.

                                ALASKA PROJECTS

        And I hear what you are saying about you are not freezing
    anything, but there is review that is going on. I know one of
    the proposals that people are anxious about is the CarbonSAFE
    Phase III up North. This is what they are working on on the
    North Slope with regards to a carbon project that helps to
    facilitate and really enhance the build out of our oil
    operations up in the North Slope. So, you will be hearing those
    questions from folks, and I know you are going to be teed up on
    it.
        Along some of the same lines that Senator Coons was
    mentioning, just in terms of the ability to do the work that we
    expect within the different offices. You noted in your opening
    comments just the great innovation that we have seen in oil,
    and gas, and in coal and how we are moving that forward. We
    have also seen that within the renewable energy space, and the
    EERE is looking at a cut here. You are going to have reductions
    in forces in that Department.
        I reminded Secretary Burgum in a prior conversation that as
    rich as we are in our oil, in our gas, and in our coal, so many
    of our communities are so isolated, they will never, ever, ever
    be part of anybody's grid. And so, the successes that we have
    seen with microgrids, and how you take a little bit of wind,
    and a little bit of solar, and a little bit of--call it a run-
    of-river, or maybe you have some good storage, we are
    pioneering, we are ``imagineering'' in ways that people can't
    begin to appreciate. And some of the folks within your national
    labs have come up and seen it and remarked on it.
        So just know that we are looking at the cuts to EERE. I am
    a little worried that perhaps things like microgrids get left
    behind. This will be the energy security for so many areas that
    have to figure it out on their own. They will not have the
    opportunity to plug in to Alaska's natural gas, and so I am
    just, I am putting that out there to you.
        Secretary Wright. Yes.
        Senator Murkowski. I also wanted to raise the issue of the
    Office of Indian Energy. As you know, I am the chairman of the
    Indian Affairs Committee, and we were successful in getting
    DOE's Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs up off the
    ground and get the Tribal Energy Loan Guarantee Program going.
    I have been disappointed with how it has struggled.
        Your skinny budget does not make any mention of the Office
    of Indian Energy or any of the projects that we are working on
    specifically to tribal energy development. Can you give me any
    review or oversight as to where you may be taking that?
        Secretary Wright. Yes. Thank you, Senator. And as we know,
    we both share that passion for energy to remote communities,
    energy to disadvantaged peoples. I think that is a critical
    area of focus for business and for government. So I can't
    provide any more, you know, department-wide thing in front of
    the budget that will be released, but I think the things you
    mention are unique and they are specific, and those are things
    that make sense for us to work on. We have national labs that
    are working on these problems, new solar materials as well,
    getting remote energy, getting energy to communities that don't
    have good access to it. I think that remains in the wheelhouse.
        There is a big percentage cut to EERE, but it has got a
    ginormous budget. For everything it works on combined, it is a
    little over 3 percent of American energy, you know, and it has
    received hundreds of billions of dollars of subsidies and had
    tax credits for 30 years. So, you know, wins--you know, big
    government dollars thrown at something whose main impact has
    been to make electricity more expensive and not add
    meaningfully to the global or national energy system. I don't
    think it is unreasonable to shrink that. You talk about
    specific applications, remote energy, that is different.
        Senator Murkowski. Well, and as you and I have discussed at
    some length, it is this issue of affordability, and your very
    keen focus it has to be--the energy has to be accessible, yes,
    but we have got to focus on the affordability place. Many
    people fail to appreciate, because we have got such
    extraordinary resources, that we pay some of the highest energy
    costs in the United States in our State. And so, everything
    that we can do to find those unique, discrete energy solutions,
    and this is why we count on some of the really bright people
    around here to make it happen.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Secretary Wright. Thank you.
        Senator Kennedy. Senator Ossoff.
        Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary, good to see you. Welcome.
        Secretary Wright. Thank you.

                                 GRID UPGRADES

        Senator Ossoff. A strong, resilient grid is an important
    contributor to America's energy security, yes?
        Secretary Wright. Yes.
        Senator Ossoff. In the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, with
    strong bipartisan majorities, we established new efforts to
    support state, governments, and utilities at upgrading their
    grids to make them more resilient, more reliable, and more
    efficient. And in 2023, the State of Georgia was awarded $250
    million to implement, in partnership with three utilities,
    Oglethorpe Power, Georgia Transmission, and Georgia System
    Operations grid upgrades across the State. Each dollar, by the
    way, matched by these utilities, private skin in the game as
    well.
        And this is especially important in rural Georgia. Just to
    paint the picture for you, after the storm last fall, Hurricane
    Helene, the outages lasted for weeks, and weeks, and weeks.
    There was not the manpower or the capacity to repair all the
    damage. There is a real need for grid upgrades in Georgia, and
    these funds have been obligated, but I understand are now in a
    state of limbo pending review, additional questions being
    asked, driving some significant uncertainty in Georgia because,
    (a) my constituents want a world-class upgraded energy grid,
    and (b) these private companies have already themselves
    committed tens of millions of dollars of capital to this
    project.
        So where does that stand, and when will we have an answer
    on whether those funds, which again have already been obligated
    and are part of a bipartisan piece of legislation, are indeed
    going to be headed to Georgia?
        Secretary Wright. Yes, Senator Ossoff, thank you for your
    question and your comments. I agree, grid stability, and do we
    have challenges there, absolutely; is there work to be done
    there, absolutely. I don't think you were here when I first
    laid out the reason--one of the reasons we are doing these very
    careful reviews was it is a similar story for the grants as the
    Loan Program Office. But I will give the numbers from the Loan
    Program Office, it extended $43 billion of credit in the 15
    years it existed as an office, and then in the 76 days after
    the election last November----
        Senator Ossoff. This is not an LPO. This is not an LPO
    award?
        Secretary Wright. It is the same thing on the other side. I
    will just say it this way then, of those grants that you are
    talking about, those commitments that have been made more money
    was committed in the 76 days from the election----
        Senator Ossoff. Forgive me, Mr. Secretary, but my time is
    limited. And the question is: when will my constituents have an
    answer?
        Secretary Wright. This summer. This summer, we put together
    a team, a process. We are engaging with the lenders, and we are
    running through them. And everyone that is viable, that is
    going to help the community of Georgia that is financially
    viable, those are the things that will go forward.
        Senator Ossoff. What I mean, this is, again, bipartisan
    legislation, grid upgrades, bipartisan support in Georgia,
    award to the State of Georgia, private investment to accompany
    it, clear unmet need, let us have a follow-up conversation
    about how we can expedite consideration of that, because there
    is just tremendous uncertainty that has been created by this
    insistence on a grant-by-grant-by-grant, loan-by-loan-by-loan
    scrubbing of everything against ideological criteria at OMB.
        And I understand that you want to make sure that public
    dollars are well used, but these are obligated funds that were
    appropriated on a bipartisan basis in Congress.

                      DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY PROJECT REVIEW

        I want to raise one more key Georgia concern with you. Are
    you familiar with the Blue Bird Corporation, the most famous
    school bus in the world?
        Secretary Wright. Okay.
        Senator Ossoff. Blue Bird, made in Georgia. We are proud of
    it.
        Secretary Wright. I recognize the name, but no not--okay,
    made in Georgia.
        Senator Ossoff. And there is growing demand from local
    school districts for electric school buses for all kinds of
    good reasons. And the Blue Bird Corporation wants to get in on
    this and be able to meet that market demand. They have invested
    $80 million of private capital to retool an aging manufacturing
    facility to produce those electric school buses. That was
    matched by an $80 million Federal grant from the Department of
    Energy.
        And similarly, and again, I frankly don't need, don't have
    time, with all due respect, for the big picture on what you are
    doing and why you are doing it, I sort of understand the
    talking points on that. What I want to convey to you is how
    important this is to Middle Georgia. This is one of the most
    storied and successful companies in Georgia history. When this
    grant was awarded, Peach County Industrial Development
    Authority called it an awesome win for our community. Fort
    Valley Mayor Jeffery Lundy said it is Celebration day. I got a
    quote from a councilman here who said that: When Blue Bird goes
    up, Fort Valley goes up; when Blue Bird goes down, Fort Valley
    goes down.
        And again, we have got private capital that has been
    hazarded, that has been invested, and expectation, a lot of
    commercial decisions that have been made assuming the Federal
    Government will make good on its commitments for funds it has
    obligated. When can Blue Bird expect an answer?
        Secretary Wright. This summer, I think, is the timeframe
    that we will get to ---
        Senator Ossoff. This summer like June, this summer like
    July, this summer like August?
        Secretary Wright. I can't get you that date right now, but
    it will be done this summer.
        Senator Ossoff. And you understand, Mr. Secretary, the cost
    of prolonged uncertainty, especially for these private
    companies, yes?
        Secretary Wright. I do. And if you reviewed the portfolio
    of things I have looked at that don't check the boxes you
    talked about, you would understand why I can't just send out
    hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money to bridges to
    nowhere.
        Senator Ossoff. I am asking you to make good on obligations
    that have already been made to the State of Georgia. We will
    follow up on this directly as well.
        Thank you so much.
        Senator Kennedy. Senator Hagerty.
        Senator Hagerty. I want to thank you, Chairman Kennedy,
    Vice Chair Murray, for holding this meeting.
         And Secretary Wright, it is wonderful to see you here. I
    have enjoyed getting to know you, and I am so pleased that
    someone with your expertise and background is playing the role
    that you are for our Nation. You and I have discussed this
    before, but the United States is at a pivotal moment in energy
    production. It is not just for our Nation; it is for the entire
    world. But before I go on, I would be remiss if I didn't thank
    you for coming to visit my home State of Tennessee just days
    after you were confirmed as U.S. Secretary of Energy.
        I was pleased to be there with you in East Tennessee, and I
    think you know Tennessee has been at the forefront of what you
    have called yourself as the Manhattan Project 2.0, and I was
    very pleased to introduce you there, and to talk about how we
    can leverage the deep technological expertise that we have
    there in our home State, as you take this Department and lead
    our Nation toward a new energy future.
        I think if we look toward the critical advancements in
    artificial intelligence, and quantum computing, advanced
    manufacturing, they will define the 21st century. And all of
    these technologies require massive amounts of energy to
    succeed. So, you are really at the cusp of what it is going to
    take for our Nation to remain at the forefront and create the
    competitive advantage necessary for us to dominate future
    technologies. It is going to take strong leadership and energy.
        And if we fail, I think the U.S. really risks ceding ground
    to adversaries, like the Chinese Communist Party. But I really
    believe that, as you have described, America is at the
    threshold of an American golden age in energy, and that
    revolution is going to happen with your leadership.

                             SMALL MODULAR REACTORS

        I would like to turn to a specific point that we have
    discussed, that is, small module reactors. They are widely seen
    as the future of nuclear technology because they address the
    biggest challenges that have held back traditional nuclear
    power. And by that, I mean specifically cost, scale,
    flexibility, time to deployment. Tennessee right now is the
    nation--has the nation's only early permit for an SMR (Small
    Modular Reactor).
        And just yesterday the Tennessee Valley Authority submitted
    their construction permit application to the Nuclear Regulatory
    Commission. And as we explore SMR deployment at the Clinch
    River site and through partnership with the Oak Ridge National
    Lab, I am very hopeful that Tennessee can become the catalyst
    for the United States' nuclear energy resurgence.
        But if we could zoom out a bit, Secretary Wright, I would
    like to ask you how you see nuclear energy, particularly SMRs,
    playing a central role in advancing and achieving American
    energy dominance and grid reliability over the next decade?
        Secretary Wright. Oh. I think it is critical, Senator. As
    you and I have discussed before, it is the critical technology
    that could scale wildly beyond where it is today, which is just
    electricity production, into huge-scale electricity production
    and process heat, an even larger, more critical source of
    energy to make everything in the globe possible. So, I am all
    in with you on advancing nuclear.
        If I can give an analogy, Senator Hagerty, you talked about
    the stress we need a lot more energy to meet this AI challenge.
    To give an analogy, imagine if the Military, the Department of
    Defense, set out a quote to the defense companies and said: We
    want to buy tanks. We will pay full price for high-performance
    tanks, but you can deliver us a tank that only moves some of
    the time, maybe when the sun is shining, and it only will shoot
    maybe when the wind is blowing. And so, it is an
    underperforming tank, but we will pay you full price for it.
    And further, we will give you a subsidy to build the factory to
    build these tanks.
        So, what do you think is going to happen, right? You are
    going to get paid to deliver an inferior tank. Of course, you
    are going to do it. And then what happens to your army? It is
    not just the poor kids that are in those tanks, it is the kids
    that are in all the other tanks that now have underperforming
    partners in the battle that are at risk. That is what we have
    done to our electricity grid. We have burdened electric,
    nuclear, and natural gas--and all our dispatchable energy
    sources, with an unreliable, turns on sometime, turns off the
    other time, not there when you need it at peak demand, but yet
    we pay at the same price and we subsidize the development of
    it.
        It has not only made the grid more expensive, it has
    hampered the advancement of dispatchable energy technologies.
        Senator Hagerty. Right.
        Secretary Wright. Nuclear is the one that could burst
    through, but we need to fix some problems.
        Senator Hagerty. To stay on this, I know you have thought
    this through, but what steps is your Department taking then,
    regarding SMRs, to deal with regulatory hurdles, the financial
    hurdles, the technological hurdles that may be in the way of
    further SMR, or more rapid SMR development?
        Secretary Wright. Specifically, in our purview, we have
    offered up DOE lands for test and demonstration projects: Come
    do it on our land. We are building test facilities at the Idaho
    National Lab so you can bring your reactor and test it in a
    containment dome that is on DOE thing. Just through normal
    processes, this stuff just happens just deathly slow. And then
    I am very passionate about wanting to use the Loan Program
    Office because the developers of these reactors are going to be
    grade-A credit hyperscalers that are buying the power or other
    things. But there is just not debt capital for these new
    reactors.
        I want to get grade-A equity capital. I want to match it
    with LPO debt to get shovels in the ground and start building
    these reactors, because as we build them, the costs will come
    down.
        Senator Hagerty. Absolutely.
        Secretary Wright. The reliability, they will be
    commercially bankable. We will get to a great place. But
    relaunching the nuclear industry is not going to be trivial,
    and your efforts, and I hope the DOE efforts, it is going to
    take all of us to make it happen, but huge upside for all of us
    if we do it.
        Senator Hagerty. Well, I think the members of this
    committee as your partners in that regard.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Secretary Wright. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Kennedy. Senator Peters.

                                GRID RELIABILITY

        Senator Peters. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary
    Wright, just this past weekend, severe storms knocked out power
    for over 150,000 Michiganders in West Michigan. This comes only
    literally a few short weeks after an ice storm left as many as
    300,000 people without power across northern Michigan, as well
    as a large part of our Upper Peninsula. Events like these, as
    you know as well, are becoming too common, especially in
    Michigan, but all across the country. So, I think it is very
    clear that power infrastructure is in dire need of upgrades,
    particularly resiliency, given the fact that storms are coming
    at greater frequency and are more severe than we have seen in
    the past.
        So simply put, we just have to invest in the grid. And
    actually, this is something I think we all agree on in a
    bipartisan way. And believe it or not, even here in Congress,
    we have come together to agree on that. I think it is one of
    the few things. And it was part of the infrastructure law that
    we passed, that we allocated much-needed funding on a
    bipartisan basis to address grid resilience nationwide.
        But from what I am hearing in my State, and this is my
    concern, the Department of Energy has been unwilling to
    communicate with grant selectees or allow this funding out the
    door to let them start this critical work, especially as people
    are out of power. The frustration is that they call, and they
    basically get no answer, no response whatsoever. You have
    basically gone dark. And that is incredibly disappointing,
    given folks are living in the dark, and then you are dark in
    terms of even trying to come back with any kind of answer.
        So, all I want to know is why. I don't want to hear that it
    is because you are reviewing everything all over again, because
    right now the Department of Energy is sitting on their hands,
    and there are folks in my State that are still waiting,
    literally, for the lights to come back on. So please tell me
    what has kept the Department of Energy, under your watch, from
    communicating, simply communicating, with those selected to
    receive these grid resilience grants? And when do you expect to
    be disbursing funds so that these projects can get underway?
        Secretary Wright. Well, I would love the phone numbers,
    because I am not aware of any unreturned phone calls. So, if
    you have got companies in your thing, please, you can hand me
    the phone numbers right now. We will call them today. So, we
    are engaged with all the counterparties on our deals that are
    going on. We are gathering information, we are gathering data;
    we are communicating. For things that are already awarded and
    work is in progress, we are paying our bills.
        We are getting a little bit of additional information from
    companies because the vast majority of the counterparties never
    delivered a business plan, never delivered something credible,
    but yet they were given a vague promise of funding. We have
    continued to fund the things that are in place. But there has
    clearly been an abuse of tens of billions of dollars of
    taxpayer money, and I want to make sure that when we are
    sending money to someone, there really is a business on the
    other end, they are really going to have a product that is
    viable at the end--and that that product is going to benefit
    the American taxpayers at the end.
        We are all for those things. Grid reliability is right in
    the wheelhouse. So, I think, you know, there have been all
    sorts of things about how we have cancelled everything. They
    are just not true.
        Senator Peters. Well, I am hearing that. So, I will take
    you up on an offer.
        Secretary Wright. Yes.
        Senator Peters. Let us know. Our team will follow up with
    your team. I appreciate your commitment to make those calls. I
    can tell you, at least the ones that have come to me are very
    credible institutions and companies. And so, there is a real
    problem there, and it raises a real alarm for me. So, I
    appreciate your willingness to get on the phone or get whoever
    you have to get on the phone, and we will follow up later today
    or tomorrow.
        Secretary Wright. Thanks for raising that. We absolutely
    want to connect. I can assure you, no one at the DOE is sitting
    on their hands and just ignoring people's phone calls. That is
    just not the way we roll.

                        FISCAL YEAR 2026 BUDGET REQUEST

        Senator Peters. Well, good. Let us get to the bottom of
    that. I also see the President's budget calls for the
    cancellation of over $15 billion of bipartisan infrastructure
    funding. And in there, there is a brief description
    accompanying that cut, the $15 billion cut, mentioning, quote,
    ``battery makers'' end of quote. That makes me think you are
    referring to the Battery Manufacturing and Recycling Grants
    Program, or the Battery Materials Processing Grant Program.
        If so, I hope you know that that could mean hundreds of
    good-paying jobs that are going on in Michigan right now, a lot
    of incredible work in batteries. In fact, there was a recent
    announcement you may have seen from General Motors, that new
    battery chemistry they are announcing, with incredibly longer
    range, lightweight, uses less critical minerals, exciting
    things that are happening. So, to see this is concerning.
        So, I want to know, is that what the President's skinny
    budget sets out to do? Zero out the Battery Manufacturing and
    Recycling Grants Program, and the Battery Materials Processing
    Grants Program? And if so, should I take that to mean that
    domestic manufacturing is not a priority for the
    administration?
        Secretary Wright. Domestic manufacturing is absolutely a
    priority for the administration, absolutely. One clarification
    too--sorry--not provided there. That $15 billion you mentioned,
    right there, none of that is committed to any company. There is
    no counterparty on that. That is just non-placed funds.
        Senator Peters. So, it is not going to be cut. We are
    hearing that it----
        Secretary Wright. That is not cuts to any business----
        Senator Peters. The President budget calls for the
    cancellation of over $15 billion, so.
        Secretary Wright. Because it has been unallocated. It
    hasn't been committed to anyone, and their proposed budget is
    to rescind it back to the Treasury.
        Senator Peters. So, for this company, it is not coming
    back, it is gone. That money is going to be rescinded back?
        Secretary Wright. Yes, that is the proposed budget, but it
    is not for any existing current projects.
        Senator Peters. We will follow up with you on that as well.
        Secretary Wright. Yes. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Kennedy. Senator Merkley.
        Senator Merkley. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        If I understand right, you said you have not met a single
    nuclear company that is----
        [Off mic]
        Senator Merkley [continuing]. I have all those--those over
    60 sometimes have a little technical problem--that is talking
    about the importance of public funding. Is that right?
        Secretary Wright. Wait. Say that again? Sorry, Senator
    Merkley?

                                 NUCLEAR ENERGY

        Senator Merkley. You said you have not met a single nuclear
    company that is talking about the importance of public funding?
        Secretary Wright. No, I think--I may have been unclear. But
    what I responded to was I don't know of any nuclear company
    that said to me or anyone at our Department: Hey, you are
    pulling back. We are less likely to invest. I have been talking
    to everyone who will listen and everyone who visits about how
    we can work with nuclear companies to get things going, to help
    their project in all different avenues. In fact, I think we
    have been called the most constructive administration with the
    nuclear industry ever.
        Senator Merkley. Yes, so I just wanted--if that had been
    your statement, it seemed out of sync with the fact that just
    this month, the state of the nuclear energy industry was one of
    the platforms that was hyper focused on Federal policies and
    programs that expand nuclear generation, an event that you had
    attended. So that does fit, then?
        Secretary Wright. I mean, I have attended a number of
    nuclear events. One of them was yesterday or the day before, is
    that the event you are talking about?
        Senator Merkley. Well, I was just trying to clarify because
    I think maybe the way it came out of your--maybe the way you
    had phrased it, didn't seem consistent with the record. But I
    think you have clarified it. Thank you.
        Okay. And I know, for example, one company that was founded
    in Oregon has really advocated for public funding for the SMR,
    this is the NuScale company, and they have got a lot of funding
    over time to help them get through the Nuclear Regulatory
    process.

                     DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY PROJECTS--SCHOOLS

        Turning to a challenge in my State: I have a small school
    district in Mosier, a tiny, tiny town in the Columbia Gorge,
    that has a-hundred-year-old building, and they got a grant to
    be able to redo their HVAC system. And they were very excited,
    it was actually a small school, often does not have a grant
    writer. They did not have a grant writer, the parent of one of
    the students wrote the grant. So, for them to be one of only 24
    schools that got this was like a whopping big deal of
    celebration.
        You can imagine the problems with a-hundred-year-old
    school, asbestos, and so on, and so forth. And so then, with
    the change of administration, they were first told that the
    funds were frozen. And then they were told they are not frozen,
    but they then could not reach a point of contact on how to
    proceed. And I know you have lost--well, let go a lot of staff,
    but there was no way to like: How do we go forward?
        And then they proceeded to hear that, okay, they did reach
    a contact, and they were told that a final decision has not
    been made yet. And then they were told that they have to get
    DOE to approve their contractors. And so, this has just been,
    it is like one step to another of just a complete bureaucratic
    nightmare over the last 3 months. And can you have your team
    get these contractors approved and let this school get their
    project done?
        Secretary Wright. Senator, absolutely. We will check into
    that right away. You know, we are here to serve the communities
    and serve the businesses of the country. So, I am not familiar
    with this story, but if you have marked----hopefully one of my
    staff has written down the name of the school, and we will dive
    onto it.
        Senator Merkley. And we will get you a whole page on it.
        Secretary Wright. Thank you.
        Senator Merkley. Because the contractor was ready to go.
    The school that did not have much money has already done
    upfront costs, are just hanging out there. And it is a mess.
    And one of your staff members could hopefully, like: Okay,
    done. You have got a responsible contractor, you are free to
    go. Go for it.
        And second, Frontier Oregon, which is the term we use for
    even more rural than rural, we have a Grant School District, it
    is a school district that includes John Day, a town that just
    lost its lumber mill, one that Senator Wyden and I had strived
    for years and years to keep open through a special agreement
    for the delivery of logs. Unfortunately, the owner wants to
    retire. They are tied up trying to figure out the transition.
        But here is the school district, and it is also stuck in
    kind of a crazy space. So, without taking up your time with all
    the details, Grant County School District, the school district,
    can we get someone on your team to work with them to clear this
    up and let them--they have a--it is also an HVAC issue?
        Secretary Wright. Yes, Senator. Thanks for raising that.
    Thanks for raising that. Sorry for their experiences.

                      BONNEVILLE POWER AUTHORITY STAFFING

        Senator Merkley. So, I wanted to turn to Bonneville Power
    Authority. Bonneville controls dozens of dams, a huge amount of
    electricity. They have to integrate wind energy, solar energy,
    meanwhile, on the Columbia River, they have the challenge of
    enough water for the barges to take the wheat to market. They
    have a challenge of the salmon. I mean, it is one of the most
    complicated--am I past 5 minutes already?
        Senator Kennedy. That is okay.
        Senator Merkley. Can you give me another moment?
        Senator Kennedy. Everybody else went over. You go ahead and
    go over too.
        Senator Merkley. All right, thank you. So, they had a bunch
    of people fired who are probationary. And we said: Oh, man,
    this is such a complicated area. And they need these employees,
    and some of them, I think 80 were rehired, but we have not
    gotten exact numbers. But then we had lost 200 in the first
    buyout. Another 160 have taken the second buyout, maybe that
    you have not approved those yet. Here is the thing, this is
    such a complicated system. We were really stunned by these
    whole initial firings, and the first buyout, because these are
    really experienced people doing really complicated systems. And
    so, was there careful analysis beforehand of the challenges
    they would face with the strategy of the buyouts?
        Secretary Wright. With the buyouts, we have a clause that
    we need to approve them, and I think we have tried not to
    approve any in the power marketing administrations because they
    were short-handed when we arrived in this administration. So,
    they have been voluntary programs. They should not have even
    been extended the offer--they were probably extended the offer
    the second go-round, but the hope is not to lose more people
    from there.
        Senator Merkley. Well, I was surprised in the hearing last
    week with Dan Newhouse that your response was you had just
    recently heard about their shortage. And this is such a
    complicated system, I encourage any strategies of buyouts or
    firings to do the analysis up front, especially when so many
    experienced people are needed to keep the grid functioning, and
    the water level right, and the salmon rules followed, et
    cetera, in such a system.
        Secretary Wright. The dams are critical. Bonneville is
    critical. I agree, Senator.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you. And by the way, they are still
    under a Federal hiring freeze, which is handicapping their
    ability to fill in the expertise that they need to replace the
    people who took the first buyout.
        Secretary Wright. We will look into that.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you.
        Secretary Wright. We will look into that.
        Senator Kennedy. Senator Murray, do you have anything else?
        Senator Murray. I just have a couple comments. You have
    heard from my side, one after the other, of contracts that were
    canceled or frozen. These are real. You said no grants are
    frozen, no invoices unpaid. I don't know if you are not paying
    attention, or you have not seen it. But I just want to remind
    you, it is illegal to ignore the clear directions of Congress.
    These are programs, spending bills that we passed through this
    committee. They were signed into law. And if you are not--if
    you are canceling them, or freezing them, or whatever, that is
    impoundment, and it is illegal.
        And I don't raise that concern lightly. I am deeply
    concerned, and we are hearing the same stories over and over
    again. I do have a list. You said you have not seen any. I will
    submit it for the record, of canceled and frozen grants. These
    are just a handful that we know about. So, we expect your
    office to follow through and to do it quickly.

                        DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY SPEND PLAN

        Secondly, on the CR (Continuing Resolution) spend plan.
    That was required within 45 days. That is by law. Your
    Department still has not given that to us. And again, I don't
    raise this lightly. This committee, all of our committees, need
    to know where that money is going, where it is being spent.
    Hanford site is on the brink of having to lay off
    subcontractors and restart an entire reprocurement process on
    an important project because they are being directed now to
    hold off on implementing projects at fiscal year 2025 spend
    levels.
        So, this is not efficient. And Congress requires that. And
    we need those fixed. So that is really critical. And we expect
    a real response not, you know, a nice little phrase.
        And finally, on communication, you have heard it from
    several people. I appreciate that you are telling everybody,
    call my office we will call you back. But two-way communication
    is two-way communication. You told me you would pick up the
    phone whenever, but we are not getting calls back. People are
    not getting calls back. And I think it is really important that
    you know that. I know you told some people that you were too
    busy, but you told me to call whenever. I have tried to get in
    touch with you. It took us a month and a half to get a call
    scheduled. So, communication is not, you know: Someday I will
    call you back. It is unacceptable.

                              RESPONSE TO LETTERS

        And I do want to enter seven letters into the record that I
    have sent with colleagues over the past several months
    requesting information about what is going on at DOE, radio
    silence until yesterday. That was convenient. So, we need to
    get responses back to those letters. And I want to be on record
    saying that communication is not ignoring us.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Murray. Again, thank you very much for being here
    today.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to it. We have got
    a lot of work ahead of us.

                              LOAN PROGRAM OFFICE

        Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Senator.
        Mr. Secretary, I want to go back to some of your earlier
    testimony, be sure I heard it correctly. The 76-day period you
    are talking about, that is the period between the time that
    President Trump was elected and President Biden left office; is
    that right?
        Secretary Wright. That is correct.
        Senator Kennedy. And during that short period of time, 76
    days, how much taxpayer money went out the door of the
    Department of Energy?
        Secretary Wright. From the Loan Program Office in loans and
    commitments; $93 billion, well over twice as much as in the
    previous 15 years.
        Senator Kennedy. So how do you vet and do due diligence on
    a loan in 76 days, one loan, much less $93 billion? How do you
    do it?
        Secretary Wright. I think it is probably pretty clear it
    was not done in many cases. As I mentioned, I am told I am
    holding back clearly in-place stuff. There is lots of funds
    that have gone out the door and commitments that were made from
    businesses that provided no business plan, no numbers about
    their own financial solvency or how this project can actually
    work.
        Senator Kennedy. So, you are telling me that the Department
    of Energy, in a 76-day period, before their boss was going to
    leave office, gave or loaned money to entities that had no
    business plan?
        Secretary Wright. Correct.
        Senator Kennedy. No financials?
        Secretary Wright. Correct. A number of those were not--were
    before the 76-day period as well. I have come in with great
    concern about how this institution, this great American
    institution, has been run and how American taxpayer money has
    been handled. I am sorry everyone is upset that we are taking
    some time to do it, but what we have seen and what the record
    shows----
        Senator Kennedy. I am not upset. I am not upset, could it
    be that--a lot of people say you have not returned your calls,
    could it be that you and your colleagues have returned the
    calls, but the people calling just did not like the answer?
    Could that be a possibility?
        Secretary Wright. I am not aware of that. You know, I give
    my cell phone number to any Senator that wants it.
        Senator Kennedy. I know you do.
        Secretary Wright. And I return my calls.
        Senator Kennedy. I mean, has your Department gone dark?
    Somebody said your Department has gone dark. Is it dark over
    there?
        Secretary Wright. It doesn't look dark behind me.
        Senator Kennedy. I don't see any of you sitting on your
    hands. Somebody made that charge. I see everybody's hands. Let
    me ask you something else, Mr. Secretary, does anybody ever
    come to the Department of Energy to get some of this free money
    and lie to you?
        Secretary Wright. I have not experienced that, but I think
    it is a reasonable assumption that that has happened.
        Senator Kennedy. Does anybody ever come to you, or is it
    conceivable that some of these folks that heard about this free
    money came to you with a half-baked idea?
        Secretary Wright. I think it is very conceivable. In fact,
    I have seen such plans that were half-baked, it would be
    charitable.
        Senator Kennedy. You are seeing plans about that didn't
    have a business plan, right?
        Secretary Wright. Correct; a promise to develop one, to
    find a location.
        Senator Kennedy. Just give me the money and I will develop
    the plan later.
        Secretary Wright. Correct.
        Senator Kennedy. And now you are going back through not
    money that has already been contracted, but you are going back
    through and checking each one of these loans and these grants
    to make sure there was no stealing, aren't you?
        Secretary Wright. We are. We are.
        Senator Kennedy. And to make sure there was no
    incompetence, aren't you? Is that correct?
        Secretary Wright. We are looking at that, and yes, my blood
    pressure is rising right now just thinking about what we have
    seen and what did happen at the Department.
        Senator Kennedy. And you are going to tell some of these
    boondoggles no, aren't you?
        Secretary Wright. That is correct.
        Senator Kennedy. And they are going to be upset, aren't
    they?
        Secretary Wright. That is correct.
        Senator Kennedy. And they ought to be upset, shouldn't
    they?
        Secretary Wright. I don't think they should be upset. I
    think they should be ashamed.
        Senator Kennedy. I am--it is rare that I am speechless, but
    I want to be sure I understood. The people running the
    Department of Energy for President Biden's administration
    shoveled $93 billion, not million, $93 billion out the door in
    76 days. And it just happened to be the time between when
    President Trump was elected and President Biden, their boss,
    was leaving; is that right?
        Secretary Wright. It is correct and distasteful, confidence
    undermining.
        Senator Kennedy. My, God. Look, I hope you take whatever
    time you need to go through all of these projects penny by
    penny. I mean, I have heard this testimony today, well, it will
    cost jobs in my State. If somebody steals $50 million and goes
    and spends the money in their State, that is going to stimulate
    the economy, isn't it?
        Secretary Wright. Yes, it will.
        Senator Kennedy. But it is still stealing, isn't it? And it
    is still illegal, isn't it?
        Secretary Wright. Yes.
        Senator Kennedy. I mean, they were spending money at the
    Department of Energy like it was ditch water. Their budget went
    from $60 billion to $160 billion since fiscal year 2021. It
    just sounds to me like there were a lot of people coming to the
    Department of Energy who had all four feet and their snout in
    the trough. And I hope you will turn down the boondoggles and
    refer the thieves to the Department of Justice.
        Secretary Wright. We will indeed. Senator, the one
    complication in there, too, is mixed in there are good
    companies doing good things, honestly, with credible plans.
        Senator Kennedy. And you are trying to separate the wheat
    from the chaff?
        Secretary Wright. Yes, that is what we are trying to do.
    That is our job, and we are doing it. But there is a lot of
    chaff.

                        STAFFING AT DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

        Senator Kennedy. Let me ask you one final question, let me
    go back to how many employees you have now. There have been
    some allegations today that you have cut tens of thousands of
    employees. Is that accurate?
        Secretary Wright. Well, I think the allegations were
    thousands, and our headcount will ultimately be reduced by
    thousands. But we are doing it slowly.
        Senator Kennedy. You have 16,000 now?
        Secretary Wright. Yes.
        Senator Kennedy. And you think you can do it with fewer
    than 16,000?
        Secretary Wright. Correct.
        Senator Kennedy. What is wrong with that?
        Secretary Wright. I think it is just common-sense business.
        Senator Kennedy. Yes. Businesses do it every day in the
    real world.
        Secretary Wright. American taxpayers deserve it.
        Senator Kennedy. That has never happened in the Federal
    Government. I mean, it is easier to divorce your spouse than to
    get rid of a Federal employee up here. That is not the way the
    world works, is it, Mr. Secretary?
        Secretary Wright. It is not the way the world should work.
    And I give enormous credit to President Trump, who had the
    boldness to say if there is a right thing that needs to be done
    and it is difficult, please do it. And so, yes, this is new
    territory. This is not what happens normally in the Federal
    Government. But it is what needs to happen periodically in the
    Federal Government.
        And I give the credit to President Trump, who is willing to
    take the heat and has set the Departments free, make the
    changes you need to make to better serve American taxpayers and
    American consumers. And across his administration, that is what
    is being done.
        Senator Kennedy. All right. On that note, I just wanted to
    clear that up, Mr. Secretary, because I--you know, I don't know
    you to be a person who does not return his phone calls or take
    care of business. And my guess is you don't tolerate people
    around you who take a cavalier approach to their job. And I
    wanted to get that on the record. I applaud you for being able
    to do the job with fewer people.
        Thank you for being here today, thank you to all your
    staff. You all can't take the rest of the day off, it is
    still----
        [Laughter.]

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Senator Kennedy. The hearing record is going to remain open
    for a week. Some Senators may send you additional questions.
    They might submit additional information for the record within
    that time. It is their prerogative. If they have questions, I
    hope you will try to answer them in a reasonable amount of
    time. I want to thank you for being here today.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
                 Questions Submitted to Hon. Christopher Wright
                 Questions Submitted by Senator Mitch McConnell
        Question. The U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
    led a successful, bipartisan effort last year in passing the Nuclear
    Fuel Security Act of 2023 (NFSA) and the Prohibiting Russian Uranium
    Imports Act, both of which have been enacted into law. Specifically,
    the NFSA directed the U.S. Department of Energy to `` . . . promote
    diversity of supply in domestic uranium mining, conversion, enrichment,
    and deconversion capacity and technologies, including new capacity,
    among U.S. nuclear energy companies.''
        Given efforts being undertaken with regards to the Department's
    Request for Proposals (RFP) for Low-Enriched Uranium (LEU) Enrichment
    Acquisition--can you commit that this program is working to promote a
    diversity of supply and technologies among companies that can provide
    LEU, additive uranium, and conversion supply to meet the needs of the
    existing nuclear fleet?
        Answer. The Department of Energy's Office of Nuclear Energy is
    continuing forward with Request for Proposals (RFP) for Low-Enriched
    Uranium (LEU) Enrichment Acquisition, which are intended to spur
    additional domestic LEU production capacity, reduce reliance on Russian
    nuclear fuel, and ensure LEU demand is met through trusted sources.
    DOE/NE is working to meet this goal, which includes diversity of supply
    in the uranium fuel supply chain.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Lindsey Graham
    MESC
        Question. I appreciate the administration's commitment to ensuring
    taxpayer dollars are used responsibly and the backlog of grants left by
    the previous Administration. Can you provide an update on the expected
    timeline for a signed agreement with the following South Carolina
    applicants:
      --TS Conductor
      --Mercedes Benz Vans
      --Ice Air (DE-MS0000059)
        Answer. TS Conductor (DE-MS0000125)--MESC has a signed agreement
    with TS Conductor, as a fully conditioned award ($61,849,328 total
    project, $28,248,485 DOE share) that is not yet authorized to begin
    work, as it still requires finalization of the project's terms and
    timeline. DOE is continuing to conduct a thorough review of this
    project and is analyzing the responses to a recent data request. DOE is
    working expeditiously to complete this review in a timely manner.
        Mercedes Benz Vans (DE-MS0000155)--MESC has a signed agreement with
    Mercedes Benz Vans, as a fully conditioned award ($569,983,704 total
    project, $284,991,852 DOE share) that is not yet authorized to begin
    work as it still requires finalization of the project's terms and
    timeline. DOE is continuing to conduct a thorough review of this
    project and is analyzing the responses to a recent data request. DOE is
    working expeditiously to complete this review in a timely manner.
        Ice Air (DE-MS0000059)--This is a standard award ($34,999,068 total
    project, $17,499,534 DOE share) that has been authorized to proceed.
    MESC continues to receive and pay invoices on work conducted during
    Budget Period 1 (9/1/2024-9/30/2026) of the project. The project is
    contingent on further NEPA review through an Environmental Assessment
    and the outcome of the DOE's review of the projects including analysis
    of responses from a recent data request.
        For all awardees, we are moving expeditiously through the process
    while conducting a diligent review. If there are any major concerns or
    issues encountered through the process, it may take longer to finalize
    our review. We remain committed to working with your office on these
    important matters as we continue to conduct this thorough review.
        Question.
    LPO
        Nuclear energy is critical to our national security and provides
    clean reliable power across South Carolina. The U.S. Department of
    Energy Loan Programs Office (LPO) plays an essential role in attracting
    private capital to ensure US leadership and meet our growing energy
    demand. Do you support a DOE Loan Office that has sufficient resources
    to support the construction of nuclear projects in the United States?
        Answer. Yes, I support a Loan Programs Office that has sufficient
    resources to advance the Administration's energy dominance agenda. LPO
    is one of the most efficient and high impact tools that DOE has to
    support nuclear energy through financing nuclear projects in the United
    States. Notably, LPO is currently disbursing a loan to Palisades, the
    first restart of a nuclear reactor in U.S. history.
        Question. The nation's nuclear arsenal needs modernization, and the
    key to this modernization strategy is the production of no fewer than
    80 war-reserve plutonium pits. The Department of Energy and the
    National Nuclear Security Administration have determined that a two-
    site solution is required to meet the objectives of no fewer than 80
    war-reserve pits per year. The Savannah River Plutonium Processing
    Facility, located at the Savannah River Site, is critical to meet the
    required plutonium pit objective and is slated to produce not fewer
    than 50 war-reserve pits per year. Do you commit to support all efforts
    to complete the construction of the Savannah River Plutonium Processing
    Facility?
        Answer. Yes, I am committed to the two-site solution to produce no
    fewer than 80 war reserve plutonium pits, including at the Savannah
    River Plutonium Processing Facility.
        Question. It has come to my attention that an organization seeks to
    acquire a sizable plot of land near the Savannah River Site,
    specifically near the Barnwell Gate. The Department of Energy has
    expressed concern over the transfer of this land to the community, as
    there is groundwater and surface contamination on the site. It is my
    understanding that there was funding requested in the FY25 budget for
    land transfers; however, due to the Continuing Resolution this funding
    was not appropriated. Do you commit to working with me and my staff to
    advancing this land transfer and site clean up?
        Answer. The tract of land in question is not excess to DOE's needs
    and is not available for transfer. Additionally, it is not suitable for
    transfer since, as you note, contamination has leached from offsite
    operations onto the area, including surface and groundwater.
    Remediation would be required to protect human health prior to
    excessing any land. Since the extent of the contamination is thus far
    unknown, the extent and cost of such remediation is similarly unknown.
    After remediation, additional activities include an environmental
    baseline survey, archeological survey and report, moving/reestablishing
    the site barricade and building, establishing a new boundary fence, and
    revising all safety and security studies would be necessary.
        Question. In December 2023, the United States imported nearly
    243,000 kilograms of uranium from China, despite there being no
    recorded imports from China between 2020 and 2022. Do believe the
    uptick of uranium imports from China pose a national security risk? Do
    you also believe China is helping Russia circumvent a ban on U.S.
    imports of Russian enriched uranium?
        Answer. We feel that it is critical for the United States to
    establish domestic enrichment capacity to ensure that we are not
    reliant on Russian uranium. It is also important that Russian shipments
    are not supplanted by Chinese shipments of uranium. Therefore, DOE,
    along with other Departments and Agencies continue to track shipments
    of uranium from Russia and China.
        Currently, foreign imports of low enriched uranium (LEU) are needed
    to meet our nuclear fuel needs, until we get our domestic nuclear fuel
    enterprise up and running, as directed by President Trump's executive
    orders.
        While some imports to the U.S. from foreign sources may be
    necessary in the short-term, limiting the importation of foreign LEU
    mitigates several energy and national security risks:
      --Supply chain: Concern has been expressed that foreign countries may
            be exporting LEU into the U.S. at below-market prices. While
            the data shows a significant decline in LEU price in 2023,
            there is a demonstrated history of foreign ``dumping''
            (biodiesel, steel, solar panels, EVs, etc.) to undercut
            domestic competitors and dominate markets.
      --National Security: Upon implementation of the Prohibiting Russian
            Uranium Imports Act, there has been some concern domestically
            as well as from international partners that Russia may attempt
            to route LEU through foreign nations, effectively ``red-
            washing'' the imports. DOE and other USG agencies have been
            tracking imports from foreign adversaries to ensure the proper
            implementation of the ban and to prevent the circumvention of
            the ban on the import of LEU into the United States.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith
        Question. The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and the National
    Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) are investing in the
    technology development of commercial radioisotope power systems (RPSs),
    a technology that converts the heat from the decay of radioisotopes
    into thermal and/or electrical power for national security and
    scientific missions. Due to the scarcity of the existing plutonium-238
    radioisotope for RPS technology from the U.S. Department of Energy,
    alternative RPS technology using strontium-90 (Sr-90) is being pursued.
        The Waste Encapsulation and Storage Facility (WESF) at the Hanford
    Site holds the largest source of separated legacy Sr-90, with enough
    Sr-90 to power up to 200 RPSs for DoD and NASA. Two studies were
    completed by DOE-EM using FY21 appropriated funds, concluding that
    recovering these Sr-90 capsules during the existing wet-to-dry storage
    transfer effort planned by 2029 would have minimal impact on the
    overall project. DoD funded $3M in FY25 to begin critical path design
    and nuclear safety activities to ensure the availability of these
    capsules by early FY28.
        Secretary Wright, we know that costs associated with defense
    nuclear waste cleanup rank as one of the largest liabilities in the
    entire U.S. Government. What creative opportunities, such as the reuse
    of legacy material and partnerships with the private sector, are you
    pursuing to reduce these long-term liabilities at nuclear cleanup
    sites?
        Answer. The Department is partnering with American industry to
    eliminate environmental risks in a manner that saves money and enables
    beneficial reuse of materials the government does not need. Due to past
    national defense activities, some EM sites are home to materials that
    are suitable for beneficial reuse to enable American energy,
    innovation, and jobs.
        To tap into this potential, unnecessary restrictions, such as the
    ban on the release on scrap metal from radiation areas and the
    moratorium on the free release of volumetrically contaminated metals,
    have been rolled back. This effort boosts potential reuse opportunities
    for nickel stockpiles as well as other metals at EM sites, while saving
    money on disposal costs--enabling a win-win for DOE, industry, and
    American taxpayers.
        In Oak Ridge, Tennessee the Department is drawing down our
    inventory of uranium-233 while increasing the world's supply of a rare
    isotope crucial for a promising form of cancer treatment by 1,500
    percent. In Tennessee, we are also partnering with industry to provide
    materials the Department no longer needs for radioisotope power
    systems.
        DOE has successfully partnered with private industry on beneficial
    reuse of nuclear materials at Oak Ridge and remains open to any
    potential additional opportunities at other DOE sites, including
    Hanford.
        The Department is also transferring land no longer needed for DOE
    missions to local development authorities and governments in states
    like Tennessee, Ohio, and Kentucky to grow jobs, unleash commercial
    nuclear, fuel AI, expand private industry opportunities and produce
    more American energy.
        The Department looks forward to working with Congress on these and
    other opportunities to transform liabilities into opportunities for
    American energy and innovation.
        Question. The President's efforts to revitalize nuclear power
    production will enhance our nations' competitiveness, national
    security, and prosperity. My home state of Mississippi is extremely
    supportive of the Department's effort to modernize our nuclear
    infrastructure, increase safety and extend the lifespan of our existing
    commercial fleet. Your department has invested in Silicon Carbide
    material development through the Accident Tolerant Fuel program.
    Industry and Congress have been very supportive of onshoring this
    critical technology innovation, but the effort has recently stalled
    over seemingly bureaucratic delays, so I wanted to make sure you had
    visibility on this issue.
        Mr. Secretary, what is the Department's plan to implement
    Congressionally allocated Silicon Carbide funding in an expedited
    manner to ensure that the program is completed as directed by the
    Congress?
        Answer. The Department of Energy is pleased to continue to support
    U.S. nuclear leadership consistent with priorities and direction
    provided from Congressional appropriation. The Department has funded
    multiple industry-led efforts towards the development of Silicon
    Carbide (SiC) cladding concepts over a number of years. In December
    2022, consistent with congressional appropriation, the Department
    awarded a multi-year incrementally funded SiC development award. The
    Department continues to obligate congressional appropriations on this
    award and has accelerated over $8 million to date. Originally SiC was
    included as a technology drive of the Accident Tolerant Fuels (ATF)
    effort, however because of our near-term focus this will be now more
    appropriately part of the Next Generation Fuels (NGF) effort.
                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Mike Rounds
        Question. The Department of Energy's support for large-scale
    scientific projects, such as the Long Baseline Neutrino Facility (LBNF)
    and the Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE), is a prime example
    of how Federal investment drives global leadership in science and
    technology.
        What steps can be taken to make certain the LBNF/DUNE experiment
    timeline remains on track?
        Answer. LBNF/DUNE is critical to maintaining U.S. leadership in
    particle physics. When completed, it will be the foremost neutrino
    experiment in the world. To successfully deliver the project on time
    and schedule, DOE will continue to emphasize sound project management,
    proactive risk management, and clear communication with all
    stakeholders. Given the scale and complexity of LBNF/DUNE,
    international partnerships are also critical to its success.
        Question. The Sanford Underground Research Facility (SURF) in South
    Dakota plays a critical role in the LBNF/DUNE mission. As the deepest
    underground laboratory in the country, it hosts groundbreaking research
    in dark matter and neutrino physics. Would you being willing to visit
    the SURF facility?
        Answer. The Sanford Underground Research Facility (SURF) in Lead,
    South Dakota, is important for advancing fundamental physics research.
    As the deepest underground laboratory in the United States, its depth
    provides natural shielding from cosmic rays, creating an unparalleled
    environment for highly sensitive experiments. This shielding is
    critical for detecting elusive particles like neutrinos and for
    searching for dark matter without interference from background
    radiation. DOE supports SURF through a cooperative agreement to foster
    underground science experiments that require this unique environment.
    Currently, SURF hosts groundbreaking research, including the LUX-ZEPLIN
    (LZ) experiment, which is actively searching for dark matter and has
    world-leading sensitivity in the search for dark matter particles. The
    LBNF/DUNE project is also under construction at SURF, further
    underscoring the facility's unique role in cutting-edge experiments. I
    hope to visit SURF in the future to see the innovative science being
    performed in this unique environment.
        Question. A number of scientists have considered thorium as a
    potential alternative fuel for nuclear energy production. Countries
    such as India, China, and Canada have shown significant interest in
    thorium-related research. In the past year, China has successfully
    developed a thorium-fueled reactor. The Department of Energy has
    conducted some analysis of thorium as a reactor fuel at its national
    laboratories. Would you consider expanding research into the potential
    of thorium-fueled reactors?
        Answer. The Department of Energy, as a premier U.S. research and
    development (R&D) organization, is pleased to execute far reaching R&D
    towards alternative nuclear fuel technologies. In fact, this is an area
    that DOE has studied in the past.
        In 2023, the Department, as directed by the Energy Act of 2020,
    completed an initial assessment of nuclear fuel options other than
    uranium; ``Alternate Fuels: Thorium and Uranium-233.'' The report
    discusses holistically the historical use of Thorium in light water
    reactors (LWR) and Non-LWRs.
        Ultimately, with limited USG resources, there isn't a sufficient
    economic driver associated with thorium. Nonetheless, China will not
    gain a military advantage over the United States by utilizing thorium
    reactor technology, as the U.S. military is currently and actively
    evaluating the realistic, near-term potential of deploying advanced
    reactor technology to power DoD facilities, as directed by President
    Trump's recent nuclear Executive Orders. But with the absence of an
    economic driver to establish commercial thorium fuel infrastructure and
    with the current abundance of domestic uranium, U.S. Government
    investment in a thorium fuel cycle is not warranted at this time. If a
    need for thorium fuel emerges in the future, this position may be
    revisited. Moreover, the proliferations risks associated with thorium
    fuels would also need to be addressed.
        As such, the Department currently is focused on uranium fueled
    technologies; however, the Department continues to monitor
    developments.
        Question. Numerous electric cooperatives in South Dakota have been
    awarded funding through the Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships
    (GRIP) program. These cooperatives intend to utilize the funding to
    address the increasing demand for transmission capacity in the region.
    It is my understanding that the Department of Energy's review of grant
    programs may be affecting the GRIP initiative. Could you please provide
    an update on when recipients of GRIP Round 1 and GRIP Round 2 funding
    might expect to hear back from the DOE regarding this matter?
        Do you believe the purpose of the GRIP program aligns with the
    Trump administration's energy goals?
        Answer. DOE has implemented a new policy to ensure responsibility
    for DOE's financial assistance that identifies waste of taxpayer
    dollars, protects America's national security and advances President
    Trump's commitment to unleash affordable, reliable and secure energy.
    DOE is committed to conducting a thorough review of these projects
    under its existing authorities to ensure they are among other things,
    financially sound and economically viable, aligned with national and
    economic security interests, and consistent with Federal law and this
    Administration's policies.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
        Question. As the only DOE National Laboratory stewarded by EERE,
    NREL delivers the scientific knowledge and innovations that advance
    energy technologies, systems, and markets. Its unique strength lies in
    developing and integrating technologies into robust, resilient
    systems--bridging foundational research with practical applications to
    lower energy costs, drive economic growth, bolster national security,
    and deliver abundant and reliable energy. Indeed, NREL is the United
    States' energy systems laboratory. Top-line funding consistent with
    enacted Fiscal Year 2024 levels for EERE is essential to safeguarding
    NREL's workforce, infrastructure, and cutting-edge capabilities--and to
    maintaining the United States' global leadership in science and
    technology. In Fiscal Year 2024, 64 percent of NREL's funding came from
    EERE programs, most of it for research and development (R&D).
        Will you commit to protecting the R&D funding flowing to NREL at
    levels consistent with FY24?
        Answer. The National Labs are the engines that drive research and
    development. We can both increase efficiency and drive innovation. EERE
    will prioritize research that supports true technological
    breakthroughs, which will maintain America's global competitiveness.
        Question. EERE's Facilities and Infrastructure (F&I) Program
    ensures that NREL's existing research and support infrastructure is
    maintained and upgraded, helping to attract world-class scientists and
    develop innovative solutions to our most pressing energy challenges.
    The program supports maintenance and repair, operational readiness for
    safeguards and security, environment, safety, health, and quality
    (ESHQ), and general plant projects--as well as the operation of EERE's
    high-performance computing and NREL's Energy Systems Integration
    Facility (ESIF).
        Will you commit to funding EERE's F&I Program at FY24 levels?
        Answer. EERE's FY26 request for Facilities and Infrastructure to
    operate and maintain NREL decreases by only 5% from FY24 to FY26. This
    funding ensures continuity of essential laboratory operations. The
    request provides direct funding for operational activities of major
    facilities and infrastructure and site-wide investments, including the
    continued construction of the Energy Materials and Processing at Scale
    (EMAPS) facilities.
        Question. NREL is in the final stage of constructing its Energy
    Materials and Processing at Scale (EMAPS) facility, which will
    accelerate the transition from scientific breakthroughs to commercial
    applications through collaboration with industry partners,
    universities, and other DOE labs. As global competitors like China
    invest heavily in their science and technology ecosystems, these
    capabilities are vital to meeting U.S. energy needs and sustaining
    leadership. Any reductions or delays in EMAPS funding could result in
    higher costs to taxpayers.
        Do you support NREL's EMAPS construction, and are you prepared to
    fully leverage the facility to keep pace with global science and
    technology competitors such as China?
        Answer. EERE's FY26 request for Facilities and Infrastructure
    includes the continued construction of the Energy Materials and
    Processing at Scale (EMAPS) facility.
        Question. With rumors circulating about downsizing or disbanding
    EERE--and at a time of increasing demand across the energy system--
    there is growing concern that the Department's reorganization could
    leave its energy systems laboratory without a clear steward. In FY24,
    64 percent of NREL's funding came from EERE's R&D and F&I programs,
    including every dollar of the critical Facilities and Infrastructure
    Program.
        In your reorganization of DOE, where will stewardship of NREL--one
    of the ``Crown Jewels'' of American scientific innovation, to use your
    words--reside?
        Answer. At this time, there has been no announcement of any plans
    to reorganize the Department.
        Question. At your confirmation hearing, you stated that grid
    stability is your ``single biggest concern.'' This is no small
    challenge. Our electric grid is under increasing stress, with energy
    demand accelerating at an unprecedented pace due to AI and the
    proliferation of data centers. Research and development in energy
    systems will be critical to addressing this challenge--from smarter
    grid planning and modeling to advanced technologies that manage grid-
    related threats.
        Will you commit to funding and prioritizing research and innovation
    in grid resiliency, reliability, affordability, and energy systems
    integration--areas where NREL plays a critical role?
        Answer. Research and innovation in grid resilience, reliability,
    affordability, and energy systems integration are key priorities for
    the Office of Electricity and we commit to supporting them consistently
    with the President's energy dominance agenda and within the scope of
    appropriated funding levels and Congressional direction we receive.
        Question. I have concerns about reports that DOE is undergoing an
    unprecedented reduction in staffing, with many employees facing forced
    retirements, administrative leave, or termination. Additionally, the
    Administration has extended a Federal hiring freeze until July 15. The
    reductions and hiring freeze are reportedly affecting program offices
    essential to implementing existing laws and managing awarded funds.
    DOE's ability to effectively execute its statutory mission depends on
    the presence of qualified, experienced personnel. A hollowed-out
    workforce cannot administer the complex portfolio of Federal energy
    programs Congress has funded.
        How many DOE employees have been furloughed, terminated, placed on
    administrative leave, or taken a deferred resignation package since
    January 20, 2025?
        Answer. As of the date of the hearing, DOE did not have full
    resolution of the number of employees who would enter the Deferred
    Resignation Program (DRP). Since January 20, 2025, DOE has not
    furloughed any employees.
        The Department of Energy continues to take a hard business look at
    our current capabilities and how we need to evolve to meet growing
    energy needs. In partnership with OMB and OPM, DOE is evaluating agency
    mission and goals to ensure staff are strategically aligned to support
    agency priorities.
        Question. What are DOE's plans for further staffing reductions,
    including through reductions in force, and which offices or program
    areas will be most impacted?
        Answer. As of May 21, 2025, no action has been taken to develop an
    official/comprehensive reduction-in-force (RIF) plan for the Department
    of Energy.
        Question. Why did DOE collect workforce data from the National
    Laboratories, including the number of laboratory employees and on-site
    contractors, and is the Department considering reductions in force at
    the National Laboratories?
        Answer. DOE regularly collects workforce data because it is prudent
    practice, in managing our labs, to have an understanding of the size
    and composition of the workforce. Also, as directed by Executive Order
    (E.O.) 14222, ``Implementing the President's 'Department of Government
    Efficiency' Cost Efficiency Initiative,'' we conducted a review of all
    contracts and grants in order to reduce overall spending or reallocate
    spending to promote efficiency and advance Administration policies.
    Reduction in force is a term allocated to only Federal employees, not
    contractors. DOE is not aware of any plans from the National
    Laboratories to reduce staff.
        Question. How will DOE ensure continuity of services, compliance,
    and oversight of active awards amid these reductions and hiring freeze?
        Answer. DOE has an acquisition workforce with the knowledge, tools,
    and capability to manage and oversee active awards. Internal controls
    are essential and they are in place. We have also eliminated non-
    essential contracts and financial assistance agreements that are no
    longer effectuating program goals or agency priorities, freeing up time
    for our dedicated acquisition workforce to manage existing awards.
        Question. What contingency plans exist to support grantees and
    contractors currently engaged in DOE-funded work, especially if their
    DOE points-of-contact are no longer available?
        Answer. Contracts have explicitly defined deliverables and
    requirements and financial assistance agreements have clear objectives
    and outcomes. Contractors and grantees should have demonstrated past
    performance and expertise to appropriately deliver on their
    requirements. All contracts and financial assistance awards have
    Contracting and Grants Officers and Specialists to administer the
    awards.
        Question. Please provide an update on the Water Power Technologies
    Office spend plan for the remainder of FY 2025. Additionally, provide
    information on any additional carryover funds from past fiscal years
    that have not yet been obligated/spent but are required to fulfill
    prior commitments. TEAMER, for example?
        Answer. WPTO's FY25 spend plan and plans for prior year carryover,
    including plans for TEAMER, are still being finalized and undergoing
    departmental review.
        Question. Cuts to research, development, and deployment at DOE
    destroy essential programs that allow companies to scale up new
    technologies. Getting a new device from the lab to a manufacturing line
    requires investment without guaranteed returns. This period is called
    the ``valley of death,'' and government plays a crucial role in
    shepherding companies through it during a time when private industry is
    reluctant to invest due to the inherent risk. Secretary Wright and Elon
    Musk both benefitted from DOE programs to get their companies over
    these ``valleys of death.'' Sec. Wright invested in Fervo, which
    received $5.6M from ARPA-E and up to $60M from the Office of Energy
    Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and in Natron, which received $19.8M
    from ARPA-E SCALEUP, and was on the board of Oklo, which received $4.5M
    from ARPA-E. Elon Musk's Tesla got a crucial $465M loan from the Loans
    Program Office to build the factory behind its first widely available
    model. Yet the President's Budget proposes cutting many of these
    essential offices.
        Will DOE continue to provide support to companies facing the
    ``valley of death?''
        Answer. DOE is still evaluating awards to ensure appropriate
    resources are allocated efficiently, and that the Department's
    initiatives are in line with the statutory mission of DOE and the
    policies and priorities of the Administration. We thank you for
    understanding, as DOE is processing and evaluating all selections and
    awards in accordance with all laws, regulations, and fiscal
    responsibility, as efficiently as possible.
        Question. How do DOE and DOGE justify these cuts given the
    important role these offices played in enriching their heads?
        Answer. The Department is focused on streamlining operations within
    the agency to increase efficiency. We will continue to evaluate every
    program and office on a case-by-case basis to ensure that we are
    progressing the goal of American energy dominance as is the priority of
    this Administration.
        Question. Actions to freeze and rescind funding for programs
    enacted under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), the
    Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), and annual appropriations are deeply
    troubling. These abrupt reversals--some in response to Executive Order
    14154 and DOE's Secretarial Order on January 20, 2025--are causing
    severe uncertainty and economic risk for energy stakeholders and
    communities that depend on the continuity of these investments.
        Is DOE currently honoring all legal obligations for previously
    obligated and executed awards, including those at the National
    Laboratories?
        Answer. The Department of Energy is undertaking a review of its
    entire financial assistance portfolio. Any action taken will be
    consistent with the underlying statutory authority and terms of
    financial awards and Federal regulations.
        Question. Will non-Federal recipients be reimbursed for work
    performed and invoiced prior to or during the funding freeze?
        Answer. The Department of Energy will ensure that authorized
    invoices are paid.
        Question. Has DOE provided the required reports to Congress on
    apportionment delays or violations of the Impoundment Control Act, as
    outlined in Federal fiscal statutes?
        Answer. The Department is committed to meeting its statutory
    obligations and will follow the law.
        Question. Will DOE commit to proactively updating Congress and
    stakeholders on the status of affected programs and personnel?
        Answer. Yes.
        Question. I am concerned by DOE's new policy that sets 10 or 15%
    limit to indirect costs, otherwise known as facilities and
    administrative costs, for research grants. Indirect cost support is
    critical to cover research-related expenses, such as laboratory
    equipment, facilities, and operations critical for cutting-edge
    research. Cutting off this support, especially without warning or input
    from stakeholders, severely impedes research institutions' ability to
    carry out the scientific work that has been authorized by Congress and
    has produced critical breakthroughs we all benefit from. Further, the
    ramifications of this policy will likely spread far beyond the grants
    themselves--maintaining U.S. competitiveness depends on our research
    institutions' world-class facilities, which are made possible through
    the use of indirect costs.
        How did DOE comply with required procedures, or provide appropriate
    justification, to deviate from its long-standing indirect cost rate
    policies?
        Answer. Due to pending litigation challenging Policy Flash PF 2025-
    22 regarding indirect costs for Institutes of Higher Education, the
    Department of Energy (DOE) respectfully refers to its filings in Case
    1:25-cv-10912-ADB in the U.S. District Court for the District of
    Massachusetts, and in particular, Document 47, the Opposition to the
    Motion for Temporary Restraining Order filed on April 22, 2025.
        Due to pending litigation challenging Policy Flash PF 2025-25
    regarding indirect costs for state and local governments, DOE
    respectfully refers to its filings in Case No. 6:25-cv-01458-MTK in the
    U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.
        Note: DOE has issued several policies capping indirect and fringe
    costs--Policy Flashes PF 2025-25 (state and local government awards),
    2025-26 (non-profit awards), and PF 2025-27 (for-profit awards). These
    policy flashes operate differently from Policy Flash PF 2025-22 in that
    they do not prescribe a fixed indirect cost rate (like 15%, as
    announced in Policy Flash PF 2025-22). Rather, they cap the total
    amount of indirect costs and fringe benefits that DOE will repay,
    expressed as a percentage of the total award amount.
        Question. What steps is DOE taking to ensure that changes to its
    indirect cost policies do not cause immediate and irreparable injury to
    our universities' capabilities to train a next-generation energy
    workforce?
        Answer. Due to pending litigation challenging Policy Flash PF 2025-
    22 regarding indirect costs for Institutes of Higher Education, the
    Department of Energy (DOE) respectfully refers to its filings in Case
    1:25-cv-10912-ADB in the U.S. District Court for the District of
    Massachusetts, and in particular, Document 47, the Opposition to the
    Motion for Temporary Restraining Order filed on April 22, 2025.
        Due to pending litigation challenging Policy Flash PF 2025-25
    regarding indirect costs for state and local governments, DOE
    respectfully refers to its filings in Case No. 6:25-cv-01458-MTK in the
    U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.
        Note: DOE has issued several policies capping indirect and fringe
    costs--Policy Flashes PF 2025-25 (state and local government awards),
    2025-26 (non-profit awards), and PF 2025-27 (for-profit awards). These
    policy flashes operate differently from Policy Flash PF 2025-22 in that
    they do not prescribe a fixed indirect cost rate (like 15%, as
    announced in Policy Flash PF 2025-22). Rather, they cap the total
    amount of indirect costs and fringe benefits that DOE will repay,
    expressed as a percentage of the total award amount.
        Question. What are the long-term implications of this policy on the
    pipeline of future scientists and researchers trained through
    university programs?
        Answer. Due to pending litigation challenging Policy Flash PF 2025-
    22 regarding indirect costs for Institutes of Higher Education, the
    Department of Energy (DOE) respectfully refers to its filings in Case
    1:25-cv-10912-ADB in the U.S. District Court for the District of
    Massachusetts, and in particular, Document 47, the Opposition to the
    Motion for Temporary Restraining Order filed on April 22, 2025.
        Due to pending litigation challenging Policy Flash PF 2025-25
    regarding indirect costs for state and local governments, DOE
    respectfully refers to its filings in Case No. 6:25-cv-01458-MTK in the
    U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.
        Note: DOE has issued several policies capping indirect and fringe
    costs--Policy Flashes PF 2025-25 (state and local government awards),
    2025-26 (non-profit awards), and PF 2025-27 (for-profit awards). These
    policy flashes operate differently from Policy Flash PF 2025-22 in that
    they do not prescribe a fixed indirect cost rate (like 15%, as
    announced in Policy Flash PF 2025-22). Rather, they cap the total
    amount of indirect costs and fringe benefits that DOE will repay,
    expressed as a percentage of the total award amount.
        Question. Has DOE assessed the potential regional economic and
    workforce consequences of capping indirect costs on state, local, and
    non-profit implementation partners? If so, will DOE release that
    analysis publicly?
        Answer. Due to pending litigation challenging Policy Flash PF 2025-
    22 regarding indirect costs for Institutes of Higher Education, the
    Department of Energy (DOE) respectfully refers to its filings in Case
    1:25-cv-10912-ADB in the U.S. District Court for the District of
    Massachusetts, and in particular, Document 47, the Opposition to the
    Motion for Temporary Restraining Order filed on April 22, 2025.
        Due to pending litigation challenging Policy Flash PF 2025-25
    regarding indirect costs for state and local governments, DOE
    respectfully refers to its filings in Case No. 6:25-cv-01458-MTK in the
    U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.
        Note: DOE has issued several policies capping indirect and fringe
    costs--Policy Flashes PF 2025-25 (state and local government awards),
    2025-26 (non-profit awards), and PF 2025-27 (for-profit awards). These
    policy flashes operate differently from Policy Flash PF 2025-22 in that
    they do not prescribe a fixed indirect cost rate (like 15%, as
    announced in Policy Flash PF 2025-22). Rather, they cap the total
    amount of indirect costs and fringe benefits that DOE will repay,
    expressed as a percentage of the total award amount.
        Question. What will happen to existing (conditional and
    nonconditional) awards if they do not meet the new terms and conditions
    in this policy?
        Answer. Due to pending litigation challenging Policy Flash PF 2025-
    22 regarding indirect costs for Institutes of Higher Education, the
    Department of Energy (DOE) respectfully refers to its filings in Case
    1:25-cv-10912-ADB in the U.S. District Court for the District of
    Massachusetts, and in particular, Document 47, the Opposition to the
    Motion for Temporary Restraining Order filed on April 22, 2025.
        Due to pending litigation challenging Policy Flash PF 2025-25
    regarding indirect costs for state and local governments, DOE
    respectfully refers to its filings in Case No. 6:25-cv-01458-MTK in the
    U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.
        Note: DOE has issued several policies capping indirect and fringe
    costs--Policy Flashes PF 2025-25 (state and local government awards),
    2025-26 (non-profit awards), and PF 2025-27 (for-profit awards). These
    policy flashes operate differently from Policy Flash PF 2025-22 in that
    they do not prescribe a fixed indirect cost rate (like 15%, as
    announced in Policy Flash PF 2025-22). Rather, they cap the total
    amount of indirect costs and fringe benefits that DOE will repay,
    expressed as a percentage of the total award amount.
        Question. What data and models did DOE use to conclude that a
    uniform 10 or 15% cap would be sufficient and sustainable across such
    varied institutional types (e.g., universities, local governments, non-
    profits, for-profits)? Will DOE release this analysis publicly?
        Answer. Due to pending litigation challenging Policy Flash PF 2025-
    22 regarding indirect costs for Institutes of Higher Education, the
    Department of Energy (DOE) respectfully refers to its filings in Case
    1:25-cv-10912-ADB in the U.S. District Court for the District of
    Massachusetts, and in particular, Document 47, the Opposition to the
    Motion for Temporary Restraining Order filed on April 22, 2025.
        Due to pending litigation challenging Policy Flash PF 2025-25
    regarding indirect costs for state and local governments, DOE
    respectfully refers to its filings in Case No. 6:25-cv-01458-MTK in the
    U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.
        Note: DOE has issued several policies capping indirect and fringe
    costs--Policy Flashes PF 2025-25 (state and local government awards),
    2025-26 (non-profit awards), and PF 2025-27 (for-profit awards). These
    policy flashes operate differently from Policy Flash PF 2025-22 in that
    they do not prescribe a fixed indirect cost rate (like 15%, as
    announced in Policy Flash PF 2025-22). Rather, they cap the total
    amount of indirect costs and fringe benefits that DOE will repay,
    expressed as a percentage of the total award amount.
        Question. How does DOE justify this cap given that many
    organizations and governments currently operate with indirect cost
    rates significantly higher than the new proposed cap to cover essential
    research infrastructure and compliance?
        Answer. Due to pending litigation challenging Policy Flash PF 2025-
    22 regarding indirect costs for Institutes of Higher Education, the
    Department of Energy (DOE) respectfully refers to its filings in Case
    1:25-cv-10912-ADB in the U.S. District Court for the District of
    Massachusetts, and in particular, Document 47, the Opposition to the
    Motion for Temporary Restraining Order filed on April 22, 2025.
        Due to pending litigation challenging Policy Flash PF 2025-25
    regarding indirect costs for state and local governments, DOE
    respectfully refers to its filings in Case No. 6:25-cv-01458-MTK in the
    U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.
        Note: DOE has issued several policies capping indirect and fringe
    costs--Policy Flashes PF 2025-25 (state and local government awards),
    2025-26 (non-profit awards), and PF 2025-27 (for-profit awards). These
    policy flashes operate differently from Policy Flash PF 2025-22 in that
    they do not prescribe a fixed indirect cost rate (like 15%, as
    announced in Policy Flash PF 2025-22). Rather, they cap the total
    amount of indirect costs and fringe benefits that DOE will repay,
    expressed as a percentage of the total award amount.
        Question. What outreach or consultation--if any--did DOE undertake
    with university, non-profit, municipal, or private-sector stakeholders
    prior to issuing these policy changes?
        Answer. A Policy Flash is a communication tool used by the DOE
    Office of Acquisition Management to disseminate acquisition or
    financial assistance-related information, guidance, and updates to
    procurement and financial assistance personnel. A Policy Flash simply
    informs the contracting community of a planned course of action. A
    Policy Flash is not a regulation; can be modified or cancelled at any
    time; is not subject to a public comment process; and does not have the
    force and effect of law. Policy Flash 2025-22 was an announcement of a
    planned course of action, along with the procedure to be used--
    application of a 15% indirect cost rate for grants to Institutions of
    Higher Education. The Policy Flash promised that ``[a]dditional
    information is forthcoming[,]'' including a ``separate notice and
    guidance'' to any recipients subject to termination of awards. Some DOE
    program offices sent notices to awardees after Policy Flash 2025-22 was
    issued, but due to an April 16, 2025 Court order that enjoined
    implementation of Policy Flash 2025-22 in any form, DOE has not pursued
    implementation of the Policy Flash or the indirect cost rate specified
    in it since that time.
        Due to pending litigation challenging Policy Flash PF 2025-25
    regarding indirect costs for state and local governments, DOE
    respectfully refers to its filings in Case No. 6:25-cv-01458-MTK in the
    U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.
        Note: DOE has issued several policies capping indirect and fringe
    costs--Policy Flashes PF 2025-25 (state and local government awards),
    2025-26 (non-profit awards), and PF 2025-27 (for-profit awards). These
    policy flashes operate differently from Policy Flash PF 2025-22 in that
    they do not prescribe a fixed indirect cost rate (like 15%, as
    announced in Policy Flash PF 2025-22). Rather, they cap the total
    amount of indirect costs and fringe benefits that DOE will repay,
    expressed as a percentage of the total award amount.
        Question. What impact assessments has DOE conducted to understand
    how this cap will affect the financial viability of ongoing and future
    research projects?
        Answer. Due to pending litigation challenging Policy Flash PF 2025-
    22 regarding indirect costs for Institutes of Higher Education, the
    Department of Energy (DOE) respectfully refers to its filings in Case
    1:25-cv-10912-ADB in the U.S. District Court for the District of
    Massachusetts, and in particular, Document 47, the Opposition to the
    Motion for Temporary Restraining Order filed on April 22, 2025.
        Due to pending litigation challenging Policy Flash PF 2025-25
    regarding indirect costs for state and local governments, DOE
    respectfully refers to its filings in Case No. 6:25-cv-01458-MTK in the
    U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.
        Note: DOE has issued several policies capping indirect and fringe
    costs--Policy Flashes PF 2025-25 (state and local government awards),
    2025-26 (non-profit awards), and PF 2025-27 (for-profit awards). These
    policy flashes operate differently from Policy Flash PF 2025-22 in that
    they do not prescribe a fixed indirect cost rate (like 15%, as
    announced in Policy Flash PF 2025-22). Rather, they cap the total
    amount of indirect costs and fringe benefits that DOE will repay,
    expressed as a percentage of the total award amount.
        Question. Has DOE evaluated how this cap could influence the United
    States' position in global research and innovation competitiveness?
        Answer. Due to pending litigation challenging Policy Flash PF 2025-
    22 regarding indirect costs for Institutes of Higher Education, the
    Department of Energy (DOE) respectfully refers to its filings in Case
    1:25-cv-10912-ADB in the U.S. District Court for the District of
    Massachusetts, and in particular, Document 47, the Opposition to the
    Motion for Temporary Restraining Order filed on April 22, 2025.
        Due to pending litigation challenging Policy Flash PF 2025-25
    regarding indirect costs for state and local governments, DOE
    respectfully refers to its filings in Case No. 6:25-cv-01458-MTK in the
    U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.
        Note: DOE has issued several policies capping indirect and fringe
    costs--Policy Flashes PF 2025-25 (state and local government awards),
    2025-26 (non-profit awards), and PF 2025-27 (for-profit awards). These
    policy flashes operate differently from Policy Flash PF 2025-22 in that
    they do not prescribe a fixed indirect cost rate (like 15%, as
    announced in Policy Flash PF 2025-22). Rather, they cap the total
    amount of indirect costs and fringe benefits that DOE will repay,
    expressed as a percentage of the total award amount.
        Question. How does DOE reconcile these cost caps with existing
    negotiated indirect cost rates under OMB Circulars and 2 CFR 200,
    particularly where they exceed the new ceilings?
        Answer. Due to pending litigation challenging Policy Flash PF 2025-
    22 regarding indirect costs for Institutes of Higher Education, the
    Department of Energy (DOE) respectfully refers to its filings in Case
    1:25-cv-10912-ADB in the U.S. District Court for the District of
    Massachusetts, and in particular, Document 47, the Opposition to the
    Motion for Temporary Restraining Order filed on April 22, 2025.
        Due to pending litigation challenging Policy Flash PF 2025-25
    regarding indirect costs for state and local governments, DOE
    respectfully refers to its filings in Case No. 6:25-cv-01458-MTK in the
    U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.
        Note: DOE has issued several policies capping indirect and fringe
    costs--Policy Flashes PF 2025-25 (state and local government awards),
    2025-26 (non-profit awards), and PF 2025-27 (for-profit awards). These
    policy flashes operate differently from Policy Flash PF 2025-22 in that
    they do not prescribe a fixed indirect cost rate (like 15%, as
    announced in Policy Flash PF 2025-22). Rather, they cap the total
    amount of indirect costs and fringe benefits that DOE will repay,
    expressed as a percentage of the total award amount.
        Question. What specific exemptions, waivers, or appeal mechanisms
    will DOE make available for awards where capped indirect costs would
    result in program delays, layoffs, or funding shortfalls?
        Answer. Due to pending litigation challenging Policy Flash PF 2025-
    22 regarding indirect costs for Institutes of Higher Education, the
    Department of Energy (DOE) respectfully refers to its filings in Case
    1:25-cv-10912-ADB in the U.S. District Court for the District of
    Massachusetts, and in particular, Document 47, the Opposition to the
    Motion for Temporary Restraining Order filed on April 22, 2025.
        Due to pending litigation challenging Policy Flash PF 2025-25
    regarding indirect costs for state and local governments, DOE
    respectfully refers to its filings in Case No. 6:25-cv-01458-MTK in the
    U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.
        Note: DOE has issued several policies capping indirect and fringe
    costs--Policy Flashes PF 2025-25 (state and local government awards),
    2025-26 (non-profit awards), and PF 2025-27 (for-profit awards). These
    policy flashes operate differently from Policy Flash PF 2025-22 in that
    they do not prescribe a fixed indirect cost rate (like 15%, as
    announced in Policy Flash PF 2025-22). Rather, they cap the total
    amount of indirect costs and fringe benefits that DOE will repay,
    expressed as a percentage of the total award amount.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin
        Question. The President's ``skinny'' Budget Request calls for a
    $1.15 billion cut to the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science.
    The Office of Science is the primary sponsor of research in the
    physical sciences, the home of 28 cutting-edge user facilities, and a
    direct funder and operator of the National Labs. You previously
    described our National Labs as ``the crown jewel of our nation's
    scientific research,'' yet the Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 Budget Request
    calls for a roughly 14 percent cut to the Labs' primary funding
    mechanism. You also have claimed that DOE can, ``Do more with less.''
    Meanwhile China, our chief scientific rival, is reportedly investing
    tens of billions of dollars in critical technologies like artificial
    intelligence, quantum computing, and critical materials. In contrast
    with the 14 percent cut you propose, the Chinese government increased
    its basic science budget by 10 percent last December. While China
    doubles down on its scientific investments, the unprecedented cuts
    proposed in the President's FY26 Budget Request suggest that America
    plans to cede scientific leadership to China in these technologies and
    in basic science research.
        How will you ensure American scientific competitiveness with China
    while gutting funding for the National Labs?
        Answer. The President's Budget Request reduces funding for climate
    change and Green New Scam research, but maintains U.S. competitiveness
    in priority areas such as high-performance computing, artificial
    intelligence, quantum information science, nuclear energy (fission and
    fusion), and critical minerals. This funding level will refocus DOE's
    Office of Science to its core scientific priorities and cut spending on
    the previous administration's political priorities. DOE recognizes that
    the national laboratories play a vital role in advancing scientific
    discovery and technological innovation. They drive fundamental
    discoveries that underpin future technological advancements, pushing
    the boundaries of human knowledge in areas critical to national
    security and economic competitiveness. Their activities bridge the gap
    between basic research and practical application, translating
    scientific breakthroughs into tangible technologies with real-world
    impact. The President's Budget Request reflects a commitment to
    responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars, balancing broader
    Administration priorities. Strategic choices must be made to ensure
    resources are allocated to maximize overall benefit to the nation. This
    budget reflects a commitment to prioritize national laboratory
    investments that demonstrate the greatest potential for near-term
    impact, preserve the foundations for scientific discovery, and align
    with core administration goals.
        Question. The FY26 Budget Request names quantum information science
    as a priority technology area for DOE. If the National Quantum
    Initiative Act is reauthorized to enable greater funding for quantum
    programs and technologies through the DOE Office Science, will you
    support increased appropriations to execute quantum activities at DOE?
        Answer. QIS is a priority for the administration and DOE welcomes
    the opportunity to discuss QIS investments across the Department's
    portfolio in the context of a reauthorization of the National Quantum
    Initiative (NQI) Act. In FY 2020, DOE's Office of Science established
    five lab-led National Quantum Information Science (QIS) Research
    Centers, as called for in the NQI Act. These centers focus on
    accelerating transformational advances in basic science and quantum-
    based technology needed for world-leading capabilities in QIS. In
    addition to these centers, the Department of Energy, through the Office
    of Science, continues to prioritize investments in quantum research
    across all of its core science programs. At $329M in the Fiscal Year
    2026 Request, QIS is one of the Office of Science's largest
    initiatives. These investments span foundational science, application
    development, and user access programs.
        Question. Universities are a vital part of the science and
    innovation system in Illinois and across the country. For that reason,
    DOE's recent actions to restrict indirect cost recovery are a concern,
    as it could reduce investments and participation by U.S. universities
    in DOE's basic science programs, and limit scientific discovery. During
    the hearing, I was pleased to hear your willingness to engage
    universities in a constructive dialogue on this difficult issue. You
    referred to an invitation from DOE to U.S. universities to engage in
    such a dialogue, but there do not appear to be any public statements
    from you or DOE confirming such an invitation.
        Will you share all written materials, whether publicly released or
    not, that solicited opportunities for dialogue with universities
    regarding the departmental indirect cost policy?
        Answer. Due to pending litigation challenging Policy Flash PF 2025-
    22 regarding indirect costs for Institutes of Higher Education, the
    Department of Energy (DOE) respectfully refers to its filings in Case
    1:25-cv-10912-ADB in the U.S. District Court for the District of
    Massachusetts, and in particular, Document 47, the Opposition to the
    Motion for Temporary Restraining Order filed on April 22, 2025.
        Due to pending litigation challenging Policy Flash PF 2025-25
    regarding indirect costs for state and local governments, DOE
    respectfully refers to its filings in Case No. 6:25-cv-01458-MTK in the
    U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.
        Note: DOE has issued several policies capping indirect and fringe
    costs--Policy Flashes PF 2025-25 (state and local government awards),
    2025-26 (non-profit awards), and PF 2025-27 (for-profit awards). These
    policy flashes operate differently from Policy Flash PF 2025-22 in that
    they do not prescribe a fixed indirect cost rate (like 15%, as
    announced in Policy Flash PF 2025-22). Rather, they cap the total
    amount of indirect costs and fringe benefits that DOE will repay,
    expressed as a percentage of the total award amount.
        Question. What is the specific time period during which this
    outreach was made, as well as the time period for responses to be
    gathered, including its end date?
        Answer. Due to pending litigation challenging Policy Flash PF 2025-
    22 regarding indirect costs for Institutes of Higher Education, the
    Department of Energy (DOE) respectfully refers to its filings in Case
    1:25-cv-10912-ADB in the U.S. District Court for the District of
    Massachusetts, and in particular, Document 47, the Opposition to the
    Motion for Temporary Restraining Order filed on April 22, 2025.
        Due to pending litigation challenging Policy Flash PF 2025-25
    regarding indirect costs for state and local governments, DOE
    respectfully refers to its filings in Case No. 6:25-cv-01458-MTK in the
    U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.
        Note: DOE has issued several policies capping indirect and fringe
    costs--Policy Flashes PF 2025-25 (state and local government awards),
    2025-26 (non-profit awards), and PF 2025-27 (for-profit awards). These
    policy flashes operate differently from Policy Flash PF 2025-22 in that
    they do not prescribe a fixed indirect cost rate (like 15%, as
    announced in Policy Flash PF 2025-22). Rather, they cap the total
    amount of indirect costs and fringe benefits that DOE will repay,
    expressed as a percentage of the total award amount.
        Question. Were any universities proactively approached or
    consulted, formally or informally, on this issue? If so, which ones?
        Answer. Due to pending litigation challenging Policy Flash PF 2025-
    22 regarding indirect costs for Institutes of Higher Education, the
    Department of Energy (DOE) respectfully refers to its filings in Case
    1:25-cv-10912-ADB in the U.S. District Court for the District of
    Massachusetts, and in particular, Document 47, the Opposition to the
    Motion for Temporary Restraining Order filed on April 22, 2025.
        Due to pending litigation challenging Policy Flash PF 2025-25
    regarding indirect costs for state and local governments, DOE
    respectfully refers to its filings in Case No. 6:25-cv-01458-MTK in the
    U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.
        Note: DOE has issued several policies capping indirect and fringe
    costs--Policy Flashes PF 2025-25 (state and local government awards),
    2025-26 (non-profit awards), and PF 2025-27 (for-profit awards). These
    policy flashes operate differently from Policy Flash PF 2025-22 in that
    they do not prescribe a fixed indirect cost rate (like 15%, as
    announced in Policy Flash PF 2025-22). Rather, they cap the total
    amount of indirect costs and fringe benefits that DOE will repay,
    expressed as a percentage of the total award amount.
        Question. A coalition of national organizations, including the
    Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities and the Association
    of American Universities, have announced an effort to develop a more
    efficient and transparent indirect costs funding model. Does DOE plan
    to engage with this effort?
        Answer. Due to pending litigation challenging Policy Flash PF 2025-
    22 regarding indirect costs for Institutes of Higher Education, the
    Department of Energy (DOE) respectfully refers to its filings in Case
    1:25-cv-10912-ADB in the U.S. District Court for the District of
    Massachusetts, and in particular, Document 47, the Opposition to the
    Motion for Temporary Restraining Order filed on April 22, 2025.
        Due to pending litigation challenging Policy Flash PF 2025-25
    regarding indirect costs for state and local governments, DOE
    respectfully refers to its filings in Case No. 6:25-cv-01458-MTK in the
    U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.
        Note: DOE has issued several policies capping indirect and fringe
    costs--Policy Flashes PF 2025-25 (state and local government awards),
    2025-26 (non-profit awards), and PF 2025-27 (for-profit awards). These
    policy flashes operate differently from Policy Flash PF 2025-22 in that
    they do not prescribe a fixed indirect cost rate (like 15%, as
    announced in Policy Flash PF 2025-22). Rather, they cap the total
    amount of indirect costs and fringe benefits that DOE will repay,
    expressed as a percentage of the total award amount.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Kennedy. And the subcommittee will now stand
    adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 4:14 p.m., Wednesday, May 21, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
    the Chair.]

                           ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT
                        APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, JUNE 11, 2025

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:02 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. John Kennedy (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senators Kennedy, Murkowski, Hyde-Smith, Britt,
    Rounds, Murray, Merkley, and Peters.

                          DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

                             Department of the Army

                           Corps of Engineers--Civil

    STATEMENT OF MR. D. LEE FORSGREN, ACTING ASSISTANT
                SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (CIVIL WORKS)

                   OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN KENNEDY

        Senator Kennedy. The Energy and Water Development
    Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee will come to
    order. I want to thank all of our witnesses today. I think I'll
    start by deferring to the vice-Chair of the Appropriations
    Committee and the ranking member of this subcommittee, my
    colleague, Senator Murray. She'd like to make some comments,
    and then I'll have a few comments to make, and then we'll hear
    from our witnesses.

                       STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATTY MURRAY

        Senator Murray. All right. Thank you very much, Chair
    Kennedy. Good morning to all of you, acting Assistant Secretary
    Forsgren, Lieutenant General Graham, acting Assistant Secretary
    Cameron. Thank you all for being here today.
        We are here today to talk about the fiscal year 2026 budget
    request for the Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of
    Reclamation. Whether they know it or not, every American
    depends on the work of these agencies every day, and that's
    especially true for folks in my home State of Washington, and
    anyone who lives out West, or near a major waterway.
        The Army Corps keeps our ports running smoothly, which is
    critical for our economy and our trade. They manage critical
    infrastructure like our dams, levees, and bridges, and protect
    communities from dangerous floods. And they support our
    ecosystems and help protect keystone species like salmon among
    a lot else.
        The Bureau of Reclamation brings water to over 30 million
    people and irrigation to 1 in 5 farmers out West. It generates
    power to keep the lights on in millions of homes, and it
    protects farmers and communities against drought to name a few
    things. It is critical work that we cannot afford to
    shortchange, but President Trump's budget request shows yet
    again that he has no clue and no problem gutting essential
    water investments our communities rely on to feed their
    families and stay safe from flooding.
        The President's budget requests a nearly 25 percent cut for
    the Corps of Engineers. And when you consider the fact that
    House Republicans last yearlong CR (Continuing Resolution)
    already cut funding for the Corps, we are really talking about
    a nearly 30 percent cut for the Corps, relative to the funding
    level just a few months ago.
        This request, for example, falls $1.7 billion below the
    target level for the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, leaving
    more than half of that target funding on the table. Not only
    that, you include just $60 million for donor and energy ports
    like my home State when our bipartisan Water Resources
    Development Act has specifically instructed that there be $417
    million for these ports. And President Trump's budget also
    proposes a massive 30 percent cut for the Bureau of
    Reclamation.
        These cuts would end critical work on flood prevention,
    port dredging, basic management of our water resources and
    more. This is flat out dangerous, and Trump's budget is dead on
    arrival here in Congress as far as I'm concerned. But we have a
    lot more to cover beyond the budget request because as we sit
    here today, the President seems bent on doing everything he can
    to undermine the work of the Corps and the Bureau with reckless
    staffing cuts, and by brazenly and corruptly politicizing the
    allocation of funding and control over our Nation's water
    resources.
        In the span of just a few months, DOGE (Department of
    Government Efficiency) has pushed out a quarter of the Bureau's
    staff without any discernible strategy. This mass exodus of
    talent puts the Bureau's mission at serious risk. The last
    thing we need are fewer dam safety inspections or big delays on
    repair projects.
        And when it comes to politicization, the President spent
    much of his first few weeks in office making up conspiracies
    about California's water supply as wildfires raged, vowing to
    block disaster relief, picking fights with the state's
    governor, and against the advice of all experts, ultimately
    ordered the Corps to open two dams and unleash billions of
    gallons of water on California's central valley.
        That move, predictably, did absolutely nothing to stop the
    fires and came nowhere near LA (Los Angeles), but it did waste
    huge quantities of precious water, and nearly flooded, yes,
    flooded local farms and communities, and put agriculture at
    risk. It was one of the first instances we saw of this
    President meddling in the Corps's work and overruling experts
    to chase some fixation.
        But it was not the last. A few weeks ago, the Corps
    released plans detailing how it is allocating funding for
    construction projects in fiscal year 2025. Now, usually, that
    is something we decide here in Congress, but that
    decisionmaking power was turned over to Trump Administration
    with the House Republicans yearlong slush fund CR. That was one
    of the many reasons I voted against that bill, and it's a
    reminder to all of us about why we do need strong bipartisan
    spending bills.
        So, instead of allocating construction funding to projects
    that were selected in both our bipartisan Senate Appropriations
    Bill and the Republican House Bill, and giving funding to red
    and blue States roughly evenly, as both bills did, this
    administration decided to steal hundreds of millions of dollars
    million in critical investments from blue States and steer
    those investments instead to red States and the President's
    political allies.
        Every single construction project in California, the most
    populous State in the country was zeroed out. We're talking
    about funds that protect people in one of the most flood-prone
    States in the country gone, and Trump completely defunded
    construction at the Howard Hanson Dam in Washington State,
    leaving a literal hole in the ground. This is a shovel-ready
    project that will ensure water reliability for over 1 million
    people in the region. And of course, the administration budgets
    proposal does not fund those projects in fiscal year 2026.
        All told, two-thirds of the Army construction funding is
    now headed to red States for no reason other than Trump wanting
    to punish political enemies and reward friends. This is not how
    these projects should work ever in the United States of
    America.
        Lieutenant General Graham, a few weeks ago, the assistant
    secretary's office was asked in a house hearing about this
    nakedly partisan allocation. That official didn't even try to
    justify it. Instead, they said, tellingly, the buck stopped
    with OMB (Office of Management and Budget). So, there it is,
    Trump and Russell Vought called the shots and defended those
    projects on their own.
        Now, I shouldn't need to tell anyone here floods hit red
    States and blue States alike. Droughts, hammer farmers in rural
    districts and strain families in big ways. Every single
    American in one way or another depends on our ports being well
    maintained to get the basic goods we count on and keep our
    economy humming. And everyone should be able to trust their
    government will decide how to invest resources and protect them
    from threats like flooding, drought, and wildfire based on
    science, based on engineering. That is what's best for people,
    not on a President's desire for retribution.
        So, I believe Congress needs to reject these reckless cuts
    that you are requesting for the Corps and the Bureau, and we
    need to see an end to this egregious politicization of these
    kinds of resources. This is not a path we can afford to
    continue going down as a country.
        So, I'll just give a warning to all of my colleagues. Once
    again, it may not have been your State this time, but you all
    know full well just how fickle the President can be. We should
    not leave this authority with him. We do need to come together
    and write our own strong bipartisan bill. Thank you.
        Senator Kennedy. Put Senator Murray down as doubtful
    gentlemen about your budget. I look at your budget a decrease
    of 23 percent, it's $2 billion from fiscal year 2025 enacted. A
    reduction in funding for the Mississippi River and tributaries
    account of 29 percent. That's $106 million.
        A reduction in funding for the operation and maintenance
    account of 28 percent, $1.6 billion. The budget doesn't propose
    any use, none, of the Inland Waterways Trust Fund receipts, and
    proposes to use only $1.7 billion from the Harbor Maintenance
    Trust Fund. That's about $1.7 billion less than the
    Congressional target.
        I was reading the other night, I don't remember the exact
    figures, but scientists estimate that there are 2 to 3 trillion
    galaxies in the universe. And in not a single one of those
    galaxies is this Congress or any Congress likely to approve
    this budget. I mean, that's just a fact.
        Now, I understand the way it works, that you gentlemen
    didn't write this budget. Hopefully, you had input, but you
    didn't write it. It came from OMB. And I also understand that
    Congress has never accepted a President's budget, any
    President's budget, and just enacted it without changes. That's
    never happened in the history of ever. So, I get all that.
        But having said that this is obviously not acceptable, and
    I hope we can talk about that frankly today. I don't know
    what's going to happen this year in terms of a budget. I'm an
    optimist, but I am a paranoid optimist. Last year, I watched
    Senator Murray and Senator Collins work really, really hard to
    put together 12 bills. I watched the entire Appropriations
    Committee work very, very hard to approve those bills.
        And a lot of us had to, on both sides of the aisle, had to
    swallow things that we almost choked on, but we wanted to put
    together a budget because that's our first job. I know you hear
    a lot about the Senate being in the personnel business, and we
    are, but really, our job's put together a budget. And we did.
    And my friend Senator Schumer refused to bring any of those
    bills to the floor. Not one, none, zero.
        My goal was to see the bills come to the floor and then
    have an open amendment process where colleagues of mine both on
    and off the Appropriations Committee could weigh in. But
    Senator Schumer chose not to. I mean, that's just a fact.
        I don't know what's going to happen this year under
    President Trump. I want to try to be as impartial as I can be
    in making this statement, but I think it's accurate. Under
    President Biden, and President set the tone in Washington,
    under President Biden, the general discussion was who needs to
    pay more in taxes?
        Under President Trump, it's clear to me at this juncture
    that the discussion has changed. The discussion is now what the
    hell happened to the money? And that's a healthy discussion to
    have. But when it comes to the Corps of Engineers--and before I
    get there, and that leads me to believe that we may not have a
    budget this year. I just don't know if we can come together on
    it. It's always a challenge.
        But it's clear to me that at least on my side of the aisle
    we are expecting to reduce the amount of spending,
    strategically, but reduce it. And I know some of my friends in
    the Senate are going to have a problem with that, but that's
    the reality.
        Now, when it comes to the Corps of Engineers, that is
    slightly different because there is bipartisan support for the
    important work that you do. It doesn't mean that we can't find
    savings, and it doesn't mean that we shouldn't make changes.
    And we're going to talk about that today, but a 23 percent
    decrease, I think some to Murray by her calculations, it might
    be a 30 percent. That's just not acceptable. So, help us, help
    us work through this and come up with a plan that looks like
    somebody designed it on purpose, which is not this one.
        Let me make one other comment and then, then I want to hear
    from you gentlemen. Look, I know you have a tough job. I get
    that. Every Senator, every congress person wants their
    projects, and they want them first, and they want them
    yesterday. I get that. And you have finite resources. We all
    do. And you have a lot of smart people working at your agency,
    but you could use more. I get all that.
        So, I don't want to--I'm spending a few minutes on this
    because I appreciate the job that you do. I do. But we've got
    to do better. Our estimates on the cost of projects are just
    too wide off the mark. I mean, I could give you, I'm not going
    to do it, but I could give you example, after example, after
    example. And we're not talking 10 percent off, or 20 percent
    off, or 30 percent off, we're talking squillions of dollars
    off. I understand inflation, but it doesn't account for this.
        We also have to figure out a way you do--frankly, to bring
    these projects in on time or at least closer to the estimated
    time. If you did in the private sector in terms of your delays
    in your, I'll say higher, our cost overruns, if you did that in
    the private sector, you would be out of business. Nobody would
    hire you, and the penalties from not completing the project on
    time would put you out of business. We just got to do better.
    It's just that simple. And I hope you, today, you'll talk about
    how you're planning on doing that.
        Let's start with us today. I guess I should introduce our
    colleagues who are here today. Acting Secretary Lee Forsgren,
    he was appointed principal deputy Assistant Secretary of the
    Army Civil Works on March 31. Welcome. Lieutenant General
    Williams H. Butch Graham, Jr. You are the 56th Chief of
    Engineers and Commanding General of the United States Army
    Corps of Engineers. You assumed your duties on September 13,
    2024. Welcome. Acting Assistant Secretary for Water and
    Science, Scott Cameron. Secretary Cameron has been in this role
    since January 21. We welcome all of you. The floor is yours.
    Why don't we start with Secretary Forsgren.

                    SUMMARY STATEMENT OF MR. D. LEE FORSGREN

        Mr. Forsgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
    Murray, other members of the subcommittee. It's an honor to be
    here this morning. Before I go too deep, I wanted to point out
    that on Saturday, the Army turns 250, and the Army Corps of
    Engineers turns 250 on Monday. So, this--the Corps of Engineers
    and the Civil Works Program have been around since the dawn of
    the country, and I could not be prouder to be working with the
    professionals that to every day take that legacy forward.
        I would like to ask that my entire statement be placed in
    the record. But a couple of just points, Mr. Chairman. We
    couldn't agree with you more that we need to find ways to bring
    projects in, on time, and as much as closer to being on-budget.
    There is a myriad of reasons for that.
        But pointing fingers isn't going to solve the problem. We
    are committed to trying to do that there. There's probably not
    a single silver bullet that would've fixed that problem, or it
    would've been fixed decades ago. So, we've got to find a bunch
    of a number of ways to work the problem, to make our projects
    be more cost effective and faster.
        That said, General Graham works every day on that process.
    We are committed, as Secretary of the Army's Office and in the
    administration, to support those functions in all of our
    interest, and it's in the national interest to do so.
        And with that, I would just welcome any questions that you-
    all might have.
        [The statement follows:]
                   Prepared Statement of Mr. D. Lee Forsgren
        Chairman Kennedy, Ranking Member Murray, and distinguished members
    of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to be here today to
    discuss the President's Fiscal Year 2026 Budget for the Army Civil
    Works program.
        The Fiscal Year 2026 Budget includes nearly $6.7 billion for the
    Army Civil Works program, with a focus on the Corps' primary missions
    of commercial navigation, flood and storm damage reduction, and aquatic
    ecosystem restoration. The Budget focuses on opportunities to support
    these missions that provide a high return to the American public, such
    as by facilitating maritime commerce, addressing the most significant
    flood risks facing communities, and restoring the highest priority
    aquatic ecosystems.
        In total, the FY 2026 Construction program is funded at more than
    $1.6 billion. The majority of that amount is provided in the
    Construction account, but also $43 million from the Harbor Maintenance
    Trust Fund, and $55 million from the Mississippi River and Tributaries
    account. The Construction program uses objective, performance-based
    criteria to give priority to the projects with the highest economic,
    environmental, and safety returns.
        The President's Fiscal Year 2026 Budget focuses on commercial
    navigation, which is a key pillar in our nation's economic strength. In
    support of our nation's manufacturing supply chain and the
    Administration's commitment to our nation's coastal ports and inland
    waterways, the Fiscal Year 2026 Budget includes $379 million in
    construction funding including $161.591 million for the Houston Ship
    Channel, Texas project and $176.6 million to continue construction of
    the Sault Ste Marie (Replacement Lock), Michigan project to provide
    efficiency and redundancy for a critical trade route for iron ore in
    the Great Lakes region. Also included in the Budget is $1.1 billion to
    operate and maintain the top 50 U.S. coastal ports, which handle around
    90 percent of the nation's waterborne cargo that is shipped to or from
    the United States in foreign commerce.
        Flood and storm damage reduction is at the center of the Civil
    Works program's actions to support the Administration's goal of
    addressing the most significant flood risks facing communities.
    Accordingly, the Budget contains over $1.7 billion for flood and storm
    damage reduction. Of this amount, the Budget includes $571 million in
    funding to address dam safety at the Whittier Narrows, CA project.
        The Budget includes $650 million for the aquatic ecosystem
    restoration mission. The Budget supports the high-priority
    environmental restoration priorities of the Administration with the
    inclusion of $446 million for the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration
    program, which will enable significant progress to continue in
    restoring America's Everglades.
        Of course, in addition to construction projects, the Budget focuses
    on maintaining the key features of the vast water resources
    infrastructure that the Corps owns and manages. Specifically, the FY
    2026 Budget funds the Operation and Maintenance program at over $4.1
    billion, consisting of just over $2.3 billion from the Operation and
    Maintenance account, nearly $1.7 billion from the Harbor Maintenance
    Trust Fund, and nearly $192 million from the Mississippi River and
    Tributaries account. For Operation and Maintenance, the Budget
    prioritizes the maintenance of commercial navigation on Federal
    channels over spending on projects that are not a Federal
    responsibility.The allocation of funding among projects for maintenance
    reflects a risk-informed approach that considers both project and
    project component conditions and the potential consequences of a
    failure. The Budget also gives priority to the maintenance of coastal
    ports and inland waterways with the highest commercial traffic.
        As I wrap up, I'll note the FY 2026 Budget provides $139 million
    for the Investigations program, consisting of $130 million from the
    Investigations account and $9 million from the Mississippi River and
    Tributaries account. This includes preconstruction engineering and
    design work for dam safety modification projects with high risk of
    failure, including $18.5 million for Garrison Dam, Lake Sakakawea,
    North Dakota and $26 million for Keystone Lake, Oklahoma.
        Additionally, the FY 2026 Regulatory Program is funded at $221
    million to provide efficiency in permit processing.
        Lastly, I would like to note that $7 million is included for the
    Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. Since
    2009, my office has never received an appropriation larger than $5
    million, and some years less. However, our costs--salaries and
    retirement, services and rent, and travel and supplies--have all
    continued to rise over the past 15 years. Using the latest U.S.
    government Consumer Price Index data (at a 44.6% cumulative rate of
    inflation), the $5 million my office received in 2009 equates to over
    $7 million in today's dollars. However, this funding has remained flat.
    Full funding is critical to provide effective oversight of the Army
    Civil Works program.
        To summarize, the Budget makes critical investments in water
    resources that will benefit the American people and promote greater
    prosperity and economic growth for decades to come.
        I am very honored to implement the President's priorities for the
    Army Civil Works program and excited to be a part of a great team--
    serving our Nation.
        Thank you for inviting me here today. I look forward to your
    questions.

        Senator Kennedy. Lieutenant General Graham, welcome.
    STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL WILLIAM H. GRAHAM, JR.,
                CHIEF OF ENGINEERS AND COMMANDING GENERAL,
                U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
        General Graham. Thanks. Chairman Kennedy, Ranking Member
    Murray, I'm honored to testify before you today in regard to
    the President's fiscal year 2026 budget. The United States Army
    Corps of Engineers, as we've heard this morning, the course of
    works program is absolutely key to the Nation's commercial
    navigation, flood and storm damage reduction, and aquatic
    ecosystem restoration missions, amongst others.
        To highlight a couple of those, the navigation program
    underpins the entire national economy ensuring that commodities
    can move reliably and efficiently. Our flood and storm damage
    reduction program maintains over 746 dams, and over 13,000
    miles of Federal levees that protect over $200 billion in flood
    damages avoided, averaged over a 10-year period.
        The 2026 President's budget is performance-based and
    focused on high performing projects and programs, and the Corps
    uses a targeted approach to invest in the water resources that
    benefit the Nation now and into the future.
        Chairman, we absolutely take you seriously on we've got to
    improve delivery. Our objective every day is to safely deliver
    quality projects on schedule and within budget. That's our
    objective. It's not a goal, it's our objective. To this end,
    we've improved our ability to measure our on-schedule
    performance. And right now, when I checked this morning, we're
    at 81 percent. That's a low, low, low B, and that's
    unacceptable.
        This performance, as you've discussed, is influenced by
    factors that we can't control, such as inflation. But there's a
    bunch that we can control, and I'd like to highlight three, and
    then we're organizing the Corps around these three.
        First and foremost, we've got to get the engineering right,
    and we've got to get the engineering right before we ask for
    authorization. It's like coming up to the authorizing
    committees and say, ``I need a house,'' and I put a price tag
    on it, but I didn't tell I need a four-bedroom house with a
    two-car garage.
        We've asked for authority to build things where we haven't
    had the scope nailed down fully. And in engineering terms, the
    design needs to be matured at least to the 35 percent design
    before we ask for the authority to build it. And that's my
    commitment to you. I'll sign no chief's report unless the
    engineering is advanced to the 35 percent design.
        Second thing we need to do is we've got to get the project
    management right. And Chairman, that's what you said. We've got
    to make good schedules that have contingency to deal with the
    unknowns. And then, we've got to stick to those schedules with
    a great sense of urgency.
        And the last one, we've got to get the team that's building
    this right. And we're striving every day to bring in the right
    team members or the right contractors to augment our team to
    build these facilities. So, the path to successful deliveries
    is clear; plan projects thoroughly, build them rapidly with
    predictable funding, and have the right team of master
    craftsmen to deliver them. And I look forward to working with
    this committee to stay on that path.
        And I look forward to your questions.
        [The statement follows:]
     Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General William H. ``Butch'' Graham,
                                      Jr.
        Chairman Kennedy, Ranking Member Murray, and Members of the
    Subcommittee:
        I am honored to testify before your committee today, along with Mr.
    D. Lee Forsgren, the Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil
    Works), in regard to the President's Fiscal Year 2026 (FY 2026)
    discretionary Budget request (discretionary request) for the Army Civil
    Works Program.
        Through the Civil Works Program, the United States Army Corps of
    Engineers (Corps) works with other Federal agencies, and with state,
    Tribal, and local agencies and others, to develop, manage, restore, and
    protect water resources, primarily through the construction, operation
    and maintenance, and study of water-related infrastructure projects.
    The Corps focuses on work that provides high economic, environmental,
    and public safety returns to the Nation. The Corps also regulates
    development in waters of the United States and works with other Federal
    agencies to help communities respond to, and recover from, floods and
    other natural disasters.
                    summary of fy 2026 discretionary request
        The Civil Works Program is performance-based and focuses on high-
    performing projects and programs within the three main water resources
    missions of the Corps: commercial navigation, flood and storm damage
    reduction, and aquatic ecosystem restoration. The Corps uses a targeted
    approach to invest in water resources, which will benefit the Nation
    now and in the future.
        The discretionary request includes nearly $6.7 billion for the
    Civil Works Program.
                             investigations program
        The Investigations program is funded both in the Investigations
    account and in the Mississippi River and Tributaries account. The Corps
    uses these funds to evaluate water resources problems and opportunities
    within the Corps' three main mission areas, design proposed projects,
    and support related work. The Investigations program includes the Corps
    planning assistance and technical assistance programs, where the Corps
    shares its expertise with local communities to help them identify and
    understand their water resources challenges, and to develop options,
    with an emphasis on steps that they can take on their own to address
    these issues. For FY 2026, the Budget includes a total of $139 million
    for the Investigations program.
                              construction program
        The Construction program is funded through the Construction
    account, the Mississippi River and Tributaries (MR&T) account, and the
    Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF) account.
        The goal of the Construction program is to produce as much value as
    possible for the Nation from the available funds. The Corps also gives
    priority to investments, selected on a risk-informed basis, in dam
    safety assurance, seepage control, and static instability correction
    work at dams that the Corps owns and operates. The FY 2026 Budget
    includes a total of $1.656 billion for the Construction program to
    support these high- priority investments.
                    operation and maintenance (o&m) program
        The O&M program of the Corps is funded through the O&M account, the
    MR&T account, and the HMTF account.
        Generally, the O&M program supports completed works owned or
    operated by the Corps, including operation and maintenance of locks and
    dams along the inland waterways; maintenance dredging of inland and
    coastal Federal channels; operation and maintenance of multi-purpose
    dams and reservoirs for flood risk reduction and related purposes such
    as hydropower; and management of Corps facilities and lands, including
    serving as a responsible steward of the natural resources on those
    lands.
        The FY 2026 Budget includes a total of $4.174 billion for the
    Operation and Maintenance program to support the Corps' efforts to
    sustain the benefits of its existing infrastructure.
        All structures age and can deteriorate over time, causing a
    potential decline in reliability. The Corps has a large portfolio of
    water resources projects and is working to sustain the benefits that
    the key features of its infrastructure provide.
        The Corps continues to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of
    its Operation and Maintenance program. The Corps does so by targeting
    its investments in infrastructure maintenance, repair, and
    rehabilitation on a risk-informed basis. It invests in the highest
    priority needs with emphasis on the key features of the infrastructure
    that the Corps owns and operates, and in work that will reduce long-
    term O&M costs in real terms.
                               regulatory program
        Through its Regulatory Program, the Corps protects the Nation's
    waters including wetlands, and regulates development that could impede
    navigation, while allowing reasonable development to proceed. The FY
    2026 request includes $221 million to support this important permitting
    and compliance work.
            formerly utilized sites remedial action program (fusrap)
        Through FUSRAP, the Corps is involved in the investigation and
    cleanup of certain low- level radioactive materials and mixed wastes,
    located mostly at sites contaminated as a result of the Nation's early
    atomic weapons development program. The FY 2026 Budget includes $200
    million to continue this remediation work.
                                   conclusion
        The FY 2026 discretionary Budget request for the Army Civil Works
    Program represents a continuing, fiscally prudent investment in the
    Nation's water resources infrastructure. The U.S. Army Corps of
    Engineers is committed to a performance-based Civil Works Program,
    based on innovative, high-return, risk-informed solutions.
        Thank you, Chairman Kennedy, Ranking Member Murray, and Members of
    the Subcommittee. This concludes my statement. I look forward to
    answering any questions you or other Members of the Subcommittee may
    have.

        Senator Kennedy. Thank you, General. Mr. Secretary.

                           DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                             Bureau of Reclamation

    STATEMENT OF MR. SCOTT J. CAMERON, ACTING ASSISTANT
                SECRETARY FOR WATER AND SCIENCE
        Mr. Cameron. Thank you, Chairman Kennedy, Ranking Member
    Murray, and Senator Hyde-Smith for the opportunity to testify
    to you today on behalf of the President's 2026 budget request
    for the Bureau of Reclamation.
        Reclamation's projects and programs serve as the water and
    power infrastructure backbone of the American West constituting
    an important driver of economic growth in hundreds of basins
    throughout the 17 Western States. Reclamation manages water for
    agriculture, hydropower production, municipal and industrial
    use, and provides flood control and recreation for 90 million
    people.
        Recreation's activities support economic activity valued at
    $64 billion, and support approximately half a million jobs.
    Reclamation delivers 10 trillion gallons of water to millions
    of people each year and provides water for irrigation of 10
    million acres of farmland, which yields approximately 25
    percent of our Nation's fruit and nut crops, and 60 percent of
    the vegetable harvest.
        Water and related resources account ensures reliable water
    and energy for agriculture, industry, cities, and rural
    populations, foundational pillars of the President's America
    first agenda. These investments deliver tangible results
    aligned with executive orders, promoting energy dominance, and
    streamlined governance.
        The Central Valley Project in California maintains and
    modernizes facilities and increases water conveyance to
    Southern California and the San Joaquin Valley. The Klamath
    Project in Oregon and California ensures operational
    flexibility for irrigation deliveries and natural resource
    management.
        The Bureau of Reclamation's work on the Colorado River
    directly advances presidential priorities of securing American
    energy, ensuring domestic water supply, and asserting
    sovereignty and international negotiations with Mexico through
    the lower Colorado River Operations Program, including
    implementation of the drought contingency plans, and binational
    agreements with Mexico. Reclamation enhances water supply
    reliability for U.S. communities while acknowledging our treaty
    obligations.
        We're working very closely with the seven Colorado River
    Basin States at this point because a number of key agreements
    expire in 2026, and we are working very hard to find a seven-
    State solution that the seven governors will find agreeable to
    manage the increasingly scarce water resources over the
    Colorado Basin for the next 20 years.
        Thank you for your time. I look forward to answering your
    questions.
        [The statement follows:]
                     Prepared Statement of Scott J. Cameron
        Thank you, Chairman Kennedy, Ranking Member Murray, and members of
    the Subcommittee for the opportunity to testify in support of President
    Trump's Fiscal Year 2026 budget blueprint request for the Bureau of
    Reclamation and discuss what our team is doing to make America safer,
    stronger, and more prosperous. I am Scott Cameron, Senior Advisor to
    the Secretary, Exercising Delegated Authority of the Assistant
    Secretary.
        Reclamation's projects and programs serve as the water and power
    infrastructure backbone of the American West, constituting an important
    driver of economic growth in hundreds of basins throughout the 17
    Western States. Reclamation manages water for agriculture, hydropower
    production, municipal and industrial use, and provides flood control
    and recreation for 90 million people. Reclamation's activities support
    economic activity valued at $64 billion and support approximately
    450,700 jobs. Reclamation delivers 10 trillion gallons of water to
    millions of people each year and provides water for irrigation of 10
    million acres of farmland, which yields approximately 25 percent of the
    Nation's fruit and nut crops, and 60 percent of the vegetable harvest.
        Reclamation serves 17 Western States: Arizona, California,
    Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North
    Dakota, Oregon, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, and
    Wyoming. Reclamation works with a wide range of stakeholders, including
    water and power customers, Tribes, State and local officials, non-
    governmental organizations and others.
        The Bureau of Reclamation's FY 2026 budget blueprint of $1.2
    billion focuses on the core mission of maintaining assets that provide
    safe, reliable and efficient management of water resources through the
    western United States.
                       water & related resources overview
        The Bureau of Reclamation's Water & Related Resources (W&RR)
    account is the primary source for carrying out its mission to manage,
    develop, and protect water and related resources in the western United
    States. This account supports the planning, construction, operation,
    maintenance, and rehabilitation of Reclamation projects that deliver
    water for agricultural, municipal, and industrial use; generate
    hydroelectric power; and support environmental stewardship and
    recreation. It also supports programs that promote water conservation,
    improve infrastructure reliability, and ensure compliance with
    applicable environmental laws.
        Within the W&RR account, appropriations are organized into several
    functional categories. Water and Energy Management and Development
    supports projects and programs that enhance water supply reliability,
    and water infrastructure development. Land Management and Development
    covers the stewardship of Federal lands associated with Reclamation
    projects, including recreation, cultural resources, and public safety.
    Fish and Wildlife Management and Development supports species and
    habitat protection, ensuring compliance with the Endangered Species Act
    and other environmental statutes. Facility Operations ensures that
    Reclamation's dams, canals, and powerplants operate safely and
    efficiently to meet delivery and power generation commitments. Facility
    Maintenance and Rehabilitation addresses aging infrastructure,
    conducting major repairs, and modernizing facilities to maintain system
    reliability and performance. This account also funds the ongoing
    operational and maintenance needs of completed Indian Water Rights
    projects as well as work to help meet statutory compliance of enacted
    settlements. Together, these categories ensure the Bureau can meet its
    core mission while addressing long-term sustainability and risk
    management.
        The W&RR account ensures reliable water and energy for agriculture,
    industry, and rural populations--foundational pillars of the
    President's ``America First'' agenda. These investments deliver
    tangible results aligned with Executive Orders promoting energy
    dominance and streamlined governance.
        prioritizing western water deliveries for people and agriculture
        On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued a memorandum titled
    ``Putting People over Fish: Stopping Radical Environmentalism to
    Provide Water to Southern California.'' This directive instructs
    Reclamation to ``route more water from the Sacramento--San Joaquin
    Delta to other parts of California'' to benefit farms and communities.
    Reclamation is taking action now to support the President's initiatives
    by:
        Focusing on California Water Supply: The Central Valley Projects
    (CVP) includes multiple divisions, including the American River
    Division, Delta, and the Trinity River division. These projects
    maintain and modernize facilities and increase water conveyance to
    Southern California and the San Joaquin Valley.
        Emphasis on Water Deliveries for People & Agriculture: The Klamath
    Project ensures operational flexibility for irrigation deliveries.
        Streamlining Regulatory Hurdles: Supporting ESA compliance and
    legal coordination to invoke emergency exemptions.
                              colorado river water
        The Bureau of Reclamation's work on the Colorado River directly
    advances presidential priorities of securing American energy,
    maximizing domestic water supply, and asserting sovereignty in
    international negotiations. Through the Lower Colorado River Operations
    Program, including implementation of Drought Contingency Plans and bi-
    national agreements with Mexico under Minute 323, Reclamation enhances
    water reliability for U.S. communities while maintaining strategic
    control of cross-border resources. Simultaneously, operation of Glen
    Canyon Dam and Lake Powell, along with the Upper Colorado River
    Operations Program, reinforces national energy production through
    stable hydropower generation, and ensures water delivery certainty
    across the Southwest, fulfilling directives to prioritize
    infrastructure, reduce regulatory interference, and deliver for
    farmers, families, and industry.
                      central utah project completion act
        The Budget supports continuing construction of the Utah Lake
    Drainage Basin Water Delivery System, the final component of the
    Central Utah Project; allows for development and implementation of
    water conservation projects to extend limited water supplies; and
    provides support for associated fish and wildlife conservation
    measures.

        Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        I'm going to listen for a while. My guess is Senator Murray
    has some questions.
        Senator Murray. I do.
        Senator Kennedy. The floor is yours, Madam vice-Chair.
        Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank
    you for your testimony this morning.
        General Graham, let me start with you. The Howard Hanson
    Dam project is to address dam safety issues, provide additional
    water supply and meet the court's legal obligations by opening
    up miles of critical salmon habitat. Would you agree with that
    assessment
        General Graham. Ranking Member Murray, yes. The Howard
    Hanson project right now is the one we're working on, is
    primarily a fish passage to figure out how to get small
    juvenile fish off of a high head dam, which we've never done
    before. But it's part of a larger project that provides, as you
    said, critical flood risk management and water supply
    protection to the southeastern part of Seattle.
        Senator Murray. Is it true that the $500 million the
    project was slated to receive in the fiscal year 2025 budget as
    well as in the House and Senate bills would've allowed
    construction to proceed on schedule?
        General Graham. Yes, that would've allowed us to keep on
    our current construction schedule.
        Senator Murray. Yes. Well, it's clear that Howard Hanson
    Dam project is shovel ready. And despite that, the Trump
    Administration seems ready to walk away from that. Everyone
    needs to understand turning the Army Corps into a political
    slush fund sets a very dangerous precedent. In fact, in
    testimony before the House, a top Army Corps official very
    explicitly stated that OMB, not the experts at the Corps,
    called the final shots here.
        Section 107 has been passed on a bipartisan basis in our
    bill for the last 5 years and makes clear that funding should
    be allocated only to projects determined to be eligible by the
    chief of engineers. It appears that OMB handed the Corps the
    final spend plan without consulting you as required. The law
    needs to be followed.
        So, I'm going to ask you yes or no. Were you provided a
    final spend plan so you could determine all the project listed
    were eligible?
        General Graham. Ranking Member Murray, we provided our best
    technical recommendation to the assistant secretary.
        Mr. Forsgren. And Senator Murray, we provided input through
    the presidential budget process on that spending plan.
        Senator Murray. You provided----
        General Graham. We provided technical input on that
    spending plan.
        Senator Murray. So, that you could prove that all of them
    were eligible. Correct?
        General Graham. I don't think eligibility was ever the
    question.
        Senator Murray. Well, that's really troubling and really an
    example of this administration that just somehow thinks they're
    above the law. I mean, I got news for Russell Vought; the law
    applies to him the same as for everybody else. So, that is very
    troubling.
        Mr. Forsgren, let me go back to you. I consistently hear
    from ports and harbors across the country about how they rely
    on the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund to maintain critical port
    infrastructure.
        Now, in April, the administration issued an executive order
    acknowledging that cargo carriers divert goods to Canada from
    our donor ports, Seattle-Tacoma, others, to avoid the harbor
    maintenance tax. That's really an unfair practice. I've spoken
    about it for years, but this year's budget request does not
    even attempt to meet the word of targets for HMTF (Harbor
    Maintenance Trust Fund) donor port funding. And even more
    troubling in the skinny budget.
        This administration tries to tell Congress that it is not a
    Federal responsibility to provide those dollars, even though
    that is one of the explicit purposes Congress passed into law.
    That is really unacceptable. Donor port funding has already
    been determined through the water process and our annual
    appropriations bills for years. It is extremely frustrating
    that I have to continue raising this issue year after year to
    get our ports the fair share they are entitled to under the
    law.
        Will you commit to ensure that donor ports like Seattle and
    Tacoma will receive their full fair share of the HMTF dollars
    as Congress intended?
        Mr. Forsgren. Senator, I will commit to working to ensure
    that the Harbor Maintenance Fund is used to the maximum extent
    it possibly can. We understand the Harbor Maintenance Fund is
    the backbone of the commercial navigation----
        Senator Murray. Yes.
        Mr. Forsgren [continuing]. System for our ports, and that
    system has to be able to be functional across all the Nation's
    ports. But I will say there needs to be a primary focus on the
    principal Federal responsibility, which is the mainline
    channels. But I do will commit to working with you to fully
    utilize the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund as it is passed into
    law.
        Senator Murray. Okay. Well, let me ask you one more
    question in my last few seconds. The Columbia River provides
    habitat for salmon, endangered species. It also irrigates
    600,000 acres of farmland and serves as a marine highway. It
    also provides electricity to the entire northwest, and
    critically, it has a transboundary waterway shared with Canada.
    So, the State Department has been leading efforts to negotiate
    a modernized Columbia River Treaty, which is really critical to
    providing certainty for people and businesses across our region
    who rely on the Columbia River.
        But this administration appears committed to doing
    everything they can now to tank our relationship with our
    friend and neighbor, Canada. And the key to getting this
    agreement in place and all the hard work that has gone into it
    was collaboration between all the stakeholders. It is really
    imperative that as the interim agreement is executed, that that
    collaboration continues.
        So, Mr. Cameron, Mr. Forsgren, will you commit to ensuring
    that the Corps and Reclamation continue to communicate with
    Tribes and the public utilities on the operation of the
    Columbia River System?
        Mr. Forsgren. Senator Murray, we certainly commit. We are
    committed to the treaty, as is reflected in the budget, and we
    are committed to continuing the dialogue necessary to operate
    and maintain the system.
        Senator Murray. Mr. Cameron.
        Mr. Cameron. Yes, Senator. I've already had multiple
    meetings with stakeholders from throughout the Columbia River
    Basin, so we're including Tribes. So, you know, conversations
    are ongoing.
        Senator Murray. Okay. This is really a critical treaty. We
    need to get it enacted. And again, Canada is not our enemy
    there. We need to conclude them. Thank you.
        Senator Kennedy. Senator Hyde-Smith.
        Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you, Chairman Kennedy. And thank
    you, panel, for being here today. I certainly appreciate your
    willingness to serve in the capacities that you do.
        My first question is going to be on the Yazoo Backwater
    Area Management Project, which is no surprise to anyone. I've
    been working on this for many, many years. And Secretary
    Forsgren and General Graham, as you know, the U.S. Army Corps
    of Engineers, Mississippi Valley Division, signed a record of
    decision for the new Yazoo Backwater Area Management Plan
    earlier this year, which I, with thousands of Mississippi, were
    thrilled about this milestone. And I'd also like to express my
    gratitude to the Corps for the $32 million allocated to the
    project in your fiscal year 2025 work plan that was announced
    last month.
        Of those funds, $15 million we used for pre-construction
    engineering and design work, $15 million for mitigation to
    protect wildlife and wildlife habitat, and $2 million for
    mitigation infrastructure construction. We're certainly moving
    in the right direction now and providing adequate flood
    protection for area residents. Something that was promised
    literally decades ago.
        The findings outlined in the project's final environmental
    impact statement stated in addition to reducing catastrophic
    flooding that project implementation would not convert any
    wetlands to wetlands. Wildlife and habitat will be better off
    for the project, aquatic resources will be better off with this
    project, water quality will be better off for this project,
    everything is positive here. Everything will be better off.
        Secretary for Forsgren and General Graham, would you agree
    with the findings detailed in the final EIS (Environmental
    Impact Statement)?
        Mr. Forsgren. Yes, Senator. We are committed to that
    project. We were--I will say, put my personal hat on, I sat in
    your office about 5 years ago when we discussed the outlines of
    the beginnings of that project and how we might move forward.
    And I was thrilled to see that it, you know, is moving forward.
    So, when I was sworn in, I was happy, to be honest, not to have
    to take up--that the project had moved forward in that interim
    period.
        The short answer is there's going--we're committed to the
    project. We're committed to moving forward. I believe the
    findings are accurate. That doesn't mean the Corps still has a
    lot to do for as the engineering and how we finalize exactly
    what that project needs to look like. But we're talking about
    deciding on the--which crown molding we're going to take, put
    in the house. We're not deciding on to build the house in this
    case.
        General Graham. I don't have much to add. We're thrilled,
    and we're excited to see this moving forward. Our commitment to
    you is as we go into pre-construction engineering and design,
    is let's advance that design now to include the mitigation
    that--you know, the extent of that, so that when we come
    forward, this is how much this is going to cost, that we give
    you an accurate cost estimate. That's our commitment to you.
        Senator Hyde-Smith. Wonderful. And the total capability for
    this project for the fiscal year 2026 is truly significant. I
    get that. I'm shocked by that, nor does it scare me away
    because it's something we have to do. Should Congress provide
    robust funding for the Yazoo Backwater Area Management Project
    in this year's appropriations process, how confident are you
    that the Corps will be able to put that to good use?
        Mr. Forsgren. Senator, you raise a very pertinent issue in
    the context of the Yazoo Project. That's true across that. And
    that is how to--the Corps's capabilities set against their
    capabilities on any given project versus the totality of the
    project. And you really can't take the capabilities for a
    project without looking at the totality of the region, of the
    district, and of the Nation in total.
        So, with that said, I will defer to General Graham to talk
    specifically, but I think we're still trying to figure out how
    our capabilities match against the resources.
        General Graham. And Senator, that's it, with the work plan
    funding, with the engineering pre-construction work we're doing
    right now. I don't really know what our capability is.
    Concretely, for 2026, we owe you that. And our commitment to
    you is to work with you and your office as the months progress
    and share what we do know with you on the efficacy of our
    current cost estimate.
        Senator Hyde-Smith. Great. Well, I certainly want us all to
    get to yes, and I'm willing to help us get there, whatever it
    takes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Kenndey. Senator Britt.
        Senator Britt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you all for appearing before this committee today. I
    want to start by telling you how much I appreciate your
    attention and that of Deputy Assistant Secretary Stacy Brown to
    the needs of Alabama's inland waterway system. Thank you for
    getting on the phone with me. Thank you for helping us work
    through this.
        As you all know, we had catastrophic failures this year,
    whether it be at Demopolis, whether it be in Holt, whether it
    be in Wilson. When these things happen, it disrupts entire
    economies. I mean, we saw it negatively impact our Ag industry,
    negatively impact our energy industry, negatively impact our
    aerospace industry. So, I am very grateful for your attention
    to those matters and helping us get them back up and moving.
        That being said, I'm also pleased to see that the work plan
    budgeted for repairs in Demopolis and Holt and also appreciate
    what you're doing in Coffeeville as well. I think it is
    imperative that we actually fix these things before they become
    a problem. And so, that's my question to you. How do we get to
    the place where we are doing the type of maintenance that is
    needed to prevent these failures, on time, on budget, but ahead
    of when they actually occur?
        And so, Mr. Forsgren, let's start with you. I know there is
    a substantial O&M (Operations and Maintenance) backlog. I know
    when you are looking at all of the different needs across the
    Nation, how do we make sure that we're appropriately taking
    care of our inland waterway system and not playing catch up,
    but doing these things on the front end?
        Mr. Forsgren. Senator, the Corps basically does all of its
    O&M budgeting and proposals against the engineering and risk
    assessed. You know, for risk of--well, I'm meaning risk of
    failure, and we prioritize those things with the highest risk
    of failure. Could there always be more resources in O&M?
    Absolutely. But we all live in a constrained environment, but
    the Corps does very, in fact, they do a very good job of
    assessing the damage, assessing the potential risks associated
    with failure when they look at O&M. Have we been absolutely
    perfect with that? No. But----
        Senator Britt. Is it an issue of funding? Is it an issue of
    front loading that so that you have that, or is it an issue of
    manpower? Like, what gets us to these points?
        Mr. Forsgren. I think it's principally an issue of--funding
    is too easy a way to say that. You know, it's easy. If we had
    more money and more people, of course we could do better.
        Senator Britt. Absolutely.
        Mr. Forsgren. But I think it's more of a case of what can--
    how do we really focus what we're doing with the resources we
    do have.
        Senator Britt. Well, let's continue this conversation. I
    have limited time here, but I want us to actually dig down on
    this. There is no reason for us to get to the point of failure.
    We should be taking a look and making responsible upgrades and
    maintenance on the front end so that we don't get to this
    point. So, I want to talk to y'all about that in a real way----
        Mr. Forsgren. Absolutely.
        Senator Britt [continuing]. So that we can have a tangible
    pathway forward. I want to talk about a project that I think
    has worked well, and Lieutenant General Graham, I'd like to ask
    you about the Mobile Harbor Deepening Project. Look, we've
    taken it down to 50 feet. It's going to be the deepest deep-
    water port there, right there in the Gulf. This is a project
    that has been on time and under budget. Talk to me about how
    you achieved that.
        General Graham. Oh, in the few minutes we have left, on
    Black Warrior, we are now providing a reliable transportation
    system that your constituents can count on. We own that. I
    stood down at the sill----
        Senator Britt. Thank you.
        General Graham [continuing]. Theopolis, and I had all of
    our smart engineers from around the Nation there, and we were
    trying to figure out how could we have seen that that still
    might be great.
        Senator Britt. I appreciate you taking ownership of that.
    Thank you.
        General Graham. We absolutely own that. They got really
    inventive up at Holt so that we can get that back in operation
    with the temporary fix. And then, we have the long-term fix. We
    absolutely are not providing a reliable system, and that's our
    commitment to do that.
        Senator Britt. I really appreciate that. Thank you so much.
        General Graham. On Mobile Harbor, this is going to be a
    great year on the deepening. The key to success, stable,
    predictable funding.
        Senator Britt. Stable predictable funding. I only have a
    few minutes left, so let me talk about something there. In the
    word of bill this year, order 2024, I included a provision in
    there that said no less than 70 percent of suitable dredge
    material would be used for beneficial use. This is critically
    important. We can do two things. We can make sure that we have
    the economic engine that is the Port of Mobile, and we
    responsibly preserve our natural resources.
        It's imperative. This dredge material could be used for
    habitat restoration, for beach nourishment, for wetland
    creation. And I am not going to move off of that. So, we have
    to make sure that we are good stewards of the natural resources
    that the good Lord has given us. And we can do both of these
    things at the same time.
        I am out of time, but listen, it is not acceptable that we
    have delays in this. I want to make sure that we figure out a
    pathway to get these answers quickly, and that we can speed up
    the process. It is imperative that we do so, both on the
    permitting side, and taking a look at some of these
    overburdensome reviews.
        So, I know that I am out of time, but do you have just a
    comment on how we can do that? Quickly----
        Mr. Forsgren. Short answer is----
        Senator Britt [continuing]. The chairman's being gracious
    to me.
        Mr. Forsgren. Senator, we are committed to beneficial use
    of dredge materials as the--probably the preferred method to
    dispose----
        Senator Britt. Good
        Mr. Forsgren [continuing]. Of our dredging material. And we
    are committed both on the permitting side and on the project
    design side to maximize the use of beneficially used materials.
        Senator Britt. Okay. Let's--go ahead.
        General Graham. Senator, what we're doing down at Dolphin
    Island is----
        Senator Britt. Yes, sir.
        General Graham [continuing]. I think exemplary.
        Senator Britt. Yes sir.
        General Graham. What Mobile's district doing with a
    programmatic agreement so that we can get that all up front on
    the permitting, and that is we treat the clean sand, clean silt
    as a resource for the environment and for--in terms of the
    beach protection as well, so.
        Senator Britt. Absolutely. Okay, well, let's work together.
    I am absolutely not going to back off of this and believe that
    we can do both things.
        And Mr. Chairman, thank you for giving me this time. I
    also, just a point of personal privilege, real quick. I am
    looking forward to the confirmation of Adam Telle. We were baby
    staffers together, brand new in Richard Shelby's office. Got to
    know each other. I've never met a bigger Mississippi State fan
    in my life, by the way. So, you'll get ready for that.
        But worked with he and his wife through the years. He is a
    true public servant. He is a tireless advocate for America's
    infrastructure. I mean, in addition to that, he happens to be
    an Alabama native. And so, I know he knows firsthand the needs
    and how significant the inland waterway system is for our
    country's continued growth. So, I am excited about getting him
    confirmed, and getting him in place, and having him in front of
    this committee, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Senator. Senator Rounds.
        Senator Rounds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Acting Assistant Secretary Forsgren, it's good to see you
    here today. I'd like to talk about the Tribal Partnership
    Program, or TPP. It's been a very successful program in my
    State of South Dakota. This program provides Federal support to
    Tribes for projects related to environmental restoration, flood
    mitigation, and protection of natural and cultural resources.
        The Water Resources Development Act award of 2024 made the
    Tribal Partnership Program permanent, allowing the U.S. Army
    Corps of Engineers to continue supporting this important work.
    Do you believe the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers currently has
    the resources necessary to effectively continue executing
    projects under the TPP?
        Mr. Forsgren. Yes, Senator, I believe we do. There are many
    ways that we can reach the goals of that partnership to work
    with Tribes to enhance their water infrastructure.
        Senator Rounds. Good. Look, I think these Tribal nations
    really do want to have an ongoing and working relationship.
    These are areas that can really improve the economic
    opportunities and literally the safety in those areas as well.
    Consultation is critical. They appreciate not only the idea
    that we can work together, but the clear evidence is when we
    actually ask their opinion, we get their feedback, and then we
    work in a consultative way to get a project done.
        Mr. Forsgren. We commit to continuing the Tribal
    consultations.
        Senator Rounds. Thank you, sir.
        Lieutenant General Graham, thank you, first of all, for
    being here today. And thank you for your service to our
    country. Nearly 1 year ago, Southeastern South Dakota
    experienced some catastrophic flooding, record rainfall.
    Destroyed numerous homes and caused significant damage to
    public infrastructure.
        General Graham, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers plays a
    vital role in flood response efforts. Each year, Congress
    allocates funds specifically for disaster-related flood work,
    enabling the Corps to support, preparedness response and
    recovery measures. In your view, does the Corps currently have
    the capability to adequately prepare local communities for
    large scale flooding?
        General Graham. So, Senator, on the emergency response
    side, on Public Law 84-99, I believe, we do work closely to use
    those authorities and those appropriations to the maximum
    extent possible. We've been very aggressive with that over the
    last couple years. And then working with the Federal Emergency
    Management Agency under the Stafford Act, we can bring in the
    expertise of the Corps on flooding, particularly to the area
    along the Big Sioux River.
        I'm excited to see in the President's budget that we've got
    a new start for a study to take a look at the Corps project
    that exists there and see if we can improve it, understand that
    putting a dirt berm across I-29 is probably not the best
    solution we could come up with it. It was what they could back
    in the '70s, but so our commitment to you is we're excited to
    see this is a known problem, and we're committed to working
    with you to solving this.
        Senator Rounds. There was a beautiful residential district
    there called McCook Lake. And basically, what this did was to
    divert the water, and it diverted it right through that
    residential district. There's a better way to do it, and we'll
    look forward to working with you to see that we find the
    appropriate plans so that when this happens again in the
    future, and it will, that those types of flooding conditions
    are diverted so that there is less damage to public property
    and infrastructure in that region.
        General Graham. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Rounds. Assistant Secretary Cameron, first of all,
    I want to thank you for being here today. As you know, Congress
    has authorized the Bureau of Reclamation to design and
    construct rural water supply projects. These projects are
    intended to deliver potable water to rural communities in
    western States.
        To advance large scale water projects two types of Federal
    authorization are required. First, the authority to conduct a
    feasibility study, and the authority to construct the project.
    The three regional water organizations in South Dakota are
    currently seeking congressional authorization to conduct
    feasibility studies. If these entities receive the necessary
    authorizations, will the Bureau of Reclamation have the
    capacity to promptly initiate and complete these studies?
        Mr. Cameron. Thank you for that question, Senator. We are
    committed to working with those communities to help them figure
    out how we can proceed with feasibility studies. And, in the
    event that Congress authorizes the work, we will find a path to
    advance that activity.
        Senator Rounds. In a timely fashion.
        Mr. Cameron. Yes, sir, given the availability of resources.
        Senator Rounds. Okay. I noticed that the budget is not the
    best this year. It means that if we can get some money in there
    for that purpose, we'll get it done.
        Mr. Cameron. Yes, happy to work with you on that, sir. I
    point out that you mentioned Tribes earlier. We are
    prioritizing rural water projects that have some connection to
    Tribes as well inside the President's budget, given our trust
    responsibility to Tribes. And often, there are Indian water
    rights settlements as Congress has passed that. We're trying to
    implement that.
        Senator Rounds. That's part of the projects that we've got
    going on, so I look forward to working with you to accomplish
    it this year. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Kennedy. Senator Merkley.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And you
    can see we're dashing in and out of many different hearings
    this morning. So, I really appreciate the chance to come and
    ask a couple of questions.
        And I wanted to start, Mr. Forsgren, about the Cole Rivers
    Hatchery. Cole Rivers sounds like a name of a river, but
    actually it's the name of a person for a hatchery that's on the
    Rogue River, one of the most extraordinary rivers in the world.
    This hatchery provides fish for not just the Rogue River, but
    for lakes, for the Umpqua River. It is like incredibly
    important, and we've had huge cooperation with the Army Corps
    in working on it.
        But even with that, it seems like progress is very slow as
    though study after studies gets completed, yet the actual
    implementation of the restoration is proceeding way, way too
    slowly. I want to know if the Corps fully understands how
    important this hatchery is dedicated to its rehabilitation. The
    supply of clean water is essential. We've took quite a bit of
    work just to get steady supply of electricity to this site. And
    let me stop there and just say, are you familiar with the
    project, and are you all in on helping us restore the hatchery?
        Mr. Forsgren. Senator, I must admit, I am familiar only at
    the--I'll call it 60,000-foot level as to the project. I'll
    defer to General Graham on more specifics on that particular
    project. I don't want to tell you wrong.
        General Graham. So, Senator, we understand the importance
    of that hatchery and Oregon's running it for us. We've got
    money, I think it was in fiscal year 2024 to fix the roof, but
    we know it has a failed water supply. Still challenges with the
    transformer, and we will continue to push make our best
    technical recommendations for the budget packages to make those
    fixes.
        Senator Merkley. So, the Portland District has identified
    significant capacity of, they refer to it as capability, to
    support going more aggressively to attack the challenges at
    this hatchery. I mean, years of it being a priority. You
    mentioned a roof, like it's a complete rebuild. Even the
    challenge of the water not being properly supplied and
    filtered, causing the death of a number of the hatchery
    projects. And it's like, have we gotten to the point that we
    can't even figure out how to get clean water, steady
    electricity, steady filtering?
        So, what would the Army Corps be able to do if Congress
    were to appropriate full capability for this project, given the
    Portland District is telling us they have that capability?
        Mr. Forsgren. I will put some context over, and then I'm
    going to let General Graham give the specifics. Capabilities
    are always done in the context of the totality of the budget
    and the resources and the needs in a given district, in a given
    division, and nationwide. And so, yes, you know, the Corps may
    have on paper have the capacity to do this or that as a
    complete focus on that project to the exchange of other--you
    know, to the detriment of other projects in the same region.
    So, you--it's really to say that a district has capacity is
    always a little bit of an unfair thing, because it has to take
    into account the totality of the program.
        Senator Merkley. Because of my shortage of time, I'll just
    note, here's the deal. When these dams were built, a promise
    was made to everyone that the Corps would make sure that these
    hatcheries provided the fish that could not go upriver to
    spawn. That promise is being broken. It is extremely important
    that that be understood, and that promise be upheld. And that
    means we've got to get the clean water, not just studied, but
    supplied. We've got to get the filtering equipment, not just
    thought about, but rebuilt and so, so forth.
        I'm down to 20 seconds, so I'm going to switch gears to
    Scoggins Dam. Last month, my office noted, after 20 years of
    planning, the Bureau of Reclamation made the decision to
    rescope and downsize the planned structural reconstruction of
    the dam safety project at Scoggins Dam.
        Why is this scary to everyone? Because we are reaching the
    point in that several 100-year cycle where a major earthquake
    occurs, the big one, if you will, and that dam and releasing
    the water out of it would flood down that valley and wipe out
    urban areas.
        And yet, after 20 years of investment in planning, we are
    hearing that the goal of strengthening that dam to prevent that
    type of catastrophe is being abandoned. Why?
        Mr. Cameron. Senator, I'll have to look at the particulars
    there. I can tell you more broadly that we are committed to dam
    safety around the Nation, and we're pleased that Congress still
    has provided some funds for the bipartisan infrastructure law
    to spend money on dam safety in addition to what's in the
    President's budget. But I'll have to get back to you on the
    particulars of that, sir.
        Senator Merkley. Were the partners who used the dam supply
    water consulted on the factors that went into this decision?
        Mr. Cameron. I not prepared to answer that question. I just
    don't have the information at hand, but I will get back to you,
    sir, on that.
        Senator Merkley. The answer is they were not. Can you
    commit to ensuring that the Bureau will work with the community
    on a path forward?
        Mr. Cameron. I can absolutely commit to that, sir.
        Senator Merkley. Thank You. Mr. Chairman, not seeing any of
    my colleagues across the aisle, I have one more question if you
    have time for it.
        Senator Kennedy. Sure, go ahead.
        Senator Merkley. Yes. So, I wanted to address the challenge
    in the Klamath Basin. It's been plagued by drought for many
    years. Water is precious in the basin and vital to the survival
    of the community. The stakeholders have all come together to
    support each other in a whole variety of projects.
        One of those projects was to install sensors. They're
    referred to as SCADA sensors along the Klamath Project to allow
    real-time water evaluation in order to do real-time water
    management. This was passed into law in March 2022. The sensors
    have not been installed. Can anyone give me a sense of when
    this project is going to be completed?
        Mr. Cameron. I'm not prepared to give you a timeline right
    now, Senator. I will say we are aware of that issue with the
    SCADA sensors and believe the funding is available to move
    ahead. But I'd be happy to provide a schedule for you after the
    hearing.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you. If you'll commit to briefing me
    and my staff, I'd certainly appreciate it.
        Mr. Cameron. Absolutely, sir.
        Senator Merkley. I'll tell you folks, go, listen, that $5
    million is written into law. This first phase of this is
    putting sensors on poles that stick in bodies of water. How is
    it? We seem to go years unable to get a project funded. That's
    it's funded, but nothing happens. And that is really
    frustrating. We're only a few months into this administration,
    but maybe the team, the new team, can get this done.
        Mr. Cameron. We'll look into it, and we'll look forward to
    briefing you and your staff on a path forward, sir.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you.
        Senator Kennedy. Senator Peters.
        Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Gentlemen, welcome to the committee. I want to start by
    first focusing on the Soo Locks a project of national
    significance. Simply put an unscheduled outage of the poll
    lock, which is the largest lock at the Soo would devastate the
    economy, harm our manufacturing sector, and jeopardize national
    security. To put things into perspective, just a 6-month
    unscheduled outage at the Soo would result in an estimated 11
    million jobs lost, and $1.1 trillion hit to the economy. That's
    a classic definition of critical infrastructure.
        The bottom line is we need a second poll lock to alleviate
    the risk, and I've been leading the charge with a lot of my
    colleagues for quite some time. Most recently, I led a
    bipartisan and bicameral letter advocating for the inclusion of
    Soo Lock's funding in the most recent Army Corps work plan and
    budget request.
        And I want to say thank you thank you for answering that
    call. Crucially, the $264 million included in the work plan
    will allow for the award of all remaining construction
    contracts, which is a big deal. And the budget request matches
    the project's full work capability for this fiscal year,
    something that I'm going to work to ensure makes it into the
    final funding bill.
        But looking ahead I'm going to be doing everything in my
    power to see that this critical project actually gets
    completed. I think we're on a good track, but we always got to
    keep the eye on the ball.
        And so, that's my question to you Secretary Forsgren and
    General Graham, if you could let me know, can I count on you to
    make sure we get this thing across the finish line, and make
    sure I continue to have your focus?
        Mr. Forsgren. Senator, yes is the short answer. The longer
    answer is the President is committed to maintaining the
    integrity of the inland waterway and national lock system. It
    is, as you so articulately laid out, it is the backbone of the
    economy of this country, and we cannot afford as a Nation to
    let that happen. And I commit we will be working forward,
    looking for ways forward to enhance that system.
        Senator Peters. Great. I appreciate that general,
        General Graham. And Senator Peters, absolutely. It was
    great to see the funding and the work plan allowing us to hit
    those last three options. And to Chairman Kennedy, that's how
    we safely deliver quality projects on schedule, within budget,
    is we keep the efficient funding flowing, and then we can--I
    mean, we're never going to get better prices than what we had
    locked in to finish those last three options up at the Soo. I'm
    heading up there in a few weeks to make sure that there are no
    surprises up there, and that the team on the ground has
    everything they need to continue to deliver. And I think we're
    on track for 2030, which is exciting.
        Senator Peters. Great, great. Good to hear. Good to have
    you back up there soon as well.
        Speaking of the Soo, I also hope that both of you will work
    with me to establish a special salary rate table for Soo Lock
    operational and maintenance positions. I think both of you
    understand the challenge of getting folks there. The
    reliability of the Soo Lock complex is going to hinge on those
    workers, and for a variety of reasons it is very challenging.
    So, to both of you, again, can I count on your help to make
    sure we have adequate staffing for the facility as it operates?
        General Graham. Senator Peters, absolutely. That wonderful
    investment to make sure that this key piece of infrastructure,
    as you laid out, will only serve the public well if we have the
    right staff there. And based on kind of some irregularities,
    I'll call it in kind of how the pay model works, getting the
    special salary rate through will allow us to pay our staff what
    we believe they're worth. And so, you have our commitment.
        Senator Peters. Great. Appreciate that. I appreciate that,
    thank you. Next, I want to talk to you about the importance of
    the Brandon Road in our basin project, as you know, invasive
    bighead and silver carp, pose a truly an unprecedented risk to
    the Great Lakes, which together support a $7 billion fishing
    industry, a $16 billion boating industry, and roughly about $6
    trillion in the regional economy.
        At present, the electric dispersal barriers in the Chicago
    Sanitary and Ship Canal represent the sole structural measure
    to deter invasive carp from reaching Lake Michigan where this
    remains our primary line of defense against the steady advance
    of this invasive carp. It would only be a matter of time before
    the bighead and silver carp established themselves in the Great
    Lakes decimating the ecosystem or fishing or boating
    recreational industries as well.
        The Brandon Road Project is a solution to this problem, and
    it'll employ the precise measures necessary to halt the spread
    of carp before they reach the Great Lakes. I think this project
    is nothing short of critical to the lasting health of the Great
    Lakes. And as both of you know, I think time is of the essence
    as well.
        So, my question for both of you, again, similar, can I
    count on you to work with me and my colleagues here in
    Congress, as well as both the States of Michigan and Illinois,
    to keep this project moving in the right direction? It's been a
    project for years in the making, but again, time is of the
    essence and your forceful assistance is necessary.
        Mr. Forsgren. Senator, I have the luxury in this particular
    instance and being able to quote the President directly on it,
    and that is he's fully committed to that project. I know he,
    and your governor, worked very closely on that project. And you
    might guess my direction vis-a-vis that project is to see that
    happens. We got great help from, as was mentioned, the
    President and the governor. We were able to get the real estate
    secured that we need. We released Contract 1A, which is the
    leading-edge bubbler of this multi-tiered defense. And so, that
    will be the start of fish deterrence. And so, that's exciting
    to see that contract on the streets.
        Senator Peters. Excellent. Well, thank you. Thank you both.
        Mr. Cameron. Senator, if I could add.
        Senator Peters. Oh yes.
        Mr. Cameron. The Interior Department is also actively
    involved with supporting the Corps and their work there. So,
    it's not Reclamation, but our Geological Survey and the Fish
    and Wildlife Service are both actively involved.
        Senator Peters. Excellent. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Senator Kennedy. I've got a few questions, gentlemen. Let
    me start with you, Mr. Secretary. I'm trying to understand how
    you, and all of you, and OMB, are thinking here. Where's the
    money come from for the Inland Waterways Trust Fund?
        Mr. Forsgren. Senator, it's principally raised by tax on
    the diesel fuel used in the tug and barge industry.
        Senator Kennedy. Yes. Do you know the balance in that
    account off the top of your head?
        Mr. Forsgren. I don't know off the top of my head. I I'll
    be happy to provide that to you for the record----
        Senator Kennedy. Okay.
        Mr. Forsgren. But it is not insignificant.
        Senator Kennedy. I'm sorry.
        Mr. Forsgren. The number, the balance is not insignificant.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. The proposed budget proposes not to
    spend it. Why would we--it can't be used for anything else. Why
    would we not spend it?
        Mr. Forsgren. Sir, well, first of all, most of the needs
    that with--I hate I'm going to kind of back up with the Corps's
    capabilities. Most of the needs that we were currently capable
    of using that trust fund for were moved forward into the 2025
    spending plan. So, a lot of that were taken care--a lot of
    those projects were funded in 2025 pretty close to their full
    capabilities in the interim future.
        And it also, the advantage of the trust funds is that
    they're designed to be for monies to be raised to used,
    including out years, you know, and over a longer period of
    time. So, you know, we moved the funds forward into 2025 for
    most of the projects that we're currently ongoing. And then the
    projects, you know, there were balances left that will be used
    in future years to fund projects as they come up and the Corps
    capability come available.
        Senator Kennedy. So, Mr. Secretary, you're saying you don't
    need the money right now?
        Mr. Forsgren. No, sir. We're going to need the money very
    soon.
        Senator Kennedy. I'm talking about right now. It's a timing
    issue?
        Mr. Forsgren. I would say largely, sir, yes. That there
    could--we always use some. You know, what we don't want to do
    is get into a situation where we're trying to spend money just
    because it's about to expire.
        Senator Kennedy. Agreed.
        Mr. Forsgren. We'd rather find that--you know, fund it as
    the project's needed as they go forward.
        Senator Kennedy. Where's the money come from for the Harbor
    Maintenance Trust Fund?
        Mr. Forsgren. Sir, it's a value-based user fee that is
    charged against cargo, all cargoes, entering or exiting United
    States.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. It's got some money in it, doesn't
    it?
        Mr. Forsgren. It does. And again, to be used over time.
        Senator Kennedy. Right. This proposed budget only proposes
    using $1.7 billion. Is that right?
        Mr. Forsgren. Yes, sir.
        Senator Kennedy. That's below the mark that we set. Is it
    not?
        Mr. Forsgren. Yes sir.
        Senator Kennedy. How come?
        Mr. Forsgren. Again, more of a timing issue. Some of the
    things were moved forward, others, it--the President did put a
    focus on what were principal Federal responsibilities, which is
    the maintenance and dredging of Federal channels. And so,
    again, the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund is to be used over
    time for those projects.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. Well, nobody's thinking about using
    this money for something else. Are they?
        Mr. Forsgren. No, sir.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. General, I want to ask you a
    question about bringing these projects in on budget and on
    time. I know you said it was engineering, we got to get the
    engineering right, project management right, team right. Let me
    give you an example. I'm not going beat this to death, and I'm
    just picking a project. We've got a lot of projects in
    Louisiana, just like Alaska. A lot of projects. Everybody has a
    lot of projects. But the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal in New
    Orleans, 10 years ago, we projected it would cost about $951
    million. Now, the cost is up to about $4.7 billion. And the
    courses, it'll take 14 years. I mean, I understand inflation,
    but why? And I'm using this as an example.
        General Graham. So, Senator, the Inner Harbor Navigation
    Canal down there where the intercoastal waterway bisects and
    gets across and up onto the Mississippi River is absolutely
    key. And you know, the history that we've had on multiple
    lawsuits and injunctions over the years, a lot of it built from
    the lack of trust from the local communities, particularly the
    Lower Ninth Ward.
        So, that cost estimate, and I, for everybody who's
    listening, that IHNC (Inner Harbor Navigation Canal) is also
    part of the flood protection for the greater New Orleans area,
    the river facing gates. So, it's imperative that we get this
    right. And what I told the district to do is to make sure that
    they have put in their cost estimates, the risks associated.
    Most of those risks are the fact that--not the fact, most of
    those risks are elements of not having local support to build
    this. We want to get a team together.
        Senator Kennedy. How do you quantify that?
        General Graham. So, that's what we owe you. You take a risk
    that it's going to get delayed, and then you try your best to
    put money associated with that would get delayed. So, we
    would've loved to build this thing for less than $1 billion 10
    years ago, but the court cases have prevented us from doing
    that. The lack of trust from the citizens of the Lower Ninth
    Ward have prevented us from doing that. So, we're trying to
    build that trust so that we don't end up in this infinite loop
    of litigation.
        Senator Kennedy. I got it. All right. Senator Murkowski,
    I'm going to ask General--ask you one more question. And you're
    well aware of all this. For whatever reason, sea levels are
    rising, our land in South Louisiana is sinking. Part of that is
    because over time, sediment becomes more and more compacted.
    Where did that sediment come from? That sediment came from the
    Mississippi River, which used to overflow, which was a blessing
    and a curse.
        But our Corps did an extraordinary job at our request of
    levying the Mississippi River. We weighed the cost and the
    benefit and said the right thing to do here is to levy the
    river. Well, that obviously stopped the sediment. And I'm not
    suggesting we take the levies down.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Kennedy. What do we do? We're not going to take the
    levies down. The land's sinking. There's no new sediment coming
    in. The sediment's becoming more compacted, and the sea levels
    are rising. What would you do, if you were king for a day?
    General, let me start with you, and then I'll ask the
    secretary.
        General Graham. Sure. Chairman Kennedy, so some of the
    projects are that we have a tremendous amount of non-structural
    projects going on in Southeast.
        Senator Kennedy. Yes. And I'm not asking you to comment on
    any particular project. I get all the politics, and the
    wailing, and the national gnashing of teeth. And everybody's
    bows are in an uproar over which one's the best one. I get
    that. I'm just asking, what approach should we take?
        General Graham. So, raising homes to deal with sea level
    rise coming up in the land sinking, that non-structural
    approach is a tool that we're starting to execute at scale in
    Southern Louisiana. What we're also taking a look at is
    supporting the State of Louisiana in whatever sediment
    diversion pass that it's choosing to take. They had applied for
    a permit and granted it.
        Senator Kennedy. Do you think sediment diversion works?
        General Graham. In some instances, I believe it does. It
    has to be done very carefully. And in anytime we move the
    Mississippi River off from where it's going to someplace else,
    that's going to have tremendous forces. And so, we have to take
    a look at that mindfully. But I believe we have the engineering
    expertise and working in conjunction with the State, I believe
    that we can use that tool effectively.
        Senator Kennedy. Now, do you--on the sediment diversion,
    are you saying we should do it in small amounts, pilot
    projects, or larger amounts, or does that matter?
        General Graham. I think pilot projects to prove that we
    know what we think we know are always wise.
        Senator Kennedy. So, you're thinking of a pilot project?
        General Graham. I think those----
        Senator Kennedy. We've done some.
        General Graham. We have done some.
        Senator Kennedy. We don't have enough pilots.
        General Graham. I owe you a better, more detailed answer on
    that.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. What do you think, Mr. Secretary?
        Mr. Forsgren. Senator, I certainly agree that the Corps's
    expertise in moving and doing sediment projects and doing a
    traditional Corps approach is--will be one of the tools that
    has to happen. I think we need to think about the other side of
    some of the stuff the Corps does, and that's using the
    regulatory program to create some incentives for the private
    sector to do positive things.
        Senator Kennedy. For example?
        Mr. Forsgren. I'll use a perfect example in South
    Louisiana. Right now, in the 404 Program, we cannot give a
    mitigation bank credit for preventing subsidence losses of
    wetlands. Those coastal wetlands losses are mounting to about
    the only losses nationally in wetlands resources.
        But we can't--we don't have a mechanism now between law,
    between--I don't think it's law, it's really regulation, that
    would allow someone--for example, there are several large
    landowners down there that at a relatively low cost, you know,
    a few million dollars could, you know, barrier the breaches
    that have been in the--into the coastal wetlands for a long
    time and put some that would stop some of the salt water
    incursion, which accelerates the wetlands losses and some of
    the subsidence.
        But if they could sell credits for 404 purposes for
    elsewhere in Louisiana, that would provide the economic
    incentive for doing that. But we don't have--we can do it. So,
    now, you've got people in South Louisiana going up to North
    Louisiana to buy credits to do development.
        Senator Kennedy. Got you.
        Mr. Forsgren. There's a mismatch. We need to find more
    creative ways, some more creative ways to use the regulatory
    system in a positive manner to help.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. I want to sit down--we'll sit down
    and talk about that.
        Mr. Forsgren. Absolutely, Senator.
        Senator Kennedy. Thank you for your creative thinking. I
    want to be sure I understand you, General, you think diversion
    works?
        General Graham. I believe there's cases where it can be
    part of the solution. Yes.
        Senator Kennedy. You think it can work in South Louisiana?
        General Graham. Yes.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. Senator.
        Senator Murkowski. I love these conversations. This is why
    the Corps is so important. Quite honestly, we need really smart
    people who are really good engineers to figure out some of
    these challenges. Whether it is what you're facing down there
    in Louisiana with the loss of your wetlands, and the
    subsidence, and all that. We got other problems up north that
    come about through coastal erosion, river erosion, the
    permafrost melting. We've got subsidence there. It's just a
    different kind.
        But at the end of the day, we're all looking to the Corps
    for many of these answers. And like your situation in
    Louisiana, there is no small project that I can find in the
    State of Alaska. The thing that should be simple is not simple.
    These are legacy projects, and whether it's Lowell Point, most
    people in America will never hear of Lowell Creek Tunnel and
    why it's important, but it's going to save a little community
    like Seward.
        But honest to God, it's 20 years maybe more in the making.
    I'm not even going to count the dollars. But that's not what I
    want to talk to you about today. I want to talk to you about
    the Port of Nome, because I'm worried that as we're looking at
    your budget, what we are talking about here today, the projects
    that are important to Alaska and Louisiana, the amount of folks
    that we've got at the Corps, coupled with the decrease in the
    budget, problems like we're facing in Juneau with the
    jokulhlaups, that is a Norwegian term for glacial outburst
    flooding, which just about on August 7 of each year, the people
    of Juneau are visited by a massive flood where a glacier rises
    up because you've got so much volume under this basin, floods
    the river, floods, the area. We need some smart engineering
    solutions, and it's not going to get any cheaper to the Port of
    Nome every single time, whether it's in public hearing like
    this or in private conversations in my office.
        The Corps has assured me that the Port of Nome is a
    priority project. They realize that the United States of
    America needs a deep-water port given Nome's strategic
    advantage where it's sitting right up there, right directly
    across from Russia. All of the traffic that we're seeing coming
    through the Bering Strait, nobody disagrees that this is a
    significant port.
        And yet, when I look at the budget request, I'm just
    confused. I'm just confused because you've got a port that is
    not getting any cheaper. We all recognize that the problem is
    that when you don't have adequate funding in the beginning, the
    costs are only going to increase. I'm hoping Mr. Forsgren, that
    you're going to have some creative ways that you can share with
    me today about either funding streams or perhaps it's on the
    regulatory side to help lessen the burden.
        But when you've got short construction season, when you've
    got logistical challenges for places that are not contiguous to
    the rest of the United States, you know the challenges that we
    have. First question, and I hope I know the answer to this; is
    the Port of Nome a priority for the U.S. Army Corps?
        General Graham. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Murkowski. Okay.
        Mr. Forsgren. The fact that it was included for funding,
    specifically by name, demonstrates that commitment.
        Senator Murkowski. And I think that that's good. And I take
    that for what it is, but I'm concerned that when you don't
    include meaningful funding. Basically, there's $3 million here.
    It looks to me that this is--what we're talking about is a
    contingency amount for a prior year's funding rather than
    looking at the project, evaluating the need, and putting the
    commitment behind it. How am I supposed to read the commitment
    from the Corps about a project like this with a budget like
    this? And I know you anticipated that question.
        Mr. Forsgren. I did, but that doesn't make the answer any
    easier.
        Senator Murkowski. No, it doesn't, because it defies a
    rational explanation, in my view.
        Mr. Forsgren. Senator, all I can say is, the Port of Nome
    is a commitment, is a project that the administration has
    committed to. And we are--there have been a number of
    challenges at the Port of Nome, contracting and others, that
    have put us in a place where the exact level of resources that
    we thought we could execute in the short-term is uncertain. And
    so, yes, and I'll defer.
        General Graham. So, Senator, we're working through the
    solicitation right now, and the bids, and working to see if we
    can get to an award. And that's with the $250 million that we
    have on hand. The $3 million in 2026, we would use to advance
    the next feature, the engineering for the next feature. That's
    the east breakwater. So, we are moving that forward. The key is
    getting to award this year for the causeway extension, and I'm
    still--that's our goal. But we're not quite there yet.
        Senator Murkowski. So, the last time we talked about this
    we've had many, many, many conversations about this. The effort
    was going to be to see if you couldn't attract more interest
    from outside contractors. I'm told that that has happened. I'm
    told that we're further along with getting a successful bid out
    there, but what you're both sharing with me today by body
    language and words is not very comforting.
        General Graham. Actually, we're further along, certainly,
    Senator. This is still all part of the acquisition process.
    Talked to the district yesterday and they're optimistic.
        Senator Murkowski. And define optimistic. Does that mean
    that we get, we get through the bid process this summer?
        General Graham. That's what they're optimistic about. Yes.
        Senator Murkowski. And do we actually do anything physical
    this year,
        General Graham. Moving Rock this year. Senator, I owe you
    an answer on that. As you said, the construction season's
    short, and I can't remember offhand the sequence of buying
    rock. So, I owe you an answer on that.
        Senator Murkowski. I think you need to talk to your folks
    in Alaska. I'm sure you have. The assurance that I got was that
    we were going to be seeing physical activity this year. This
    year. And we know what happens in Nome after October when the
    ice comes in and everything--all work effectively stops.
        So, what you're sharing with me is we're going to be better
    off on paper. You're going to try to move some rock, but I just
    don't want one stack moved from one corner to another. Either
    stop calling it a priority project and just acknowledge that
    the Corps and the administration is saying that the Arctic is
    no longer significant, and I refuse to accept that for an
    answer. Or put some direction to this in a way that is
    aggressive, that is meaningful and is responsive to what we're
    seeing 57 miles across the water in Russia.
        I think we're an embarrassment when we say one thing and we
    simply do not move to facilitate it in a way that could be
    recognized as positive. So, I don't mean to be lectury, but I
    am so frustrated with where we are on Port of Nome right now. I
    know you've got a lot of other projects in Alaska that we're
    working on. We go through our checklist all the time. We're
    making some good progress there, thank you. We need to deal
    with Lowell Point, we need to deal with--and we need to deal
    all this stuff.
        But in the meantime, the Arctic is not waiting. Right now,
    there's more interest in the administration with Greenland for
    an Arctic port. That's inexcusable. We have Alaska, right?
    Anyway, thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Senator Kennedy. All right, gentlemen. Thank you. We'll
    meet again. We'll talk some more. The hearing record will
    remain open for a week. My colleagues can submit additional
    information, if they would like. Thank you for being here
    today. If you get questions, please respond to them in a
    reasonable amount of time, both for this hearing and generally.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
                   Questions Submitted to Mr. D. Lee Forsgren
                Questions Submitted by Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith
        Question. Secretary Forsgren and General Graham, Arkabutla Lake is
    a federally authorized flood control reservoir that stores floodwater
    to provide vital flood protection for a large portion of northwest
    Mississippi. In May 2023, the Corps issued an emergency declaration
    after it discovered a depression at the toe of the Arkabutla dam, which
    could result in a dam breach if left untreated. Mississippians--
    particularly those who live or own property below the dam--have been on
    pins and needles ever since. On multiple occasions over the past 2
    years--usually in the spring--there have been instances where
    substantial rain events have caused the lake to fill up. In response,
    the Corps has declared potential breach emergencies, 24-hour dam
    surveillance has been activated, and so on. The Corps Vicksburg
    District has and continues to work hard to correct the problem. But
    Mississippians are very eager for the Corps to get this corrected,
    sooner rather than later. Will you work with me to help expedite the
    Arkabutla dam repairs as quickly as possible? I have requested funding
    above the budget request to address this issue. If enacted into law,
    how will the Corps put those funds to good use, swiftly and
    effectively?
        Answer. The Corps is working expeditiously to address the safety
    concern at this dam. Consistent with this objective, the Budget
    provided the full amount that the Corps estimated that it could use
    effectively and efficiently in FY 2026. Since then, the Corps has
    revised its approach to the pre-construction engineering and design
    phase of this project, which may affect the amount that it could use
    effectively and efficiently in FY 2026. At this point, our focus is on
    making the best use of the enacted FY 2025 funds.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Tammy Baldwin
        Question. For the past several years, I have supported the
    Navigation Ecosystem Sustainability Program, which has made great
    progress on the ecosystem restoration activities under that authority.
    When will Lock and Dam 25 be ready for funding?
        Answer. So far, $732 million has been appropriated for design and
    construction of Lock and Dam 25. The Corps is continuing work on the
    project using these funds.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Martin Heinrich
        Question. The enacted 2024 Water Resources Development Act included
    a provision to carry out planning, design, and construction measures
    for the Middle Rio Grande Bosque. This project is crucial for wildlife
    prevention and restoration. How does the Army Corps plan to balance
    wildfire prevention and restoration efforts with the need to maintain
    water flow and protect this ecosystem, especially the removal of jetty
    jacks?
        Answer. In January 2004, Congress authorized the Corps to assist
    with the planning, design, and construction of measures for wildfire
    prevention and restoration in the Middle Rio Grande bosque in and
    around the City of Albuquerque in accordance with PL 108-137,
    Operations and Maintenance, Section 116. Under this authorization, the
    Corps developed a plan in partnership with the Bureau of Reclamation
    and the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District to identify jetty jacks
    that could safely be removed without compromising the flood mitigation
    function while maintaining flow levels in the river and bosque
    ecosystem. The 2024 authorization expands this authorization to the
    entire Middle Rio Grande and under this authorization, the Corps would
    expand the plan in partnership with the Bureau of Reclamation and the
    Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District, and in coordination with
    relevant landowners and stakeholders.
        Question. If the Corps is not appropriated the full amount for the
    acequia irrigation infrastructure program, how is the agency planning
    to fill the funding gap between shovel-ready work and the appropriated
    amount?
        Answer. The Corps awarded two acequia construction contracts in FY
    2025 (Farmers and La Joya) and plans to award another contract in FY
    2026 (Rio Chama-Chamita). The Corps has sufficient funds on hand for
    that work.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Gary C. Peters
        Question. While I am pleased to see that the FY2026 Army Corps
    Budget Request called for much-needed funding for the Soo Locks and
    Brandon Road, I am disappointed to see that two vital flood risk
    mitigation studies--one in Southeast Michigan and the other in the
    Midland region--were left out.
        Let me be clear, there remains work to be done on these studies.
    Recognizing that, the Detroit District is working on Additional
    Resources Requests for both studies, and the non-Federal sponsors are
    fully on board.
        Be assured, I'm going to fight to secure the full funding for these
    studies through the appropriations process, because these communities
    simply can't afford to see the progress made to date come to a halt.
        Secretary Forsgren and General Graham, I urge you to approve these
    Additional Resources Requests as soon as possible and work with me to
    ensure additional funding is provided to match those resource requests.
    Can I count on your support for these studies--both the Southeast
    Michigan Flood Risk Management Feasibility Study and the Tittabawassee
    River Watershed Flood Risk Management Feasibility Study?
        Answer. The FY 2025 Corps work plan provided $1.2 million for each
    of these studies, which is the amount that the Corps estimated that it
    would need to fund the remaining Federal share of their cost. At the
    start of FY 2026, the Corps had more than $1 million in unobligated
    funds on each of these studies and estimated that it could not use any
    further funds in FY 2026.
        Question. I am also frustrated to see that the Great Lakes Coastal
    Resiliency Study--something that has long enjoyed strong bipartisan
    support--was unfunded in both the FY2025 Work Plan and the FY2026
    Budget Request.
        This study represents a first of its kind effort to develop a
    coordinated strategy to manage and protect the Great Lakes and its
    5,200-mile coastline from threats associated with lake level
    fluctuations, erosion, flooding, nutrient runoff, and aging
    infrastructure.
        Secretary Forsgren and General Graham, what is the Administration's
    rationale for leaving this study--which was already underway--unfunded?
        Answer. The Army allocated the available funds to other studies and
    projects. The Corps had significant unobligated prior-year funds on
    hand for this study in those years. At the start of FY 2025, it had
    roughly $4.2 million. At the start of FY 2026, it had roughly $2.3
    million.
                                     ______

        Questions Submitted to Lieutenant General William H. Graham, Jr.
                  Questions Submitted by Senator Tammy Baldwin
        Question. The Corps' FY25 work plan allocates $264.1 million to the
    Soo Lock project, but I understand that the project needed $314.5
    million in FY25 to fund all of the contract options that expire at the
    end of FY25. Will the Corps' FY26 budget request for the Soo Lock
    project include enough funds to complete all of the contract options
    expiring at the end of FY25 as well as the remaining upper approach
    wall work and future modifications planned for FY26?
        Answer. The FY25 Work Plan contained funding required to award all
    remaining options on the Phase 3 portion of the new lock construction
    project at the Soo prior to expiration. The additional amount
    referenced (i.e., the delta between $314.5 million and $264.1 million)
    would have been used for other work, such as partially funding the
    remaining upper approach wall work or addressing potential construction
    contract modifications in FY26. The FY26 President's Budget amount for
    this project would be used to complete the remaining upper approach
    wall work and address potential construction contract modifications
    required in FY26.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted to Mr. Scott J. Cameron
                 Questions Submitted by Senator Martin Heinrich
        Question. Can you provide a project update for the Navajo Gallup
    Water Supply Project? How does the Bureau plan to meet your legal and
    trust obligations to this project?
        Answer. The Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) has made significant
    progress on the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project (NGWSP), completing
    over 70% since breaking ground in 2012. The first of the two
    independent water transmission systems, the Cutter Lateral, was
    completed in 2020 and has since been delivering drinking water to over
    1,550 homes/6,200 people in eight Navajo chapters. Water deliveries
    began to the Teepee Junction portion of the Jicarilla Apache Nation in
    fall of 2024.
        On the San Juan Lateral, Reclamation is more than 60% finished,
    with 185 miles of the 200 miles of that water transmission system
    installed or under contract. Reclamation completed two large
    construction contracts this spring, including the Navajo Code Talkers
    Sublateral that will be able to deliver water to the Window Rock/Ft.
    Defiance, Arizona area. There are currently 3 large active construction
    contracts, including the San Juan Lateral Water Treatment Plant, and
    Reclamation is scheduled to award 10 more construction contracts over
    the next 2 = years to complete the Project in accordance with Public
    Law 111-11.
        Public Law 118-158 (extended through the end of FY 2025 by Public
    Law 119-4) increased the NGWSP's FY 2025 appropriation ceiling to
    $1.640 billion, allowing Reclamation to allocate $120 million to NGWSP
    from the Reclamation Water Settlement Fund (RWSF) as well as an
    additional $25 million from the FY 2025 Operating Plan within Water &
    Related Resources to fully fund anticipated FY 2025 capabilities.
        Question. Reclamation has historically been a strong partner in the
    Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Collaborative. The Collaborative
    has recently had difficulty drawing down funds. Can we expect funding
    disruptions are over and that this partnership will continue?
        How does Reclamation plan to meet your Endangered Species Act
    requirements without fully supporting programs like the Collaborative?
        Answer. Reclamation's water delivery and power generation mission
    will continue while meeting our environmental responsibilities on
    individual projects, including the Middle Rio Grand Project. Funding
    levels for ESA-related activities for this project that meet these
    responsibilities has remained consistent at approximately $4 million in
    FY 2023, FY 2024, and 2025. The FY 2026 budget request anticipates
    similar funding levels.
        Question. Can you provide an update on the status of the El Vado
    Dam construction?
        Answer. Reclamation is in the process of evaluating preliminary
    alternatives to move forward into design. A value planning study was
    performed to identify ways to reduce project costs and schedule. A
    field exploration campaign is underway to better understand the
    foundation and embankment material properties and inform upcoming
    design phases.
        Question. How will Reclamation honor its commitment to completing
    the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water Supply Project--an authorized
    project--on time, if you are proposing zero dollars for Rural Water
    construction?
        Answer. Reclamation remains committed to the completion of the
    Eastern New Mexico Water Supply Project. Reclamation has contributed
    $364 million toward completion of the Project to date, and over $30
    million has been allocated in FY 2024 and FY 2025. Additionally,
    Reclamation has $92 million remaining in rural water construction
    funding for which this project is eligible.
        Currently under construction are Finished Water (FW) 1 and FW 3,
    both of which are planned for completion in this fiscal year. The
    remaining activities will complete the remaining pipelines and
    facilities. These include: Texico Lateral, Elida Lateral, Raw Water
    (RW) 1, RW2, RW3, the Water Treatment Plant, Caprock Booster Pump
    Station, Intake Pump Station, Elida Pump Station, Caprock Storage Tank,
    Ultimate Buildout work and delivery of power to facilities.

                             CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS

        Senator Kennedy. Thank you for coming. We'll talk again.
    We're probably going to have to start over with this budget.
    Gentlemen, I'm not telling you anything that you don't know.
    It's just not realistic and I support a lot of what Russ and my
    friends at OMB are doing. But I just know the appetite for the
    work that you all do and the necessity of it. So, I'm just
    being realistic.
        Thank you for coming. Take the rest of the day off.
        [Laughter.]
        [Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., Wednesday, June 11, the hearings
    were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
    subject to the call of the Chair.]

                 LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND
                          PREPARED STATEMENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Baldwin, Senator Tammy, U.S. Senator From Wisconsin, Questions
      Submitted by

    Cameron, Mr. Scott J., Acting Assistant Secretary for Water and
      Science, Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior.....    80
        Prepared Statement of........................................    80
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   102

    Durbin, Senator Richard J., U.S. Senator From Illinois, Questions
      Submitted by...................................................    67

    Forsgren, Mr. D. Lee, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army
      (Civil Works), Department of Defense--Civil....................    71
        Prepared Statement of........................................    76
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   100
        Summary Statement of.........................................    75

    Graham, Lieutenant General William H. Jr., Chief of Engineers and
      Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of
      Defense--Civil.................................................    77
        Prepared Statement of........................................    78
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   102
    Graham, Senator Lindsey, U.S. Senator From South Carolina,
      Questions Submitted by.........................................    57

    Heinrich, Senator Martin, U.S. Senator From New Mexico, Questions
      Submitted by

    Hyde-Smith, Senator Cindy, U.S. Senator From Mississippi,
      Questions Submitted by

    Kennedy, Senator John, U.S. Senator From Louisiana, Opening
      Statement of

    McConnell, Senator Mitch, U.S. Senator From Kentucky, Questions
      Submitted by...................................................    56
    Murray, Senator Patty, U.S. Senator From Washington:
        Questions Submitted by.......................................    61
        Statement of

    Peters, Senator Gary C., U.S. Senator From Michigan, Questions
      Submitted by...................................................   101

    Rounds, Senator Mike, U.S. Senator From South Dakota, Questions
      Submitted by...................................................    59

    Wright, Hon. Christopher, Office of the Secretary, Department of
      Energy.........................................................     1
        Prepared Statement of........................................     7
        Questions Submitted to.......................................    56
        Summary Statement of.........................................     5

                                 SUBJECT INDEX

                                  ----------

                          DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

                             Department of the Army

                           Corps of Engineers--Civil

                                                                       Page

    Construction Program.............................................    79
    Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP).........    79
    Investigations Program...........................................    78
    Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Program..........................    79
    Regulatory Program...............................................    79
    Summary of FY 2026 Discretionary Request.........................    78
                                   __________

                              DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                            Office of the Secretary

    Additional Committee Questions...................................    56
    Alaska Projects..................................................    24
    Baseload for Grid Stability......................................    19
    Bonneville Power Authority Staffing..............................    33
    Critical Minerals................................................    18
    Department of Energy:
        Budget.......................................................    13
        Fiscal Year 2026 Budget......................................    21
        Project Review...............................................    26
        Projects--Schools............................................    32
        Spend Plan...................................................    34
    Federal Employees................................................    12
    Fiscal Year 2026:
        Budget Request...............................................    31
        President's Budget Request...................................    10
    Grid:
        Investments..................................................    17
        Reliability..................................................    29
        Security.....................................................    17
        Upgrades.....................................................    25
    Hydrogen Hubs....................................................    23
    Isotopes.........................................................    19
    Loan Program Office..............................................    53
    Loans............................................................    11
    Nuclear:
        Energy.......................................................    32
        Power........................................................    14
        Reactors.....................................................    15
    Priorities.......................................................     8
    Research Funding for Universities................................    22
    Response to Letters..............................................    35
    Small Modular Reactors...........................................    28
    Staffing at Department of Energy.................................    55
                                   __________

                           DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                             Bureau of Reclamation

    Additional Committee Questions...................................   100
    Central Utah Project Completion Act..............................    82
    Colorado River Water.............................................    82
    Prioritizing Western Water Deliveries for People and Agriculture.    81
    Water & Related Resources Overview...............................    81

                                      [all]